Castle Paradox

[Moogle1]

We have discussed such things before, but it is time to discuss it again.

Random encounters, Pros:

Easier to do, especially in OHR
Recreates the behavior in most classic RPGs

Random encounters, Cons:

No one really likes them, except when levelbusting
A lot of people actually dislike them
Pretty much the most uncreative way to do encounters

If you are not convinced that people don't like random encounters, do a quick search for "encounter rate." You will probably find several references to the encounter rate being too high. You will never find anyone ever complaining about the random encounter rate being too low. People don't like random battles.

This doesn't mean that people don't like battles. If your battles are interesting, you can get away with having a lot more of them. The problem is that random encounters often feel pointless.

From http://shaede.livejournal.com/9957.html (read the whole thread):
---
In mainstream RPGs, there's hardly any distinction [between tedium and difficulty]. If it's too hard, you can circumvent the difficulty by leveling up. Poorly designed RPGs that try to be "difficult" do so by making leveling up a slow, boring process.

That's where RPGs fall apart in general, I think -- you can't really regulate how strong the players are, so you can't make battles difficult just by relying on the players' levels being at a certain point.

The last FF to try to eliminate levelbusting was FF8, but A) people hated it for that and B) as a result, it was possible and maybe even easier to beat the game without gaining a single level. Ouch. (I still like the Junction system, for what it's worth, and Triple Triad is horribly addictive.)
---

In general, random battles are avoidable: you can run away to minimize any adverse effects. Ask yourself as a designer why the player should want to fight that battle. If he is only playing the battle because he needs the GP/XP/items and not because the battle is fun, then it should be eliminated.

Of course, this isn't strictly a problem with random battles -- any encounter system will suffer this problem if you don't make your battles interesting -- but a more interesting system of encounter will help make your battles more interesting, too.

I have a hard time criticizing the experience system too much because in some games, it can actually be fun to fight battles, level up, and crush things. I do take issue with games that rely on the player spending an hour leveling up between each area. This is almost never fun.

The topic is BATTLES. Discuss.
_________________

Slime Salad :: Independent Game Design

[Rimudora]

What do you call battle systems where you see the enemy on the field before you decide to fight them? Well, whatever..

That thing I was just talking about, Pros:
- Battles become optional, and anti-random-encounter people become appeased.
- Opportunity to incorporate complicated puzzles into the aforementioned encounter system (ala Lufia 2)

That thing I was just talking about, Cons:
- Battles become trivialized. If the player is given the option to avoid normal battles, he will likely take it. Detracts from the playing experience since a lot of the battles will be wasted.
- I know I've complained a lot of the RNG in the past, but a degree of randomness is still necessary to keep a game fun. If a game didn't have any randomness, the challenge is gone as soon as the player figures out the patterns/reasoning behind everything.
- In all honesty, even with the ridiculously high encounter rates in many RPGs, I still find the need to spend time walking back and forth to gain more exp and gold and etc. Getting rid of random encounters does not necessarily remove the need for levelbusting, so the player might still spend as much time in battles as he would've with the random encounter system still in place.

Thesis: Random battles are not the problem. The classic level-up system is the problem.

[Newbie_Power]

In games such as Dragon Warrior IV or Final Fantasy I, the world map was actually a dangerous place because you had to travel on foot often and would frequently get jumped by monsters. The monsters were usually strong enough not to kill your party, but to put an overall drain to the point of making dungens more challenging because you would not be able to walk in at 100% HP and MP.

Not so true for more recent games, where the bulk are dungens and plot events.

My first games will likely use random encounters, because I want to make an attempt to balance out that style first.

My approach should be that enemies should be challenging (not overly difficult, but enough to leave some nasty marks), but at the same time having lower EXP and encounter rate. Why? Because if I tweak it right, it will reward players that go through the nick and crannys of dungens, blasting through random battles while trying to solve puzzles, because they won't accidently powerlevel doing so, and it will keep the enemy challenge lasting at least awhile longer. I know this is an issue, because that's what happened to me in Golden Sun: The Lost Age, due to my sucktactular at puzzles.

Bosses should be like the ones from Darkmoor Dungen, and random encounter enemies should all have at least some common group goal to make them function as a weak team.

Oh, and for my games, I think I am going to try and limit outside of battle support as much as possible. I just don't feel right being able to finish a battle, getting to 100%, then going for another. I think I will only make items and healing spells available during battle, so that they will have to plan out more, especially if enemies can do damage.

I am not wanting my games to be impossible, especially since you have to fight so many random battles, just quirky to a point where I can throw in something very hard (such as bosses or special fights) that will make that quirky idea truly challenging.

[Camdog]

[Newbie_Power]

The downside to only leveling up at bosses is that leveling up is an accomplishment to a player, a measure of how strong a player has become. I think leveling up should stay in, at least in my games, but the enemies should prove to be a match, even for a character that is decently leveled character. I think a good level limit would be the point where it takes a good 15 or 20 minutes to get one more level thanks to a jump in EXP requirement, and enemies should still be a bit challenging at that point, because the player developed their characters to the point where they can take on the dungen without getting wasted.

When they get to the next dungen: Repeat. The enemies' EXP rewards now match the player's new requirements, and the strength of them is boosted, nearly exponentially to match the new weapons and armor the players have gotten.

The downside? There are players that are going to spend 20 minutes to an hour to grind. There are actually people that exist in the world that pay $10-$30 a month to level up in an online RPG, so my philosophy is: I can't stop the hardcore grinders, but I should make it harder for a normal player to make the game easy by accident.

Another thing I noticed in a lot of recent RPGs is that items are so valuable that they are better than most of the skills characters can use because of the groundbreaking effects in reward of their rarity. I mean, just don't make items like these, and have the player quest for something else.

[Joe Man]

I've set of on a little sort of spare time project of designing a good RPG battle system (if I go anywhere with this, I plan to build a game up from there, but let me not get ahead of myself), and I've come up with all wonderful loops and tricks to make the battles interesting (I've currently working out stat variation into what I've conjured). What I've already done is taken leveling completely out of the picture, and forced the characters to advance in typical adventure game fashion, learning moves as they progress and battles getting more an more complicated.

Makes me happy to know that I've been thinking along the lines of some pros.
_________________
"Everyone has 200,000 bad drawings in them, the sooner you get them out the better."
~Charles Martin Jones

Last edited by Joe Man on Fri Dec 13, 1957 1:21 am; edited 2,892 time in total

[Moogle1]

[Newbie_Power]

I would rather have a combination of dungeon (thanks) fatigue and varying difficulties of enemies for an overall dungeon experience.

The thing about Xenogears is that the better, more balanced battle engine is with the Gear Battles (unless you buy the Ether Doubler and then at endgame get the high power output Gear engines), so you have to watch out for fuel, especially because the only way to heal is with fuel expending. Xenogears is also a good example of the difference between a stat-growth system and relying on equipment, because on-foot allows for stat growth while Gears rely on upgrades. The on-foot battles were mostly about using Omegasols out of battle and using button combinations ala Sabin in-battle, so it is not as cool as being in a Gear.

The thing about Darkmoor Dungeon is that I just can't see it as a traditional RPG. Practically every encounter is a mini-boss or boss in some way, due to its nature as a challenge game. I really can't expect the player to deal with that kind of pressure if every random battle was like that in a normal RPG.

As for healing out of battle. I don't know how you want to handle it, but here is what I think I will do:

- The dungeons will require a bit of traveling to get to, so inns won't be as abusable (FF1).
- Healing spells can only be used in-battle.
- Items can only be used out of battle, and are meant to be used in numbers, not individually, so if you want to heal a large portion of HP after taking some nasty hits, you will probably need about 8 - 12 herbs or potions, instead of the usual 200 HP healing potion.

[Rimudora]

[Moogle1]

[Jack]

Random encounters are, more than anything, annoying to me. I don't mind fighting when I delve into a dungeon, as it's necessary to fight when there's most likely a boss at the end that I should be up to par with. Gaining potions or other valuables from these creatures is also a much needed reward.

However, I find it unnecessary that I should have to fight horribly low level monsters when I'm just traveling from town A to town B; especially when all I really want to do is progress the story. Throw in a scripted event where I have to fight, or perhaps give reason for random enemies attacking me, and I won't mind.

[Newbie_Power]

I actually came up with an ingenious idea for a non-traditional way of leveling:

Fixed amount of enemies.

The enemies are non-random, and if you kill the enemy, the NPC is never going to come back. This means that to get every bit of EXP, you will need to kill everything.

The catch: Thanks to the battle engine, characters dying do not get EXP.

The upside: If you kill everything, that is essentially powerleveling to the point of being able to defeat a boss.

The ugly: Enemies are hard, and are somewhat likely to kill your characters if you're not careful.

Which means, in order to overlevel, you have to be really good at the game in the first place.

Perfect for a game like Darkmoor, don't you think?

[Newbie_Power]

It is just an idea, sorry...

EDIT: I could have sworn Rimudora posted...

[Rimudora]

I didn't think it was a brutal enough flaming, you goddamn fucktard (I'll fucking kill you).

Anyways, if you're going to make the player fight x battles anyways, it makes more sense just to take leveling up out of the equation. Other than that, the first Darkmoor Dungeon is a bit like what you've described.

[Newbie_Power]

Well, it adds a new variable to the equation: If you let your people die, then you will be overall weaker and will suck. If you do everything perfect, then you will be able to take on the boss on equal footing. If you fumble in some areas, then you will need a bit more strategy and work to win the game.

The reason I thought of that was to throw another idea out there, and Moogle1 said that the sequel to Darkmoor was supposed to be more traditional.