Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
[POLL] WHAT TYPE OF ENCOUNTER TYPE IS BETTER IN YOUR OPINION?
Poll
What Encounter Platform better suits your play style? - Results
|
Random Encounters
|
|
8
|
18%
|
|
On-Touch Encounters (Non - AI based, they just sit there)
|
|
3
|
6%
|
|
On-Touch Encounters (AI - Based, they either run from your or go get you)
|
|
30
|
69%
|
|
Other. (Please Explain)
|
|
2
|
4%
|
Posts
bruthon
53
bruthon
View playlists
CloseJust out of curiosity, and to determine what Encounter Platform to use in my game, I am asking what kind of Encounter Platform better suits your play style?
I hate random encounters. I play and like many games with random encounters but I still hate them! Touch encounters are BETTER!
Avee
5794
I prefer AI-based touch encounters, of course, but I'm fine with random encounters even though they lack originality and depth.
Getting into a fight is simple and doesn't require you to chase an enemy sprite around, and you don't have the added stress of being chased around yourself.
Touch encounters are more complex and therefore easier to mess up: enemy sprites that move too fast, poor collisions, limited range of sight, penalties that are too harsh when ambushed, etc.
Getting into a fight is simple and doesn't require you to chase an enemy sprite around, and you don't have the added stress of being chased around yourself.
Touch encounters are more complex and therefore easier to mess up: enemy sprites that move too fast, poor collisions, limited range of sight, penalties that are too harsh when ambushed, etc.
AI based touch encounter ftw
it doesn't even have to just be run away or toward, some can 'stalk' you or stay in the general area as you, and some can mirror your movements. some can just walk around and be passive. it is quite amazing.
it doesn't even have to just be run away or toward, some can 'stalk' you or stay in the general area as you, and some can mirror your movements. some can just walk around and be passive. it is quite amazing.
Milennin
2060
I dislike random encounters, but mostly because in RPG Maker games people tend to:
-Have the encounter rate way too high
-Not disable encounters during puzzles
-There's no way to avoid them
I can live with random encounters if the encounter rate is fair, if it gets disabled when I'm in the middle of a puzzle or something, and if there's effective ways to avoid them (like, not walking in the tall grass in Pokémon games).
Touch encounters in general are much better, though.
-Have the encounter rate way too high
-Not disable encounters during puzzles
-There's no way to avoid them
I can live with random encounters if the encounter rate is fair, if it gets disabled when I'm in the middle of a puzzle or something, and if there's effective ways to avoid them (like, not walking in the tall grass in Pokémon games).
Touch encounters in general are much better, though.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Uh, is "touch encounter that moves in a pattern and can be avoided with a little skill" type 2 or 3?
I Love Touch encounters, I dislike random encounters because it can get irritating if you don't feel like fighting. (Can't avoid) But that doesn't mean that Touch based won't run behind you fast!
Mr_Detective
60
I prefer the classic random encounters. :P I don't mind the touch encounters, but most of the RPGs I played use random encounters, so I am used to it. :D
pete_mw
0
I put myself down as 'other', because I don't think it really matters.
The issue is that, at some point in the game, the player will get tired of your encounters -- more varied and better designed encounters can stave that moment off, but I don't think you can stop it from happening altogether. If they're still being forced down the player's throat when that happens, then that will reflect poorly on your game.
Random encounters can be annoying because they force themselves down the player's throat, but there are plenty of ways to fix that -- make suppression gear easy to acquire, or make areas clearable, or use the Pokemon option as suggested above.
Touch encounters -- and other minigame encounters -- don't normally force themselves down the player's throat, which is a point in their favour, although you do need to put a little care into your maps.
However, whatever strategy you use, the issue is forcing encounters down the player's throat, and there is more to it than just how the encounters are triggered. Does the player need more power than the plot gives them in order to follow the game's plot? If so, you're forcing encounters down their throat.
The issue is that, at some point in the game, the player will get tired of your encounters -- more varied and better designed encounters can stave that moment off, but I don't think you can stop it from happening altogether. If they're still being forced down the player's throat when that happens, then that will reflect poorly on your game.
Random encounters can be annoying because they force themselves down the player's throat, but there are plenty of ways to fix that -- make suppression gear easy to acquire, or make areas clearable, or use the Pokemon option as suggested above.
Touch encounters -- and other minigame encounters -- don't normally force themselves down the player's throat, which is a point in their favour, although you do need to put a little care into your maps.
However, whatever strategy you use, the issue is forcing encounters down the player's throat, and there is more to it than just how the encounters are triggered. Does the player need more power than the plot gives them in order to follow the game's plot? If so, you're forcing encounters down their throat.
Trujin
210
It really depends on the situation. I'm a bit of a pro-realismn guy, so as for encouters I think they should match the enemy (let us concider that your overgrown insect/spider/rodent battlers are actually representing small scum).
So let's take a trip to the forest.
- random encounters at paths: insects, spiders and such.
- random encounters at tall grass: rodents or depending on the height of the grass: small predators.
- on touch, random movement or path: herbivores.
- on touch random movement untill you get to close: terretorial herbivores and carnivores.
- on touch actively searching for your ass: predating carnivores.
As for urban situations:
- random encounters at paths: Just don't
- random encounters at "tall grass"/ rubble: Stealth based enemies.
- on touch, random movement or path: scum, random thugs.
- on touch random movement untill you get to close: territorial gangmembers
- on touch actively searching for your ass: police or criminals when you get a target at your head story wise.
So let's take a trip to the forest.
- random encounters at paths: insects, spiders and such.
- random encounters at tall grass: rodents or depending on the height of the grass: small predators.
- on touch, random movement or path: herbivores.
- on touch random movement untill you get to close: terretorial herbivores and carnivores.
- on touch actively searching for your ass: predating carnivores.
As for urban situations:
- random encounters at paths: Just don't
- random encounters at "tall grass"/ rubble: Stealth based enemies.
- on touch, random movement or path: scum, random thugs.
- on touch random movement untill you get to close: territorial gangmembers
- on touch actively searching for your ass: police or criminals when you get a target at your head story wise.
Sana
678
I'm for..touch encounters with some brains, like they'll move in a set pattern when not close to the player, and then try to bump into the player when close enough. Random battles..I can only stand when playing Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest etc. :)
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
What makes them okay when playing those games?
I am one of the few who really really hate touch encounters. I am a plot kinda girl, so I'm always trying to follow the story even if I enjoy your battle system. If there are touch encounters I will avoid them. The only exception is when I'm first to go back and actually fight in order to get my level up because of all the skipping.
But yes, I don't like touch. Didn't like it in FF13 at all. On map battles, yeah ok, but otherwise...
I am currently ok with them in the CoM remake, but only because I can cause pre-emptives. It wasn't done very well in 13, and the combat in 13 could be a real pain in the ass anyway.
I prefer random encounters with options. Already expressed are things like early suppression gear and clearing a map. I've also gone for idea like showing where you're most likely to get ambushed by something powerful via Zones, or giving the player 'avoid tokens' that can be used to stave off battles, but only for a number of times. Decent encounter rates along with options rather than just ENCOUNTER :v make for the best experience imo. That way encounters can be mitigated by the player abit better.
yes I know you could do that with touch too but I really dislike touch encounters do not ask me why I JUST DO
But yes, I don't like touch. Didn't like it in FF13 at all. On map battles, yeah ok, but otherwise...
I am currently ok with them in the CoM remake, but only because I can cause pre-emptives. It wasn't done very well in 13, and the combat in 13 could be a real pain in the ass anyway.
I prefer random encounters with options. Already expressed are things like early suppression gear and clearing a map. I've also gone for idea like showing where you're most likely to get ambushed by something powerful via Zones, or giving the player 'avoid tokens' that can be used to stave off battles, but only for a number of times. Decent encounter rates along with options rather than just ENCOUNTER :v make for the best experience imo. That way encounters can be mitigated by the player abit better.
yes I know you could do that with touch too but I really dislike touch encounters do not ask me why I JUST DO
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
You dislike touch encounters and so you avoid them; I like touch encounters because I can avoid them.
Specifically, I like being able to avoid levelling up, and I also like being able to avoid repeating any battle I've already beaten. Random battles usually - not necessarily always but I've never never seen it not done - involve the possibility of repeating battles you've already beaten. AKA boring tedious bullshit. I want to get to the next boss or other challenging fight before I've levelled up to the point where it's just as boring as the random battles and irreversably destroyed my ability to have fun while fighting it, so I tend to avoid easy battles whenever possible. And yeah, I could also avoid random battles by just running away - but that takes longer and I appreciate being able to just skip them in the first place.
Touch encounters also definitely add more immersion than invisible foes apparating out of thin air, I will say that. If there are soldiers or cactuars or slimes in the area, you should be able to see them. If you can't see them, that's weird and bizarre, and also makes the area look lifeless. I mean, we're all used to it, but it's a thing that older FF and DQ games did because of technical limitations, not because anyone ever thought it was a good idea.
Specifically, I like being able to avoid levelling up, and I also like being able to avoid repeating any battle I've already beaten. Random battles usually - not necessarily always but I've never never seen it not done - involve the possibility of repeating battles you've already beaten. AKA boring tedious bullshit. I want to get to the next boss or other challenging fight before I've levelled up to the point where it's just as boring as the random battles and irreversably destroyed my ability to have fun while fighting it, so I tend to avoid easy battles whenever possible. And yeah, I could also avoid random battles by just running away - but that takes longer and I appreciate being able to just skip them in the first place.
Touch encounters also definitely add more immersion than invisible foes apparating out of thin air, I will say that. If there are soldiers or cactuars or slimes in the area, you should be able to see them. If you can't see them, that's weird and bizarre, and also makes the area look lifeless. I mean, we're all used to it, but it's a thing that older FF and DQ games did because of technical limitations, not because anyone ever thought it was a good idea.
Whenever I play games with touch encounters (especially the first time through) I always engage in every encounter anyway. In some ways, touch encounters are even more annoying than random, because there is inevitably areas with chokepoints and a forced encounter, and it is always the same group of enemies ("oh boy. I get to fight these 2 rolypolies and 2 imps again. yay. I just want to get to the damn timegate.") With random encounters, at least you have a chance of not encountering anyone, or if you do, it will be a randomized group.
I quite enjoyed Dragon Quest IX's implementation. Random groups would appear on the map, that you could run away from (sometimes they catch you!) but it was always fresh. I voted Random Encounters.
I quite enjoyed Dragon Quest IX's implementation. Random groups would appear on the map, that you could run away from (sometimes they catch you!) but it was always fresh. I voted Random Encounters.
I like a mix. Have screens with random encounters, and screens with monsters you have to beat to proceed (maybe you're fighting an army). Heck, a mix between ATB style and world map fighting creates some interesting games.
I've been using on-touch encounters myself. The standard enemies are set on a "random" movement pattern, while bosses tend to stand still.
Whenever I read any article addressing the 'issues' with JRPGs, the #1 complaint is always, always random encounters. Many people are downright passionate in their hatred for random encounters, considering it to be, at best, an antiquated mechanic and, at worse, a black mark against the game that ruins the entire experience.
Personally, I have never minded random encounters, and I can see the wisdom of using them in certain games. Random encounters can be a convenient and easy to plot method of ensuring that the player's party is at a specific level at a sepcific point, if all enemies are fought. On-touch encounters are nothing new, and have in fact been around since the 80s, but they are not always the better system. With on-touch encounters, players can usually avoid many of the enemies, which can make it more difficult for designers to estimate what the party level will be at a given point. This of course creates problems that cause the player to have to go back and level up, which is arguably more tedious than random encounters.
While I do prefer on-touch, AI controlled encounters (such as Earthbound's wonderful system), there are some viable alternatives to all of the suggestions. The unsung classic for the Turbografx-16 "Anearth Fantasy Stories" features only a few battles at fixed points, the results of which influence character growth. It's a clever and innovative system, especially for the time, and the game is said by some to have perfect pacing:
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2013/01/seiya-monogatari-anearth-fantasy-stories.html
So, trite as it may sound, different approaches work better for different games. As designers, it's our job to figure out what approach works best, and to minimize annoyance and maximize enjoyment. After all, the last thing any of us want is our players to get bored.
Personally, I have never minded random encounters, and I can see the wisdom of using them in certain games. Random encounters can be a convenient and easy to plot method of ensuring that the player's party is at a specific level at a sepcific point, if all enemies are fought. On-touch encounters are nothing new, and have in fact been around since the 80s, but they are not always the better system. With on-touch encounters, players can usually avoid many of the enemies, which can make it more difficult for designers to estimate what the party level will be at a given point. This of course creates problems that cause the player to have to go back and level up, which is arguably more tedious than random encounters.
While I do prefer on-touch, AI controlled encounters (such as Earthbound's wonderful system), there are some viable alternatives to all of the suggestions. The unsung classic for the Turbografx-16 "Anearth Fantasy Stories" features only a few battles at fixed points, the results of which influence character growth. It's a clever and innovative system, especially for the time, and the game is said by some to have perfect pacing:
http://www.thebrothersduomazov.com/2013/01/seiya-monogatari-anearth-fantasy-stories.html
So, trite as it may sound, different approaches work better for different games. As designers, it's our job to figure out what approach works best, and to minimize annoyance and maximize enjoyment. After all, the last thing any of us want is our players to get bored.
JustRob
30
Random encounters are a nightmare. Especially if you encounter monsters every 2-3 steps you take. It doesn't have any positive sides, and it doesn't ensure that players will be a high level. If players don't want to fight, they'll just keep running away. And if the running away option is disabled, there's a high chance players will shut down the game immediately and never look at it again.
So, my preferred method is touch based AI encounters. Make them appear on the map, but not just sitting still in some corners, but moving in patterns. Also, some of them should advance towards the player, making it difficult to avoid them, but still possible if the player really does not want to fight. Don't make them all advance to the player, having 5+ monsters chasing after you is really annoying as well.
So, my preferred method is touch based AI encounters. Make them appear on the map, but not just sitting still in some corners, but moving in patterns. Also, some of them should advance towards the player, making it difficult to avoid them, but still possible if the player really does not want to fight. Don't make them all advance to the player, having 5+ monsters chasing after you is really annoying as well.
