New account registration is temporarily disabled.

[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

Pages: first prev 12 last
People can do stupid things with any idea. It usually isn't the idea's fault when it happens. Having random encounters every two or three steps and no access to suppression gear is just the same thing as sticking six touch encounters in a 1 x 13 linear corridor.

If encounters are present in a particular part of the game at all, there should be a reason for them, and the best way to handle them is whatever best fits that reason.

If the MacGuffin is unstable, you can use random encounters to ram the point home and help establish the urgency of the situation. If the player needs to sneak into an enemy camp, you can use LOS encounters to represent enemy patrols.
My personal preference is a bit of a mix - as pete_mw, use them in places where it makes sense, but don't do them stupidly.

Random encounters shouldn't be every 2-3 steps - depending on the zone, how far into the game you are, encounter difficulty, whatever, they should be more in the 15-40 range (yes, it's a wide range, but there's a lot of factors to work with there).

Touch encounters should be used where they make sense - but not used to where you might as well just force them to fight every two to three steps, and they should be spaced out such that you can avoid them if you choose.

If anything, when designing the game (where monsters have fixed stats and don't scale), it's better to lean towards it being too easy, thinking your player is going to encounter less encounters than you plan, and adjusting the enemies down slightly (particularly bosses - I just ran across the issue playing RnH that random encounters were a cakewalk and providing not a lot of experience, but I was still underpowered when it came to fighting the bosses in the same zone).
The encounter system doesn't matter to me as long as I want to fight more battles. If I'm fighting battle after battle after battle with no difference between them, you're doing something wrong, and even a good battle system won't save bad design like this.

This is where my hatred against random battles come in. You CAN design good RBs, but most of the time, I'm fighting rats that take 15+ seconds to kill and have high AGI.
Repeat 20+ times. Have fun.

Honestly, I'm perfectly fine with just boss battles and mini-bosses. You can always throw in easy bosses to give the player a break.
My game's are generally On-Touch Encounters (AI - Based, they either run from your or go get you) however they do slightly mix and match sometimes with random encounters.
Random encounters add an unknown price to delving a dungeon. The dangers you'll face are less predictable and therefore more risky and exciting. They also serve one of my favorite RPG element: abstraction of gameplay.

My current methodology for random encounters is basically running a fill algorithm to get the area of the room (this method is also attached to rendering/erasing ceilings or "fog" for room transitions, as I integrate all rooms, interiors, and exteriors into a unified map). The return value is used to calculate the maximum number of encounters, which resets any time you transition rooms. This was my solution for puzzle rooms, rather than hwving to specify individual puzzle rooms to disable encounters altogether.
Pages: first prev 12 last