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)
WHAT IS THE PERFECT ENCOUNTER RATE?
Posts
Jalex
979
Jalex
View playlists
Closeauthor=Zachary_Braun
It'd be interesting to know everyone's age here. It would give some deeper meaning to the opinions presented here, because different games and gameplay mechanics evolved as time went on, with their audiences also shifting.
I'm 20 myself, but most of my gaming experience is from the NES/SNES era. However, I'm more familiar with action games than RPGs in general, but out of the RPGs I have played, I tend to prefer the ones with random encounters.
Craze
yes the "skip a thing you don't enjoy" idea is dumb*, either the player is playing a genre they don't like (solution: don't play things you don't like) or the game itself is bad... THAT SAID! The option to occasionally skip things you don't like is a very welcome mechanic. For example, 100% escape chance items in RPGs, or how many puzzle games let you skip up to three or so puzzles (but if you solve them later, you can skip other puzzles).
One type of game design that I love is when it's easy enough to beat all of the levels in a game, but 100%ing them is more difficult. I don't mean that the game should be piss-easy, but, say, recent Kirby games have just gone "nope, you can't die... simple as that." However! To AAA each level, you have to get X amount of the collectibles. If you enter the "death" state, you simply lose some/all of your collectibles. You can keep playing the level or boss, but it becomes more difficult to have X collectibles at the finish line.
How can you apply such a mechanic to an RPG? It seems like it might be difficult, but here's a few ways (note that I'm assuming "score" would be like "grade" in a Tales game -- no immediate benefit, but at the end of the game (or of a world, or whatever) you can trade it in for bonuses. I DO NOT RECOMMEND TYING SCORE TO ULTIMATE ITEMS. Then you fall into the trap of "I have the infinity+1 sword, but nothing to use it on..."):
- You CAN die, but revival/healing items are plentiful and reasonably powerful. Allies have no healing spells. The fewer items you use against a dungeon and/or boss, the higher your score.
- You CANNOT die. If your Health hits 0, you simply deal low damage for a few turns and cannot be healed until the effect wears off. Every battle has a turn counter; if you hit par or below par, you get some score.
- You CAN die, but this resets you at the last checkpoint with your items returned to what they were and all XP kept. Dungeons may have branching paths, but the goal is simply to reach the end of them; you'd keep whatever equipment or whatever you found as long as you can survive to that point. You get more score for every reward point you hit without dying. FFVI did something similar to this, but it was a very rudimentary attempt. YOU CAN DO BETTER
You don't even have to incorporate score, you can simply utilize checkpoints, or just reset the player a few steps before the battle (a la FFXIII, or in some regards TWEWY). I did this in Wine & Roses and it won first and second place in the contest before last, so... SOMEBODY liked it.
tl;dr: no matter how you do your encounters, try to make them engaging??? or something this got really off-topic but idk
Extra reading/watching:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3769-A-Different-Kind-of-Difficulty
http://www.gamefront.com/easy-games-are-the-most-challenging-of-all/
*one example that breaks this imo is Mass Effect 3's various game modes. I also FUCKING LOVE how FE: Awakening lets you turn off permadeath. Like holy shit best thing ever
author=Brady
Dog, you keep making the argument about random battles wasting your time, achieving nothing etc; but you keep blatantly ignoring the point that absolutley everything you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with the encounter type in a game.
Each and every one of your points can just as easily be applied to touch encounters or even just hack'n'slash games that have you fighting on screen; if the combat sucks, then you'll get bored of the fighting and want to avoid it.
In fact, one might argue that random encounters with easy escape options (smoke bombs) are less time wasting than hack'n'slash games with "exciting" combat features that get tiring because you can never ever avoid the fighting or escape them, and inevitably leave a train behind you every time you try to flee.
Also, you commented on my system and the reason you don't like it is because you think that players will have a different experience?
That's the point...
Have a butchers at Extra Punc article, where Yahtzee goes on more eloquently than I about the whole idea behind a gaming medium being the water cooler factor: each player having different experiences.
The intention is that each player will get different battles at different times based on where they go, so they have different resources remaining by the time they reach the boss, so the fights are different. Why would I want to design a game where absolutely every player has the exact same experience? The last game I designed with that intention was a Visual Novel, not an interactive game.
going backwards, the reason you would want to design a game that way is to minimalize chance. any element of luck in a video game is stupid. i'm not sure why you would trust in yahtzee's opinion since his games have some of the most mind-boggingly bad design decisions ever made by humans, buuut you've misinterpreted that article entirely if you think it has any bearing on this discussion.
i've addressed this multiple times. is it demonstrably false that each of my points could be applied to touch encounters and I'm wondering if you can. back up that statement. none of this has to do with action titles because the main thrust of my argument has never been about 'what is good combat.' (the answer, with regards to difficulty, is combat where the enemy's capabilities far outstrip the player's, by the way. anything less is not worth touching)
i can't stress enough how this really doesn't have to do with how 'engaging' you think your random battles are and i wish people would stop bringing that up as if it mattered at all. if a player wants to intentionally make the game harder on themselves, they should be allowed to. this essentially amounts to not fighting anything that isn't overpowering. this is exceedingly tedious in a game with random encounters. even if you have options for escaping 100 percent of the time via items, it takes way less time to just not engage in the battle in the first place. in traditional rpg formula, you are either:
forcing the player to engage in your random battles, hoping that the player is just at the right intelligence level and that you have balanced your game so perfectly that they will have a challenging, rewarding experience after fighting a bunch of enemies and then beating a bad guy.
recognzing that some people are way better at you at video games and letting the player decide for him/herself how hard/easy your game needs to be. this is still possible with random encounters, but the difference here is that I won't turn the game off in disgust for wasting my time. What are the downsides to giving the player this option??? Well. zero.
i mean it when I say that it was a great post. It held my attention. Please quote it again when we get to page 5. I am posting again to accelerate us towards that moment, which I cannot wait for.
Well you clearly never even looked at the article, nor what I said afterwards, because it was entirely relevant to what I was saying in response to what you said, and is entirely irrelevant to any of Yahtzee's personal games: interactive mediums generally want to create different experiences for players otherwise they're just basically movies that require you to press buttons every ten seconds to continue.
Anyhoo:
You're still clearly not reading anything I'm saying enough, because I'm not talking about action games; I'm saying that the things you are complaining about can be applied to any type of combat, whether it be random, touch or action. You're complaining that it wastes time, is boring for the player, the difficulty, the lack of choice etc etc etc; none of that is specific to "random encouters", and in fact all applies to any type of combat in any type of game ever ever ever, yet you're using it as your seemingly sole argument against why random encounters suck and why touch doesn't?
The exact same thing applies.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
Now, with touch encounters; I do NOT have that option. I see a treasure chest but tehre's three monsters wandering between myself and it: I don't have the choice of juts "not battling" them, because they're physically and tangibly in my way. I'll either need to sacrifice the treasure, get into a fight I don't want to, or spend however long running circles around tehm until I can nab the treasure and flee all while hoping they don't catch me.
That is not better, that is not easier, that is not "my choice". That choice was made by the developer and has decidedly forced me into a situation I'd rather not be in. That is not fun.
With random encounters, I just grab that treasure chest and trot on. I'm no more likely to get attacked picking up that treasure than anywhere else in the dungeon, but with touches, I am most certainly being forced into the situation.
Anyhoo:
You're still clearly not reading anything I'm saying enough, because I'm not talking about action games; I'm saying that the things you are complaining about can be applied to any type of combat, whether it be random, touch or action. You're complaining that it wastes time, is boring for the player, the difficulty, the lack of choice etc etc etc; none of that is specific to "random encouters", and in fact all applies to any type of combat in any type of game ever ever ever, yet you're using it as your seemingly sole argument against why random encounters suck and why touch doesn't?
The exact same thing applies.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
Now, with touch encounters; I do NOT have that option. I see a treasure chest but tehre's three monsters wandering between myself and it: I don't have the choice of juts "not battling" them, because they're physically and tangibly in my way. I'll either need to sacrifice the treasure, get into a fight I don't want to, or spend however long running circles around tehm until I can nab the treasure and flee all while hoping they don't catch me.
That is not better, that is not easier, that is not "my choice". That choice was made by the developer and has decidedly forced me into a situation I'd rather not be in. That is not fun.
With random encounters, I just grab that treasure chest and trot on. I'm no more likely to get attacked picking up that treasure than anywhere else in the dungeon, but with touches, I am most certainly being forced into the situation.
i did read it. we can go back and forth arguing about who misunderstands words the most. i am ready.
i could explain this over and over, i think this would be at least the third time I would be restating something in a slightly different way in vain hope that it would be read and understood but we'd be here all year. you're just going to have to take me at my word that I am capable of reading english and yes, it is entirely, 100 percent specific to random encounters and nothing else. at its core, this has nothing to do with the difficulty/fun of your combat system. god save us all.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
i could explain this over and over, i think this would be at least the third time I would be restating something in a slightly different way in vain hope that it would be read and understood but we'd be here all year. you're just going to have to take me at my word that I am capable of reading english and yes, it is entirely, 100 percent specific to random encounters and nothing else. at its core, this has nothing to do with the difficulty/fun of your combat system. god save us all.
You're explaining things in slightly different ways?
Oh, my bad; y'see, to everyone else in this thread, it just looks like you're trolling and repeating yourself over and over while utterly ignoring every single response that directly counters the one thing you've been saying, due to the fact that nothing you've said has had anything at all to do with random encounters.
Silly me~
Oh, my bad; y'see, to everyone else in this thread, it just looks like you're trolling and repeating yourself over and over while utterly ignoring every single response that directly counters the one thing you've been saying, due to the fact that nothing you've said has had anything at all to do with random encounters.
Silly me~
time for a new direction you guys are getting dull
EDIT: RNG has ups and downs, devs should probably not include it when it screws up their ability to properly balance a can and identify a player's power level
EDIT2: "properly balance a can"
EDIT: RNG has ups and downs, devs should probably not include it when it screws up their ability to properly balance a can and identify a player's power level
EDIT2: "properly balance a can"
author=Brady
You're explaining things in slightly different ways?
Oh, my bad; y'see, to everyone else in this thread, it just looks like you're trolling and repeating yourself over and over while utterly ignoring every single response that directly counters the one thing you've been saying, due to the fact that nothing you've said has had anything at all to do with random encounters.
Silly me~
some people are just blind in such close proximity to greatness.
EDIT: RNG has ups and downs, devs should probably not include it when it screws up their ability to properly balance a can and identify a player's power level
you can't account for balance 100 percent of the time when random numbers are involved. it's just lazy to have dice.
Jalex
979
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
i did read it. we can go back and forth arguing about who misunderstands words the most. i am ready.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
i could explain this over and over, i think this would be at least the third time I would be restating something in a slightly different way in vain hope that it would be read and understood but we'd be here all year. you're just going to have to take me at my word that I am capable of reading english and yes, it is entirely, 100 percent specific to random encounters and nothing else. at its core, this has nothing to do with the difficulty/fun of your combat system. god save us all.
This entire thread you've been arguing that "difficult/fun" combat and random encounters are mutually exclusive, which is not only
And I thought my stream of consciousness was utter chaos...
P.S. The Shift key is there for a reason.
haha, no I haven't. I literally have not said that once and dare you to quote me doing so. I think the crux of the issue here is that people keep reading one thing and somehow assuming that it means something else. I would like to reiterate that this is everyone else's fault and not mine.
Jalex
979
author=CAVE_DOG
Every random encounter I have ever seen in an RPG required almost no thought to beat and was thus a pointless exercise in tedium.
I can guarantee you that if you think "random encounters" are a good gameplay mechanic then you have put zero thought into making your battles fun and engaging
because I have literally never, in my entire career of video game playing, encountered a random battle where I had to use my brain, despite playing a multitude of supposedly "hard" rpgs
random battles are not and have never been challenging except in roguelikes and there is no sense of achievement to be gained from defeating slimes
the main thrust of my argument has never been about 'what is good combat.'
Your entire argument has been "what isn't good combat", and it happens to be a bullshit argument. When everyone else disagrees with you, then maybe you're the one who's wrong for a change.
everyone else doesn't disagree with me. and yeah none of the things you quoted are me saying that random encounters and fun combat are mutually exclusive. it's just that, you know, they never are. like I said in the second thing you quoted, this is not because random encounters cannot, in theory, employ a good combat system, it's that they never do because anyone who can make their combat fun is someone who thinks critically so they aren't going to use random encounters in the first place because touch encounters are superior in every way. source: all video games.
I have to ask, out of pure curiosity: have you just been trolling this whole thread?
Because, when someone repeats the same stupid/wrong things for a page or two and ignores someone, you just think they're being arrogant or too self-involved to listen to anyone else....but we're four pages in now and you've got a number of posts on each page saying the exact same stupid/wrong things you were on page one, while insisting that no one's listening to you despite the fact that you've basically been clinically proven wrong on each page.
Someone just being arrogant/idiotic usually doesn't bother this long, or just flips their lid and throws a tantrum, but you're still here and haven't changed your attitude at all, which is basically forcing everyone else to waste their time repeating themselves. Which is what trolls strive for.
I wouldn't be so surprised: I mean, a troll on an internet forums? omg right?
But honestly, I just don't see them on RMN...ever. Never even realised it until you came along...
Either way...since we're four pages in now and you've had buckets of attention thrown at you; you've had your fun, can we just go with Craze's idea and have a serious, legitimate discussion about the OP without you shit-stirring anymore?
Tyvm~
Because, when someone repeats the same stupid/wrong things for a page or two and ignores someone, you just think they're being arrogant or too self-involved to listen to anyone else....but we're four pages in now and you've got a number of posts on each page saying the exact same stupid/wrong things you were on page one, while insisting that no one's listening to you despite the fact that you've basically been clinically proven wrong on each page.
Someone just being arrogant/idiotic usually doesn't bother this long, or just flips their lid and throws a tantrum, but you're still here and haven't changed your attitude at all, which is basically forcing everyone else to waste their time repeating themselves. Which is what trolls strive for.
I wouldn't be so surprised: I mean, a troll on an internet forums? omg right?
But honestly, I just don't see them on RMN...ever. Never even realised it until you came along...
Either way...since we're four pages in now and you've had buckets of attention thrown at you; you've had your fun, can we just go with Craze's idea and have a serious, legitimate discussion about the OP without you shit-stirring anymore?
Tyvm~
no matter how many times you say that i have somehow been 'proven wrong,' reality will not bend to your will, neonate. it's hard to make the claim that i have ignored anyone when i have replied to multiple people making the same statements multiple times in different ways. people have either been addressing points that I've never made or asserting things that plainly aren't true. like that touch battles are bad because enemies can guard a chest and that's no fun, which is a lot like saying that all rpgs are bad because sometimes rpg designers make poor design choices.
e: i think you should go back and call the rest of the people who hold the stance that the superior, aryan touch encounters hold dominion over all other forms of rpg combat initiation stupid trolls though. I am willing to do this with you if you need help because I checked and I am better than them at writing and basketball.
e: i think you should go back and call the rest of the people who hold the stance that the superior, aryan touch encounters hold dominion over all other forms of rpg combat initiation stupid trolls though. I am willing to do this with you if you need help because I checked and I am better than them at writing and basketball.
See, your very attitude comes off as pretty trollish; can you really blame me for thinking you're just trolling when you're persistently acting like a troll, and have achieved literally nothing other than causing arguments and winding people up?
And not to mention the fact that nothing you've said has actually had any useful bearing or impact on the OP itself; derailing being another key aspiration for trolls.
Although you've dragged me down that insidious path with you as well, so I can hardly talk, can I?
Your points have been directly addressed and refuted; you've just been ignoring them all. Feel free to have a butchers at page 2, where I replied to your point exactly as you said it, and explained why your point is invalid. Just because you can find a common ground or element of truth in two separate things doesn't make it so. Just because something can be implemented badly doesn't mean that very thing is bad in itself. Just because some developers misuse or abuse a feature doesn't mean that feature is bad.
You keep insisting that touch encounters are superior in every way, which is about as correct as saying that books are better than movies. You may feel that way personally, but to say with any kind of authority that that is a fact, is a pretty ignorant, arrogant, stupid and -most importantly- wrong thing to say.
Reality will not bend to your will just because you keep repeating the same things, the same ways, several times when people explain why you're wrong. But hey, feel free to read this then repeat your point exactly yet again.
And not to mention the fact that nothing you've said has actually had any useful bearing or impact on the OP itself; derailing being another key aspiration for trolls.
Although you've dragged me down that insidious path with you as well, so I can hardly talk, can I?
Your points have been directly addressed and refuted; you've just been ignoring them all. Feel free to have a butchers at page 2, where I replied to your point exactly as you said it, and explained why your point is invalid. Just because you can find a common ground or element of truth in two separate things doesn't make it so. Just because something can be implemented badly doesn't mean that very thing is bad in itself. Just because some developers misuse or abuse a feature doesn't mean that feature is bad.
You keep insisting that touch encounters are superior in every way, which is about as correct as saying that books are better than movies. You may feel that way personally, but to say with any kind of authority that that is a fact, is a pretty ignorant, arrogant, stupid and -most importantly- wrong thing to say.
Reality will not bend to your will just because you keep repeating the same things, the same ways, several times when people explain why you're wrong. But hey, feel free to read this then repeat your point exactly yet again.
I already did "butcher" that post, if you catch my drift, haha. But, an addendum: random encounters are gay and books are better than movies.
With that said, what CAVE_DOG's saying (if I'm understanding correctly) isn't completely in the wrong. Let's break it down:
-> Games are supposed to be fun.
-> Any game where you are forced to do something you don't like is not fun.
-> Some people may not like standard battles in a game for whatever reason. It doesn't matter why.
-> So why force them?
-> Games are supposed to be fun.
-> Any game where you are forced to do something you don't like is not fun.
-> Some people may not like standard battles in a game for whatever reason. It doesn't matter why.
-> So why force them?
