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] “LEAVE NO SOLDIER BEHIND” *SALUTES* (NEED OPINIONS ON A NEW “RUNNING AWAY” MECHANIC)
Poll
Command? - Results
|
This Is A BRILLIANT Idea!
|
|
2
|
13%
|
|
This Is A STUPID Idea!
|
|
6
|
40%
|
|
I Just Came For The Free Pizza.
|
|
7
|
46%
|
Posts
Addit
View playlists
Close
A Soldiers Main Prime Order: Never Leave Anyone Behind.
So when it comes to most role playing games that involve the player escaping from combat because the situation isn't in their best interest (ie: low level; lack of recovery items; bad status aliments, like "poison"; need to save the game before angry parents cut off electricity; it usually involves selecting a command from the menu or, like in most classic Final Fantasy games, holding the shoulder buttons down while waiting for your teammates to finally flee.
In most RPG Maker games, the first option usually applies here; you basically select the "Run Away" command and based on your dexterity level will determine if you can successfully run away. Simple enough! It has been that method since the very dawn of time.
But I want to change that because, frankly, it's a bit too unrealistic for my taste.
Now, I know what you're all saying, "What'cha talkin' about, Addit? Who cares about all this sort of nonsense! Who cares about realism when it comes to "running away!" It's a bloomin' fantasy game, for heavens sakes! All people seem to care about 'round here is some fancy ass graphics; awesome ass characters, blah, blah, blah." But even a little feature to an already overused mechanic can make the world of difference.
So here's my idea:
(No rock throwing OR bonfire torches)
Like in every setup when the player is in need to flee from battle, you would select the command like you normally would. However, in this sort of setup, the conditions for running away changes, depending on:
A.) How many characters you have in your party.
B.) The type of status aliments reflecting off those characters.
C.) How many enemies you are fighting.
D.) The general weight of those characters.
Let's do a couple of examples, shall we:
Example 1:
Party Size: One
Enemy Size: One
Status Aliments: None
Results:
- The party can run away with no serious issue here, because it's an one-on-one fight and both party and enemy have no viable status aliments that's harming both of them.
Example 2:
Party Size: One
Enemy Size: Four
Status Aliments: None
Results:
- Because the enemies outnumber the party by a lot, the party won't be able to get away. Unless they clear some of the enemies down, they'll just have to fight through it. (or, to make things a bit more fair for the player, use a "Smoke Bomb" sort of item, via FF6, in order to get away)
Example 3:
Party Size: Two (Teenage Slim Boy; Petit Girl)
Enemy Size: Two
Status Aliments: Girl Is KOed
Results:
- Since the party count is technically down to 1 because of the KOed member, the party can't get away because the boy can't leave the other member behind. However, because the girl's weight isn't that heavy, the boy could always kill off one of the enemies and escape, or revive the girl or use a smoke bomb related item to have the chance to get away.
Example 4:
Party Size: Two (Teenage Slim Boy; Petit Girl)
Enemy Size: One
Status Aliments: Boy Is KOed
Results:
- Even though the party has the majority advantage here, the boy's weight is far too heavy for the girl to pick up and run away with. She won't be able to escape unless the boy is revived or a smoke bomb item is used.
Example 5:
Party Size: Three (Teenage Slim Boy; Petit Girl; Build Middle-Aged Man)
Enemy Size: Two
Status Aliments: None
Results:
- The party has the majority; they can escape from battle.
Example 6:
Party Size: Three (Teenage Slim Boy; Petit Girl; Build Middle-Aged Man)
Enemy Size: Two
Status Aliments: Boy is KOed
Results:
- The party can still get away since both sides have the same equal amount of members and the build middle-aged character is strong enough to pick up the boy and escape.
Example 7:
Party Size: Three (Teenage Slim Boy; Petit Girl; Build Middle-Aged Man)
Enemy Size: Two
Status Aliments: Boy is KOed; Build Middle-Aged Man is Paralyzed
Results:
- Since the build middle-aged man is under paralysis and the girl is too weak to carry both of them, they can't run away. The girl need to heal the paralysis off the build middle-aged man since reviving the boy isn't going to be enough because he can't lift the build middle-aged man up with his overall strength alone.
Example 8:
Party Size: Three (Teenage Slim Boy; Petit Girl; Build Middle-Aged Man)
Enemy Size: Three
Status Aliments: All characters are poisoned.
Results:
- The party can still get away with no problems. Even though everyone is poisoned, they still will have enough strength to get away.
Of course, you could still factor in the "dexterity rating" and other matters, but I thought that this was a pretty interesting way of handling the running-away scenario. If this idea has been done before in another game, then I apologize because I guess I haven't heard of it. If not, I want your opinion, "Is this a BRILLIANT idea or a STUPID idea?"
Oh, and for the people who came for the "Free Pizza,"
here's your stinkin' coupon.
My main problem with this is you'd have to inform the player this is happening the way it is. The player may find it a little too complicated and not bother with your running mechanic - that'd be no fun after all your hard work!
You can't particularly leave it to common sense either. One could assume that poison could be debilitating and that someone just being cured from paralysis may not be strong enough to lift the boy etc.
It sounds like a lot of pain for little pay-off.
You can't particularly leave it to common sense either. One could assume that poison could be debilitating and that someone just being cured from paralysis may not be strong enough to lift the boy etc.
It sounds like a lot of pain for little pay-off.
newguy99
0
So your saying you can only run away in an ideal situation, but that's not the time when people run away. You run away when 2 people are KO'ed and the other to poisoned and you don't want to die and have to go back to your save point. Run away is a last ditch effort not to get a game over. at least for me.
RyaReisender
200
Running away in RPGs is VERY flawed in the first place. Okay, some games have "run away always successful (but the monster stays on the map), those are fine, but usually make things too easy. Everything that goes about "X% chance to run away" are just dumb. It doesn't require any skill and failing multiple times in row is just frustrating (especially if you just want to run away because the battles got boring and you quickly want to get to the next save point).
If you want to improve running away, then think of something that actually requires playing skill. Like some trivia about the enemy you are currently facing.
If you want to improve running away, then think of something that actually requires playing skill. Like some trivia about the enemy you are currently facing.
Maybe have a set-up of some kind? Like throwing a smoke bomb will allow 100% flee chance and make them cost something to get or limit them in some way.
Or have it so that you have to wait a turn until you can flee (well, it usually lets faster enemies get a hit in anyway, by default.)
Frankly, missing out on any rewards + having to fight the enemies from full HP again is enough detriment to running, I think. No need to make it harder to run than usual.
Or have it so that you have to wait a turn until you can flee (well, it usually lets faster enemies get a hit in anyway, by default.)
Frankly, missing out on any rewards + having to fight the enemies from full HP again is enough detriment to running, I think. No need to make it harder to run than usual.
SnowOwl
5188
Like others say, that's a lot of effort for something people will only use when they are bored of the enemies or just in a hurry (in other words, when a failed escape or prolonged escape time only annoys).
It's a pretty neat little thing, and somewhat realistic I guess, but most people won't care, truthfully.
It's a pretty neat little thing, and somewhat realistic I guess, but most people won't care, truthfully.
"SOLIDER"??
Personally, I generally only flee battle at the beginning to avoid fighting them: a) don't want to grind anymore; b) I know the enemy is too strong and want to avoid serious damage or death. If I find I am not able to flee in a reasonable amount of turns, I usually press F12 to restart the game.
That said, having different escape mechanics is definitely interesting for me. I think there was a game where you had to throw a smoke bomb to be able to escape. In quite a few others, the possibility of success somehow seems to depend on the speed difference of the party member initiating the escape and the enemies. If all enemies were faster than your party members, it was virtually impossible to escape. As mentioned, there's 100% success escape. In Homework Salesman, that particular mechanic is used, but there is a severe penalty in terms of AP (action points) lost.
So yes, having new ways to escape would be nice having some sort of a simple twist. The simplest one would be it would cost certain gold to attempt to escape (your party drops money in the rush to escape, it might have done before). Another one would be for escape could only allow the party member using that action to do so, adding a layer of difficulty and risk to the choice. Or, no normal escape, but there's a skill that some party member that allows the party to continue try to escape after each turn or is 100% successful but is delayed X turns. Basically, what I'm saying not too many innovative, relatively simple escape mechanics have been implemented.
Time for free pizza ... wait, that coupon is expired!
Personally, I generally only flee battle at the beginning to avoid fighting them: a) don't want to grind anymore; b) I know the enemy is too strong and want to avoid serious damage or death. If I find I am not able to flee in a reasonable amount of turns, I usually press F12 to restart the game.
That said, having different escape mechanics is definitely interesting for me. I think there was a game where you had to throw a smoke bomb to be able to escape. In quite a few others, the possibility of success somehow seems to depend on the speed difference of the party member initiating the escape and the enemies. If all enemies were faster than your party members, it was virtually impossible to escape. As mentioned, there's 100% success escape. In Homework Salesman, that particular mechanic is used, but there is a severe penalty in terms of AP (action points) lost.
So yes, having new ways to escape would be nice having some sort of a simple twist. The simplest one would be it would cost certain gold to attempt to escape (your party drops money in the rush to escape, it might have done before). Another one would be for escape could only allow the party member using that action to do so, adding a layer of difficulty and risk to the choice. Or, no normal escape, but there's a skill that some party member that allows the party to continue try to escape after each turn or is 100% successful but is delayed X turns. Basically, what I'm saying not too many innovative, relatively simple escape mechanics have been implemented.
Time for free pizza ... wait, that coupon is expired!
It's a STUPID idea (2nd vote). Why? Because it's a brilliant idea.
The less thought that goes into the flee mechanism, the better.
For instance, penalizing bad status (particularly paralysis) in terms of flee success. In Final Fantasy series, this was always the point where you would run away. So the fact that you suddenly can't to the player's mind equals unexplainable "why are you still standing there" where annoyance becomes anger/frustration.
Second, the more complicated the rules, the more arbitrary it seems to the actual user. They see one person down, and figure it's time to leave, can't and don't bother to figure out why, or how it could be resolved. It's likely ragequit time, because their whole party dies for some stupid reason.
I do auto-run, except for boss battles, where it's disallowed. No thought, no effort, and yet, if the party is out-numbered or outclassed? Guess what. They appreciate it. But even random-probability flee works better than this, as you can do the repeated try thing.
If you do this, the chief condition is you have text explaining why they can't run. Not only does this remove some of the annoyance of not knowing why the flee failed (and trying again and again without results), but now you know what you can do about it.
The less thought that goes into the flee mechanism, the better.
For instance, penalizing bad status (particularly paralysis) in terms of flee success. In Final Fantasy series, this was always the point where you would run away. So the fact that you suddenly can't to the player's mind equals unexplainable "why are you still standing there" where annoyance becomes anger/frustration.
Second, the more complicated the rules, the more arbitrary it seems to the actual user. They see one person down, and figure it's time to leave, can't and don't bother to figure out why, or how it could be resolved. It's likely ragequit time, because their whole party dies for some stupid reason.
I do auto-run, except for boss battles, where it's disallowed. No thought, no effort, and yet, if the party is out-numbered or outclassed? Guess what. They appreciate it. But even random-probability flee works better than this, as you can do the repeated try thing.
If you do this, the chief condition is you have text explaining why they can't run. Not only does this remove some of the annoyance of not knowing why the flee failed (and trying again and again without results), but now you know what you can do about it.
Skie Fortress
2394
I have to agree. I do enjoy the deep thought put into the mechanic, but at the end of the day, it's JUST escaping. Which to me is one of the more decidedly simple mechanics...for a reason. The execution of it sounds entirely invisible as well, which will just lead to frustration as players fail to escape and then wonder why such things happen without clear rhyme or reason to it.
Basically, don't punish players for escaping in such strict ways. It's not realistic, but it's one of those concessions that I believe simply has to be made for gameplay ease.
Put that deep thought into something more proactively related to combat.
Basically, don't punish players for escaping in such strict ways. It's not realistic, but it's one of those concessions that I believe simply has to be made for gameplay ease.
Put that deep thought into something more proactively related to combat.
Well, it is acceptable, if you explain why.
Compare: (default no-escape message "You failed to escape")
To: Choice - Run With Allies/ Run Alone (In the first case, it tells you the exact reason why the whole party can't run, something like "couldn't drag party members, escape attempt failed/wounded member is too heavy/you're outnumbered, escape was cut off/etc". And knowing that, you can perhaps change the situation, or if you can't, the little girl may decide it's not worth it to save a boy and a full-grown man, and just run for her life)
If you leave the ally behind, they get eaten by enemies, and the process of getting them back to life might require a lost level since they're basically a skeleton.
Compare: (default no-escape message "You failed to escape")
To: Choice - Run With Allies/ Run Alone (In the first case, it tells you the exact reason why the whole party can't run, something like "couldn't drag party members, escape attempt failed/wounded member is too heavy/you're outnumbered, escape was cut off/etc". And knowing that, you can perhaps change the situation, or if you can't, the little girl may decide it's not worth it to save a boy and a full-grown man, and just run for her life)
If you leave the ally behind, they get eaten by enemies, and the process of getting them back to life might require a lost level since they're basically a skeleton.
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
If escaping is something that's a legit tactical thing you want to do sometimes in order to "win" and is a major part of gameplay - i.e. if your game has lots of battles where the entire goal is to perform some objective and then run away - then this kind of system is perfect. I would be interested to play a game like that. Maybe the story constantly leads you into situations where you have to get a wounded member out of an area under fire, or sabotage an enemy vehicle, or grab some enemy intel, and killing the enemies is not even a win condition. You just have to perform the objective and then run. Could be cool.
In most RPGs, escaping is something you do when you've screwed up and you know that you will die next round if you don't run away, or it's something you do to skip easy battles that don't give rewards that are worth the time they take. In both cases, you unfortunately don't have time to worry about this kind of complicated stuff. I'm actually fine with just not allowing the player to run from these kinds of fights, though. (Well, usually I am. It depends how far apart your save points / checkpoints are.)
In most RPGs, escaping is something you do when you've screwed up and you know that you will die next round if you don't run away, or it's something you do to skip easy battles that don't give rewards that are worth the time they take. In both cases, you unfortunately don't have time to worry about this kind of complicated stuff. I'm actually fine with just not allowing the player to run from these kinds of fights, though. (Well, usually I am. It depends how far apart your save points / checkpoints are.)
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
I don't want to have to be prepared for when I'm not prepared. If I'm going to waste a turn to resurrect someone that I could be spending running away just so that I can run away the next turn (hoping that they don't die again), I'm making the same amount of progress that I would if I just failed at a normal escape attempt. If I need to escape, it's because I have no other option.
You're making it more difficult and less fun just for the sake of adding depth to a concept that's been both unrealistic and chancy since the beginning of RPGs, which is a terrible game design principle when you've got more important things (like making the actual game worth playing period) to worry about.
You're making it more difficult and less fun just for the sake of adding depth to a concept that's been both unrealistic and chancy since the beginning of RPGs, which is a terrible game design principle when you've got more important things (like making the actual game worth playing period) to worry about.
Also, outside the military (which is the only place this mechanic would work, and I doubt the whole little girl lifting a grown man thing would thus come up as an issue), the whole not leaving people behind thing is unlikely to have much weight. Dead people are dead, you will not risk your neck trying to salvage them, you collect their bodies later when it's safe to. If they're wounded, maybe, but when being chased by wild animals, see who stays behind to become lunch.
*takes a deep breath*
Hoo boy – COMMENTS!!! :D
Yeah. I’ll probably have a message pop up on the screen explaining why the player can’t escape under certain conditions or explain it in further detail in a “tutorial mode” – BUT I FREAKIN’ HATE TUTORIALS!!! (see why)
So, I'll probably do something like this:
Enemies outnumber the actual party 2 – 1
”There are too many of them to fight off and get away.”
Party consist of 2 with one member KOed and there are 2 enemies on screen.
”I can’t just leave INSERT NAME behind like this!”
So something like that would probably help better explain it.
Muahahahaha – accept your uneventful demise!
(I could always add in a function, similar to the “Breath Of Fire” games that getting a total GAME OVER just has you return back to the last save point with half your total money lost, or something along the lines like that, so you don't ALL your total progress.)
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. So, if you’re facing a more docile sort of creature, not attacking it or harming it will eventually just let it leave you alone (or escape from the battle itself). Or maybe you might have to throw a rock at a certain creature to stun it and then run away. Hmmmm…
True. I mean, it is the ol' well honest approach seen time-and-time again. But even if this new system falls flat on its ass -- it's worth a try (even if people mock it and go like, "Hey, isn't that the game with the broken ass, stupid 'running away' mechanic? God damn, was that a horrible idea." But at least people will still remember it...negativity, of course.)
-- GOD DAMN, "AUTO-SPELL!!!"
-- MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :)
(Suckers.)
Yeah, similar to what Gourdo said, I’ll probably have a message explaining why the player can’t run away in certain conditions, so that the player will see it and go like, "Ah...I see. How very clever... Wait a minute -- HOW THE H DO I GET OUT OF HERE, THEN!?!?!?"
I can just hear the people screaming in front of their monitors right now...
You are right, kind sir. I suppose that some things aren't meant to trifle with.
On the other hand, even though it could be a totally bad idea, it might be worth it to keep the mechanic in and see what the general reaction to it using a more "full scale" approach would be. Even if it fails, at least the game will be remembered for trying something new. (even if that cost me precious reviewer points)
--
Sorry I couldn't get to everyone, but thanks for all the wonderful replies. It seems that the majority of you don't think that this is a really good idea and I should probably just stick to a more "conventional" sort of approach similar to RPG's of the past.
I guess I have a lot to think about, now. *ponders to self*
Hoo boy – COMMENTS!!! :D
author=Gourd_Clae
My main problem with this is you'd have to inform the player this is happening the way it is.
Yeah. I’ll probably have a message pop up on the screen explaining why the player can’t escape under certain conditions or explain it in further detail in a “tutorial mode” – BUT I FREAKIN’ HATE TUTORIALS!!! (see why)
So, I'll probably do something like this:
Enemies outnumber the actual party 2 – 1
”There are too many of them to fight off and get away.”
Party consist of 2 with one member KOed and there are 2 enemies on screen.
”I can’t just leave INSERT NAME behind like this!”
So something like that would probably help better explain it.
author=newguy99
So your saying you can only run away in an ideal situation, but that's not the time when people run away. You run away when 2 people are KO'ed and the other to poisoned and you don't want to die and have to go back to your save point. Run away is a last ditch effort not to get a game over. at least for me.
Muahahahaha – accept your uneventful demise!
(I could always add in a function, similar to the “Breath Of Fire” games that getting a total GAME OVER just has you return back to the last save point with half your total money lost, or something along the lines like that, so you don't ALL your total progress.)
author=RyaReisender
If you want to improve running away, then think of something that actually requires playing skill. Like some trivia about the enemy you are currently facing.
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. So, if you’re facing a more docile sort of creature, not attacking it or harming it will eventually just let it leave you alone (or escape from the battle itself). Or maybe you might have to throw a rock at a certain creature to stun it and then run away. Hmmmm…
author=Liberty
No need to make it harder to run than usual.
True. I mean, it is the ol' well honest approach seen time-and-time again. But even if this new system falls flat on its ass -- it's worth a try (even if people mock it and go like, "Hey, isn't that the game with the broken ass, stupid 'running away' mechanic? God damn, was that a horrible idea." But at least people will still remember it...negativity, of course.)
author=edchuy
"SOLIDER"??
-- GOD DAMN, "AUTO-SPELL!!!"
author=edchuy
Time for free pizza ... wait, that coupon is expired!
-- MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! :)
(Suckers.)
author=bulmabriefs144
Second, the more complicated the rules, the more arbitrary it seems to the actual user. They see one person down, and figure it's time to leave, can't and don't bother to figure out why, or how it could be resolved. It's likely ragequit time, because their whole party dies for some stupid reason.
If you do this, the chief condition is you have text explaining why they can't run.
Yeah, similar to what Gourdo said, I’ll probably have a message explaining why the player can’t run away in certain conditions, so that the player will see it and go like, "Ah...I see. How very clever... Wait a minute -- HOW THE H DO I GET OUT OF HERE, THEN!?!?!?"
I can just hear the people screaming in front of their monitors right now...
author=Corfaisus
You're making it more difficult and less fun just for the sake of adding depth to a concept that's been both unrealistic and chancy since the beginning of RPGs, which is a terrible game design principle when you've got more important things (like making the actual game worth playing period) to worry about.
You are right, kind sir. I suppose that some things aren't meant to trifle with.
On the other hand, even though it could be a totally bad idea, it might be worth it to keep the mechanic in and see what the general reaction to it using a more "full scale" approach would be. Even if it fails, at least the game will be remembered for trying something new. (even if that cost me precious reviewer points)
--
Sorry I couldn't get to everyone, but thanks for all the wonderful replies. It seems that the majority of you don't think that this is a really good idea and I should probably just stick to a more "conventional" sort of approach similar to RPG's of the past.
I guess I have a lot to think about, now. *ponders to self*
If I may add, for battles using active ATB having to think about all the issues mentioned for escaping would add an extra layer of unnecessary challenge to me. It's bad enough for me to make decisions real-time unless reflexes are involved.
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
Here's an idea: take your conditions and complications, but instead of making the player deal with them during his normal turns, make the Run Away command initiate a series of timed button inputs to do those things. Like, show buttons on the screen, make the player press them before they disappear, commonly known as a Quicktime Event. The button inputs would be increasingly long and complicated for "harder" escapes, but it would never have that feeling of "damn, it takes almost as much prep to run away as it does to win". Because the effort the player spends would be in a totally seperate spectrum from the rest of the battle.
I'd think that running away would ideally have a drawback that's not always so bad. Then you still have to think beyond "It may be dangerous to fight this battle".
Like, put them back where they entered the map before fighting the battle. That way they could even strategically use it for a quick backtrack and it's not completely useless to better players in this respect. It would also not even have a drawback in scenarios where you are close to where you entered the map. "Am I so far away from the entrance that I may as well tough it for this battle?"
Like, put them back where they entered the map before fighting the battle. That way they could even strategically use it for a quick backtrack and it's not completely useless to better players in this respect. It would also not even have a drawback in scenarios where you are close to where you entered the map. "Am I so far away from the entrance that I may as well tough it for this battle?"
