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)
BATTLE SYSTEM
Posts
Pages:
1
rjl
0
rjl
View playlists
CloseI'm currently considering a possible project (purely in concept stage, may go nowhere) which I want to be somewhat distinctive, and I'm trying to think how to create an interesting and yet original battle system.
Considerations:
1. I like the idea of having large battles in a game as the idea of only ever fighting a handful of enemies at a time is normally quite unrealistic. (Why on earth would the demon lord or whatever cliche villain you have send his men at you 5 or less at a time?)
2. I also love how in an RPG you can gain an attachment to characters and so I want a system where you control a small number of individuals.
3. I want a system that feels realistic, not in the sense of real world this concept is a fantasy game, yet in the sense the combat accurately simulates what a fight would be like.
4. My theorised world would have some characters who can act exponentially faster than others and I want the combat to represent that
5. The game if it is made will be 2d and I really don't like most 2d action RPGs and don't want to make one
Analysis: the clear answer to 1+2 is a fire emblem style system, but it falls down on 3, the fact you can get various advantages based on the order you have people act in FE always irked me as there is no reality based justification.
Traditional combat systems e.g. old final fantasy games (and most rpg maker games) have no good way of showing a big battle.
The idea I've come up with is for an "interrupted" real time system. With a battle taking place in real time with a Fire emblem style (moving around a map with multiple units etc), the first problem is how to control such a system, fire emblem works because it is strictly turn based, hence the "interruption".
Combat would happen for around 5 seconds it would then pause and you would queue up movements and actions for your units (with every action using AP and each unit having a set amount of AP based on their speed) combat would then resume for 5 seconds with the actions you've queued being performed before pausing again etc.
Your characters would have a mini AI to react to enemies moving out of the way + collisions.
The big problem I've run into is I'd have to limit the battle maps to what fits on the screen as otherwise you won't be able to see what all your characters are doing as it would all happen at the same time. This may undermine the while idea of larger scale fights.
What thoughts do people have on this concept and the potential downside I highlight + any other issues?
Can anyone think of a better answer to my 5 criteria?
(Don't worry about the practicality of making the proposed system I'm a pretty good scripter, though I admit it would probably take me months to make what I describe above if I ever work on another project I'd rather it be good than quick)
Considerations:
1. I like the idea of having large battles in a game as the idea of only ever fighting a handful of enemies at a time is normally quite unrealistic. (Why on earth would the demon lord or whatever cliche villain you have send his men at you 5 or less at a time?)
2. I also love how in an RPG you can gain an attachment to characters and so I want a system where you control a small number of individuals.
3. I want a system that feels realistic, not in the sense of real world this concept is a fantasy game, yet in the sense the combat accurately simulates what a fight would be like.
4. My theorised world would have some characters who can act exponentially faster than others and I want the combat to represent that
5. The game if it is made will be 2d and I really don't like most 2d action RPGs and don't want to make one
Analysis: the clear answer to 1+2 is a fire emblem style system, but it falls down on 3, the fact you can get various advantages based on the order you have people act in FE always irked me as there is no reality based justification.
Traditional combat systems e.g. old final fantasy games (and most rpg maker games) have no good way of showing a big battle.
The idea I've come up with is for an "interrupted" real time system. With a battle taking place in real time with a Fire emblem style (moving around a map with multiple units etc), the first problem is how to control such a system, fire emblem works because it is strictly turn based, hence the "interruption".
Combat would happen for around 5 seconds it would then pause and you would queue up movements and actions for your units (with every action using AP and each unit having a set amount of AP based on their speed) combat would then resume for 5 seconds with the actions you've queued being performed before pausing again etc.
Your characters would have a mini AI to react to enemies moving out of the way + collisions.
The big problem I've run into is I'd have to limit the battle maps to what fits on the screen as otherwise you won't be able to see what all your characters are doing as it would all happen at the same time. This may undermine the while idea of larger scale fights.
What thoughts do people have on this concept and the potential downside I highlight + any other issues?
Can anyone think of a better answer to my 5 criteria?
(Don't worry about the practicality of making the proposed system I'm a pretty good scripter, though I admit it would probably take me months to make what I describe above if I ever work on another project I'd rather it be good than quick)
SO, like Suikoden V's army battle system? Real time movement on a map, certain units being good against others (for example, send the beaver people to destroy boats, use magic against ground troops... 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
Before you even got to mentioning Fire Emblem, it's what I was thinking of. Having large hordes of enemies with a small handful of allies lends itself very naturally to a style of combat that's all about positioning. It's going to be all about the player having to figure out ways to control how many enemies he's fighting at once, instead of the game automating that for you like in a regular RPG. So a tactical RPG is obviously an excellent choice, and Fire Emblem is one of the best examples of a tactical RPG where positioning is the crux of the gameplay. X-Com is another excellent example.
I don't really see the point of the interrupted real-time system, as all it does is make the game harder to play. Responding to enemy actions/movements will become extremely difficult or impossible for the player to manage. There's nothing wrong with using turns. Turns are an abstract, simplified representation of what would be happening in a real battle. They are used to make an impossibly complex situation managable in a video game, just like stats or HP or tile-based movement. If you really just wanna be different, then go for it I guess, but my prediction is that it will make the tactical aspects of the gameplay nearly unplayable. I guess I would probably recommend building the interface and controls like an RTS game (starcraft, etc.) with a pause button, rather than like a tactical RPG.
I don't really see the point of the interrupted real-time system, as all it does is make the game harder to play. Responding to enemy actions/movements will become extremely difficult or impossible for the player to manage. There's nothing wrong with using turns. Turns are an abstract, simplified representation of what would be happening in a real battle. They are used to make an impossibly complex situation managable in a video game, just like stats or HP or tile-based movement. If you really just wanna be different, then go for it I guess, but my prediction is that it will make the tactical aspects of the gameplay nearly unplayable. I guess I would probably recommend building the interface and controls like an RTS game (starcraft, etc.) with a pause button, rather than like a tactical RPG.
rjl
0
Liberty: I haven't played suikoden 5 but from a quick look on YouTube it doesn't look like what I mean as it looks just like an RTS with faceless armies and slow paced large scale action. My idea is a weird cross between turn based and real time with fast flashy "rpg style" attacks.
LockeZ: I haven't played X-com, on the reason for the real-time element the two things I really dislike about fire emblem are a) how you can produce effects that could not be produced in reality through the sequencing of turns and b) the way it makes battles very relaxed and laid back. The idea of making it semi-real time is to remove both of those factors, creating a system where turn sequencing is irrelevant and the battle hopefully feels hectic. I entirely agree that it could be quite tricky to play
I feel I can probably address the difficulty with careful tweaking of the system though I could be wrong here.
The matter that feels insurmountable is that with fast paced short bursts of action I see no way to have a map that's larger than the screen. Does anyone have a thought on this?
An RTS with a pause button may be a better idea, I'm not sure how well it would work I should give it some thought. (I love Old school RPG style combat menus too much perhaps)
LockeZ: I haven't played X-com, on the reason for the real-time element the two things I really dislike about fire emblem are a) how you can produce effects that could not be produced in reality through the sequencing of turns and b) the way it makes battles very relaxed and laid back. The idea of making it semi-real time is to remove both of those factors, creating a system where turn sequencing is irrelevant and the battle hopefully feels hectic. I entirely agree that it could be quite tricky to play
I feel I can probably address the difficulty with careful tweaking of the system though I could be wrong here.
The matter that feels insurmountable is that with fast paced short bursts of action I see no way to have a map that's larger than the screen. Does anyone have a thought on this?
An RTS with a pause button may be a better idea, I'm not sure how well it would work I should give it some thought. (I love Old school RPG style combat menus too much perhaps)
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
Well, I'm sure you could handle larger maps the same way an RTS does - just let the player scroll the camera around. This would mean you would have stuff happening off the edge of the screen that the player is guaranteed to miss, and force the player to decide which part of the battle to watch.
But since you are planning to only have 3-5 characters, another option would be to make it so the screen is always centered on the main character, and none of the party members are allowed to travel far enough from the main character to go off-screen. Destination tiles beyond the edge of the screen would be unselectable because, you know, you can't click on things that aren't on the screen. And if a party member is on the left edge of the screen as the hero moves to the right, the party member would be pushed to the right by the edge of the screen. The map could be a large area you have to traverse, and the camera would just always stay centered on the hero.
Of course, if you made it a 3D game you could simply let the player zoom out.
But since you are planning to only have 3-5 characters, another option would be to make it so the screen is always centered on the main character, and none of the party members are allowed to travel far enough from the main character to go off-screen. Destination tiles beyond the edge of the screen would be unselectable because, you know, you can't click on things that aren't on the screen. And if a party member is on the left edge of the screen as the hero moves to the right, the party member would be pushed to the right by the edge of the screen. The map could be a large area you have to traverse, and the camera would just always stay centered on the hero.
Of course, if you made it a 3D game you could simply let the player zoom out.
rjl
0
The problem with scrolling is the whole idea of 5 second bursts of action, an RTS with a pause feature wouldn't have this problem whereas my specific idea does.
Centering on the main character may work, I'm not sure. The distance limiter is another option though would feel very odd.
I don't have the skills for 3d I could learn but I actually like 2d. I could do a zoom anyway but again the whole issue of the action being only 5 seconds at a time would make any zooming or scrolling impracticable.
I could do large battles made up of smaller segments where you clear one screen then move to another, but that would create the very artificial feeling I'm trying to avoid.
I think I'm looking at one of three options:
a) use planned system with no battle map bigger than the screen
b) do a more RTS like system
c) scrap the real time and do a more FE like system
I want a fourth option but can't see it
Centering on the main character may work, I'm not sure. The distance limiter is another option though would feel very odd.
I don't have the skills for 3d I could learn but I actually like 2d. I could do a zoom anyway but again the whole issue of the action being only 5 seconds at a time would make any zooming or scrolling impracticable.
I could do large battles made up of smaller segments where you clear one screen then move to another, but that would create the very artificial feeling I'm trying to avoid.
I think I'm looking at one of three options:
a) use planned system with no battle map bigger than the screen
b) do a more RTS like system
c) scrap the real time and do a more FE like system
I want a fourth option but can't see it
Avee
5794
The game I can think of that best fits your vision is Ogre Battle.
FF6's Battle for the Frozen Esper is another fine example. Take a look at those two.
But if you want the attacks to happen on the same screen as the movement, you could simply activate a switch that stops every unit's movements for the duration of the attack animations.
FF6's Battle for the Frozen Esper is another fine example. Take a look at those two.
But if you want the attacks to happen on the same screen as the movement, you could simply activate a switch that stops every unit's movements for the duration of the attack animations.
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
Nothing about the five-second bursts of action makes zooming impractical, it would just have to be done automatically. Any time a character moves, zoom in or out so that the number of tiles on screen is (distance between two furthest characters + 6). Zooming in and out in 2D usually looks pretty ugly in my opinion, but it is an option. There are ways to shrink pixel graphics. So this is a fourth option.
I'm not sure why you think the 5 second bursts of action would make scrolling not work. I'd think it would work vastly better in your game than in an RTS, since the player can scroll while the action is paused. Then they can go to the spot they want to watch, start the action, and watch that spot for 5 seconds. This seems better, to me, than having to scroll around the map in the middle of the mayhem like you do in an RTS.
I guess another option would be... split screen? If you have four party members, you could split the screen into four quadrants, each centered on a party member. Then the player could see what's happening to all four characters.
I'm not sure why you think the 5 second bursts of action would make scrolling not work. I'd think it would work vastly better in your game than in an RTS, since the player can scroll while the action is paused. Then they can go to the spot they want to watch, start the action, and watch that spot for 5 seconds. This seems better, to me, than having to scroll around the map in the middle of the mayhem like you do in an RTS.
I guess another option would be... split screen? If you have four party members, you could split the screen into four quadrants, each centered on a party member. Then the player could see what's happening to all four characters.
rjl
0
LockeZ, I think a key point you may have missed us that everything would happen at the same time, two characters at opposite sides of the map could be moving and attacking simultaneously, depending on the size of map used trying to auto zoom to show that could well mean that neither of these events is on screen.
On the scrolling idea I guess setting your location before the action resumes could work, though wouldn't allow you to watch both sides of the map.
Split screen is a very interesting idea, though I'm struggling to think how I'd implement that, particular as I'd want it to dynamically split/recombine depending on distance apart, I also hadn't yet determined number of characters, using split screen would set a limit here as you mention. (I can easily see how to process the multiple screens graphically, working out what sounds to play if any would be tricky, and a dynamic split/ recombine may be too impractical).
Avee: I've played Ogre Battle 64, I can see how it addresses some of the issues I'm thinking of but it doesn't have the feel I'm aiming at, the slow pace being a factor. I'm also well familiar with FF6 and know that scene well, it is certainly an option.
I think I need to get some time to experiment and see what works this real time idea may prove completely impracticable and overly clunky, in which case I could go for either: a more RTS like system or a more fire emblem like system(the later being where I'll probably go if this brainstorm doesn't work)
Thanks for all the ideas and any other comments will be appreciated.
On the scrolling idea I guess setting your location before the action resumes could work, though wouldn't allow you to watch both sides of the map.
Split screen is a very interesting idea, though I'm struggling to think how I'd implement that, particular as I'd want it to dynamically split/recombine depending on distance apart, I also hadn't yet determined number of characters, using split screen would set a limit here as you mention. (I can easily see how to process the multiple screens graphically, working out what sounds to play if any would be tricky, and a dynamic split/ recombine may be too impractical).
Avee: I've played Ogre Battle 64, I can see how it addresses some of the issues I'm thinking of but it doesn't have the feel I'm aiming at, the slow pace being a factor. I'm also well familiar with FF6 and know that scene well, it is certainly an option.
I think I need to get some time to experiment and see what works this real time idea may prove completely impracticable and overly clunky, in which case I could go for either: a more RTS like system or a more fire emblem like system(the later being where I'll probably go if this brainstorm doesn't work)
Thanks for all the ideas and any other comments will be appreciated.
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 you zoom out enough, you could show the entire planet at once. It just depends how small you're willing to make the characters.
I would also like to point out that, because so many things will be happening simultaneously, it will be impossible for the player to recognize what the enemy is doing, only where they're doing stuff. You won't be able to show skill names, for example. The player won't be able to see that an enemy is resisting fire damage, or is immune to poison, or is setting down or disarming a trap, or is preparing to summon an elemental, or really anything that's happening, because there's simply no way for you to convey that information about thirty enemies in real-time.
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, but your game isn't going to play like an RPG. The choices the player makes are going to necessarily need to be much simpler than a typical tactical RPG. Your enemies are probably gonna have to be really stupid and maybe even use nothing but normal attacks. I kinda think Fire Emblem is probably the highest amount of complexity you could get away with?
Alternately, RTS games often have more interesting abilities that you have to recognize purely from the spell animation. They get away with doing this through a unique way of letting the player learn what the skills do - every single enemy unit is usable as a player unit, so you can try the skills out yourself.
As an aside, I also think your idea that 4v400 combat is more "realistic" than 4v4 combat is laughable. Do it if you think it'll be fun, but please understand that it's way less realistic. It's a beyond-absurd power fantasy. No one would survive being outnumbered that badly, much less be able to do so repeatedly battle after battle. Your characters are going to need to be, like... Odin, Xena, The Hulk, and Zhao Yun.
I would also like to point out that, because so many things will be happening simultaneously, it will be impossible for the player to recognize what the enemy is doing, only where they're doing stuff. You won't be able to show skill names, for example. The player won't be able to see that an enemy is resisting fire damage, or is immune to poison, or is setting down or disarming a trap, or is preparing to summon an elemental, or really anything that's happening, because there's simply no way for you to convey that information about thirty enemies in real-time.
I'm not saying this is necessarily bad, but your game isn't going to play like an RPG. The choices the player makes are going to necessarily need to be much simpler than a typical tactical RPG. Your enemies are probably gonna have to be really stupid and maybe even use nothing but normal attacks. I kinda think Fire Emblem is probably the highest amount of complexity you could get away with?
Alternately, RTS games often have more interesting abilities that you have to recognize purely from the spell animation. They get away with doing this through a unique way of letting the player learn what the skills do - every single enemy unit is usable as a player unit, so you can try the skills out yourself.
As an aside, I also think your idea that 4v400 combat is more "realistic" than 4v4 combat is laughable. Do it if you think it'll be fun, but please understand that it's way less realistic. It's a beyond-absurd power fantasy. No one would survive being outnumbered that badly, much less be able to do so repeatedly battle after battle. Your characters are going to need to be, like... Odin, Xena, The Hulk, and Zhao Yun.
AubreyTheBard
1801
There's a game called Frozen Synapse which does something similar to what you seem to be describing, though on a more small-scale, tactical level: issuing orders to units about how to move in the next five seconds or so of simulated time. I got it as part of a Humble Bundle. It was interesting conceptually, but I got frustrated with it fairly early into story mode because there was little way of predicting which way the enemy units would move and guessing wrong would get your units shot. There's a demo available on the Steam store page for the game, so you could take a look at it if you want.
Pages:
1
