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)
RANDOM OR ON MAP ENCOUNTERS?
Posts
charblar
View playlists
Close
I like both, though I generally prefer On Map Encounters. If they're random, I prefer that they aren't super-frequent ^_^
author=unity
I like both, though I generally prefer On Map Encounters. If they're random, I prefer that they aren't super-frequent ^_^
Same I just find to do them so they trigger well I end up using a whole bunch of variables and then you have them erasing when defeated so you'll have to exit and enter again to have them respawn so it's kinda a battle of which works better.
Both work fine. It depends on the particular game, honestly. random battles work great in Final Fantasy games, touch encounters work great in Tales of titles. They both just need to be properly built and balanced.
I prefer on-map too, but they are a bit more work.
I think in general, I'm not bothered about random encounters specifically, I'm bothered that I can't walk through an area I've already been through without getting interrupted. When I'm trying to backtrack to a chest or finish a puzzle or something, I'm usually thinking about my goal single-mindedly and the last thing I want is to stop and fight something.
Cthulhu Saves the World did a thing where, after winning 10 or so battles in an area, you would no longer see random encounters while exploring. If you wanted to fight more enemies, there was a menu option that allowed you to "Provoke" a random encounter instantly. It was a pretty simple system but it was a nice break from the stress of exploring with battles coming up everywhere. Maybe something along those lines would be easier?
I think in general, I'm not bothered about random encounters specifically, I'm bothered that I can't walk through an area I've already been through without getting interrupted. When I'm trying to backtrack to a chest or finish a puzzle or something, I'm usually thinking about my goal single-mindedly and the last thing I want is to stop and fight something.
Cthulhu Saves the World did a thing where, after winning 10 or so battles in an area, you would no longer see random encounters while exploring. If you wanted to fight more enemies, there was a menu option that allowed you to "Provoke" a random encounter instantly. It was a pretty simple system but it was a nice break from the stress of exploring with battles coming up everywhere. Maybe something along those lines would be easier?
Random battles are a D20 throwback and are really showing their age today. They don't really offer a lot in terms of gameplay. You walk around, you might get into a battle. It's absolutely random. To me, this manufactures conflict in an inorganic way and it sort of devalues battles. If you're "designing" a game, it should be important to design how your encounters are set up and where, and in addition to having this kind of control in deciding what enemies to throw at the player where, you can introduce new gameplay systems on top of a "touch" encounter (a very basic example is hit enemy with sword, stun it so it can't get into a fight with you.)
Random battles have sometimes had mechanics tied to them as well like in Wild Arms, but it still doesn't work as well as having the ability to place opponents on your map. If you really fancy the random angle, you can even slightly randomize the way in which enemy sprites appear.
If you're playing up the retro angle, go for random if it suits you, but just know that it takes away some control over the design of your game, which as a developer you would ideally want to minimize.
Random battles have sometimes had mechanics tied to them as well like in Wild Arms, but it still doesn't work as well as having the ability to place opponents on your map. If you really fancy the random angle, you can even slightly randomize the way in which enemy sprites appear.
If you're playing up the retro angle, go for random if it suits you, but just know that it takes away some control over the design of your game, which as a developer you would ideally want to minimize.
I'll play both. I'm not going to put down a game I otherwise enjoy because of one mechanic I don't like (even though some people find the mechanic off putting enough not to play, which is...hey), but I do agree that it's objectively archaic and it doesn't offer much to the gameplay.
Just remember that you can alter the random for random battles in Ace quite easily. The current set-up isn't good so to make the best use of it, it's a good idea to mess around with it and use a neat formula.
I know some people have it tied to a variable so that they can use an image to convey when battles are about to start. That's a neat way to using them, and having items that can decrease the rate of that variable filling up is cool, too.
Of course, on-battle maps can be made bad by people as much as leaving random encounters at their default values. Some people make them chase the player too fast, or add far too many of them on the map (especially when the battles are already draining) or cut off all areas and make it a pain to get through a dungeon because there's no breathing space.
A neat idea is to think about Chrono Trigger - the set-up for those battles is amazingly well done. Not a one of them is random but the battles are spread out enough that exploration isn't a chore. Some of them can be dodged altogether, whilst others can't, but the enemies often have their own thing going on - whether it be playing with each other before you rock up, or alerting other enemies in the area to your presence, then taking off to leave the others to fight, or hiding in plain sight, having fun. Each battle 'trigger' and identity is different.
The amount of variation makes it fun to see how the enemies interact with the world around them and it builds up the lore of the world little by little. It's a great way of showing that enemies aren't just for beating up - that they're a connected part of the world.
Personally I prefer both methods.
I know some people have it tied to a variable so that they can use an image to convey when battles are about to start. That's a neat way to using them, and having items that can decrease the rate of that variable filling up is cool, too.
Of course, on-battle maps can be made bad by people as much as leaving random encounters at their default values. Some people make them chase the player too fast, or add far too many of them on the map (especially when the battles are already draining) or cut off all areas and make it a pain to get through a dungeon because there's no breathing space.
A neat idea is to think about Chrono Trigger - the set-up for those battles is amazingly well done. Not a one of them is random but the battles are spread out enough that exploration isn't a chore. Some of them can be dodged altogether, whilst others can't, but the enemies often have their own thing going on - whether it be playing with each other before you rock up, or alerting other enemies in the area to your presence, then taking off to leave the others to fight, or hiding in plain sight, having fun. Each battle 'trigger' and identity is different.
The amount of variation makes it fun to see how the enemies interact with the world around them and it builds up the lore of the world little by little. It's a great way of showing that enemies aren't just for beating up - that they're a connected part of the world.
Personally I prefer both methods.
While I'll play both, I pretty much agree with Magi (although Magi gave me the words for my thoughts; I didn't know how to explain my feelings before). I've drifted pretty heavily toward visible encounters, but then again my games are pretty heavily scripted. I'm a big fan of the linear dungeon, mostly because I can't make "real" dungeons worth a damn.
Like Liberty said though, they can be done OH-SO-BADLY. Vacant Sky's are just awful. I'd honestly rather have random encounters because there's no difference. The only thing that's different is that instead of the hope that you won't roll an encounter next step, you know that your fate of another dull battle is inevitable. you can see another two enemies blocking your way and you slowly fade into the abyss that is bad gam mak. pro tip: if every intersection is guarded by a recurring enemy, your dungeons are bad and you should feel bad
I think that a fun way to mix-and-match would be encounters that randomly drop down from the sky every X steps. So, yeah, one might not appear right in front of the chest you're heading to... but one could have spawned behind you. it could work really well with warp feathers and back-to-the-stairs spells and such.
I don't think that the EO series would be better with touch encounters. Or rather, visible encounters for mooks. FOEs are used SO WELL in EO4 and the whole series is about that attrition and slow-but-fun grind that it all works. Man, I have such great memories of the lowest levels in the second big dungeon with the big birds running around on the other side of the grass or w/e and it's like... i can kinda see you... i know you're there... please don't let that be an opening up ahead.....
ofc the layered-yet-somehow-desolate visuals and sound help. the high-pitched strings(? i'm bad at music) always keep you on edge. and the moa are watching... always watching....
Like Liberty said though, they can be done OH-SO-BADLY. Vacant Sky's are just awful. I'd honestly rather have random encounters because there's no difference. The only thing that's different is that instead of the hope that you won't roll an encounter next step, you know that your fate of another dull battle is inevitable. you can see another two enemies blocking your way and you slowly fade into the abyss that is bad gam mak. pro tip: if every intersection is guarded by a recurring enemy, your dungeons are bad and you should feel bad
I think that a fun way to mix-and-match would be encounters that randomly drop down from the sky every X steps. So, yeah, one might not appear right in front of the chest you're heading to... but one could have spawned behind you. it could work really well with warp feathers and back-to-the-stairs spells and such.
I don't think that the EO series would be better with touch encounters. Or rather, visible encounters for mooks. FOEs are used SO WELL in EO4 and the whole series is about that attrition and slow-but-fun grind that it all works. Man, I have such great memories of the lowest levels in the second big dungeon with the big birds running around on the other side of the grass or w/e and it's like... i can kinda see you... i know you're there... please don't let that be an opening up ahead.....
ofc the layered-yet-somehow-desolate visuals and sound help. the high-pitched strings(? i'm bad at music) always keep you on edge. and the moa are watching... always watching....
author=Craze
Like Liberty said though, they can be done OH-SO-BADLY. Vacant Sky's are just awful.
Elaborate? (I don't want to make the same mistake)
Desertopa
775
I don't mind either, but I think it's troublesome if on-map encounters are made too avoidable, because you get players who compulsively dodge fights, and then miss out on level progression and end up more and more committed to avoiding combat. I prefer if there's actual tension where you can try to avoid fights, but face a real risk of being worse off if you're caught than if you'd faced the enemy head-on.
Not every battle in CT is avoidable, which is the point. And you hide some good treasure behind an encounter so that the player has a reason to want to fight.
Honestly, a lot of the issue with random encounters/non-random encounters is tied up with the battle system, balance, dungeon design, item design, money balance... it's silly how people think that fixing just one fixes all.
Quick example: If your battle system is fun then people aren't going to mind a few more battles. Fun battles are often fast-paced with good balance. Items/Healing is a huge part of that balance - if you end every battle with half your health and have very few items given to you/ways to heal then you're going to get frustrated because you're going to have to keep backtracking to heal up. Now, throw a dozen battles between you and the end of the map, with very little money given each battle (not enough to purchase healing items) and little experience (not enough to go up a level and learn the new healing spell/damage skill you need to get through well)... there's going to be a lot of frustration, whether they're random encounters or on-map ones.
You can alleviate the frustration a little by removing half the battles, but then you don't have enough exp or money to purchase anything. It doesn't automatically fix a bad game.
In conclusion, what you use doesn't matter as long as your game is well designed.
Honestly, a lot of the issue with random encounters/non-random encounters is tied up with the battle system, balance, dungeon design, item design, money balance... it's silly how people think that fixing just one fixes all.
Quick example: If your battle system is fun then people aren't going to mind a few more battles. Fun battles are often fast-paced with good balance. Items/Healing is a huge part of that balance - if you end every battle with half your health and have very few items given to you/ways to heal then you're going to get frustrated because you're going to have to keep backtracking to heal up. Now, throw a dozen battles between you and the end of the map, with very little money given each battle (not enough to purchase healing items) and little experience (not enough to go up a level and learn the new healing spell/damage skill you need to get through well)... there's going to be a lot of frustration, whether they're random encounters or on-map ones.
You can alleviate the frustration a little by removing half the battles, but then you don't have enough exp or money to purchase anything. It doesn't automatically fix a bad game.
In conclusion, what you use doesn't matter as long as your game is well designed.
author=Liberty
Quick example: If your battle system is fun then people aren't going to mind a few more battles. Fun battles are often fast-paced with good balance. Items/Healing is a huge part of that balance - if you end every battle with half your health and have very few items given to you/ways to heal then you're going to get frustrated because you're going to have to keep backtracking to heal up. Now, throw a dozen battles between you and the end of the map, with very little money given each battle (not enough to purchase healing items) and little experience (not enough to go up a level and learn the new healing spell/damage skill you need to get through well)... there's going to be a lot of frustration, whether they're random encounters or on-map ones.
author=Lib
In conclusion, what you use doesn't matter as long as your game is well designed.
Sort of. Eh, not really. The difference is that random battles is random and thus takes a lot of control from the developer and player. On screen and scripted battles aren't always avoidable no, but random battles take the ability away to battle on somewhat your own terms.
Players habitually avoiding battles means that there is something wrong with your system or the frequency of encounters. Assuming your battles are well designed and the players are adequately rewarded, they won't just flee from everything with every chance they get.
I'm glad someone brought up progression. Gonna tackle this without tryin' to open a can of worms. More RPGs should experiment with progression outside of battles. Give experience points via more methods than pounding an enemy into blood pancake. You can dump in points for exploration, dump in points for interacting with NPCs, dump points for solving puzzles, you can even throw points at players just for finishing a major story event. The progression in an RPG can be made about the whole package and not just the combat. You could accommodate for a wider player base. Some dudes like to chill while others keep spreadsheets of their character's advancement.
Don't be shy now, have your cake and eat it too
author=Desertopa
and then miss out on level progression and end up more and more committed to avoiding combat.
I'm glad someone brought up progression. Gonna tackle this without tryin' to open a can of worms. More RPGs should experiment with progression outside of battles. Give experience points via more methods than pounding an enemy into blood pancake. You can dump in points for exploration, dump in points for interacting with NPCs, dump points for solving puzzles, you can even throw points at players just for finishing a major story event. The progression in an RPG can be made about the whole package and not just the combat. You could accommodate for a wider player base. Some dudes like to chill while others keep spreadsheets of their character's advancement.
Don't be shy now, have your cake and eat it too
I don't think a person should care. If the battles are fun, it won't matter. Even if something is old fashioned doesn't mean it's bad. I'm getting kind of sick of on-map encounters in every single game as if that makes it any better. Random battles can provide an air of suspense because you don't know when the next battle is coming. Most on-map encounters you can't dodge anyway. If you want grinding, then it's stupid to have on map encounters, because exiting and re-entering a map to see the monsters regenerate ruins immersion. Honestly, I believe the stigma against random encounters is archaic and should be phased out instead. It's like being anti-RTP. Leave that for dudes returning from #shmup days, because obviously the "golden era" was the pinnacle of gaming design /sarcasm.
Edit: To be clear, they both have their pros and cons and fit the encounter system to suit your game. Just don't write the entire thing off as archaic when it can be beneficial. Imagine Pokemon with on-map encounters... *barfs*
Edit: To be clear, they both have their pros and cons and fit the encounter system to suit your game. Just don't write the entire thing off as archaic when it can be beneficial. Imagine Pokemon with on-map encounters... *barfs*
Desertopa
775
author=Magi
Players habitually avoiding battles means that there is something wrong with your system or the frequency of encounters. Assuming your battles are well designed and the players are adequately rewarded, they won't just flee from everything with every chance they get.
I'd like to think this was the case, but I know a fair number of players who I've watched play games where the combat is diverse and well balanced and offers plenty of reward, and they dodge enemies compulsively. And then they end up weak enough that they get stuck, and give up because they "don't like to grind." I'd think that they just preferred games which keep combat to minimal quantities, except I know they've played and beaten games with much larger amounts of combat, which didn't offer them easy means to avoid it. I think some people simply treat it as a default action. It reminds me of the first point from Ramshackin's post here. When I'm offered a free complete healing mechanism, I generally make extensive use of it even if I can get by without it, not because I don't like dealing with resource management challenges (I do,) but because it feels weird to deliberately not use it when I know I can. Some people appear to treat combat avoidance the same way.
turkeyDawg
195
I don't care too much either way, but my main gripe with Chrono Trigger, and also Mother 3, Paper Mario, and some other games, is that their touch encounters are completely static. This gets a bit annoying when having to backtrack and all those identical encounters have been reset.
I actually really like EarthBound's encounter system. The game randomly spawns touch encounters as you scroll the screen, but each visible enemy on screen is only one enemy. Touch an enemy, and while the pre-battle swirl animation is playing, other nearby enemies will rush to your position, creating a troop.
This actually ends up being even more random than the typical Random Encounter system that pulls from a list of prefab troops. If you see a group you don't like, you can try scrolling them off the screen and then going back. The game also gives the different monsters different movement patterns and speeds, like the slow Cavemen, swervy aliens (these guys are a pain to avoid!), and the teleporting Starmen.
e:
Probably wouldn't work with the regular 2D system they've got, but it'd make for at least one hell of a spin-off!
I actually really like EarthBound's encounter system. The game randomly spawns touch encounters as you scroll the screen, but each visible enemy on screen is only one enemy. Touch an enemy, and while the pre-battle swirl animation is playing, other nearby enemies will rush to your position, creating a troop.
This actually ends up being even more random than the typical Random Encounter system that pulls from a list of prefab troops. If you see a group you don't like, you can try scrolling them off the screen and then going back. The game also gives the different monsters different movement patterns and speeds, like the slow Cavemen, swervy aliens (these guys are a pain to avoid!), and the teleporting Starmen.
author=CrazeThat actually does sound like a pretty good idea. I think I'ma steal this :P
I think that a fun way to mix-and-match would be encounters that randomly drop down from the sky every X steps. So, yeah, one might not appear right in front of the chest you're heading to... but one could have spawned behind you. it could work really well with warp feathers and back-to-the-stairs spells and such.
e:
author=CashCashDude, if Pokémon had some kind of touch encounter system where you actually had to track down the little buggers like some kind of deer stalking / hunting game rather than spinning in a circle in some patch of grass for 3 hours grinding that 5% encounter rate... I'd be all the fuck over that!
Imagine Pokemon with on-map encounters
Probably wouldn't work with the regular 2D system they've got, but it'd make for at least one hell of a spin-off!
author=CashmereCat
Honestly, I believe the stigma against random encounters is archaic and should be phased out instead.
Is there a stigma against random encounters? If people want them, they can have them. On-map encounters are just another analog for initiating your combat system, albeit a more visual one. They're a good opportunity for your game design to be more hands-on and out of the control of the program, which for a lot of people is a major benefit.
author=CashmereCat
It's like being anti-RTP. Leave that for dudes returning from #shmup days, because obviously the "golden era" was the pinnacle of gaming design /sarcasm.
Considering that #shmup was a knee-jerk reaction to community design principles of that era, I am not sure where you are coming from. Maybe I just don't understand this part of your post. Sorry!
There is a bit of a stigma against it. A lot of so-called 'professional gammakers' in the community espouse a hatred of the system and frankly, it's a stupid hate.
Fair enough, if you don't like it. But it has it's uses and old-school isn't the only way.
Pokemon is a great example. Clearly defined areas for random battles and half the fun is that they are random - you never know what pokemon you're going to get and the random element is the best part. If you could see the 'mon on the map that would take away the surprise and joy at finding yourself a rare pokemon. The reveal is a big part of collecting. As it fades in you're wondering - is it another ratata? Is it a pidgey? Is it shiny? What level? Male or female? What nature? What skills? CAN I CATCH IT?!
Granted, on-map enemies can be fun, but they also have issues.
Is there going to be a sprite for every enemy in the party? That could get messy - 6 soldiers on a map takes up a fair bit of room. Then again, it looks odd to touch one enemy and have six appear in-battle.
And are you going to have unique sprites for each kind of enemy? If you don't, it takes away from the 'knowing' that having an enemy on-map provides. There's an issue. If you do, though, how do you group them? Will you make them recolours for stronger types or just use the same ones for all kinds? Do you have enough graphical resources to cover a bunch of smaller groups or individual enemies?
Also, how do they graphically match up with the enemies in the battle itself?
If you have just a dustball represent, how do you then represent stronger/rare/boss monsters? Are they treated differently or the same, but with different colours? And how about staticity? To they just block pathways or do they move around? If they move, do they chase you fast? Chase you slow? Are they dodged easily? Are you forced to fight every enemy you come across? Do they respawn?
All things that can be detrimental. Just as having too many random encounters can be.
So, again, I say. Either/or matters not. It's how you use them, not what they are, and how they fit into your game. If you want random encounters, just make sure you change the default if you're using RM because the 'code' is broken. If you're using touch, make sure you don't make too many on a map. And whichever you use, use them well.
Fair enough, if you don't like it. But it has it's uses and old-school isn't the only way.
Pokemon is a great example. Clearly defined areas for random battles and half the fun is that they are random - you never know what pokemon you're going to get and the random element is the best part. If you could see the 'mon on the map that would take away the surprise and joy at finding yourself a rare pokemon. The reveal is a big part of collecting. As it fades in you're wondering - is it another ratata? Is it a pidgey? Is it shiny? What level? Male or female? What nature? What skills? CAN I CATCH IT?!
Granted, on-map enemies can be fun, but they also have issues.
Is there going to be a sprite for every enemy in the party? That could get messy - 6 soldiers on a map takes up a fair bit of room. Then again, it looks odd to touch one enemy and have six appear in-battle.
And are you going to have unique sprites for each kind of enemy? If you don't, it takes away from the 'knowing' that having an enemy on-map provides. There's an issue. If you do, though, how do you group them? Will you make them recolours for stronger types or just use the same ones for all kinds? Do you have enough graphical resources to cover a bunch of smaller groups or individual enemies?
Also, how do they graphically match up with the enemies in the battle itself?
If you have just a dustball represent, how do you then represent stronger/rare/boss monsters? Are they treated differently or the same, but with different colours? And how about staticity? To they just block pathways or do they move around? If they move, do they chase you fast? Chase you slow? Are they dodged easily? Are you forced to fight every enemy you come across? Do they respawn?
All things that can be detrimental. Just as having too many random encounters can be.
So, again, I say. Either/or matters not. It's how you use them, not what they are, and how they fit into your game. If you want random encounters, just make sure you change the default if you're using RM because the 'code' is broken. If you're using touch, make sure you don't make too many on a map. And whichever you use, use them well.
Here's an odd ball perspective; when I was still having some real trouble with my vision a couple months back, I still found a way to play dragon warrior monsters 1 and 2 on an emulator and fullscreened that. I found random to be better to deal with, since that sort of thing is not reflex based, I could take my time a bit more with it. While I still generally prefer on screen even now, the experience gave me a bit more appreciation for random encounters.
