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
turkeyDawg
195
turkeyDawg
View playlists
Closeauthor=Liberty
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?!
No it wouldn't. It would just shift the moment of surprise from after the battle transition to when the 'mon is scrolled on screen. Likewise, the suspense about its level and gender etc would still need to wait for the battle transition.
Agreed with the rest of the post otherwise.
author=Zeigfried_McBacon
I found random to be better to deal with, since that sort of thing is not reflex based
Yeah, this is another legitimate point. Touch encounters add a bit of an action element to an otherwise usually non-action game.
On the flip-side of that, touch encounters are great for jittery people like me who have half a heart attack every time a random battle pops up. (Curse you Final Fantasy 10 and your god-forsaken glass-shatter effect!)
I don't think it'd be as edifying if you could dodge the Pokemon you didn't want to catch and run after the ones you did want to catch. Part of the joy of success breeds from frustration. 5 moments of "not another Pidgey!" make the "oh yes, a Wingull! Finally!" that much more exciting.
What you're essentially doing when providing on-map encounters is adding another gameplay mechanic - dodging. And is dodging really that fun? It might be superficially so, but should you give unfair advantage to those who can dodge better than others? In a game based on strategy, this would just feel weird.
What you're essentially doing when providing on-map encounters is adding another gameplay mechanic - dodging. And is dodging really that fun? It might be superficially so, but should you give unfair advantage to those who can dodge better than others? In a game based on strategy, this would just feel weird.
More important than the type of encounter, what type of battle system do you use to accompany it, what kind of game?
Does it use convoluted battle animations, needs 10 turns to defeat a single enemy and generally is not fun to battle? Please don't force me to random encouters.
.. wait, that's Pokémon. Welp. But Pokémon is all about those little critters, oh well.
In a way does using random encounters also allow for you to reach a minimum level, whereas if the battles annoy you, you can dodge most of them.
With random encounters, long exploration can be more frustrating than with touch encounters (keep it small and simple).
A lot has been said already, though.
Does it use convoluted battle animations, needs 10 turns to defeat a single enemy and generally is not fun to battle? Please don't force me to random encouters.
.. wait, that's Pokémon. Welp. But Pokémon is all about those little critters, oh well.
In a way does using random encounters also allow for you to reach a minimum level, whereas if the battles annoy you, you can dodge most of them.
With random encounters, long exploration can be more frustrating than with touch encounters (keep it small and simple).
A lot has been said already, though.
zeello
40
No game should have random encounters. Period.
I plan to have two kinds of encounters in my game. The first being visible enemies (either walking aimlessly around, or guard patrols with line of sight, hopefully the latter idea is possible.) The second is for an enemy ambushing you the moment you enter an area, which is essentially a scripted cutscene that results in a battle. E.g. "oh crap! He's here! Get him!" *enemies run toward player* *battle starts*
The enemy ambush / sudden cutscene idea could technically be done on any random space on the map, but I don't want the player to be exploring and suddenly be interrupted, as that is similar to random encounters when I think about it. Keeping these events on the starting space avoids this issue completely since the player hasn't started moving yet. It's the best time to have the character start moving on his own.
I plan for these encounters to occur every time, whereas visible enemies would disappear permanently once defeated. Permanently defeated enemies allows a sense of progress in cleaning up enemies from an area. Reoccurring enemies allow the player a way to level even after all other enemies are defeated. Also, having certain battles be reoccurring prevents the player from backtracking to the save point after every battle as doing so would cause those enemies to respawn.
I plan to have two kinds of encounters in my game. The first being visible enemies (either walking aimlessly around, or guard patrols with line of sight, hopefully the latter idea is possible.) The second is for an enemy ambushing you the moment you enter an area, which is essentially a scripted cutscene that results in a battle. E.g. "oh crap! He's here! Get him!" *enemies run toward player* *battle starts*
The enemy ambush / sudden cutscene idea could technically be done on any random space on the map, but I don't want the player to be exploring and suddenly be interrupted, as that is similar to random encounters when I think about it. Keeping these events on the starting space avoids this issue completely since the player hasn't started moving yet. It's the best time to have the character start moving on his own.
I plan for these encounters to occur every time, whereas visible enemies would disappear permanently once defeated. Permanently defeated enemies allows a sense of progress in cleaning up enemies from an area. Reoccurring enemies allow the player a way to level even after all other enemies are defeated. Also, having certain battles be reoccurring prevents the player from backtracking to the save point after every battle as doing so would cause those enemies to respawn.
@zeello: lol, nope. It's about how you design your game. If you design your game around having random encounters then they should be there. As said, there are good examples of random encounters out there. Pokemon, Etrian Oddysey series, and the like work well with them and would not be the same without. So, yeah, whether you personally like them or not is beside the point.
Frankly, if you choose to have random encounters don't use the default RM version because it is broken as fuck, not matter which engine. Hopefully they'll finally fix that shit in the next one.
For 2k/3 it's easy to event a random encounter system.
For the newer ones you can either mess with the engine scripts themselves or get a script to handle them. But do not use the default for the sake of all that is holy.
Another thing that is interesting is invisible encounters set at random intervals. It's easy to set-up too - it's basically the on-map enemies without graphics. You can even make them randomised by using variables and event teleport commands.
Oh, hey, you can use regions too! Both to randomise enemies, whether they're on-map visible or not, or create areas that only certain enemies will appear. One idea is to have about 5 spots for one region and pick a random spot to put an enemy on. Each time the player goes in and out the enemy will be on a random square. It'll make it seem like random encounters but in fact be carefully planned, especially in the case of invisible enemies!
This works really well for treasure chests too - in something like a dungeon crawler where rooms are similar but treasures and monsters are randomised, regions are your friends~ ;p
And it stops the game from feeling static~
Frankly, if you choose to have random encounters don't use the default RM version because it is broken as fuck, not matter which engine. Hopefully they'll finally fix that shit in the next one.
For 2k/3 it's easy to event a random encounter system.
For the newer ones you can either mess with the engine scripts themselves or get a script to handle them. But do not use the default for the sake of all that is holy.
Another thing that is interesting is invisible encounters set at random intervals. It's easy to set-up too - it's basically the on-map enemies without graphics. You can even make them randomised by using variables and event teleport commands.
Oh, hey, you can use regions too! Both to randomise enemies, whether they're on-map visible or not, or create areas that only certain enemies will appear. One idea is to have about 5 spots for one region and pick a random spot to put an enemy on. Each time the player goes in and out the enemy will be on a random square. It'll make it seem like random encounters but in fact be carefully planned, especially in the case of invisible enemies!
This works really well for treasure chests too - in something like a dungeon crawler where rooms are similar but treasures and monsters are randomised, regions are your friends~ ;p
And it stops the game from feeling static~
zeello
40
What's wrong with the RTP random encounter system btw? Not that it matters to me personally as I would never use it, however I did try it when following the Ring of Udrai tutorial PDF and didn't notice anything about it working incorrectly. (For the record, I took out random encounters from the game after finishing the tutorial)
Responding to bits and pieces of this thread:
"If your battle system is fun people aren't going to mind a few more battles" We're not talking about a few more, we're talking infinite. (To look at it another way, reducing the encounter rate by half does not necessarily translate into half as many encounters.) Also, the issue is not just the amount of battles but also the way they are delivered: disruptively and assaultively. If you think random encounters are a good idea why not random cutscenes as well. After all, most cutscenes can't be dodged anyway.
If the purpose was to control the # of encounters that occur during a map, then the # of encounters logically should be fixed. If you have a completely linear area and the player will fight about 12 or 13 encounters on average, you might as well lock it down at that amount, even as far as deciding whether it will be 12 or 13. Random battles don't achieve a minimal level since the player could run from battles, and if a minimal level was really the point then you would simply have the encounters required to reach this level as being absolutely mandatory, and disappear permanently once defeated.
If players habitually avoid battles then it means avoiding battles is too easy. If you want the player to face encounters you have to make them, but if they've faced enough then you can let up and let them explore. So maybe the ideal solution is probably to have a certain amount of mandatory battles, a certain amount of optional battles and a certain amount of reusable battles. (And maybe those last two categories of enemies are essentially the same thing, since a reusable enemy is essentially infinite optional enemies) If you let players avoid all encounters totally then they just might. It could legitimately be argued that every single person playing should do the same thing but the only way to do that is through control and guidance.
If you grind with visible enemies, you leave and re-enter areas. So un-immersive! If you grind with random encounters, you walk in a circle in an empty room. So much better! A game needs to use all of the map. If a player can have infinite enemies from a single room (or literally any two spaces in the map) then that is wrong. If the player is pacing back and forth for 10 minutes in order to level, why not make a map that is 10 minutes long to walk through and have the player use that instead. Otherwise you might as well let the player initiate battles from the pause menu, you might as well not have maps at all and make the entire game battles. (See SRPGs)
"Is there going to be a sprite for every enemy in the party?"
Artistic choices are unavoidable for all aspects of the game. But you gave me an idea. Imagine entering a door and a battle triggers in the middle of transferring areas. So you see now how field sprites are optional. The above idea for non random encounters allows players to take their time exploring the area they're in and scout for all exits, then they must think about which one to use. And a minimum level is achieved since there will of course be a minimum amount of areas toward the goal.
No such thing as "too many" random emcounters. If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.
Responding to bits and pieces of this thread:
"If your battle system is fun people aren't going to mind a few more battles" We're not talking about a few more, we're talking infinite. (To look at it another way, reducing the encounter rate by half does not necessarily translate into half as many encounters.) Also, the issue is not just the amount of battles but also the way they are delivered: disruptively and assaultively. If you think random encounters are a good idea why not random cutscenes as well. After all, most cutscenes can't be dodged anyway.
If the purpose was to control the # of encounters that occur during a map, then the # of encounters logically should be fixed. If you have a completely linear area and the player will fight about 12 or 13 encounters on average, you might as well lock it down at that amount, even as far as deciding whether it will be 12 or 13. Random battles don't achieve a minimal level since the player could run from battles, and if a minimal level was really the point then you would simply have the encounters required to reach this level as being absolutely mandatory, and disappear permanently once defeated.
If players habitually avoid battles then it means avoiding battles is too easy. If you want the player to face encounters you have to make them, but if they've faced enough then you can let up and let them explore. So maybe the ideal solution is probably to have a certain amount of mandatory battles, a certain amount of optional battles and a certain amount of reusable battles. (And maybe those last two categories of enemies are essentially the same thing, since a reusable enemy is essentially infinite optional enemies) If you let players avoid all encounters totally then they just might. It could legitimately be argued that every single person playing should do the same thing but the only way to do that is through control and guidance.
If you grind with visible enemies, you leave and re-enter areas. So un-immersive! If you grind with random encounters, you walk in a circle in an empty room. So much better! A game needs to use all of the map. If a player can have infinite enemies from a single room (or literally any two spaces in the map) then that is wrong. If the player is pacing back and forth for 10 minutes in order to level, why not make a map that is 10 minutes long to walk through and have the player use that instead. Otherwise you might as well let the player initiate battles from the pause menu, you might as well not have maps at all and make the entire game battles. (See SRPGs)
"Is there going to be a sprite for every enemy in the party?"
Artistic choices are unavoidable for all aspects of the game. But you gave me an idea. Imagine entering a door and a battle triggers in the middle of transferring areas. So you see now how field sprites are optional. The above idea for non random encounters allows players to take their time exploring the area they're in and scout for all exits, then they must think about which one to use. And a minimum level is achieved since there will of course be a minimum amount of areas toward the goal.
No such thing as "too many" random emcounters. If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.
It's broken the way it manages the numbers. It's been discussed a few times in the forums but the formula for it has an issue where there's a chance of getting a 1-step roll no matter how high you put the number, and for all that it shouldn't be that big a chance, it happens enough that it's a common and noticeable occurance.
Besides, it's not that hard to make it better in the latter makers, just by editing the script formula a bit. You can, for instance, tie the amount to a variable, or make it a set rate (every 20 steps) or have it rely on your party luck/speed/other stats. It's all up to your imagination, really. But the default setting? Borked.
If a battle triggered during transit I would be pissed off. Seriously, there are some places you just don't go and that's an easy way to destroy player trust right there - taking a supposed safe, non-controllable part of your game and making it unsafe. Not even Dark Souls pulled that shit on their players - they knew it was a bad thing to make the players fear every door. You want the player to progress, to want to progress, to desire progress. You don't want to teach them that door=bad.
Besides, it's not that hard to make it better in the latter makers, just by editing the script formula a bit. You can, for instance, tie the amount to a variable, or make it a set rate (every 20 steps) or have it rely on your party luck/speed/other stats. It's all up to your imagination, really. But the default setting? Borked.
If a battle triggered during transit I would be pissed off. Seriously, there are some places you just don't go and that's an easy way to destroy player trust right there - taking a supposed safe, non-controllable part of your game and making it unsafe. Not even Dark Souls pulled that shit on their players - they knew it was a bad thing to make the players fear every door. You want the player to progress, to want to progress, to desire progress. You don't want to teach them that door=bad.
author=zeello
No such thing as "too many" random emcounters. If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.
I prefer touch-encounters myself but I certainly don't think a statement like "If you have random encounters at all you're empirically wrong" is justified. Some people like them, be it for nostalgia for the older games or just their own personal preference, and for recreating games that feel like they're from that era, random encounters or at least a system that simulates them in some manner are a part of the formula. They certainly show their age, but for some people, that's the point.
EDIT: I may have to steal your invisible, randomized enemies idea at some point, Liberty :D XD That sounds sweet!
zeello
40
@Liberty- Now hold on just a minute, it wouldnt necessarily be breaking trust if the player is aware that every door results in an encounter. By your logic every game with random encounters breaks player trust every time an encounter happens, or just the first time. (And indeed, its hard to reconcile to initial shock of the first encounter in a game, or every single instance of an encounter in an area you've never been right after leaving a safe area such as a town) Why should random encounters be OK, but not the door encounter. In either case its something the player learns to expect after the first few instances. (Ignoring cultural factors such as random encounter games being widespread or the player having played many of them, which don't qualify as excuses)
Also, the entire idea of arbitrarily denoting doors as "safe" or somehow off limits is biased. If not for encounters, the entire map would be safe. Granted, if a random encounter happened in a town that would be upsetting. But by the same logic door encounters would be upsetting in towns but more acceptable in caves and dungeons.
The door encounter idea is not necessarily a good idea, true. Ot was just a thought exercise. If something is a bad idea, I implore you not to do it.
Also, the entire idea of arbitrarily denoting doors as "safe" or somehow off limits is biased. If not for encounters, the entire map would be safe. Granted, if a random encounter happened in a town that would be upsetting. But by the same logic door encounters would be upsetting in towns but more acceptable in caves and dungeons.
The door encounter idea is not necessarily a good idea, true. Ot was just a thought exercise. If something is a bad idea, I implore you not to do it.
zeello
40
Pardon for double posting, I am on a tablet and I dont know how to copy paste text.(and if I did its probably more trouble than its worth)
Also, games from later eras have random encounters, not always for irony or nostalgia, so it needs to stop being ttreated as something from a by-gone era, instead of the crap that it is and still persists today. You are not clever by putting random encounters in a throwback game so long as there are still non-throwback games with more serious tones and cinematic styles that couldnt possibly mix well with random encounters, but which have them anyway such as FFX, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc, etc.
author=unityIt is justified.
I prefer touch-encounters myself but I certainly don't think a statement like "If you have random encounters at all you're empirically wrong" is justified.
Some people like them, be it for nostalgia for the older gamesThat's the least valid reason to like something. Its even less than a personal bias at that point since its something you were only mentally tricked into liking. (Reminds us of our childhood, the apple pies our grandma used to make, etc, etc) Although... It is good to own up to it and state that as a reason in defense of random emcounters, because it means you basically know more or less at that point that random encounters are bad, you like it as a guilty pleasure only, and were intelligent enough to reach that conclusion. Dare I say many people aren't always able to see through their own nostalgia and end up trying to somehow rationally defend things which cannot be defended, random encounters being a prime example.
for recreating games that feel like they're from that eraThis is not a good excuse because games from that era should not have had random encounters in the first place.
Also, games from later eras have random encounters, not always for irony or nostalgia, so it needs to stop being ttreated as something from a by-gone era, instead of the crap that it is and still persists today. You are not clever by putting random encounters in a throwback game so long as there are still non-throwback games with more serious tones and cinematic styles that couldnt possibly mix well with random encounters, but which have them anyway such as FFX, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc, etc.
@zeello - I don't find your reasons to 100% declare them "wrong" in every and all situations with no possible exceptions to be compelling. I will agree that they affect level progression if they're truly random, but this thread alone is showing that there are a lot of creative ways to have random encounters or even encounters that just "feel" random in ways that allow for more precision.
If people like a gameplay element enough that they seek it out and want to play games with it in them, then calling that "empirically wrong" seems a bit silly to me. If a player wants it and a developer wants to make it, then there's a place for it.
If people like a gameplay element enough that they seek it out and want to play games with it in them, then calling that "empirically wrong" seems a bit silly to me. If a player wants it and a developer wants to make it, then there's a place for it.
^What she said.^
While there are bad game design choices out there, random encounters are not one of them... unless it's a bad fit for your particular game. It's like saying that treasure should only ever be in chests or that using the 3-tile rule is bad - it depends what you use it for. Grass and flowers and the like? Bad. Water edges, cliffs and ground tiles? Good. Sure, you don't have to use it but it has its uses.
It's a design choice and, unless it's badly designed, it works well for what it is - a way to create random encounters without needing to show each and every one.
It doesn't work in some games, it does work in others. Just as showing every enemy you fight doesn't work in some games, where it does work in others.
You are allowed to have your own opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact.
While there are bad game design choices out there, random encounters are not one of them... unless it's a bad fit for your particular game. It's like saying that treasure should only ever be in chests or that using the 3-tile rule is bad - it depends what you use it for. Grass and flowers and the like? Bad. Water edges, cliffs and ground tiles? Good. Sure, you don't have to use it but it has its uses.
It's a design choice and, unless it's badly designed, it works well for what it is - a way to create random encounters without needing to show each and every one.
It doesn't work in some games, it does work in others. Just as showing every enemy you fight doesn't work in some games, where it does work in others.
You are allowed to have your own opinion, but that doesn't make it a fact.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
As a player, I've never really had much of an opinion either way; both types of encounter can be a pain in the ass, both have their uses, and overall it's just a question of what makes sense with the game.
However, I wonder whether the choice isn't so much random vs. visible as it is invisible vs. visible- is there a significant difference between, say, a well-scripted random encounter setup and a setup with "on-map" style enemies who are invisible? Has this been tried? (I assume not, but figured I'd ask.)
In either case, attack by invisible enemy is a great way of generating tension: you're taking away the player's control over when they fight, generally a good element for a story where your themes rely on horror, suspense, and vulnerability. With visible encounters, a player (and, presumably, the characters) can tell how many enemies there are, where they are, how to avoid them, etc. Without visible encounters, there's no way of knowing whether you got them all, if you're in a safe area, and so on. Every step is a potential ambush.
Obviously, this relies on a well-crafted setup to keep the tension going, rather than turning it into "OH GODDAMMIT GO AWAY I'M TIRED OF YOU SCRUBS!" but as a mechanic there's nothing inherently lesser about it.
However, I wonder whether the choice isn't so much random vs. visible as it is invisible vs. visible- is there a significant difference between, say, a well-scripted random encounter setup and a setup with "on-map" style enemies who are invisible? Has this been tried? (I assume not, but figured I'd ask.)
In either case, attack by invisible enemy is a great way of generating tension: you're taking away the player's control over when they fight, generally a good element for a story where your themes rely on horror, suspense, and vulnerability. With visible encounters, a player (and, presumably, the characters) can tell how many enemies there are, where they are, how to avoid them, etc. Without visible encounters, there's no way of knowing whether you got them all, if you're in a safe area, and so on. Every step is a potential ambush.
Obviously, this relies on a well-crafted setup to keep the tension going, rather than turning it into "OH GODDAMMIT GO AWAY I'M TIRED OF YOU SCRUBS!" but as a mechanic there's nothing inherently lesser about it.
I'd like to organize different types of encounter systems, so we can standardize them or something. These are the only types I can think of:
1. Invisible encounters
1a) Equal randomization - Each time you move, it has an equal probability of generating a battle. Sometimes only confined to certain areas, like tall grass in Pokemon.
1b) Exponential - The more time that you go without triggering an encounter, the more likely it becomes to get one, i.e. the more steps the more likely it is to fight. Sometimes comes with visible gauge to indicate this.
2. Visible encounters
2a) Standing encounters - The monsters stay in-place and only disappear if you defeat them. Usually paired with post-battle heal and a lack of a game over condition.
2b) Moving encounters - These move in random directions, will initiate battle if collision with player. Some are alerted when player is within their general radius, start chasing the player until they are either out of that radius or exit the map.
Can anyone think of any other types?
1. Invisible encounters
1a) Equal randomization - Each time you move, it has an equal probability of generating a battle. Sometimes only confined to certain areas, like tall grass in Pokemon.
1b) Exponential - The more time that you go without triggering an encounter, the more likely it becomes to get one, i.e. the more steps the more likely it is to fight. Sometimes comes with visible gauge to indicate this.
2. Visible encounters
2a) Standing encounters - The monsters stay in-place and only disappear if you defeat them. Usually paired with post-battle heal and a lack of a game over condition.
2b) Moving encounters - These move in random directions, will initiate battle if collision with player. Some are alerted when player is within their general radius, start chasing the player until they are either out of that radius or exit the map.
Can anyone think of any other types?
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=CashmereCat
1. Invisible encounters1a) Equal randomization - Each time you move, it has an equal probability of generating a battle. Sometimes only confined to certain areas, like tall grass in Pokemon.
1b) Exponential - The more time that you go without triggering an encounter, the more likely it becomes to get one, i.e. the more steps the more likely it is to fight. Sometimes comes with visible gauge to indicate this.
2. Visible encounters
2a) Standing encounters - The monsters stay in-place and only disappear if you defeat them. Usually paired with post-battle heal and a lack of a game over condition.
2b) Moving encounters - These move in random directions, will initiate battle if collision with player. Some are alerted when player is within their general radius, start chasing the player until they are either out of that radius or exit the map.
This is good, though I'd remove the "random" from 2b, as moving encounters can also "patrol" a route.
zeello
40
CashmereCat here are more types:
-- Invisible trip wire: (Invisible non random) When you step on a certain tile it triggers an encounter. This happens in Mega Man Star Force 3 for certain secret bosses. It's a horrible idea, especially if the field it occurs in already has random encounters. (EDIT: Though come to think of it, all encounters in Crisis Core are handled this way. But as such, you're not surprised by it. Whenever you walk toward the center of any room, you pretty much expect an encounter and usually you're right)
-- Scripted Battles. Self explanatory but not sure how'd you classify this. Basically, every encounter is handled like a boss, just less difficult. It's basically an invisible encounter but with a short sequence before the actual fight, or, a visible encounter except that the visible element may be something other than an enemy. (Such as a switch to call a freight elevator which ends up having enemy reinforcements on it)
-- Door encounters. See earlier post.
EDIT: Monster-in-a-closet. Every time you open a door, a visible enemy oops out and you fight it immediately.
-- Battle tiles. Places on the map that player knows will trigger an encounter if they step on it.
-- Encounter button. E.g. Press Triangle to initiate an encounter.
-- Encounter save point. Sort of like side quests in Crisis Core. From the menu you would be able to trigger battles.
-- Turn based adventure. You navigate the entire game using a menu and battles occur as a result of your choices and may even be random. Also you could avoid battles if the game lets you. (Fight and Escape choices being offered before the actual battle) and maybe escaping would involve a bribe system to avoid encounters in exchange for certain items. (Encounter Tickets which would be earned by completing encounters)
-- The more you explore the higher your alert/wanted level goes up, when it reaches a certain point you must fight a sequence of battles in order to proceed to the next area.
Okay yeah, I think that's all I have for now.
EDIT:
-- Penalty system. In a game with some sort of platforming or puzzle element, every time you fail or fall into a pit or whatnot you face an encounter before returning to the start. The stealth segment in Crisis Core (which was really infuriating btw) is basically an example of this come to think of it. Also, optionally: you fail enough times you no longer have to fight encounters. (Which is what happens in crisis core) Though this idea seems like a disaster waiting to happen on one hand, on the other hand it does seem to make sense on paper because sometimes its a good thing to be punished for failing and actually adds to a game.
-- Monster-in-a-box. One of my earliest ever rpg maker ideas was a game where all encounters were activated from treasure chests. Though it was partly intended to be funny and not something that would go in a more straight laced attempt at an RPG.
-- Whenever a random encounter would happen, instead an enemy appears from off screen and begins chasing you. You can delay this encounter by attempting to get away from it.
-- Invisible trip wire: (Invisible non random) When you step on a certain tile it triggers an encounter. This happens in Mega Man Star Force 3 for certain secret bosses. It's a horrible idea, especially if the field it occurs in already has random encounters. (EDIT: Though come to think of it, all encounters in Crisis Core are handled this way. But as such, you're not surprised by it. Whenever you walk toward the center of any room, you pretty much expect an encounter and usually you're right)
-- Scripted Battles. Self explanatory but not sure how'd you classify this. Basically, every encounter is handled like a boss, just less difficult. It's basically an invisible encounter but with a short sequence before the actual fight, or, a visible encounter except that the visible element may be something other than an enemy. (Such as a switch to call a freight elevator which ends up having enemy reinforcements on it)
-- Door encounters. See earlier post.
EDIT: Monster-in-a-closet. Every time you open a door, a visible enemy oops out and you fight it immediately.
-- Battle tiles. Places on the map that player knows will trigger an encounter if they step on it.
-- Encounter button. E.g. Press Triangle to initiate an encounter.
-- Encounter save point. Sort of like side quests in Crisis Core. From the menu you would be able to trigger battles.
-- Turn based adventure. You navigate the entire game using a menu and battles occur as a result of your choices and may even be random. Also you could avoid battles if the game lets you. (Fight and Escape choices being offered before the actual battle) and maybe escaping would involve a bribe system to avoid encounters in exchange for certain items. (Encounter Tickets which would be earned by completing encounters)
-- The more you explore the higher your alert/wanted level goes up, when it reaches a certain point you must fight a sequence of battles in order to proceed to the next area.
Okay yeah, I think that's all I have for now.
EDIT:
-- Penalty system. In a game with some sort of platforming or puzzle element, every time you fail or fall into a pit or whatnot you face an encounter before returning to the start. The stealth segment in Crisis Core (which was really infuriating btw) is basically an example of this come to think of it. Also, optionally: you fail enough times you no longer have to fight encounters. (Which is what happens in crisis core) Though this idea seems like a disaster waiting to happen on one hand, on the other hand it does seem to make sense on paper because sometimes its a good thing to be punished for failing and actually adds to a game.
-- Monster-in-a-box. One of my earliest ever rpg maker ideas was a game where all encounters were activated from treasure chests. Though it was partly intended to be funny and not something that would go in a more straight laced attempt at an RPG.
-- Whenever a random encounter would happen, instead an enemy appears from off screen and begins chasing you. You can delay this encounter by attempting to get away from it.
author=CashmereCat
I'd like to organize different types of encounter systems, so we can standardize them or something. These are the only types I can think of:
1. Invisible encounters
1a) Equal randomization - Each time you move, it has an equal probability of generating a battle. Sometimes only confined to certain areas, like tall grass in Pokemon.
1b) Exponential - The more time that you go without triggering an encounter, the more likely it becomes to get one, i.e. the more steps the more likely it is to fight. Sometimes comes with visible gauge to indicate this.
2. Visible encounters
2a) Standing encounters - The monsters stay in-place and only disappear if you defeat them. Usually paired with post-battle heal and a lack of a game over condition.
2b) Moving encounters - These move in random directions, will initiate battle if collision with player. Some are alerted when player is within their general radius, start chasing the player until they are either out of that radius or exit the map.
Can anyone think of any other types?
I have variations of moving encounters that I've used before in my unfinished XP game, (and want to re-implement in my newer stuff) but I'm not sure if they count enough to merit a place on the list. One is a highly transparent on-screen enemy that flashes occasionally to give away its position, another is a ghostly sprite that appears and disappears in set locations. If you touch it when it appears, it triggers a battle.
zeello
40
author=SoozExactly. Its a very good point. In effect there is no difference. That is unless the invisible on-map enemies disappear after being defeated in which case that is an important distinction.
However, I wonder whether the choice isn't so much random vs. visible as it is invisible vs. visible- is there a significant difference between, say, a well-scripted random encounter setup and a setup with "on-map" style enemies who are invisible? Has this been tried? (I assume not, but figured I'd ask.)
So we should be looking at the fundamental distinctions:
- visible vs invisible
- exhaustible vs inexhaustible
- random vs fixed
- avoidable vs mandatory
The random encounters we're thinking of are invisible, inexhaustible, random, and mandatory.
Obviously, this relies on a well-crafted setup to keep the tension going, rather than turning it into "OH GODDAMMIT GO AWAY I'M TIRED OF YOU SCRUBS!" but as a mechanic there's nothing inherently lesser about it.The horror game idea would work better if the enemies are finite. If you have random encounters then it stops being scary after a few encounters of the same thing.
In a horror movie the scares are scripted, not a screamer pic that occurs randomly throughout the movie. Such a thing would quickly become expected. You need to build on context. For example the player wpcould encounter a creaking door that would cause him to wonder if something is going to happen. This effect would be somewhat lost if he was fighting shrews every 10 seconds all the way there. Well, maybe.
to try to steer the topic back to the first page of discussion...
This is part of why i've been moving away from experience levels at all in a lot of my games. I've been doing it since Visions & Voices so long ago. V&V was a very flawed game anyway, but I don't think I did it a service by giving into peer pressure -- for the revision version, I added a very simple system where every few battles they participated in a character would get a small stat boost. It capped out pretty quickly, but if I were ever to re-revise I'd rip it out. I mean, it's functionally the same as levels. People like levels because it's a very obvious measure of progress. You gain a level, you gain some power. But... I took levels out for a reason.
V&V was entirely about exploration. The battles were there, but they were tough. You could only rest at the inn nine times before the game ended, so you needed (hopefully wanted) to maximize each day's Feat uses. Battles had NOTHING to do with progression, at least not initially, which is why they were all touch-encounters. They chased you around and could see you from farther away if you were sprinting, adding a small bit of a horror/stealth feel. If you were careful and walked around and dodged the enemies, you could go the entire game fighting only three battles. Saving Lyla from the mirror world, saving Elena from the jail portal she was tossed into, quickly moving around town using the organic tunnels, finding the letters and the keys inside of them... so much of it did NOT require battling. But were you still rewarded? Yes! Telia could pick open chests for rare and powerful treasures. Ox could scrounge up herbs that provided some rare and unique effects. Marlowe could uncover lore and new portals by translating tomes. There was all sorts of progression that did NOT require battles, even if the rewards did help you in battles (the end goal IS to defeat the final boss, after all).
Why am I going on about this? Because Magi brings up a good point! Your encounter system ties so much into how the player gets stronger, since for most of the games we're talking about the battle system is the core gameplay. If you get stronger, it's in some way related to battles. Even in V&V, where you only had to fight those three battles if you wanted, it's all tied in to fighting them.
Choose your encounter system and pacing based on the goals of your game, and reward things appropriately. If you want to focus design a game where avoiding combat is a totally okay thing, then don't include any sort of battle-based leveling, or at least have alternate methods. Don't necessarily make combat pointless -- gold and such is nice ((but be careful!! what's the difference between gold and exp anyway!??!)) -- but don't let your goals and your gameplay contradict each other, either.
or just say "fuk lvls i want equip-based rpg progression!!!" and join the glorious revolution (ftr including leveling for the sake of traditional rpg-ness in Kiddos was one of the greatest mistakes i've made when it comes to gam mak. sigh. not the same reasons as V&V though!)
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.DesertopaI'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.
and then miss out on level progression and end up more and more committed to avoiding combat.
Don't be shy now, have your cake and eat it too
This is part of why i've been moving away from experience levels at all in a lot of my games. I've been doing it since Visions & Voices so long ago. V&V was a very flawed game anyway, but I don't think I did it a service by giving into peer pressure -- for the revision version, I added a very simple system where every few battles they participated in a character would get a small stat boost. It capped out pretty quickly, but if I were ever to re-revise I'd rip it out. I mean, it's functionally the same as levels. People like levels because it's a very obvious measure of progress. You gain a level, you gain some power. But... I took levels out for a reason.
V&V was entirely about exploration. The battles were there, but they were tough. You could only rest at the inn nine times before the game ended, so you needed (hopefully wanted) to maximize each day's Feat uses. Battles had NOTHING to do with progression, at least not initially, which is why they were all touch-encounters. They chased you around and could see you from farther away if you were sprinting, adding a small bit of a horror/stealth feel. If you were careful and walked around and dodged the enemies, you could go the entire game fighting only three battles. Saving Lyla from the mirror world, saving Elena from the jail portal she was tossed into, quickly moving around town using the organic tunnels, finding the letters and the keys inside of them... so much of it did NOT require battling. But were you still rewarded? Yes! Telia could pick open chests for rare and powerful treasures. Ox could scrounge up herbs that provided some rare and unique effects. Marlowe could uncover lore and new portals by translating tomes. There was all sorts of progression that did NOT require battles, even if the rewards did help you in battles (the end goal IS to defeat the final boss, after all).
Why am I going on about this? Because Magi brings up a good point! Your encounter system ties so much into how the player gets stronger, since for most of the games we're talking about the battle system is the core gameplay. If you get stronger, it's in some way related to battles. Even in V&V, where you only had to fight those three battles if you wanted, it's all tied in to fighting them.
Choose your encounter system and pacing based on the goals of your game, and reward things appropriately. If you want to focus design a game where avoiding combat is a totally okay thing, then don't include any sort of battle-based leveling, or at least have alternate methods. Don't necessarily make combat pointless -- gold and such is nice ((but be careful!! what's the difference between gold and exp anyway!??!)) -- but don't let your goals and your gameplay contradict each other, either.
or just say "fuk lvls i want equip-based rpg progression!!!" and join the glorious revolution (ftr including leveling for the sake of traditional rpg-ness in Kiddos was one of the greatest mistakes i've made when it comes to gam mak. sigh. not the same reasons as V&V though!)
