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)
COUNTERING THE PSYCHOLOGY OF TOUCH ENCOUNTERS
Posts
Pages:
1
Strak
1560
Strak
View playlists
CloseAlright, so your game doesn't use random encounters. Enemies are on the map, you can see them, you can avoid them if you want. If you get too close, they chase you. If they touch you or vice versa, a battle ensues.
But. When being chased, people tend to run. Not because they can't handle the enemy, but because of human psychology. Something runs at you and you want to see if you can outrun it and avoid danger. Now there's a dilemma. You need to get into battles to get exp and level up and maybe get some good enemy drops, but the player is actively avoiding those very encounters. You don't necessarily want the player to go LOOKING for trouble, but you also don't want them to run from it at all costs.
So, my question is, how do you combat that psychology? In games like Diablo, they implemented methods such as enemies dropping health globes so that players who need healing would seek out weak enemies. Doom eternal did something kind of similar. But neither of those games are turn based, and so it's easier to play things cautiously if you need to.
I'm thinking something like, if you deliberately trigger the encounter you'll have a chance of a pre-emptive attack, but that doesn't feel quite right. Anyone else have any ideas? How do you encourage your players to engage in your battle systems?
But. When being chased, people tend to run. Not because they can't handle the enemy, but because of human psychology. Something runs at you and you want to see if you can outrun it and avoid danger. Now there's a dilemma. You need to get into battles to get exp and level up and maybe get some good enemy drops, but the player is actively avoiding those very encounters. You don't necessarily want the player to go LOOKING for trouble, but you also don't want them to run from it at all costs.
So, my question is, how do you combat that psychology? In games like Diablo, they implemented methods such as enemies dropping health globes so that players who need healing would seek out weak enemies. Doom eternal did something kind of similar. But neither of those games are turn based, and so it's easier to play things cautiously if you need to.
I'm thinking something like, if you deliberately trigger the encounter you'll have a chance of a pre-emptive attack, but that doesn't feel quite right. Anyone else have any ideas? How do you encourage your players to engage in your battle systems?
Well, I can think of a few ways to deal with people avoiding absolutely everything (and it really annoys me because, why are you even bothering to play the game if you're going to avoid the primary game mechanic.).
Two things right off the bat that are really easy to implement and there's no reason to complain about:
1. You must defeat a certain number of enemies to unlock the next dungeon/exit the dungeon/otherwise solve the dungeon.
2. Have a boss that is too hard to beat without fighting a certain number of enemies.
Another thing I can think of is have key fights in the dungeon (and let the players know these fights exist) that give items or abilities that are required for later areas in the game. So if you're avoiding the basic game mechanics, I have no sympathy for you if you suddenly reach a locked door that says you need to retrace your steps through eight dungeons to get the key.
Anyway, it pisses me off way too much when I see a let's play where someone is just avoiding every fight in the game and then whining about how hard the boss is. So, because you're too lazy to play the game I made, it's somehow my fault when you run into a wall. Fuck that shit.
Two things right off the bat that are really easy to implement and there's no reason to complain about:
1. You must defeat a certain number of enemies to unlock the next dungeon/exit the dungeon/otherwise solve the dungeon.
2. Have a boss that is too hard to beat without fighting a certain number of enemies.
Another thing I can think of is have key fights in the dungeon (and let the players know these fights exist) that give items or abilities that are required for later areas in the game. So if you're avoiding the basic game mechanics, I have no sympathy for you if you suddenly reach a locked door that says you need to retrace your steps through eight dungeons to get the key.
Anyway, it pisses me off way too much when I see a let's play where someone is just avoiding every fight in the game and then whining about how hard the boss is. So, because you're too lazy to play the game I made, it's somehow my fault when you run into a wall. Fuck that shit.
Avee
5794
But. When being chased, people tend to run... the player is actively avoiding those very encounters
In life, yes, that's a common reaction. In games, I don't think that's the case because the consequences of confrontation and escape are not the same as in reality.
But let's assume it is the case for the sake of this discussion.
In action-based or strategy-based games, tactical retreats are common: You move to a more advantageous location to take on the pursuer or to fight a group of enemies one at a time.
Taking on several enemies that attack from different directions at once can be suicide in many games, but it can be an effective strategy in a party-based game with a heavy tank character while the others remain at a safe distance and use ranged attacks.
It's certainly possible to add action or strategy elements to a turn-based RPG. Most touch encounter games I've played include that tried and true feature of running into the enemy's back or striking at them on the exploration map to gain some advantage in battle. Dragon Quest 11, the Persona and Trails series come to mind, and Valkyrie Profile with its side-scroller action-like exploration.
Some of the Wild Arms games don't feature touch encounters but warn you when a battle is about to start and allow you to avoid the encounter by spending special points. You may refill those points by fighting or by finding gems scattered in dungeons. Psychologically speaking, it's the same as running away from an incoming visible threat.
One could implement a similar idea in a touch encounter system and reverse it: spending points right before the enemy touches you would give you an advantage in battle.
How about giving the player a much greater reward when they do go looking for trouble and take on particularly dangerous encounters? "Rewards" don't have to be limited to the battle system's features like more experience or higher drop rates. A reward could be new story development, a new character to recruit, unlocking a new skill or area, etc.
Many games also simply force players into tutorial fights at the beginning where we learn that we may be strong enough to win despite appearances and will obtain important rewards by doing so... And that fighting is, well, fun!
I have a few games that nevergotreleased used touch encounters. Usually I'd have a reward if they defeated all the enemies in the dungeon - which gave them a reason to hunt down those critters.
I also rarely had enemies chase the hero - they'd just be doing their own thing (chasing other enemies for noms, sleeping, guarding chests, etc). That way players could choose to engage or not, and usually did engage because it was their choice and not usually foistered apon them. If they can see a treasure chest, they're going to go through enemies to get to it. If the way forward demands they kill an enemy, they'll do so.
Another thing was to have invisible on-touch encounters and ambushes at set points so that there was only a set amount of encounters per dungeon.
There's also the idea of multiple paths forward with different encounters and treasures, so you encourage the player's curiosity of "what was in the other path" allowing for more areas to encounter enemies in - especially if you train them to expect rewards for checking. (If you don't put something worthwhile in another path then they won't bother checking after that point.)
A combination of reward and strategic placement, I think, is the best way to go about it.
I also rarely had enemies chase the hero - they'd just be doing their own thing (chasing other enemies for noms, sleeping, guarding chests, etc). That way players could choose to engage or not, and usually did engage because it was their choice and not usually foistered apon them. If they can see a treasure chest, they're going to go through enemies to get to it. If the way forward demands they kill an enemy, they'll do so.
Another thing was to have invisible on-touch encounters and ambushes at set points so that there was only a set amount of encounters per dungeon.
There's also the idea of multiple paths forward with different encounters and treasures, so you encourage the player's curiosity of "what was in the other path" allowing for more areas to encounter enemies in - especially if you train them to expect rewards for checking. (If you don't put something worthwhile in another path then they won't bother checking after that point.)
A combination of reward and strategic placement, I think, is the best way to go about it.
I don't think being "chased" is really an actual problem.
In a standard RPG, there's no reason that touch encounters even necessarily needs to chase the player. The majority can just wander around early on, some others can move slowly towards the player, and maybe a few can "chase" the player, signifying a certain type of enemy. Some can even move away, for reasons.
I see no evidence to believe players would run from touch encounters just because they are "chased". Most players understand they need to fight some battles to get exp and gold. If the encounter frequency, difficulty, reward, etc. is reasonable, then they will usually fight.
The reason some people would skip encounters, be it touch, random, or whatever, is because either they are too weak, monsters are too strong, they are just bored of fighting, or just want to quickly get to the where they are going. It has nothing to do with being chased.
In a standard RPG, there's no reason that touch encounters even necessarily needs to chase the player. The majority can just wander around early on, some others can move slowly towards the player, and maybe a few can "chase" the player, signifying a certain type of enemy. Some can even move away, for reasons.
I see no evidence to believe players would run from touch encounters just because they are "chased". Most players understand they need to fight some battles to get exp and gold. If the encounter frequency, difficulty, reward, etc. is reasonable, then they will usually fight.
The reason some people would skip encounters, be it touch, random, or whatever, is because either they are too weak, monsters are too strong, they are just bored of fighting, or just want to quickly get to the where they are going. It has nothing to do with being chased.
Strak
1560
Hmm. I'm seeing some differing perspectives, and I guess I'm using my own experience and thinking that other players feel the same. I know that in games like Villnoire, I would quite often try to sneak past enemies since I didn't feel I really needed much experience to level up, so I could always grind later in areas where I'd get more exp per kill. Loved that game, but that was where the main psychology surfaced for me. But, thinking about things from an alternate perspective, I never shyed away from trainer battles in Pokemon, mandatory or not. I would seek out every single one, whether I happened to accidentally wander across their path, or if there was a clear detour. Granted, there were limited numbers of trainers on each route, and they wouldn't "respawn" so to speak, plus they were the best source of exp. So the psychology was a bit different. They also weren't particularly challenging in any of the games I played.
But, thinking about games like the mystery dungeon series, I would also avoid battles where I could, but would inevitably be forced to deal with encounters as a natural course of the game. I didn't need to seek them out, but avoiding them only went so far.
Either way, you've given me lots to consider. I'll think on this more.
But, thinking about games like the mystery dungeon series, I would also avoid battles where I could, but would inevitably be forced to deal with encounters as a natural course of the game. I didn't need to seek them out, but avoiding them only went so far.
Either way, you've given me lots to consider. I'll think on this more.
Darken
3952
I don't know if your assumptions about being chased are correct but I do get what you mean. There's uhhhh... a skill dissonance happening. Touch encounters have a weird fuzzy issue of randomly testing the players avoidance real time skill in a game mostly about applying tactics, knowledge with all the time in the world. It only kinda works for deciding risk rewards of who gets to ambush but it's never handled that well.
I really prefer encounters that are about draining the player's resources no matter what. Want to run away? Pay some gold. Want to ambush? Take a risk with a valueable resource. Want to fight? Make sure you don't take too much damage or waste too much items. The path to the boss should test to see if you're doing that well. It should be about tradeoffs not "play an unrelated pac-man mini game" to determine how encounters start and maybe even avoid them 90% of the time. That's just me though. Paper Mario is all about having mini games in like every interaction so it sorta makes sense in that extreme.
I'd ask why you even have touch encounters in the game other than "Theyre the only alternative to random encounters" because they're not.
I really prefer encounters that are about draining the player's resources no matter what. Want to run away? Pay some gold. Want to ambush? Take a risk with a valueable resource. Want to fight? Make sure you don't take too much damage or waste too much items. The path to the boss should test to see if you're doing that well. It should be about tradeoffs not "play an unrelated pac-man mini game" to determine how encounters start and maybe even avoid them 90% of the time. That's just me though. Paper Mario is all about having mini games in like every interaction so it sorta makes sense in that extreme.
I'd ask why you even have touch encounters in the game other than "Theyre the only alternative to random encounters" because they're not.
I am happy to say that none of the game I've made that have touch encounters have enemies that chase the player. Though, this might be due to the fact that every single RPG Maker game that I've played that has chase mechanics, once you get into the chase radius, they don't start moving at the same speed as the player, or even the speed at which the player can dash. No, they go at maximum speed, or whatever, and you basically can't avoid them. Futch-and-Bright that jank!
*Edit: With the two games I've made with an encounter cancel system, trying to figure out what the encounter rate should be was an odd decision. Like, I didn't want encounters to be so frequent that the "!" icon would be over the player's head practically all the time, but, on the other hand, but I also wanted the encounter meter to deplete at a reasonable rate if players were cancelling every single encounter they come across.
Of course, there were also mechanics in those games where achieving a certain level would make it so that the encounter avoidance cost wouldn't be as much as it once was, or even not depleting at all.
*Edit 2:
It depends? Like, I absolutely do this exact thing with Okiku, Star Apprentice. You can run into monsters, and combat proceeds as normal. However, if you hit them with the Wand of Blasting, you get a preemptive attackand maybe a funny start-of-battle quote!
*Edit: With the two games I've made with an encounter cancel system, trying to figure out what the encounter rate should be was an odd decision. Like, I didn't want encounters to be so frequent that the "!" icon would be over the player's head practically all the time, but, on the other hand, but I also wanted the encounter meter to deplete at a reasonable rate if players were cancelling every single encounter they come across.
Of course, there were also mechanics in those games where achieving a certain level would make it so that the encounter avoidance cost wouldn't be as much as it once was, or even not depleting at all.
*Edit 2:
I'm thinking something like, if you deliberately trigger the encounter you'll have a chance of a pre-emptive attack, but that doesn't feel quite right.
It depends? Like, I absolutely do this exact thing with Okiku, Star Apprentice. You can run into monsters, and combat proceeds as normal. However, if you hit them with the Wand of Blasting, you get a preemptive attack
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Having watched a few people play Prayer of the Faithless, a game with touch encounters where 90% of them chase the player once they come into sight, I haven't seen anyone try to avoid them. Since that game was fairly difficult with limited healing options (especially in the early game), I completely understand the innate instinct to run if an enemy was chasing you. So I countered that with a few things:
1) Add in optional (but difficult) mini bosses that offered high EXP and weapons you couldn't get anywhere else in the game, which encouraged players to fight more random battles to get strong enough. If players were strong enough to beat them, they usually were a high enough level to beat the bosses at the end of the level.
2) Place immobile enemies at choke points in the map that required players to defeat to proceed. They weren't stronger or weaker than normal encounters, but they do ensure that players didn't approach end bosses severely underleveled.
3) You start the first dungeon with a level 3 character and a level 16 character. As you fight enemies, some players may notice that the level 16 character earns much less exp than the level 3 character. This is to prevent excessive grinding and subtly inform players that they don't have to set aside grind time, which hopefully gets them to fight more enemies while on their way to the next objective.
4) The combat is complex enough with each character having a diverse skill set and approach to battle that some players may feel the need to fight more enemies just to understand how the mechanics work.
The winning formula could be some combination of the above points or maybe something else entirely, but again, I haven't seen many players run from encounters in my game.
1) Add in optional (but difficult) mini bosses that offered high EXP and weapons you couldn't get anywhere else in the game, which encouraged players to fight more random battles to get strong enough. If players were strong enough to beat them, they usually were a high enough level to beat the bosses at the end of the level.
2) Place immobile enemies at choke points in the map that required players to defeat to proceed. They weren't stronger or weaker than normal encounters, but they do ensure that players didn't approach end bosses severely underleveled.
3) You start the first dungeon with a level 3 character and a level 16 character. As you fight enemies, some players may notice that the level 16 character earns much less exp than the level 3 character. This is to prevent excessive grinding and subtly inform players that they don't have to set aside grind time, which hopefully gets them to fight more enemies while on their way to the next objective.
4) The combat is complex enough with each character having a diverse skill set and approach to battle that some players may feel the need to fight more enemies just to understand how the mechanics work.
The winning formula could be some combination of the above points or maybe something else entirely, but again, I haven't seen many players run from encounters in my game.
Pages:
1
