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)
GENERIC COMBAT SYSTEM COMPLAINTS
Posts
Darlos9D
0
Darlos9D
View playlists
CloseI've been playing RPGs since the first Dragon Warrior on the NES. I've seen lots of RPG combat, particularly from jRPGs, but also from western ones, and I've identified a lot of common elements that I feel are glaring issues that nobody has bothered to fix.
Probably my #1 beef is targeting AI. In most RPGs, all of your opponents, from the dumbest warg to the elder god end boss are dumber than a bag of hammers. In any game that is turn-based, active time, or anything of that sort where the characters don't actually move around a battlefield, enemies will just target whoever with no real rhyme or reason, and apparently NOBODY has ever seen fit to do any differently. Why is it that in one turn an enemy will put one of my characters to sleep, only to physically hit them in the next term, rendering the status effect pointless? Why is it that whenever I fight a group of enemies with a healer or powerful squishy wizard, I always make them my top priority target, but they never present any similar strategies and always go for my heavily armored guy? Or nobody in particular at all?
In other games, like MMOs, we get "aggro," where enemies go after the perceived biggest target. For some reason, it's always the heavily armored guy with a huge shield and tons of defense buffs. Perhaps this is understandable for some kind of "stupid animal" enemy, but when you're dealing with a group of soldiers, a powerful wizard, ninjas, or something that's supposed to be even SMARTER than you, you would think your opponent would be clever enough to, I dunno, NOT try to physically beat down the guy with the highest physical defense, and instead work to take out key targets like healers, snipers, and ranged casters.
There's really only a few arguments against designing these things better that I can imagine hearing, and they all suck, like "it's what people are used to," or "it would make the game too hard." Bollocks, different and challenging is what new games need.
Of course, the only way making the enemy targeting smarter would be fair would be to give the player tools to deal with it, such as ways to explicitly defend their high-value members, perhaps through the assistance of other members. A combat system that is actually fairly good about that is DnD's system, with it's attacks of opportunity that discourage people from just randomly running around the battlefield at different targets. There are likely other solutions though, even for combat systems that don't involve characters moving about a battlefield (like DQ or FF).
Thoughts?
Probably my #1 beef is targeting AI. In most RPGs, all of your opponents, from the dumbest warg to the elder god end boss are dumber than a bag of hammers. In any game that is turn-based, active time, or anything of that sort where the characters don't actually move around a battlefield, enemies will just target whoever with no real rhyme or reason, and apparently NOBODY has ever seen fit to do any differently. Why is it that in one turn an enemy will put one of my characters to sleep, only to physically hit them in the next term, rendering the status effect pointless? Why is it that whenever I fight a group of enemies with a healer or powerful squishy wizard, I always make them my top priority target, but they never present any similar strategies and always go for my heavily armored guy? Or nobody in particular at all?
In other games, like MMOs, we get "aggro," where enemies go after the perceived biggest target. For some reason, it's always the heavily armored guy with a huge shield and tons of defense buffs. Perhaps this is understandable for some kind of "stupid animal" enemy, but when you're dealing with a group of soldiers, a powerful wizard, ninjas, or something that's supposed to be even SMARTER than you, you would think your opponent would be clever enough to, I dunno, NOT try to physically beat down the guy with the highest physical defense, and instead work to take out key targets like healers, snipers, and ranged casters.
There's really only a few arguments against designing these things better that I can imagine hearing, and they all suck, like "it's what people are used to," or "it would make the game too hard." Bollocks, different and challenging is what new games need.
Of course, the only way making the enemy targeting smarter would be fair would be to give the player tools to deal with it, such as ways to explicitly defend their high-value members, perhaps through the assistance of other members. A combat system that is actually fairly good about that is DnD's system, with it's attacks of opportunity that discourage people from just randomly running around the battlefield at different targets. There are likely other solutions though, even for combat systems that don't involve characters moving about a battlefield (like DQ or FF).
Thoughts?
Well... I wouldn't say that you're wrong, but... aknowleding that doesn't mean much. Lots of people use DBS from their respective makers, which means they can't program any sort of targetting. And to those who use some sort of CBS (honestly, none comes to mind), programming an inteliggent targetting system isn't really easy or simple, and I'm not really sure it would pay off, because it's not that annoying, in my opinion.
It's true that most games use the DBS, so an intelligent targeting system is hard to pull of in that engine (maybe it's different in VX?) but I guess it then becomes a problem of designing a system that is challenging, but still predictable, without the AI being omniscient. But, yeah, I don't have much to add to this other than battles should be smarter.
Crystalgate
694
In my opinion, you should give enemies the AI which makes battles the most fun, not the one which makes them the smartest. Having enemies go for the weakest target (unless that target is defending of course) would make battles really boring. That said, I do think enemies should be smart enough not to take pointless actions all the time. For example, they should not heal an enemy at full or near full health and they should not heal at all if there's only one enemy left. Random encounters should only cast stat up spells the very first turn (it's a waste to cast a buff when the battle is over the next turn) and not target anyone who already has the stat up in question.
DFalcon
2141
Yeah, I tend not to be a great fan of battle systems where what you describe in the first paragraph happens, i.e., enemies are only effective when they randomly happen to choose an effective sequence of actions for a few turns.
I think you're being unfair to aggro. It's certainly not a be-all end-all in any incarnation I've heard of, but it is a system that makes sure (a) monsters will go after the squishiest targets by default, but (b) players can manipulate this outcome by their actions within the system. Which are basically the two requirements for targeting systems you've put forward (and which I would agree are pretty good basic criteria).
This is a big reason tactical RPGs can be great - a good one can make the targeting question interesting. Which is in turn a big reason my serious projects tend to be tactics RPGs with meaningful movement mechanics, I guess. I don't expect most people to go quite that far for this, but I have to disagree strongly with calunio. A sensible or innovative way of dealing with targeting can make a big difference to a battle system, and choosing an engine without the capability to make changes like that, or even smaller ones, hurts projects.
I think you're being unfair to aggro. It's certainly not a be-all end-all in any incarnation I've heard of, but it is a system that makes sure (a) monsters will go after the squishiest targets by default, but (b) players can manipulate this outcome by their actions within the system. Which are basically the two requirements for targeting systems you've put forward (and which I would agree are pretty good basic criteria).
This is a big reason tactical RPGs can be great - a good one can make the targeting question interesting. Which is in turn a big reason my serious projects tend to be tactics RPGs with meaningful movement mechanics, I guess. I don't expect most people to go quite that far for this, but I have to disagree strongly with calunio. A sensible or innovative way of dealing with targeting can make a big difference to a battle system, and choosing an engine without the capability to make changes like that, or even smaller ones, hurts projects.
Darlos9D
0
I wasn't really complaining about RM games, just RPGs in general. I figured this was a decent forum to do it at, and perhaps get some conjectural discussion going on regarding the topic.
Though to be perfectly honest, right here might be the most basic problem of all: many people forget that an RPG is, first and foremost, a game. One cannot deny that the combat system of an RPG is at least half of it's gameplay, so I'm just amazed at how little thought about intelligent combat strategy seems to go into designing a combat system. It seems like many who design RPGs are more interested in telling a story... which is fine, until you realize that a story isn't the only aspect of an RPG. There's a reason the G stands for Game. If the whole system is just generic combat, equipment, magic, skills, and enemies... why am I bothering? To get a story? I'll just read a novel. I have a friend of mine who thinks the collective story of the Lunar series sounds somewhat interesting, but who isn't willing to slog through the cliched game system. I played them myself, but I don't blame him at all.
Of course, even games that have fairly unique systems have dumb enemies, until you get all the way up to games that are actually labeled as strategy games of some sort. But does a game have to be about armies to have strategies and smart opponents? Certainly we can do something better than "mage casts most powerful spell, all enemies die, move onto next fight." I honestly have more fun towards the beggining of RPGs since your powers and options are much more limited, forcing you to act smart. Your wizard doesn't have huge end-game nuke spells, so you have to instead try using your Sleep spell and things like that, and have your other characters pick out particular targets and coordinate their attacks in order to eliminate enemies in the most efficient manner. At the end of the game, you tend to just spam powerful attacks and win.
What is your basis for this opinion? If you design a proper system of attack, counterattack, and defense that requires you to arrange your party and strategies smartly to counteract the enemy's tenancy to go after your high-value targets, it could be perfectly exciting.
DFalcon: just saw your message, comments to come later.
Though to be perfectly honest, right here might be the most basic problem of all: many people forget that an RPG is, first and foremost, a game. One cannot deny that the combat system of an RPG is at least half of it's gameplay, so I'm just amazed at how little thought about intelligent combat strategy seems to go into designing a combat system. It seems like many who design RPGs are more interested in telling a story... which is fine, until you realize that a story isn't the only aspect of an RPG. There's a reason the G stands for Game. If the whole system is just generic combat, equipment, magic, skills, and enemies... why am I bothering? To get a story? I'll just read a novel. I have a friend of mine who thinks the collective story of the Lunar series sounds somewhat interesting, but who isn't willing to slog through the cliched game system. I played them myself, but I don't blame him at all.
Of course, even games that have fairly unique systems have dumb enemies, until you get all the way up to games that are actually labeled as strategy games of some sort. But does a game have to be about armies to have strategies and smart opponents? Certainly we can do something better than "mage casts most powerful spell, all enemies die, move onto next fight." I honestly have more fun towards the beggining of RPGs since your powers and options are much more limited, forcing you to act smart. Your wizard doesn't have huge end-game nuke spells, so you have to instead try using your Sleep spell and things like that, and have your other characters pick out particular targets and coordinate their attacks in order to eliminate enemies in the most efficient manner. At the end of the game, you tend to just spam powerful attacks and win.
post=125687
Having enemies go for the weakest target (unless that target is defending of course) would make battles really boring.
What is your basis for this opinion? If you design a proper system of attack, counterattack, and defense that requires you to arrange your party and strategies smartly to counteract the enemy's tenancy to go after your high-value targets, it could be perfectly exciting.
DFalcon: just saw your message, comments to come later.
Yoshio
774
I would be annoyed at a game if all the enemies always went after my squishiest guy and I had to jump through hoops to keep him from dying every single battle.
but then again, I am a casual gamer.
but then again, I am a casual gamer.
Darlos9D
0
post=125701
I would be annoyed at a game if all the enemies always went after my squishiest guy and I had to jump through hoops to keep him from dying every single battle.
but then again, I am a casual gamer.
Well, you do realize that every game ever requires players to "jump through hoops" (as in, utilize the game rules and environments) in order to reach a goal or prevent failure. Though I'll agree that this is no excuse for a system that is annoying simply due to bad design. Though if it was well designed, I would argue that most likely, if you're able to appreciate a good game, it actually would NOT annoy you. Rather, you would enjoy it. Unless you just don't like any difficulty whatsoever.
@DFalcon: I suppose the aggro system isn't terrible, as far as being a raw system. You're right, it requires the player(s) to be smart to a degree beyond your typical RPG. But I still feel like it relies too much on the idea that "all enemies are stupid." You see, the aggro system is, theoretically, based around the idea that enemies go after the largest perceived threat. Typically, this largest perceived threat is always a tank: the guy in the most armor with a shield, who furthermore is systematically set up to draw the most aggro. With dumb animal-like monsters, I can understand this, since they aren't going to be terribly comprehensive of the fact that the fireballs raining down on them are caused by that weak-looking wizard over there, or that the tank's swagger and threats are just a ruse to draw attention and the tank isn't actually the largest threat to their life damage-wise.
But then you get into a fights with soldiers, wizards, martial artists, intelligent magical beings, and demi-gods... and they fall for all the same tricks, when they should be smarter than that, especially if we're to believe they're experience combatants themselves. That's like if modern soldiers saw an ACTUAL tank and they all just freaked out and started firing their rifles at it. Utterly pointless and stupid.
Like I said, I suppose going by simple numbers and systematic considerations, the aggro system is decent, if not simply because it's something different. But to me, replacing "attack random person" to "attack only one person ever" doesn't seem like too much of an upgrade. Furthermore, while you could say "well it's just a game," seeing supposedly intelligent enemies and characters act like complete morons on the battlefield kinda kills my immersion a bit, which is always important.
I suppose my "enemies go after high-value targets" idea is just yet another targeting tradeoff, but I think the key to this idea that would make it more intricate would be the fact that they know what your high-value targets are (or, more idealy, they learn through the course of the battle), but they also know what their OWN high-value targets are, and how to defend them... assuming they're intelligent enemies anyway. Dumber enemies might be programmed to fall back onto something more like an aggro system.
I LIKE AND APPROVE OF THIS TOPIC!
From the top:
Excuse me if I look at this in terms of the microcosm of amateur gaming.
First off, it is worth nothing that I can think of exactly ONE RPG Maker game (and exactly 0 professional games of the turnbased jRPG genre) that tried to address this issue. If I recall correctly it was being made by Bloodrose, it was his sequel to the unfinished In the Name of the Rose and the even-more-unfinished Until My Finest Hour. I can't remember the name but it had an extremely intricate aggro system where the enemy was entirely aware who it should be attacking and you had to manipulate aggro to survive. It was also poorly balanced, buggy as hell, and he had apparently spent like a year on that one battle which considering Bloodrose is a fairly respectable developer (or was back in the day) goes to show you how hard this is to pull off.
Secondly, a note on RPG Maker VX. By its default functionality, RPG Maker rationalizes this behavior by letting you put tanks in the "Front" row (takes the most hits), intermediate characters in the "Middle" row (takes an intermediate number of hits) and fragile characters in the "Back" row (takes the least hits). Now I've been playing a lot of D&D 4E lately but this leads to me picturing the Front row characters actually "tanking" and forming a line to stop enemy attacks while nukers cast from the rear. I like how they made character position effect the random targeting algorithms. There are other ways to manipulate aggro (hit probability) in VX via scripts.
Finally, I strongly feel games set up their AI this way on purpose; to make the game less annoying. Think about it, it can't be that hard to code. The real reason is that when your guy who is at 1 HP and about to heal the party/cast ultima gets hit BY RANDOM CHANCE it is the most infuriating thing EVER. Imagine how annoying it would be if a game did this by intention EVERY SINGLE TIME.
The Last Remnant. It's Final Fantasy with AOOs.
Crystalgate, every addition of RPG Maker has allowed players to do this to some degree, whether it means giving important monsters a "If HP = <30%, Self Heal" command or making "dumb" bosses appear smarter by giving them attacks that hit EVERYBODY, crucial self-buffs they cast early in the fight, or attacks that hit a random character so darn tootin' HARD that it doesn't matter how squishy or tough they are.
The majority of (j)RPGs don't have roleplaying either. : |
A) Of course when I play actual strategy games like Starcraft or Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 I always wind up setting them to the lowest difficulty so that the enemy AI isn't too fast/smart for me. So maybe it's better that RPGs at least let me feel like a strategic badass.
B) I strongly feel that more enemies should be more susceptible to status effects like Sleep, Confusion, Poison, and even Death. The fact that these powers are only worth using on bosses who are never effected by them really bothers me. My efforts to correct this in my own games (making all enemies potentially susceptible to some status effects, even if it was a weakened version of them) have met with mixed feedback however. A lot of people are deeply bothered by it being possible to saddle any boss with a poison-like status effect, ever.
Assuming that what we are talking about is an abstraction like a 2D turn-based battle system and not something like an MMORPG, I always prefer the explanation that the tanks PHYSICALLY block the way to the casters rather than just "drawing aggro". This is how tanks in D&D are often supposed to function, forming a wall between the glass cannons and the monsters.
From the top:
Probably my #1 beef is targeting AI. In most RPGs, all of your opponents, from the dumbest warg to the elder god end boss are dumber than a bag of hammers. In any game that is turn-based, active time, or anything of that sort where the characters don't actually move around a battlefield, enemies will just target whoever with no real rhyme or reason, and apparently NOBODY has ever seen fit to do any differently. Why is it that in one turn an enemy will put one of my characters to sleep, only to physically hit them in the next term, rendering the status effect pointless? Why is it that whenever I fight a group of enemies with a healer or powerful squishy wizard, I always make them my top priority target, but they never present any similar strategies and always go for my heavily armored guy? Or nobody in particular at all?
Excuse me if I look at this in terms of the microcosm of amateur gaming.
First off, it is worth nothing that I can think of exactly ONE RPG Maker game (and exactly 0 professional games of the turnbased jRPG genre) that tried to address this issue. If I recall correctly it was being made by Bloodrose, it was his sequel to the unfinished In the Name of the Rose and the even-more-unfinished Until My Finest Hour. I can't remember the name but it had an extremely intricate aggro system where the enemy was entirely aware who it should be attacking and you had to manipulate aggro to survive. It was also poorly balanced, buggy as hell, and he had apparently spent like a year on that one battle which considering Bloodrose is a fairly respectable developer (or was back in the day) goes to show you how hard this is to pull off.
Secondly, a note on RPG Maker VX. By its default functionality, RPG Maker rationalizes this behavior by letting you put tanks in the "Front" row (takes the most hits), intermediate characters in the "Middle" row (takes an intermediate number of hits) and fragile characters in the "Back" row (takes the least hits). Now I've been playing a lot of D&D 4E lately but this leads to me picturing the Front row characters actually "tanking" and forming a line to stop enemy attacks while nukers cast from the rear. I like how they made character position effect the random targeting algorithms. There are other ways to manipulate aggro (hit probability) in VX via scripts.
Finally, I strongly feel games set up their AI this way on purpose; to make the game less annoying. Think about it, it can't be that hard to code. The real reason is that when your guy who is at 1 HP and about to heal the party/cast ultima gets hit BY RANDOM CHANCE it is the most infuriating thing EVER. Imagine how annoying it would be if a game did this by intention EVERY SINGLE TIME.
A combat system that is actually fairly good about that is DnD's system, with it's attacks of opportunity that discourage people from just randomly running around the battlefield at different targets.
The Last Remnant. It's Final Fantasy with AOOs.
In my opinion, you should give enemies the AI which makes battles the most fun, not the one which makes them the smartest. Having enemies go for the weakest target (unless that target is defending of course) would make battles really boring. That said, I do think enemies should be smart enough not to take pointless actions all the time. For example, they should not heal an enemy at full or near full health and they should not heal at all if there's only one enemy left. Random encounters should only cast stat up spells the very first turn (it's a waste to cast a buff when the battle is over the next turn) and not target anyone who already has the stat up in question.
Crystalgate, every addition of RPG Maker has allowed players to do this to some degree, whether it means giving important monsters a "If HP = <30%, Self Heal" command or making "dumb" bosses appear smarter by giving them attacks that hit EVERYBODY, crucial self-buffs they cast early in the fight, or attacks that hit a random character so darn tootin' HARD that it doesn't matter how squishy or tough they are.
It seems like many who design RPGs are more interested in telling a story... which is fine, until you realize that a story isn't the only aspect of an RPG. There's a reason the G stands for Game.
The majority of (j)RPGs don't have roleplaying either. : |
Of course, even games that have fairly unique systems have dumb enemies, until you get all the way up to games that are actually labeled as strategy games of some sort. But does a game have to be about armies to have strategies and smart opponents? Certainly we can do something better than "mage casts most powerful spell, all enemies die, move onto next fight." I honestly have more fun towards the beggining of RPGs since your powers and options are much more limited, forcing you to act smart. Your wizard doesn't have huge end-game nuke spells, so you have to instead try using your Sleep spell and things like that, and have your other characters pick out particular targets and coordinate their attacks in order to eliminate enemies in the most efficient manner. At the end of the game, you tend to just spam powerful attacks and win.
A) Of course when I play actual strategy games like Starcraft or Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 I always wind up setting them to the lowest difficulty so that the enemy AI isn't too fast/smart for me. So maybe it's better that RPGs at least let me feel like a strategic badass.
B) I strongly feel that more enemies should be more susceptible to status effects like Sleep, Confusion, Poison, and even Death. The fact that these powers are only worth using on bosses who are never effected by them really bothers me. My efforts to correct this in my own games (making all enemies potentially susceptible to some status effects, even if it was a weakened version of them) have met with mixed feedback however. A lot of people are deeply bothered by it being possible to saddle any boss with a poison-like status effect, ever.
But then you get into a fights with soldiers, wizards, martial artists, intelligent magical beings, and demi-gods... and they fall for all the same tricks, when they should be smarter than that, especially if we're to believe they're experience combatants themselves. That's like if modern soldiers saw an ACTUAL tank and they all just freaked out and started firing their rifles at it. Utterly pointless and stupid.
Assuming that what we are talking about is an abstraction like a 2D turn-based battle system and not something like an MMORPG, I always prefer the explanation that the tanks PHYSICALLY block the way to the casters rather than just "drawing aggro". This is how tanks in D&D are often supposed to function, forming a wall between the glass cannons and the monsters.
Crystalgate
694
Of course, even games that have fairly unique systems have dumb enemies, until you get all the way up to games that are actually labeled as strategy games of some sort. But does a game have to be about armies to have strategies and smart opponents? Certainly we can do something better than "mage casts most powerful spell, all enemies die, move onto next fight." I honestly have more fun towards the beggining of RPGs since your powers and options are much more limited, forcing you to act smart. Your wizard doesn't have huge end-game nuke spells, so you have to instead try using your Sleep spell and things like that, and have your other characters pick out particular targets and coordinate their attacks in order to eliminate enemies in the most efficient manner. At the end of the game, you tend to just spam powerful attacks and win.
I think this have more to do with poor skill design. There either shouldn't be a "most powerful spell" period or the game should prevent the mage from casting said spell every battle. Ideally, you don't have a best spell, you only have spells which are best in certain situations. If you give the mage a spell that can wipe out every enemy and the resources to cast it every battle, making enemies intelligent will not help at all.
What is your basis for this opinion? If you design a proper system of attack, counterattack, and defense that requires you to arrange your party and strategies smartly to counteract the enemy's tenancy to go after your high-value targets, it could be perfectly exciting.
Ok, I think I see what you mean now. Well, a suppose a "proper" system would work. The question is what would qualify as a proper system. Mind you, you didn't like casting the most powerful spell over and over. However, "move swordsman and axeman to intercept enemies" every battle can also get boring. This means that a "proper" system would have to require variety in how you intercept enemies. If the system isn't very well designed, you will end up with just making battles more annoying. If it's to hard to intercept enemies, the mage will just kick the bucket over and over which will annoy the player. If it's to easy, all you've done is to give the player another task he has to do, but which provides no intellectual stimulation.
So, I retract the notion that making enemies target the weakest automatically means the battle system gets more boring. However, this is a feature you can't half-ass, it has to be well implemented. I have seen poorly implemented item creation systems and the result was just that I ignored them. Your idea can't be ignored though.
Darken
3952
http://www.pockethouse.com/yez/aggro-and-ai/
Oh hey look what I found! Anyway, I will add my thoughts later when I finish reading these paragraphs.
Oh hey look what I found! Anyway, I will add my thoughts later when I finish reading these paragraphs.
Darlos9D
0
Ah, now this is the thread I wanted to see.
post=125715To be honest, many RPGs have been set up like this since the NES days, such as pretty much every dragon quest, as well as final fantasies 1 and 3. Something I take away from this is the fact that developers these days can't be bothered to come up with something more clever than stuff that was used in the NES days. Maybe the NES had limitations that required simpler combat systems, but today's systems do not.
Secondly, a note on RPG Maker VX. By its default functionality, RPG Maker rationalizes this behavior by letting you put tanks in the "Front" row (takes the most hits), intermediate characters in the "Middle" row (takes an intermediate number of hits) and fragile characters in the "Back" row (takes the least hits). Now I've been playing a lot of D&D 4E lately but this leads to me picturing the Front row characters actually "tanking" and forming a line to stop enemy attacks while nukers cast from the rear. I like how they made character position effect the random targeting algorithms. There are other ways to manipulate aggro (hit probability) in VX via scripts.
post=125715Indeed. I almost wrote that myself, but that's a different topic (one I also have thoughts on).
The majority of (j)RPGs don't have roleplaying either. : |
post=125715In regards to point A: RTS blows my mind out the back of my skull too. I imagine we're talking more about something with a smaller scope, or that is turn-based. As for point B: I concur fully. Unfortunately the boss that has millions of hitpoints is made that way so those millions of hit points count for something. Maybe RPG combat should have less importance on bosses in general. A fight against a well-coordinated group of enemies could be just as difficult, if not more.
A) Of course when I play actual strategy games like Starcraft or Command and Conquer Red Alert 3 I always wind up setting them to the lowest difficulty so that the enemy AI isn't too fast/smart for me. So maybe it's better that RPGs at least let me feel like a strategic badass.
B) I strongly feel that more enemies should be more susceptible to status effects like Sleep, Confusion, Poison, and even Death. The fact that these powers are only worth using on bosses who are never effected by them really bothers me. My efforts to correct this in my own games (making all enemies potentially susceptible to some status effects, even if it was a weakened version of them) have met with mixed feedback however. A lot of people are deeply bothered by it being possible to saddle any boss with a poison-like status effect, ever.
post=125715Well, I suppose we can psychoanalyze combat systems and come up with our own definitions of what they "really mean," but I tend to take things for face value. Plus there are certain scenarios where even this breaks down. Such as: why do ranged attackers always attack the tank? Certainly he can't jump in front of every projectile. Also, if aggro is lost by the tank, it's really weird when the enemy goes lumbering over to another target, completely oblivious to the tank following right behind him still wailing on his head with a battle axe. The whole scenario is weird, if not outright comical.
Assuming that what we are talking about is an abstraction like a 2D turn-based battle system and not something like an MMORPG, I always prefer the explanation that the tanks PHYSICALLY block the way to the casters rather than just "drawing aggro". This is how tanks in D&D are often supposed to function, forming a wall between the glass cannons and the monsters.
post=125724Indeed, such a system must be well thought-out. But I do believe it's perfectly possible. The aim is to turn it into a chess match of sorts, where particular characters and abilities have their uses and limitations in balance with whatever the opposition has. Not only is the actual game of Chess based off of this idea, so is pretty much any turn-based strategy game ever, especially outside the realm of RPGs (the Advance Wars series comes to mind). Once you can set up something like this, you can have a solid system of action-and-counteraction where both sides can try to anticipate their opponent's next action, and act accordingly. Going after enemy high-value targets (such as the queen, or artillery units) and defending your own is always a major factor in any game like this. I'd just like to see more of this consideration of strategy be worked into an RPG combat system, and I don't think it's an impossibility at all.
Ok, I think I see what you mean now. Well, a suppose a "proper" system would work. The question is what would qualify as a proper system. Mind you, you didn't like casting the most powerful spell over and over. However, "move swordsman and axeman to intercept enemies" every battle can also get boring. This means that a "proper" system would have to require variety in how you intercept enemies. If the system isn't very well designed, you will end up with just making battles more annoying. If it's to hard to intercept enemies, the mage will just kick the bucket over and over which will annoy the player. If it's to easy, all you've done is to give the player another task he has to do, but which provides no intellectual stimulation.
So, I retract the notion that making enemies target the weakest automatically means the battle system gets more boring. However, this is a feature you can't half-ass, it has to be well implemented. I have seen poorly implemented item creation systems and the result was just that I ignored them. Your idea can't be ignored though.
Darken
3952
Maybe the NES had limitations that required simpler combat systems, but today's systems do not.
Yes, this is why I don't understand why a modern RPG decides to have random battles. Maybe DQ8 can get away with it, but when you have a team of experienced professionals setting the number of battles you encounter to some flip of a coin every time you take a step ... it just seems unacceptable. This goes for any mechanics most JRPGs decided to not evolve.
As for dumbed down RPG battles themselves. Idk I can tolerate the most basic of battle systems provided the customization is done well (which is half of the RPG addiction at times). When you think about it, well designed battle systems without any good aggro/ai usually rely on the player understanding which enemy should be hit first (who's the biggest threat), because regardless of which party member (or at least more than 1) is targeted by this enemy, something bad will happen. Which is fine, provided this is done right (this point is obvious).
Such as: why do ranged attackers always attack the tank? Certainly he can't jump in front of every projectile. Also, if aggro is lost by the tank, it's really weird when the enemy goes lumbering over to another target, completely oblivious to the tank following right behind him still wailing on his head with a battle axe. The whole scenario is weird, if not outright comical.
I'm not sure why this is a problem at all. Change game mechanics because they are overdone/boring/shitty, not because it doesn't make sense in the real world. Maybe I'm out of the loop on why people psychoanalyze things.
But I do believe it's perfectly possible. The aim is to turn it into a chess match of sorts, where particular characters and abilities have their uses and limitations in balance with whatever the opposition has. Not only is the actual game of Chess based off of this idea, so is pretty much any turn-based strategy game ever, especially outside the realm of RPGs (the Advance Wars series comes to mind).
It sometimes boils down to the point where you just end up making a SRPG anyway (FE/FFT/Devil Survivor) where you have almost all the elements of a JRPG but the exploration aspects are taken. I'm not sure how exactly most SRPG AIs work but I fondly remember the enemy taking the most lethal move whenever possible, (your lovely pegasus knight is in range of an archer? she's already dead).
Darlos9D
0
post=125740Oh lord, I didn't even think to mention this. Yes, I am so sick of random battles. If a room looks empty, I'd like it to actually be that way. Unless there's an ambush involved.
Yes, this is why I don't understand why a modern RPG decides to have random battles.
post=125740I suppose what I'm really wondering is if it's possible to land somewhere between typical jRPG and SRPG successfully. I mean, heck, that's practically what DnD is. Walk into a room, go into strategy combat mode to clear out any monsters, move onto next room. The key here is that it's strategy game combat on a scale smaller than most strategy games. Rather than a force of 10+ characters all doing stuff at once, it's more like 3 or 4 characters versus probably less than 10 enemies.
It sometimes boils down to the point where you just end up making a SRPG anyway (FE/FFT/Devil Survivor) where you have almost all the elements of a JRPG but the exploration aspects are taken. I'm not sure how exactly most SRPG AIs work but I fondly remember the enemy taking the most lethal move whenever possible, (your lovely pegasus knight is in range of an archer? she's already dead).
Of course, dungeons, I suppose, don't have to be just a string of fights. I think that's another thing that bugs me about a lot of RPGs. Let there be enemy encounters in specific places, rather than just wherever. One area might have some monsters to fight, others might involve some kind of puzzle, and others might just be mood-setting scenery and exploration. So, I don't think one necessarily need to focus the game entirely on the combat to have a decent strategy-based combat system.
Not really psychoanalyze so much as...okay so in games with realistically rendered 3D graphics, characters are really standing where they are standing and moving where they are moving. In games with more simplistic graphics however- like say, FF6- I take combat to be an abstraction. i.e. the heroes aren't really standing in a line, running forward to slash with a sword, and then running back. It is a metaphor for what is actually happening. And in games with practically no graphics (anything made with the 2k or VX DBS) I always think about combat this way. Is this overthinking it? Uh...probably.
Well you should probably expand your concept of boss. Fights against groups of lesser badasses with synergistic abilities are one of my favorite types of "boss" fights. A boss doesn't always mean one giant monster.
I always come under a lot of fire when I am seen to be plugging my stuff even a little but after Darlos9D's last post I feel compelled to mention the short project I am currently working on. Basically it is a turn-based RPG where you control FIFTEEN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS in one battle. (Not like in Demon Tower where you swap out- they are all in your party at one time.) Battles are short in terms of turns but each turn has incredibly strategic complexity and a LOT happens in one turn. I mentioned this because what Darlos9D is talking about is taking an SRPG and scaling it down (FFT was pretty scaled down btw) and what I am doing is talking about taking a traditional RPG and scaling it UP.
Maybe RPG combat should have less importance on bosses in general. A fight against a well-coordinated group of enemies could be just as difficult, if not more.
Well you should probably expand your concept of boss. Fights against groups of lesser badasses with synergistic abilities are one of my favorite types of "boss" fights. A boss doesn't always mean one giant monster.
I always come under a lot of fire when I am seen to be plugging my stuff even a little but after Darlos9D's last post I feel compelled to mention the short project I am currently working on. Basically it is a turn-based RPG where you control FIFTEEN INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERS in one battle. (Not like in Demon Tower where you swap out- they are all in your party at one time.) Battles are short in terms of turns but each turn has incredibly strategic complexity and a LOT happens in one turn. I mentioned this because what Darlos9D is talking about is taking an SRPG and scaling it down (FFT was pretty scaled down btw) and what I am doing is talking about taking a traditional RPG and scaling it UP.
AznChipmunk
4613
I didn't read the whole topic but the concept interested me. I personally haven't played a large amount of RPGs, especially compared to people in this community... Also, I don't think this was an RM centered discussion, as the first few people to respond seemed to assume.
Anyways... I was wondering. I feel like targeting a squishier character in a party of two (like my own game has) would be unfair, especially if both are vital to dealing damage. I wouldn't want to waste one character's turn on defending the other that often (especially since for reasons not stated, it would make battles dull and considerable less... "awesome.")
I think the idea of intelligent enemies could be workable, but I am just thinking of an example where I feel random chance would be best.
"Rocket Propelled" "Role Playing" which essentially means you take on the role of a character--this can mean anything. While there are games like FF which people generally categorize as "RPG," there are also many other games that are debateable, as I have seen people classify games such as the Zelda series to be Action RPG, Action Adventure, or just Action.
Essentially I am saying this because I have played games that have prettied up and well thought out battle systems, but completely fail in writing, music, puzzle design, or some other aspect, and it made me stop playing the game.
edit: Thinking about it... I feel that the way battles worked in Live-a-Live were amazing, but they were not typical RPG battles and were a bit more actiony.
Anyways... I was wondering. I feel like targeting a squishier character in a party of two (like my own game has) would be unfair, especially if both are vital to dealing damage. I wouldn't want to waste one character's turn on defending the other that often (especially since for reasons not stated, it would make battles dull and considerable less... "awesome.")
I think the idea of intelligent enemies could be workable, but I am just thinking of an example where I feel random chance would be best.
post=125698Although I don't want to derail another topic, I do want to say that a battle system isn't necessarily an enormous part of an RPG, though it is very important. RPGs which play down a battle system and bring other elements to the forefront, like plot mechanics, side quests, or puzzles can be just as much of a fun game and an "RPG." Even thoug the G stands for "Game" the RP stands for
Though to be perfectly honest, right here might be the most basic problem of all: many people forget that an RPG is, first and foremost, a game. One cannot deny that the combat system of an RPG is at least half of it's gameplay, so I'm just amazed at how little thought about intelligent combat strategy seems to go into designing a combat system. It seems like many who design RPGs are more interested in telling a story... which is fine, until you realize that a story isn't the only aspect of an RPG. There's a reason the G stands for Game. If the whole system is just generic combat, equipment, magic, skills, and enemies... why am I bothering? To get a story? I'll just read a novel. I have a friend of mine who thinks the collective story of the Lunar series sounds somewhat interesting, but who isn't willing to slog through the cliched game system. I played them myself, but I don't blame him at all.
Essentially I am saying this because I have played games that have prettied up and well thought out battle systems, but completely fail in writing, music, puzzle design, or some other aspect, and it made me stop playing the game.
edit: Thinking about it... I feel that the way battles worked in Live-a-Live were amazing, but they were not typical RPG battles and were a bit more actiony.
post=125698
One cannot deny that the combat system of an RPG is at least half of it's gameplay, so I'm just amazed at how little thought about intelligent combat strategy seems to go into designing a combat system. It seems like many who design RPGs are more interested in telling a story... which is fine, until you realize that a story isn't the only aspect of an RPG. There's a reason the G stands for Game. If the whole system is just generic combat, equipment, magic, skills, and enemies... why am I bothering?
Well, there's much more to gameplay than battles. Much, much more.
Darken
3952
Considering every chest/reward/tip/purchaseattheshop you do/get is connected to the battles, I think it's safe to say battles are much more important than people think (specially if the puzzles somehow connect the battles to them like say KC(A).
Well, some rpg's gameplay is entirely dependent on battles, yes, but it's not part of the essence of rpg. I mean... you can have a game with good gameplay and simple battles, definitely.
Darlos9D
0
post=125751Certainly, something like many FFs or DQs can be assumed to be an abstraction, I won't argue with that. I'd like to see a bit less abstraction though, I suppose.
Not really psychoanalyze so much as...okay so in games with realistically rendered 3D graphics, characters are really standing where they are standing and moving where they are moving. In games with more simplistic graphics however- like say, FF6- I take combat to be an abstraction. i.e. the heroes aren't really standing in a line, running forward to slash with a sword, and then running back. It is a metaphor for what is actually happening. And in games with practically no graphics (anything made with the 2k or VX DBS) I always think about combat this way. Is this overthinking it? Uh...probably.
post=125756As far as balls-out combat goes, yeah, you probably need at least some minimum number of characters to make such up-front tactics work out correctly. For one or even two characters, one might consider having inter-combat aspects added in, such as stealth, ambushing, and the ability to hide and escape if things get too rough.
IAnyways... I was wondering. I feel like targeting a squishier character in a party of two (like my own game has) would be unfair, especially if both are vital to dealing damage. I wouldn't want to waste one character's turn on defending the other that often (especially since for reasons not stated, it would make battles dull and considerable less... "awesome.")
post=125761Yeah... exactly. Pretty much everything you do in most RPGs is building up to being better at and gaining access to more battles. There might be some examples that aren't that way, but they certainly aren't the norm.
Considering every chest/reward/tip/purchaseattheshop you do/get is connected to the battles, I think it's safe to say battles are much more important than people think (specially if the puzzles somehow connect the battles to them like say KC(A).
post=125768Such a game, if it's a more typical RPG, would have to have a pretty interesting character-building system, which actually is what you wind up with a lot, it seems to me: generic combat and some equipment/skill/magic system with a unique twist. But again, those building systems are there to allow you to customize battle combatants, nothing more. So again I'd say most rpg's are entirely dependent on battle.
Well, some rpg's gameplay is entirely dependent on battles, yes, but it's not part of the essence of rpg. I mean... you can have a game with good gameplay and simple battles, definitely.
The only way to move away from that is to perhaps have character building system aspects that support advancement in non combat aspects: puzzle solving, exploration, trap evasion, socializing, diplomacy, bartering, academic knowledge, etc. You see this sort of thing in western RPGs sometimes, such as specific bartering and speech skills in Fallout. Not so much in jRPGs... or even a lot of western ones, for that matter.
