BUTTON MASH - FORCING THE PLAYER TO USE DIFFERENT SKILLS

Posts

author=Crystalgate
I'm trying to implement a rather simple idea to get people to use defensive skills. It works like this; if they only use offense and healing and don't use any damage mitigation skills, they get a game over. Enemies will kill them, either by overwhelming them or by eating trough all healing.

Another method I have is to give the enemies different defenses. Currently, most enemies have either high defense or high evasion. Attacks and weapons that are suitable for one type defense usually fares worse against the other type of defense. I need a few more defensive methods though.
I liked this idea, but with a twist. It seems somewhat closer to reality. It's similar to if you would always be hacking-slashing forward, you'd let your guard down more and more. This would make it easier for enemies to land a critical. But instead of making a pure Attack & Guard, you could give "Offensive" and "Defensive" values to each move that would be worn out or enforced. The less offensive you use, the faster Defensive will recover. Keep using the Offensive moves that would deal more damage and you would leave yourself more vulnerable.
author=Zephyr
I liked this idea, but with a twist. It seems somewhat closer to reality. It's similar to if you would always be hacking-slashing forward, you'd let your guard down more and more. This would make it easier for enemies to land a critical. But instead of making a pure Attack & Guard, you could give "Offensive" and "Defensive" values to each move that would be worn out or enforced. The less offensive you use, the faster Defensive will recover. Keep using the Offensive moves that would deal more damage and you would leave yourself more vulnerable.

That system can work, but you need a "less, but tougher battles" approach for it. The system will fail against enemies that are defeated in a few turns. The reason for that is because as your defense weakens, the enemies become less and less. At the second turn, your defense will be weaker if you used an offensive move, but if at that point you killed an enemy, there will be one less that hits you.

By the way, similar restrictions exist for most ideas. They only work when certain conditions are true. It's actually very common that an RPGM project (or even commercial games) has some very fun ideas, but they just don't work since the game doesn't supplement them.
author=Radnen
LockeZ comment above has got me thinking...

Button mashing games = FUN

Otherwise = Boooooring.

HaHa! Only because you haven't played MY games......... cuz I haven't made them yet. But whatever.

In "a" game I'm planning in the future, I try to make all my magic unique. Fire isn't merely a different elemental version of blizzard being a different elemental to whatever else. Lightning Strike and Blizzard may deal only average level magical damage unlike Flame Blast which deals high level magical damage. But they have different advantages such as Lightning Strike stunning an enemy for a turn and Blizzard being AoE.

Then there are other status magic such as Magical Lullaby(sleep) and Toxic(poison). Although they only have almost definite chance of success, Magical Lullaby is AoE and Toxic also inflicts average magical damage before inflicting poison. Though poison is nerfed compared with other games to 5% each turn though to avoid being gamebreaker.

Every magic has their own strategic uses. Such as Lightning Strike right when a certain boss starts charging their attack, so that they can't release in the next turn, have to start over and end up wasting a turn. But in any case, NO magic or ability is best for EVERY situation!

But then again, maybe this might not be everyone's kind of thing. Just my taste for my game to be puzzle/card game like.

Also, healing and enemy damage is nerfed compared with other games. So surviving boss attacks are more progressive than luck based. And different magic still use different MP. Some magic are mostly better, just not always.
What I'm trying to do now is to force the player into being creative with their skills with combos that will be hinted at but never fully explained. All enemies will not only outnumber you, they overpower you too. Without using the combos you will die in a few turns.

Examples of combos:
Warrior uses Bravery on Crusader
Crusader uses Smite Evil on Enemy
Crusader instead uses Devastate Evil

The new skill (Devastate Evil) also leaves the target with a heavy debuff to Defense, leaving it open to attack.

It also works with healing:
Mage casts Amplify on Healer
Healer casts Heal
Healer then instead casts Full Heal

Full Heal also removes status effects in addition to healing.

Very few combos will be explained fully, most will have to be the result of careful experimentation.
author=ferris95
Warrior uses Bravery on Crusader
Crusader uses Smite Evil on Enemy
Crusader instead uses Devastate Evil


I remember seeing that script and thinking it could be cool. I'm using Yanfly's ATB system, so it couldn't be implemented in my current project, but I found a decent work-around for dual techs.

It's interesting that a lot of these solutions simply take a 1-move spam and change it into a 2 or 3-move spam. An improvement, maybe, but I think the solution for the problem rests in thoughtful enemy design.

I'm putting something called a "Zone Crystal" in every one of my new project's battles to modify the encounter. At low levels, the crystal has very simple effects (2x enemy strength, 2x enemy dexterity, etc). As the player progresses, more difficult crystals enter the rotation (all enemies have reflect, exhaustion penalties for hero's physical skills are doubled, etc). For boss battles, the crystal's effects can be very damaging. In all cases, the player can choose to destroy the crystal and nullify its effect, but if the player chooses to kill all the other enemies first, the crystal will automatically die and the battle will end. It presents a choice in each case: is the time it takes to crush the crystal worth the benefit of nullifying its effect?

The crystal transforms at the beginning of each battle through a randomized variable, so I'll have to test every crystal with each enemy troop to make sure it's not a battle-breaking addition.
An interesting take on changing up strategy is giving the AI the ability to learn - which is, for instance, that if you use magic very often to attack, the enemy will be more likely to cast Reflect. Also, if you buff often, he'll dispel more likely and so on.
In our game, you can't hit flying enemies with ground attacks, you can't jumped on spiked or fiery enemies, and of course elemental weaknesses and strengths. Monster can have badges just like hero's, so you may want to think twice about hitting that Blooper holding a Thunder Swap badge with a Thunder Hammer from Luigi. The Blooper may be weak to electricity, but because of the badge he sometimes has he gets a stat boost from Thunder damage. And of course, since all hits have action commands that you have to time you have to consider how well you can pull them off before deciding to use one. By the very nature that skills are timed differently, you literally can't mash anything to get through a battle in Starlite Worlds.
Max McGee
with sorrow down past the fence
9159
Response to topic in general:

This is another thing that a lot of people say they want from gams, but not really. I've seen the same reviewers who complain when a game can be beaten by mashing attack and using the same skills over and over also complain that games which require careful, strategic applications and combinations of skills are too hard, too inscrutable, badly balanced, or unplayable.

If you make a game in such a way that there are right and wrong ways to play it, reviewers who make poor strategic choices will assume the game is poorly balanced. Why wouldn't they? If they're serious about reviewing, 10 of the last 12 games they played WERE poorly balanced. On the other hand, if there is one obvious path through combat, the game is 'monotonous', 'repetitive', and 'too easy'.

It is one of many catch 22s in our little subset of homebrew game making.
I think that the tack taken is part of the problem.

We shouldn't be "forcing" the player to do this, but guide them. If we want them to play the game a certain way, we should be enticing them and not shoving it down their throats.
Versalia
must be all that rtp in your diet
1405
author=ferris95
All enemies will not only outnumber you, they overpower you too. Without using the combos you will die in a few turns.

Very few combos will be explained fully, most will have to be the result of careful experimentation.


That sounds really punishing to the player and not at all fun. You encourage them to experiment but unless they already know which combos are the most effective, they will die extremely quickly.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
kentona
I think that the tack taken is part of the problem.

We shouldn't be "forcing" the player to do this, but guide them. If we want them to play the game a certain way, we should be enticing them and not shoving it down their throats.


I was about to say this!

While cooldowns, limits, etc. are all used for balance, they should not be used to force players into having "strategy" when all they're doing is rotating their skill list.

I suggest reversing how battles are designed. Most developers, I think, go "this boss is hard! It can be taken down in *this way*." That's not strategy, that's a single path.

Spin it around: "this boss is hard, the challenge is that it attempts X, which cancels/causes/creates Y. I know that the player has multiple ways around this; they'll be able to figure out a way to combat it."

Edifice's bosses are not designed with a strategy in mind. I simply come up with a gimmick, play against them with a few parties, and if I can kill it, it's a success. I don't design bosses as just beef gates, and they're not there to kill you. Edifice bosses make the player change how they play, which is a hell of a lot more refreshing than "here's a lizard, but with TWENTY TIMES MORE HP!"
author=Max McGee
Response to topic in general:

This is another thing that a lot of people say they want from gams, but not really. I've seen the same reviewers who complain when a game can be beaten by mashing attack and using the same skills over and over also complain that games which require careful, strategic applications and combinations of skills are too hard, too inscrutable, badly balanced, or unplayable.

If you make a game in such a way that there are right and wrong ways to play it, reviewers who make poor strategic choices will assume the game is poorly balanced. Why wouldn't they? If they're serious about reviewing, 10 of the last 12 games they played WERE poorly balanced. On the other hand, if there is one obvious path through combat, the game is 'monotonous', 'repetitive', and 'too easy'.

It is one of many catch 22s in our little subset of homebrew game making.

While I do agree that a lot of reviewers are hypocritical about strategy in games, some games may even need balancing. I of course hate just button mashing the whole way through. But if EVERY normal battle is a super challenge of wits it will just get annoying. Most should just take no more than a single thought in my opinion.

Boss fights however, I'm certain can be as strategically challenging as you want without ANY limit. In fact, the more strategically challenging the better. If there are any reviewers who says a game is bad because the bosses makes you think too much but don't have a problem with normal enemies, they have no idea what they're talking about.

author=Craze
kentona
I suggest reversing how battles are designed. Most developers, I think, go "this boss is hard! It can be taken down in *this way*." That's not strategy, that's a single path.

Spin it around: "this boss is hard, the challenge is that it attempts X, which cancels/causes/creates Y. I know that the player has multiple ways around this; they'll be able to figure out a way to combat it."

Edifice's bosses are not designed with a strategy in mind. I simply come up with a gimmick, play against them with a few parties, and if I can kill it, it's a success. I don't design bosses as just beef gates, and they're not there to kill you. Edifice bosses make the player change how they play, which is a hell of a lot more refreshing than "here's a lizard, but with TWENTY TIMES MORE HP!"
If you don't design a boss with a strategy in mind, how are you going to be certain any strategy CAN be involved? Even the most creative bosses can only add an illusion of strategy and really still be button mashy. So do you like do logic checks after you design the boss to see if you can really use your wits to overcome the challenge? Wouldn't you also end up having to redesign bosses quite a few times?

Even gimmick bosses with just one clever way to beat is still better than a seemingly creative boss that truly has no strategy.
Versalia
must be all that rtp in your diet
1405
author=PsychoFreaX
While I do agree that a lot of reviewers are hypocritical about strategy in games, some games may even need balancing. I of course hate just button mashing the whole way through. But if EVERY normal battle is a super challenge of wits it will just get annoying. Most should just take no more than a single thought in my opinion.


wait, but a single thought is literally "press attack"
author=Versalia
author=PsychoFreaX
While I do agree that a lot of reviewers are hypocritical about strategy in games, some games may even need balancing. I of course hate just button mashing the whole way through. But if EVERY normal battle is a super challenge of wits it will just get annoying. Most should just take no more than a single thought in my opinion.
wait, but a single thought is literally "press attack"


Right, but I don't consider that a thought. More of an impulse.
Craze
why would i heal when i could equip a morningstar
15150
PsychoFreaX, can you please point us to some RPGs with battle systems that you thought were engaging and strategic? Thanks.
I personally feel a lot of designers get lazy when it comes to originality or making their skills unique. I am a huge fan of multiple choices, themes and flavors to get through a game with. Having one skill that does it all is nice but it gets tedious and pretty goddamn boring after a while. I can see party members aside from your main protagonist using their own built in things, but the main character needs a lot of variety and customization.
Skill archetypes are pretty well explored in the realm of video games; that is to say, creating something original is very difficult or not worth the effort. Doesn't sound very promising to put it that way, but instead of trying to reinvent the wheel, why not create interesting and unique places those wheels can take you?

If I wanted to continue the silly metaphor further, button-mashing is equivalent to a long, flat, straight road (insert FFXIII joke here). Driver fatigue becomes an issue, and is the purpose of this argument. Put a fork in the road by establishing a point where mashing one attack/skill no longer has an effect. Then choice comes into play; one can choose the fork that looks like it will get back to the main road quicker (for example, cancel out an enemy status that makes your strong, main physical attack useless or weaker), or take another road altogether (switch to primary magic-based attacks). Play with these ideas, and try to anticipate the choices the player may make; see what else you can surprise them with.

This is pretty much what Craze said if I convert the application to the idea behind it.
A button mash combo system? The only RPG I could think of is Xenogears, and that game's battle system relies heavily on pressing a button to attack, and then another button to execute another attack, and so on until you activate a "Deathblow" or consume all AP with the combo you just did. Oh and you can also cancel in the middle of your combo.

In a nutshell, it's an ATB system on steroids.

Anyway, I've been trying to implement this combo system on my game, but the problem is that I'm gonna have to research heavily for it... either that or it's impossible to do so. It seems really interesting.
If you were responding to me, no, that wasn't quite what I had in mind =) Not so literally, anyway.

I just mean, if your character has a button mash skill, or button-mashes attack, then the developer should be aware of this and plan the battle accordingly. Have the boss do something that nullifies that attack (when you think about it, an enemy with a brain is going to try to mitigate your attack when he realizes it hurts). Then consider what options or other abilities the player has and consider responses to those, too.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
If you meant the topic, then yeah, don't take the term "button mash" so literally.

In an action or fighting game, if you use one skill over and over and over, it is button mashing in the literal sense. In an RPG, if you use one skill over and over and over, it is button mashing in a slightly more figurative sense, since you do probably at least have to press the down arrow a few times, but it's equally un-fun.