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)
BATTLE LENGTHS
Posts
Pages:
1
PsychoFreaX
View playlists
CloseHi so how long do battles last in your games. Whether it's against mooks or bosses. In my future game that I done the most planning on however. My mooks usually get about 2 turns average(half a minute). While my bosses have around 10 turns AVERAGE(notice I said average) before I expect the player to kill them(3 minutes) or they'll probably kill you.
The reason I chose 10 turns is to try to balance it out. Mainly so that poison wouldn't be too overpowered. With it dealing 5% damage every turn and status effects still work on my bosses most of the time. I find there's more strategy that way.
Besides 10 turns should be enough so the player doesn't get tired of the battle right? it takes 5 turns for figuring out the boss. Then just use whatever trick you came up with for the other half of the battle.
So what about your games? So long do you set up your battles?
The reason I chose 10 turns is to try to balance it out. Mainly so that poison wouldn't be too overpowered. With it dealing 5% damage every turn and status effects still work on my bosses most of the time. I find there's more strategy that way.
Besides 10 turns should be enough so the player doesn't get tired of the battle right? it takes 5 turns for figuring out the boss. Then just use whatever trick you came up with for the other half of the battle.
So what about your games? So long do you set up your battles?
Well I had a secret boss battle last for a good 2 hours before, which is over kill, but any hardcore gamer going after them, will be doing it no matter what the time.
But remember this. Time isn't much of a factor, if they are not repetitive in actions. It keeps it enjoyable if they don't repeat a lot in a given set of time.
But remember this. Time isn't much of a factor, if they are not repetitive in actions. It keeps it enjoyable if they don't repeat a lot in a given set of time.
Thiamor
Well I had a secret boss battle last for a good 2 hours before, which is over kill, but any hardcore gamer going after them, will be doing it no matter what the time.
I hate you so much.
***
I plan everything out in terms of hits. I know I've already written on this subject before... if anybody remembers where that post was, finding it would be amazing. I think Nessy was involved?
In Edifice, average damage the entire game is ~50 (math!). I want enemies to die, in general, after four normal hits - they get 180-200 HP on average. Enemies attack in big swarms, you have six dudes out at a time (this is why the number of hits is so low); you should be able to kill a foe and a half in a given rotation - hypothetically. This is not what happens. Games do not tend to be that simple. Some characters will be buffing, others will be using weak attacks that apply ailments, etc. However, your nukers might bring the party average up to 40-50. Still, you can't nuke every turn! So, really, it takes a full rotation to kill one average mook. (I have elite and minion mooks too, but that's a whole 'nother topic.)
Bosses are ~50 hits, or ~2400 HP. With about four characters doing full damage each rotation (some will be buffing, stunned, etc.), this will take twelve rotations (2400/(4*50)). Except it won't. You'll be petrified, poisoned, silenced, etc., so I estimate a good twenty rotations at most.
For more traditional games, make sure you incorporate equipment when doing hit amount calculations. I've balanced an area's monsters based on the party's base stats at the expected level for the dungeon, only to play it and find it far to easy. I wanted players to die in ten hits, they are falling in twenty... because I totally forgot about weapons and armor.
Go forth and experiment with measuring battles in hits! It will help you think about game design and balance more because you're checking your own numbers to see if they work out. (If they don't work well, fix them immediately.)
ubermax
0
I'm trying to think back to all the RPGs I've played and remember how long boss battles took. All I can remember is how long they felt.
If you do it right, the battle is challenging and rewarding without being a drag. If you do it wrong, it feels like a chore, and when that boss pops up it inspires the wrong kind of dread in your players. You want them to think, "Oh shit, it's a boss, time to get real!", and not, "Oh God, not another one..."
In that sense, I wouldn't mind a long boss battle, so long as it's fun.
If you do it right, the battle is challenging and rewarding without being a drag. If you do it wrong, it feels like a chore, and when that boss pops up it inspires the wrong kind of dread in your players. You want them to think, "Oh shit, it's a boss, time to get real!", and not, "Oh God, not another one..."
In that sense, I wouldn't mind a long boss battle, so long as it's fun.
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
Legend of Zelda boss battles have gimmicks, and last until you do the gimmick correctly three times. This is probably a good rule of thumb for bosses in pretty much any type of game, including RPGs.
For normal battles, I typically only make the player do the gimmick correctly once per enemy. They'll have to do it again when they fight more enemies of the same type.
However, in both cases, it depends how much the player is actually helped by using the right strategy. If an enemy uses a gimmick where it counterattacks unless you use magic, that doesn't mean it should die in two hits. In mean, in that case, you can easily kill it a dozen times without having any idea that it has a gimmick at all. I feel like battles should last long enough that by the time the player is through the dungeon, he understands how the enemies work. If the enemy appears fewer times, then the fights against that enemy need to last longer. If the enemy only appears once (because it's a boss), then it needs to last even longer.
For normal battles, I typically only make the player do the gimmick correctly once per enemy. They'll have to do it again when they fight more enemies of the same type.
However, in both cases, it depends how much the player is actually helped by using the right strategy. If an enemy uses a gimmick where it counterattacks unless you use magic, that doesn't mean it should die in two hits. In mean, in that case, you can easily kill it a dozen times without having any idea that it has a gimmick at all. I feel like battles should last long enough that by the time the player is through the dungeon, he understands how the enemies work. If the enemy appears fewer times, then the fights against that enemy need to last longer. If the enemy only appears once (because it's a boss), then it needs to last even longer.
My normal battles pretty much just require common sense though. Attack the healer first, AoE on +4 enemies yada yada ya. The next times you fight these enemies are pretty much all about remembering how you beat them last time and not making a mistake.
A lot of normal battles however, can instead be used to experiment on your own abilities. Like say "I wonder which deals more damage? Blizzard or Lightning?" and you try them out on enemies that are neutral(edited!) to both. Or "I wonder if it's possible to poison AND put an enemy to sleep simultaneously? Nope the damage wakes them up."
So my normal enemies might last for more than 3 turns the first times you fight them. But once you figured them out they'll be out in a flash as long as you got a decent memory.
A lot of normal battles however, can instead be used to experiment on your own abilities. Like say "I wonder which deals more damage? Blizzard or Lightning?" and you try them out on enemies that are neutral(edited!) to both. Or "I wonder if it's possible to poison AND put an enemy to sleep simultaneously? Nope the damage wakes them up."
So my normal enemies might last for more than 3 turns the first times you fight them. But once you figured them out they'll be out in a flash as long as you got a decent memory.
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
I think the number of times you fight the same enemy is part of the whole "battle length" thing. You don't want to bore the player by making him keep doing a task long after he's clearly mastered it. Once he's definitely mastered it, move on to the next task.
Fighting the same 60 second random battle ten times is admittedly probably somewhat less monotonous than a single ten minute battle, since you have breaks in between. But it's not enough to keep me from getting seriously bored around the fifth time. For enemies that have such simple strategies, it's probably way too much time to spend on them.
Fighting the same 60 second random battle ten times is admittedly probably somewhat less monotonous than a single ten minute battle, since you have breaks in between. But it's not enough to keep me from getting seriously bored around the fifth time. For enemies that have such simple strategies, it's probably way too much time to spend on them.
Crystalgate
694
For the current project I'm working on, I'm aiming for a 4 turn average for cannon fodder encounters.
If the battle is shorter, a lot of strategies will become useless. For example, putting an enemy to sleep prevents it from attacking you, but so does killing it. The advantage with sleep is that you only need one action to disable them while killing them requires whatever number of hits it takes to kill them. If they die to quickly, the advantage of using sleep instead of killing them becomes less. The same goes for all defensive actions.
Indirect offense will also become useless with to short battles. Poisoned enemies need to live enough turns for the HP drain to matter. If you cast a buff that increases someone's attack, you spend one turn that otherwise could have been used to deal damage. The buffed character has to get off enough attacks to regain the lost damage. For example, if an attack buff makes you deal 1,5 times the damage you would unbuffed, it takes two turns of attacking with that buff to break even and three turns to gain damage.
On the other hand, if battles last to long, the player starts repeating himself for that same battle. For any effect that wears off, say silence which is cured after three turns, the player will most likely enter an X turn loop where every X'th turn he recasts skill Y. For effects that doesn't wear off, the player will be done with them after the first, or first two, turns and just attack instead. Either means a lot of repetition.
How long battles should last will depend on how the battle system, skills, characters and a lot more, is set up. For example, the attack buff in my example wouldn't need three turns to pay if you have a support character with a crappy damage output. Also, if you have a system where the player does attack and defense more or less simultaneously, you need less turns. Pick as many turns as your system need.
If the battle is shorter, a lot of strategies will become useless. For example, putting an enemy to sleep prevents it from attacking you, but so does killing it. The advantage with sleep is that you only need one action to disable them while killing them requires whatever number of hits it takes to kill them. If they die to quickly, the advantage of using sleep instead of killing them becomes less. The same goes for all defensive actions.
Indirect offense will also become useless with to short battles. Poisoned enemies need to live enough turns for the HP drain to matter. If you cast a buff that increases someone's attack, you spend one turn that otherwise could have been used to deal damage. The buffed character has to get off enough attacks to regain the lost damage. For example, if an attack buff makes you deal 1,5 times the damage you would unbuffed, it takes two turns of attacking with that buff to break even and three turns to gain damage.
On the other hand, if battles last to long, the player starts repeating himself for that same battle. For any effect that wears off, say silence which is cured after three turns, the player will most likely enter an X turn loop where every X'th turn he recasts skill Y. For effects that doesn't wear off, the player will be done with them after the first, or first two, turns and just attack instead. Either means a lot of repetition.
How long battles should last will depend on how the battle system, skills, characters and a lot more, is set up. For example, the attack buff in my example wouldn't need three turns to pay if you have a support character with a crappy damage output. Also, if you have a system where the player does attack and defense more or less simultaneously, you need less turns. Pick as many turns as your system need.
A: Depends on who you're fighting!
I've split my mooks into two groups: The Dark Dizzys your dog can kill simply by gnawing on the controller and the goons that require some effort and time to kill. The rewards are adjusted proportionally and the goons actually drop usable loot while the DDs drop those capped healing items that are nigh-useless in battle. DDs die quickly, goons die less quickly. This gives the player the quick respite battles to introduce more enemies to the curb and some battles that require effort without becoming a boss fight.
Bosses are a whole different kettle of fish and their longetivety depends on which boss the player is fighting. BEES!! is a quick and dirty blitzkrieg fight due to the boss' power being proportional to its health so strategies that require mobilizing your manpower+reserves fail on account of the party dying while setting up. Instead the party has to drop the boss down to managable power first, pick themselves off the wall now that the boss' threat has been marginalized, then finish it off (sometimes skipping the middle step depending on how neutered the boss is). Meanwhile Scourge's elastic resistances make a quick kill difficult because same-elemental attacks work once until that elemental resistance is pushed off over time or by filling Scourge's maximum elements to resist and the oldest resistance is lost. There's also bosses that both tank and can be nuked. A currently nameless boss creates a weaker clone of himself on turn one so the player can kill the true boss to end the fight quicker but under greater fire or kill the clone reducing the boss' firepower but having to deal more damage (and spend more time) to win the fight.
Generally I shoot for shorter quicker but more intense * fights because I'm not a fan of attrition bosses. Even the tank bosses will have a trick (beyond the "One-time-per-game OHKO Item") for a quick kill.
* If it is Demon's Gate then ignore the intense part. Boss fights are just 'quick'
I've split my mooks into two groups: The Dark Dizzys your dog can kill simply by gnawing on the controller and the goons that require some effort and time to kill. The rewards are adjusted proportionally and the goons actually drop usable loot while the DDs drop those capped healing items that are nigh-useless in battle. DDs die quickly, goons die less quickly. This gives the player the quick respite battles to introduce more enemies to the curb and some battles that require effort without becoming a boss fight.
Bosses are a whole different kettle of fish and their longetivety depends on which boss the player is fighting. BEES!! is a quick and dirty blitzkrieg fight due to the boss' power being proportional to its health so strategies that require mobilizing your manpower+reserves fail on account of the party dying while setting up. Instead the party has to drop the boss down to managable power first, pick themselves off the wall now that the boss' threat has been marginalized, then finish it off (sometimes skipping the middle step depending on how neutered the boss is). Meanwhile Scourge's elastic resistances make a quick kill difficult because same-elemental attacks work once until that elemental resistance is pushed off over time or by filling Scourge's maximum elements to resist and the oldest resistance is lost. There's also bosses that both tank and can be nuked. A currently nameless boss creates a weaker clone of himself on turn one so the player can kill the true boss to end the fight quicker but under greater fire or kill the clone reducing the boss' firepower but having to deal more damage (and spend more time) to win the fight.
Generally I shoot for shorter quicker but more intense * fights because I'm not a fan of attrition bosses. Even the tank bosses will have a trick (beyond the "One-time-per-game OHKO Item") for a quick kill.
* If it is Demon's Gate then ignore the intense part. Boss fights are just 'quick'
udivision
2453
We incorporated timed hits into our battle system, so the player has to factor in "hmm, can i time this stronger attack well enough or should I go with a safer, weaker one?" or they'll use different moves just to mix it up. Normal battles last 1-3 rounds depending on if you've acclimated to the new mooks and bosses last longer.
Normal battles that regularly last more than four turns will alienate players (a turn here is defined as a period in which all PCs and enemies get to act at least once). It's weird that I have a specific numerical answer for this, kind of like that South Park episode where Chef says that the right age to have sex at is 17, just 17, but I do, and it's 4 turns.
Boss battles offer significantly more leeway. Anywhere from 5-20 turns is acceptable and in some instances, the longer the better. Many more than 10 turns, though, have to be justified. Is the boss changing its tactics, it's stats? What is happening to keep the players strategically engaged rather than just 'rinse and repeat'.
Boss battles offer significantly more leeway. Anywhere from 5-20 turns is acceptable and in some instances, the longer the better. Many more than 10 turns, though, have to be justified. Is the boss changing its tactics, it's stats? What is happening to keep the players strategically engaged rather than just 'rinse and repeat'.
gerkrt
488
Anyway it depends in the general battle style. There are games where the fights are more or less complex or hard so they take more time.
Im planning to put less fights and make them more long and strategical. It will be the same battle time just it will be reorganized.
Im pretty sick of the tradititional formula here and as an indie i want to try something new. Also i totally hate that formula in today rpgs because they totally lack of challengue and tactics and the combat gets incredible boring!
Im planning to put less fights and make them more long and strategical. It will be the same battle time just it will be reorganized.
Im pretty sick of the tradititional formula here and as an indie i want to try something new. Also i totally hate that formula in today rpgs because they totally lack of challengue and tactics and the combat gets incredible boring!
LightningLord2
230
The final boss of Super Mario RPG has one way to have drawn-out fight that's still interesting - he has a head part and a body part, the body part can change his head's form into a physical form with high single-target damage (and a one-hit kill), a magical form that casts AoE, a defense form that removes your buffs and an item box form that inflicts a status effect to the party and then changes to defense form. The body can also attack for mediocre damage. You can focus on his head to bring him down before your items run out (you can only carry 30 at a time) or strike down his body (which doesn't have that much HP) to prevent him from switching his form and force him to stick with one your party can deal with the best.
Pages:
1
