SIDEVIEW: TURNBASED OR ATB?

pyrodoom
Sure it doesn't give you enough time for strategy, but at least it will allow you to make a better strategy than a turn-based battle does with the turn-based restrictions!

what

Bad ATB systems are bad; bad turn-based systems are bad.



Skip to about 3:00. Xenosaga 3 is turn-based and is the fastest battle system I can think of.

author=eplipswich

author=Archeia_Nessiah
FFX and FFT are CTBs. (Count Time Battle System/Charge Time Battle)

Just so anyone else cares, another long term for CTB is "Conditional Turn-Based" battle system. (in reference to FFX only, anyway).

I always thought it was "Charge Turn Battle", too.

author=Archeia_Nessiah

author=murray

author=Archeia_Nessiah
FF ATB or ATBs in general all look like some pointless waiting for actions. CTBs are better because the stronger the skills are, the more delay they add to your timer, the longer your turns take, etc. You can be incredibly creative with it.

Different skills having different delays is not a defining feature of CTB at all. Several ATB FFs including FF4 also had different delays for their skills.

I don't recall FF4 having the same skill effects like in Mana Khemia's CTB ( which is what I actually meant by being creative. If you watch it all, you'll see what I mean soon enough) and the ability to control your "delay"/"speed" freely. I was referring more to how you can move more...stream-liney than WAIT FOR TURN, Chooses an Action, Wait for a bar to fill in again for the action to happen (HELLO V&V) or yeah *shrugs*

I don't know what's going on in that video, except that the animations are super awesome and the voices are super obnoxious. The aesthetics completely overshadow the mechanics.

author=eplipswich
Actually I believe CTB and ATB both have their uniqueness. While I like CTB better than ATB, ATB is unique in itself because ATB is for the fast-thinking players. That's the challenge for ATB. It's kinda what simulates real-life battling, because in real-life, you don't have all the time in the world to decide on a move. That's why in ATB, one gotta act fast.

ATB isn't necessarily fast. It's not a matter of slow battle system vs. fast battle system. FFIX had a slow ATB and FFX's CTB was one of the series' fastest battle systems for instance.

Anyway one thing that does distinguish ATB from CTB is that ATB allows for various levels of concurrent actions:

*In Chrono Trigger, you don't have much incentive to button-spam through the battles: on the contrary, when one character gets his or her turn, you're incited to wait for at least one other character to also get his or her turn, so you can use a combination attack.
*In FFX-2, you can attack an enemy while the enemy is attacking someone else, to disrupt his attack.
*In FFV and VI, you had a freaking two-player option to play the battles with a friend, with two command prompts at the same time.

A CTB system allows for none of these features. (I'm not saying that makes CTB a less interesting system; I'm just hightlighting a difference.)

Well, you said ATB is for the fast-thinking players. I simply noted that it isn't necessarily so. In Chrono Trigger you aren't incited to react fast, you are incited to combine your characters' turns (which is impossible in strictly turn-based systems).

author=elipswitch
EDIT: There is one way to actually make players act faster in CTB battles. And that's by adding a time limit per character's turn.

But... why would you want to do that in a RPG? Are there actually players who complain about having too much time to choose their strategy, or about button mashing not being encouraged enough?

author=LockeZ
The players in question generally do not like any of the basic concepts of RPGs or strategy games; they dislike thinking and planning, and prefer just stabbing and shooting. So making RPGs designed to appeal to these kinds of players is kind of stupid. If you want to make a game for those kinds of players, make an action game instead. Or an "action RPG", if that's even a different thing from an action game any more.

Well, it CAN be done. I found the gameplay of Star Ocean:TTEOT very good.

The problem is that just taking a turn-based system (which the ABS at its heart is) and putting some random time limits on it doesn't transform it into a fun action system. It's taking the worst of both worlds.

(I still remember how HACK:Sign tried to convince you it had action elements.)

author=Max McGee
Think MAYBE this inspired your Boss Battle Contest Entry A LITTLE, Ness?

: P

Ness didn't enter. That was me. 8V

I thought this community was past confusing the both of us at this point. It's been a couple years now! Ah well...

author=Archeia_Nessiah
Considering we have similar tastes, it's not surprising :D

You gotta admit, it is kind of annoying though! 8D;;

I won't sweat it too much though.

...As for the topic at hand; Sideview rarely has any actual bearing on the mechanics of a battle system. So such a thing shouldn't be seriously considered. If you LIKE sideview, then go ahead, but don't force yourself.

And on the subject of ATB and turn based. I actually enjoy ATB when it's done RIGHT. Like Final Fantasy X-2. That was a pretty great battle system, the rest of the game notwithstanding. It's a shame they never used some variation of it ever again...

But ATB when it's done WRONG is the worst. Case in point; RM2k3's DBS. Of course it's possible to try and do what you can with it, but the core of the battle system is terrible and I have no idea what enterbrain was thinking when they coded it. If they were thinking at all. It would be great if someone fixed it already. *hinthint*

My real preference would probably be CTB though. Turns resolution is incredibly quick and you don't have to watch anything fill up. That's a big plus in my book!

author=Craze
Actually, the "ATB Kai" was reused in <3 Final Fantasy Type-0, and made even more action-y. It's like FFX-2 and FFXII merged. It'd be nice if they decided to allow you to control everybody at once again, though :<

Really now? I mean, I watched some gameplay videos of Type-0 but I never realized it was a similar system! It looked more like FFXII to me. Hm, I may have to keep an eye on Type-0 then.

author=Craze
or you could abandon almost decade-old software and use VX/Melody, which includes everything 2k3 can do, but better

I mean

YEAH BATTLE SYSTEMS ARE COOL LET'S TALK ABOUT THEM MORE

I would totally graduate to a higher maker, but RGSS and I don't get along very well. I've tried!

And I'm the type of person who likes coming up with their own idea for mechanics, so not being able to realize them because RGSS is my worst enemy makes using the latest engines pointless.

author=Cozzer
I suggest you look into "Atoa Custom Battle System": it's a script for RMXP that lets you create a custom battle system just changing some variables (it has a lot of optional modules for functions you could want to add, and it lets you choose between a normal turn-based system, an ATB or a CTB).
And you can still implement your personal mechanics through events, if you want.

I know of Atoa's CBS, along with DVV's animated battlers and add-ons, YF's various engines and RPG Tankentai. I may not use the makers, but I browse the communities. To be perfectly honest I haven't really connected with any of them.

And I've simply done too much work to just walk away now, so it's all moot anyway. I get good work done with what I do, so I'll simply continue. Thanks for the suggestions though!