Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
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
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Add Review
Subscribe
Nominate
Submit Media
RSS
Random Battles. Yay or Nay?
Ephiam- 09/29/2013 11:35 PM
- 6821 views
Posts 
View playlists
CloseIt depends. Random battles seem to be the default, lazy easy way of doing things. The critical thing there is not the battles themselves, but their frequency. If they happen too frequently or not enough, at least in my case, I got annoyed by both, since in the first case you can barely take a break, especially if fights are meant to be challenging, and, in the second, you won't level up quickly enough and might not be ready for the next area.
Touch based battles seem to be a better way to go, at least from the developer's point of view, since, in theory, they should be able to control better how the party levels up. The question there is if the visible enemy, assuming they move, if they actively pursue you or not. A nice way to give the player a heads up of whether a battle is too easy or will be hard is to make the use a color code for the sprite used or use unique sprites to identify enemy types. I have notice this is the choice for the more mature RM developers.
The best I have seen, if I recall correctly from I what have seen in a game or two (I don't even remember which), is where the player is given the choice to have either random battles or touch based ones. Of course, something mixes both things, as many RM games, works as well if well implemented.
Bottom line: I respect whatever choice is made, but implement it well.
Touch based battles seem to be a better way to go, at least from the developer's point of view, since, in theory, they should be able to control better how the party levels up. The question there is if the visible enemy, assuming they move, if they actively pursue you or not. A nice way to give the player a heads up of whether a battle is too easy or will be hard is to make the use a color code for the sprite used or use unique sprites to identify enemy types. I have notice this is the choice for the more mature RM developers.
The best I have seen, if I recall correctly from I what have seen in a game or two (I don't even remember which), is where the player is given the choice to have either random battles or touch based ones. Of course, something mixes both things, as many RM games, works as well if well implemented.
Bottom line: I respect whatever choice is made, but implement it well.
I'm generally against it, though like edchuy said it'll be fine however if you implement it correctly. I haven't had much of a problem with your games annoying me with random encounters though.
Dyhalto
7536
Legacies of Dondoran had two skills : One that lowered random encounters to near zero and one that raised it to less than 5 steps. I thought that was a great way of giving the player control of their encounter rate, while at the same time giving them the responsibility to provide for their party's own exp needs.
Ephiam
8579
I guess (for me) it's leaning more towards the "it feels too lazy" approach. Though getting a good gauge on how other people feel in regards to the matter is great. Although I figured most would vote "NO!" as opposed to happily support random encounters.
Granted I haven't had too many (or any at all, to be honest) complaints regarding the encounter rate in any of my games. But I still think that once everything's said and done, I'm going to go for an approach that is similar to Chrono Trigger's way of doing things.
Granted I haven't had too many (or any at all, to be honest) complaints regarding the encounter rate in any of my games. But I still think that once everything's said and done, I'm going to go for an approach that is similar to Chrono Trigger's way of doing things.
I like random battles. They feel less predictable and forced. Touch battles lowers the tension of the game.
jedahxii
246
To be fair, I think one should take into account the overall mapping of a game as to decide what type of encounters fit best. If you have a dungeon with tighter corridors and specifically designed maps, then I believe random encounters work absolutely fine. I mean, if you have a two tile hallway with a skeleton in it then you aren't really making the encounter optional now are you. Also I always found that dodging the fights was annoying. But not nearly as annoying as 200 encounters with bland enemies. Balance, yada yada yada.
I don't believe it to be lazy, per se, but I believe they can be implemented lazily for sure. With a game that is aiming for nostalgia, I think you're totally fine with having random battles.
I don't believe it to be lazy, per se, but I believe they can be implemented lazily for sure. With a game that is aiming for nostalgia, I think you're totally fine with having random battles.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
I'd say go with "random" battles, but have them activate by using variables that are set to a certain number of steps counting down so that you'll only hit a "random" battle one every 30-45 steps, resetting the variable shortly before the battle of course.
Ephiam
8579
I'm conflicted because I like both methods, and neither is my favorite. I'm fairly certain that I could pull either off decently enough, but the hard part comes with deciding on what to settle with in the end. Mind you I have plenty of time to do so due to the fact that I'm working on this game in "Stages," with enemy implementation being (one of) the final stage(s).
Random battles would probably do good in keeping that nostalgic factor alive, and also suit the fairly linear and cramped maps, but at the same time I'd also like to try something different less "lazy." I think I've been cutting enough corners with this project as it is =P
I do agree with what Kentona's saying though, and that's one of the reasons why I like random battles. That sense of tension and never knowing if the next battle is going to be your last, as well as praying that you don't run into that one enemy (or group).
Random battles would probably do good in keeping that nostalgic factor alive, and also suit the fairly linear and cramped maps, but at the same time I'd also like to try something different less "lazy." I think I've been cutting enough corners with this project as it is =P
I do agree with what Kentona's saying though, and that's one of the reasons why I like random battles. That sense of tension and never knowing if the next battle is going to be your last, as well as praying that you don't run into that one enemy (or group).
jedahxii
246
author=Ephiam
I'm conflicted because I like both methods, and neither is my favorite. I'm fairly certain that I could pull either off decently enough, but the hard part comes with deciding on what to settle with in the end. Mind you I have plenty of time to do so due to the fact that I'm working on this game in "Stages," with enemy implementation being (one of) the final stage(s).
Random battles would probably do good in keeping that nostalgic factor alive, and also suit the fairly linear and cramped maps, but at the same time I'd also like to try something different less "lazy." I think I've been cutting enough corners with this project as it is =P
I do agree with what Kentona's saying though, and that's one of the reasons why I like random battles. That sense of tension and never knowing if the next battle is going to be your last, as well as praying that you don't run into that one enemy (or group).
I mean, you could do both. Tales of Destiny did both. Some areas if it suits it better then go ahead with the visual enemies. The cramped areas where it won't make much of a difference? Random encounters. I would take Corfaisus's advice on controlling your encounter rate. Or Dyhalto's.
Ephiam
8579
I like that idea, but what if it only applied to the World Map versus Dungeons? As in potential battles in dungeons would be seen via monster sprites, while traversing the world map would result in random battles? That's also an idea I've been tossing around in my head.
jedahxii
246
author=Ephiam
I like that idea, but what if it only applied to the World Map versus Dungeons? As in potential battles in dungeons would be seen via monster sprites, while traversing the world map would result in random battles? That's also an idea I've been tossing around in my head.
Depends on how much one would be traversing the world map. Ultimately the debate of touch encounters versus random encounters will rage on in a bitter and timeless struggle with which no compromise shall ever be achieved. I don't know the particulars of how likely or unlikely it is for a player to avoid an encounter if it is visible. I do know that by keeping track of the amount of encounters the player will have via a strict set of spawning enemies would allow for more precise balancing. As in, if they kill all thirteen ghouls then they'll be X level. Random encounters are more of a grinding and unaccountable affair where you only have a general approximation of what the party's resulting strength would be. Food for thought lol.
Random! And you can do something like this to make it less annoying:
StepsToBattle = 30 + (DungeonLevel - YourLevel)*5
DungeonLevel is your suggested level for that dungeon (author-defined), and YourLevel is your party's mean level. This rewards leveling by reducing the encounter rate. For dungeons you aren't ready for or under-leveled, the encounter rate can be relatively high. You can of course modify the encounter rate to taste with equipment or skills too.
This worked very well for Starless Umbra when I had random encounters and is a breeze to implement.
StepsToBattle = 30 + (DungeonLevel - YourLevel)*5
DungeonLevel is your suggested level for that dungeon (author-defined), and YourLevel is your party's mean level. This rewards leveling by reducing the encounter rate. For dungeons you aren't ready for or under-leveled, the encounter rate can be relatively high. You can of course modify the encounter rate to taste with equipment or skills too.
This worked very well for Starless Umbra when I had random encounters and is a breeze to implement.
I know nothing about making games BUT I sure do play a lot of them :)
If it's to be random battles then please be sure we can find enough potions to
be able to fight and not die on the field or make enough coin of the realm so
we can buy enough potions.
There is nothing worse than croaking on the field because you ran out of potions :)
If it's to be random battles then please be sure we can find enough potions to
be able to fight and not die on the field or make enough coin of the realm so
we can buy enough potions.
There is nothing worse than croaking on the field because you ran out of potions :)
ubon
66
the main thing about random battles that makes them terrible is that the inability to clear a path hugely discourages exploration. retracing your steps and taking side-routes will always jam you with a plurality of boring and potentially painful encounters, so the dominant strategy is to just blaze through a dungeon with a bare minimum of steps. for someone who loves to find secrets, loves to hide secrets, and loves to explore, having mechanics in place that actively punish going the road less traveled is a seriously bad thing.
as for 'tension', I don't feel that making players dread an encounter because they just don't want to play through another identical battle is the same as creating a legitimate threatened feeling. it's the same school of thought that leads people to make encounters in survival horror games dull, drawn-out, and poorly executed -- because if the player doesn't want to play the game anymore that must mean they're scared, right?
as for 'tension', I don't feel that making players dread an encounter because they just don't want to play through another identical battle is the same as creating a legitimate threatened feeling. it's the same school of thought that leads people to make encounters in survival horror games dull, drawn-out, and poorly executed -- because if the player doesn't want to play the game anymore that must mean they're scared, right?
jedahxii
246
author=mawk
the main thing about random battles that makes them terrible is that the inability to clear a path hugely discourages exploration. retracing your steps and taking side-routes will always jam you with a plurality of boring and potentially painful encounters, so the dominant strategy is to just blaze through a dungeon with a bare minimum of steps. for someone who loves to find secrets, loves to hide secrets, and loves to explore, having mechanics in place that actively punish going the road less traveled is a seriously bad thing.
as for 'tension', I don't feel that making players dread an encounter because they just don't want to play through another identical battle is the same as creating a legitimate threatened feeling. it's the same school of thought that leads people to make encounters in survival horror games dull, drawn-out, and poorly executed -- because if the player doesn't want to play the game anymore that must mean they're scared, right?
What if you made it so that if the player was an appropriate level he could skip the encounter all together?
author=mawki don't play horror games so i can't relate to your analogy, but in RPGs I like building my character or party to be ready for anything and random battles test that more than touch encounters. In games where it is possible, after I "clear out" an area I find the game becomes rather dull. Why traverse from point A to point G if there is never going to be anything significant to encounter between them? why not just put me in point G?
the main thing about random battles that makes them terrible is that the inability to clear a path hugely discourages exploration. retracing your steps and taking side-routes will always jam you with a plurality of boring and potentially painful encounters, so the dominant strategy is to just blaze through a dungeon with a bare minimum of steps. for someone who loves to find secrets, loves to hide secrets, and loves to explore, having mechanics in place that actively punish going the road less traveled is a seriously bad thing.
as for 'tension', I don't feel that making players dread an encounter because they just don't want to play through another identical battle is the same as creating a legitimate threatened feeling. it's the same school of thought that leads people to make encounters in survival horror games dull, drawn-out, and poorly executed -- because if the player doesn't want to play the game anymore that must mean they're scared, right?
ubon
66
I would at least hope that people can think of a few ways to make travel interesting that don't rely on endless random encounters. it's worth noting that requiring a player to retrace the same steps multiple times with little to no change in the area being traversed is also very bad design from my perspective -- so yes, in your scenario it would very much be a case of throwing good design after bad. a trip from A to G distinguished by nothing but random battles doesn't sound very fun at all.
this is a good way to handle things when backtracking, but it doesn't actually make the problem any less severe. the issue with random battles isn't just that they make backtracking unappealing, but also that they make any exploration at all a chore. instead of automatically removing battles when the player reaches a certain level, give them a greater degree of control over when they fight -- make avoiding encounters they don't want to get into right now a part of the challenge, and make it so that retracing their steps to check out something they've forgotten doesn't slam them with exactly as many encounters as they had going the other way.
I don't care how good your battle mechanics are -- there comes a time when the player would rather expedite things, and I think game developers should be respectful of that.
author=jedahxii
What if you made it so that if the player was an appropriate level he could skip the encounter all together?
this is a good way to handle things when backtracking, but it doesn't actually make the problem any less severe. the issue with random battles isn't just that they make backtracking unappealing, but also that they make any exploration at all a chore. instead of automatically removing battles when the player reaches a certain level, give them a greater degree of control over when they fight -- make avoiding encounters they don't want to get into right now a part of the challenge, and make it so that retracing their steps to check out something they've forgotten doesn't slam them with exactly as many encounters as they had going the other way.
I don't care how good your battle mechanics are -- there comes a time when the player would rather expedite things, and I think game developers should be respectful of that.
jedahxii
246
author=mawk
I would at least hope that people can think of a few ways to make travel interesting that don't rely on endless random encounters. it's worth noting that requiring a player to retrace the same steps multiple times with little to no change in the area being traversed is also very bad design from my perspective -- so yes, in your scenario it would very much be a case of throwing good design after bad. a trip from A to G distinguished by nothing but random battles doesn't sound very fun at all.
author=jedahxii
What if you made it so that if the player was an appropriate level he could skip the encounter all together?
this is a good way to handle things when backtracking, but it doesn't actually make the problem any less severe. the issue with random battles isn't just that they make backtracking unappealing, but also that they make any exploration at all a chore. instead of automatically removing battles when the player reaches a certain level, give them a greater degree of control over when they fight -- make avoiding encounters they don't want to get into right now a part of the challenge, and make it so that retracing their steps to check out something they've forgotten doesn't slam them with exactly as many encounters as they had going the other way.
I don't care how good your battle mechanics are -- there comes a time when the player would rather expedite things, and I think game developers should be respectful of that.
author=mawk
I would at least hope that people can think of a few ways to make travel interesting that don't rely on endless random encounters. it's worth noting that requiring a player to retrace the same steps multiple times with little to no change in the area being traversed is also very bad design from my perspective -- so yes, in your scenario it would very much be a case of throwing good design after bad. a trip from A to G distinguished by nothing but random battles doesn't sound very fun at all.
author=jedahxii
What if you made it so that if the player was an appropriate level he could skip the encounter all together?
this is a good way to handle things when backtracking, but it doesn't actually make the problem any less severe. the issue with random battles isn't just that they make backtracking unappealing, but also that they make any exploration at all a chore. instead of automatically removing battles when the player reaches a certain level, give them a greater degree of control over when they fight -- make avoiding encounters they don't want to get into right now a part of the challenge, and make it so that retracing their steps to check out something they've forgotten doesn't slam them with exactly as many encounters as they had going the other way.
I don't care how good your battle mechanics are -- there comes a time when the player would rather expedite things, and I think game developers should be respectful of that.
So, for instance, a game like Wild Arms. Where it was just an exclamation point above your head which you could choose to either ignore or dismiss it. A button press isn't all that taxing, I imagine. I understand your point of view on it, I think we've all been to a point in a game where you see that swish and you let out a disgruntled groan. They do serve their purpose, though, in terms of balance when done appropriately. The battles in an RPG are there to prepare the player, whether through a static value of experience or a relative experience of mechanics, for the challenge that awaits them further along in the game. A "boss." You could allow your player to weave in and out of harms way only to be stifled by said challenge, but unfortunately this may lead to the stale mechanic that you're speaking of. Ever died to a boss and had to do a dungeon all over again? I have. And much like many other people in the world, I despise having to do things I've all ready done. I suppose, ultimately, whichever way you deliver the poison they'll still be getting it. Just a matter of whether you see it in the glass, ha ha.
ubon
66
there's a game called Mother 3 that handles that sort of thing very well. the save points in the game aren't just save points -- even seeing one functions as a checkpoint. so if you die to a boss you resume from the last one you saw. it's very forgiving and very convenient -- it's as though the game is saying 'okay, I know you were meaning to save. have another one on me'.
another example of optional encounters done well is The World Ends With You. there are a few set battles that you need to go through to progress the game, but aside from those bosses and minibosses (along with some grueling tutorial stuff at the start) battles are more or less completely elective. given TWEWY's mechanics, this is a very good thing -- you can change your difficulty on the fly, as well as lower your level and chain multiple encounters for extra difficulty. the bonus? bennies! you get extra stuff for imposing more challenge on yourself, and since battles go by so quickly there's an incentive to go in and try different things for new pins and cash.
if people, when given the option, skip all your battles completely, it's a sign that you need to better incentivize your battles and improve the flow. like any game mechanic, the encounter method is affected by the mechanics surrounding it, and in a game with poor battles and poor progression and poor exploration it wouldn't be much better than a random system. always, always incorporate your mechanics with a canny eye for dominant strategy, flow, and player agency!
another example of optional encounters done well is The World Ends With You. there are a few set battles that you need to go through to progress the game, but aside from those bosses and minibosses (along with some grueling tutorial stuff at the start) battles are more or less completely elective. given TWEWY's mechanics, this is a very good thing -- you can change your difficulty on the fly, as well as lower your level and chain multiple encounters for extra difficulty. the bonus? bennies! you get extra stuff for imposing more challenge on yourself, and since battles go by so quickly there's an incentive to go in and try different things for new pins and cash.
if people, when given the option, skip all your battles completely, it's a sign that you need to better incentivize your battles and improve the flow. like any game mechanic, the encounter method is affected by the mechanics surrounding it, and in a game with poor battles and poor progression and poor exploration it wouldn't be much better than a random system. always, always incorporate your mechanics with a canny eye for dominant strategy, flow, and player agency!
