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
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
Profile
Locker
Play ListsBRADY'S PROFILE
Close
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
What is the perfect encounter rate?
You're explaining things in slightly different ways?
Oh, my bad; y'see, to everyone else in this thread, it just looks like you're trolling and repeating yourself over and over while utterly ignoring every single response that directly counters the one thing you've been saying, due to the fact that nothing you've said has had anything at all to do with random encounters.
Silly me~
Oh, my bad; y'see, to everyone else in this thread, it just looks like you're trolling and repeating yourself over and over while utterly ignoring every single response that directly counters the one thing you've been saying, due to the fact that nothing you've said has had anything at all to do with random encounters.
Silly me~
What is the perfect encounter rate?
Well you clearly never even looked at the article, nor what I said afterwards, because it was entirely relevant to what I was saying in response to what you said, and is entirely irrelevant to any of Yahtzee's personal games: interactive mediums generally want to create different experiences for players otherwise they're just basically movies that require you to press buttons every ten seconds to continue.
Anyhoo:
You're still clearly not reading anything I'm saying enough, because I'm not talking about action games; I'm saying that the things you are complaining about can be applied to any type of combat, whether it be random, touch or action. You're complaining that it wastes time, is boring for the player, the difficulty, the lack of choice etc etc etc; none of that is specific to "random encouters", and in fact all applies to any type of combat in any type of game ever ever ever, yet you're using it as your seemingly sole argument against why random encounters suck and why touch doesn't?
The exact same thing applies.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
Now, with touch encounters; I do NOT have that option. I see a treasure chest but tehre's three monsters wandering between myself and it: I don't have the choice of juts "not battling" them, because they're physically and tangibly in my way. I'll either need to sacrifice the treasure, get into a fight I don't want to, or spend however long running circles around tehm until I can nab the treasure and flee all while hoping they don't catch me.
That is not better, that is not easier, that is not "my choice". That choice was made by the developer and has decidedly forced me into a situation I'd rather not be in. That is not fun.
With random encounters, I just grab that treasure chest and trot on. I'm no more likely to get attacked picking up that treasure than anywhere else in the dungeon, but with touches, I am most certainly being forced into the situation.
Anyhoo:
You're still clearly not reading anything I'm saying enough, because I'm not talking about action games; I'm saying that the things you are complaining about can be applied to any type of combat, whether it be random, touch or action. You're complaining that it wastes time, is boring for the player, the difficulty, the lack of choice etc etc etc; none of that is specific to "random encouters", and in fact all applies to any type of combat in any type of game ever ever ever, yet you're using it as your seemingly sole argument against why random encounters suck and why touch doesn't?
The exact same thing applies.
If I'm wondering through a dungeon and get randomly attacked (let's assume the encouter rate is perfect for my preference) then I can either fight or escape. I have that choice, and I have that choice at a button press: I simply need to press escape (or fight) and then I can get back to my spelunking.
Now, with touch encounters; I do NOT have that option. I see a treasure chest but tehre's three monsters wandering between myself and it: I don't have the choice of juts "not battling" them, because they're physically and tangibly in my way. I'll either need to sacrifice the treasure, get into a fight I don't want to, or spend however long running circles around tehm until I can nab the treasure and flee all while hoping they don't catch me.
That is not better, that is not easier, that is not "my choice". That choice was made by the developer and has decidedly forced me into a situation I'd rather not be in. That is not fun.
With random encounters, I just grab that treasure chest and trot on. I'm no more likely to get attacked picking up that treasure than anywhere else in the dungeon, but with touches, I am most certainly being forced into the situation.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
Dog, you keep making the argument about random battles wasting your time, achieving nothing etc; but you keep blatantly ignoring the point that absolutley everything you're saying has absolutely nothing to do with the encounter type in a game.
Each and every one of your points can just as easily be applied to touch encounters or even just hack'n'slash games that have you fighting on screen; if the combat sucks, then you'll get bored of the fighting and want to avoid it.
In fact, one might argue that random encounters with easy escape options (smoke bombs) are less time wasting than hack'n'slash games with "exciting" combat features that get tiring because you can never ever avoid the fighting or escape them, and inevitably leave a train behind you every time you try to flee.
Also, you commented on my system and the reason you don't like it is because you think that players will have a different experience?
That's the point...
Have a butchers at Extra Punc article, where Yahtzee goes on more eloquently than I about the whole idea behind a gaming medium being the water cooler factor: each player having different experiences.
The intention is that each player will get different battles at different times based on where they go, so they have different resources remaining by the time they reach the boss, so the fights are different. Why would I want to design a game where absolutely every player has the exact same experience? The last game I designed with that intention was a Visual Novel, not an interactive game.
Each and every one of your points can just as easily be applied to touch encounters or even just hack'n'slash games that have you fighting on screen; if the combat sucks, then you'll get bored of the fighting and want to avoid it.
In fact, one might argue that random encounters with easy escape options (smoke bombs) are less time wasting than hack'n'slash games with "exciting" combat features that get tiring because you can never ever avoid the fighting or escape them, and inevitably leave a train behind you every time you try to flee.
Also, you commented on my system and the reason you don't like it is because you think that players will have a different experience?
That's the point...
Have a butchers at Extra Punc article, where Yahtzee goes on more eloquently than I about the whole idea behind a gaming medium being the water cooler factor: each player having different experiences.
The intention is that each player will get different battles at different times based on where they go, so they have different resources remaining by the time they reach the boss, so the fights are different. Why would I want to design a game where absolutely every player has the exact same experience? The last game I designed with that intention was a Visual Novel, not an interactive game.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
What is the perfect encounter rate?
tbh most of the time its used because the developer is young/dumb and doesnt understand game design or just designs by emulation but if you can manage to do it well then hooray
Although that may possibly be true, it's still a bit unfair to generalise it in such a way.
I have a game that's based on missions that are designed around draining your resources and not giving any recovery points during them. To add touch encounters would make it too easy for players to simply avoid all encounters and reach the boss with full resources, defeating the point. I went with randoms, not out of laziness or lack of understanding, but with the specific intention of making sure the player has at least a number of battles before reaching the boss, so that the boss can remain challenging.
Now whether I've done that successfully or not is besides the point; what I'm getting at is that not everyone who uses randoms are using them just because it's the default.
Although that may possibly be true, it's still a bit unfair to generalise it in such a way.
I have a game that's based on missions that are designed around draining your resources and not giving any recovery points during them. To add touch encounters would make it too easy for players to simply avoid all encounters and reach the boss with full resources, defeating the point. I went with randoms, not out of laziness or lack of understanding, but with the specific intention of making sure the player has at least a number of battles before reaching the boss, so that the boss can remain challenging.
Now whether I've done that successfully or not is besides the point; what I'm getting at is that not everyone who uses randoms are using them just because it's the default.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
You can guarantee that, can you?
I'm sure you could probably find a correlation between people who like eating bacon and people who enjoy skydiving, but to say you guarantee they will always be connected is a bit....what's the word.....wrong? Stupid? Ill-considered? About as productive a comment as saying "Random encounters are gay"?
The reason that generally random encounters and the default battle system is used is purely because that's how the engines are set up; setting up random encounters for alternate battle systems is a hell of a lot trickier, so folk generally go with touch couters to trigger those battle systems...because that's easier. Does that mean they put more thought into it? No; it's touch encounter because it requires less thought.
Plenty of folk put a lot of effort into coming up with engaging or interesting battle systems, or even just alterations on the default; whether or not they choose random or touch is generally just down to what they, personally prefer.
Personally, I find random harder (and thusly, requiring more thought) to get right. Touch is easier (imo) because you can actively decide where what goes, what areas to leave no monsters in etc; the trickiest thing is just getting the follow scripts to work.
Random encounters requires you to playtest repeateddly to make sure it's not too high or low, based on the map, editting regions to alter the rate in specific areas, and triggering when to turn them off completely; and if you do that, how else you can allow the player to optionally trigger a battle when randoms have been turned off.
Level of thought required has nothing to do with whether or not you choose touch or random. Level of thought is all about whether or not you're willing to make either one play smoothly and fun. It's very easy to implement a thoughtless touch based encounter system with a horrible battle system that absolutely no one will enjoy.
So, fancy either walking away from this discussion or coming up with something more productive to say?
I'm sure you could probably find a correlation between people who like eating bacon and people who enjoy skydiving, but to say you guarantee they will always be connected is a bit....what's the word.....wrong? Stupid? Ill-considered? About as productive a comment as saying "Random encounters are gay"?
The reason that generally random encounters and the default battle system is used is purely because that's how the engines are set up; setting up random encounters for alternate battle systems is a hell of a lot trickier, so folk generally go with touch couters to trigger those battle systems...because that's easier. Does that mean they put more thought into it? No; it's touch encounter because it requires less thought.
Plenty of folk put a lot of effort into coming up with engaging or interesting battle systems, or even just alterations on the default; whether or not they choose random or touch is generally just down to what they, personally prefer.
Personally, I find random harder (and thusly, requiring more thought) to get right. Touch is easier (imo) because you can actively decide where what goes, what areas to leave no monsters in etc; the trickiest thing is just getting the follow scripts to work.
Random encounters requires you to playtest repeateddly to make sure it's not too high or low, based on the map, editting regions to alter the rate in specific areas, and triggering when to turn them off completely; and if you do that, how else you can allow the player to optionally trigger a battle when randoms have been turned off.
Level of thought required has nothing to do with whether or not you choose touch or random. Level of thought is all about whether or not you're willing to make either one play smoothly and fun. It's very easy to implement a thoughtless touch based encounter system with a horrible battle system that absolutely no one will enjoy.
So, fancy either walking away from this discussion or coming up with something more productive to say?
What is the perfect encounter rate?
Locke does have a point: if 19/20 players hate them and the last doesn't care, then by all means, remove random encounters from existence.
However, that's kind of like me saying "if 19/20 people hate bacon and the last one doesn't care, why do butchers still sell it?". The logic is there, but the fact of the matter is that it's simply not the case.
Most people who openly hate random encounters don't actually hate the random encounter battle system, but rather they hate bad implementation of it. And even with satisfactory/good implementation of the system, there are plenty of people who don't like random encounters who won't actually be put off of playing the game because of that fact alone.
However, that's kind of like me saying "if 19/20 people hate bacon and the last one doesn't care, why do butchers still sell it?". The logic is there, but the fact of the matter is that it's simply not the case.
Most people who openly hate random encounters don't actually hate the random encounter battle system, but rather they hate bad implementation of it. And even with satisfactory/good implementation of the system, there are plenty of people who don't like random encounters who won't actually be put off of playing the game because of that fact alone.
The Screenshot Topic Returns
@Craze: I'd have faded them even more than that. Not that it looks bad the way that is; it's distinguishable enough as is. I'm just one of those folks who likes no ambiguity in such things; seeing it at a glance and knowing without a doubt what's what.
What is the perfect encounter rate?
I wasn't saying that as a matter of "random is better and touch sucks because...", I was just pointing that it's not merely a case of random being outdated and touch being better in every way. I feel that random encounters do have their own benefits over touch, and it's a matter of balancing out what you're going for.
Although, I do think that randoms need to be more carefully managed than they did in the past because whether or not they're worse; they are outdated/aged.
Older games would simply have randoms at a set encounter across the whole dungeon/game. In modern games, for random to work you're going to need to have varying rates across different maps (not the whole dungeon; but the specific maps, if they're different enough within the dungeon), clear them during puzzles, possibly have different rates on regions for alternate/"lost" paths etc.
If they're managed correctly, they can work in very nicely. Personally, I like the compartmentalisation; I like knowing that my exploration isn't being directly affected by battles, and that I can do them separately, so if you get the right management for them, it works nicely.
Saying that, I do like touch encounters as well, but for very different reasons, and in very different games. In my mind, it's like comparing turn-based with ATB: they may appear similar on paper, but they're just not kin enough to be directly compared.
Although, I do think that randoms need to be more carefully managed than they did in the past because whether or not they're worse; they are outdated/aged.
Older games would simply have randoms at a set encounter across the whole dungeon/game. In modern games, for random to work you're going to need to have varying rates across different maps (not the whole dungeon; but the specific maps, if they're different enough within the dungeon), clear them during puzzles, possibly have different rates on regions for alternate/"lost" paths etc.
If they're managed correctly, they can work in very nicely. Personally, I like the compartmentalisation; I like knowing that my exploration isn't being directly affected by battles, and that I can do them separately, so if you get the right management for them, it works nicely.
Saying that, I do like touch encounters as well, but for very different reasons, and in very different games. In my mind, it's like comparing turn-based with ATB: they may appear similar on paper, but they're just not kin enough to be directly compared.
VXA Pantomime: FFVI
I just mean the kind of style that goes with the chibi/36bit era graphics. Everything's very exuberant; characters jump ten feet tall etc. I was thinking of ropes and such, but felt that was erring a touch too much on the side of realism, and I wanted to keep the same style as the game; FF6 has a very emphasised characterset, with the emotion sprites jumping up and down a lot, making very "big" effects.
-Fair point to that degree, yeah. I went with having Arvis fight them instead of the Moogles because I wanted to skip "Noob Cave" since it wasn't story relevant, but I suppose there'd have been no harm in having moogles come on stage with Locke; just didn't think of it.
Also, that would have been great for Chocos. They were small; to be perfectly honest I was feling a bit lazy with the choco sprites because they were only on screen for like ten seconds :(
-That's an interesting point about Cyan's scene enhancing Kefka's character; I'd decided against using those scenes before my thought train reached that stage. The thing is that Cyan has basically no continuing story after that that's relevant to the core story, which is the main reason I avoided using him.
-As for Setzer, I did want to include him because he's badass, but his story arc has basically no connection to "the" story other than the airship, which is only a driving device which never actually directly affects the story. Again, it was just an attempt to cut straight to the key points without continually adding in side details that distract :(
-As above really; I just didn't want to put in too many characters. With over a dozen characters in the game overall with varying degrees of relevance and interest, I didn't want the story to feel "crammed", if you follow. I wanted each scene to follow directly on and keep a decent pace. I was trying to avoid having every scene put on hold while another character got introduced.
Although, I suppose brief appearances wouldn't have hurt.
Just to clarify btw; I do feel you'ree making good points. I'm not trying to argue or ignore what you're saying, I'm simply just trying to explain why I ddidn't go with it. I was going for a certain theme, and was definitely trying to keep the whole thing quite concise (as we've discussed on other threads; visual novels don't really want to be too long, and all), but I did spend quite a lot of time trying to decide what was worth taking out and what must stay. My script changed so, so much :(
-Fair point to that degree, yeah. I went with having Arvis fight them instead of the Moogles because I wanted to skip "Noob Cave" since it wasn't story relevant, but I suppose there'd have been no harm in having moogles come on stage with Locke; just didn't think of it.
Also, that would have been great for Chocos. They were small; to be perfectly honest I was feling a bit lazy with the choco sprites because they were only on screen for like ten seconds :(
-That's an interesting point about Cyan's scene enhancing Kefka's character; I'd decided against using those scenes before my thought train reached that stage. The thing is that Cyan has basically no continuing story after that that's relevant to the core story, which is the main reason I avoided using him.
-As for Setzer, I did want to include him because he's badass, but his story arc has basically no connection to "the" story other than the airship, which is only a driving device which never actually directly affects the story. Again, it was just an attempt to cut straight to the key points without continually adding in side details that distract :(
-As above really; I just didn't want to put in too many characters. With over a dozen characters in the game overall with varying degrees of relevance and interest, I didn't want the story to feel "crammed", if you follow. I wanted each scene to follow directly on and keep a decent pace. I was trying to avoid having every scene put on hold while another character got introduced.
Although, I suppose brief appearances wouldn't have hurt.
Just to clarify btw; I do feel you'ree making good points. I'm not trying to argue or ignore what you're saying, I'm simply just trying to explain why I ddidn't go with it. I was going for a certain theme, and was definitely trying to keep the whole thing quite concise (as we've discussed on other threads; visual novels don't really want to be too long, and all), but I did spend quite a lot of time trying to decide what was worth taking out and what must stay. My script changed so, so much :(
Games - Tester
Games - Other
