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 ListsZEELLO'S PROFILE
Close
Search
Filter
All
Game Pages
User Statuses
Random or On map encounters?
author=SoozExactly. Its a very good point. In effect there is no difference. That is unless the invisible on-map enemies disappear after being defeated in which case that is an important distinction.
However, I wonder whether the choice isn't so much random vs. visible as it is invisible vs. visible- is there a significant difference between, say, a well-scripted random encounter setup and a setup with "on-map" style enemies who are invisible? Has this been tried? (I assume not, but figured I'd ask.)
So we should be looking at the fundamental distinctions:
- visible vs invisible
- exhaustible vs inexhaustible
- random vs fixed
- avoidable vs mandatory
The random encounters we're thinking of are invisible, inexhaustible, random, and mandatory.
Obviously, this relies on a well-crafted setup to keep the tension going, rather than turning it into "OH GODDAMMIT GO AWAY I'M TIRED OF YOU SCRUBS!" but as a mechanic there's nothing inherently lesser about it.The horror game idea would work better if the enemies are finite. If you have random encounters then it stops being scary after a few encounters of the same thing.
In a horror movie the scares are scripted, not a screamer pic that occurs randomly throughout the movie. Such a thing would quickly become expected. You need to build on context. For example the player wpcould encounter a creaking door that would cause him to wonder if something is going to happen. This effect would be somewhat lost if he was fighting shrews every 10 seconds all the way there. Well, maybe.
Random or On map encounters?
CashmereCat here are more types:
-- Invisible trip wire: (Invisible non random) When you step on a certain tile it triggers an encounter. This happens in Mega Man Star Force 3 for certain secret bosses. It's a horrible idea, especially if the field it occurs in already has random encounters. (EDIT: Though come to think of it, all encounters in Crisis Core are handled this way. But as such, you're not surprised by it. Whenever you walk toward the center of any room, you pretty much expect an encounter and usually you're right)
-- Scripted Battles. Self explanatory but not sure how'd you classify this. Basically, every encounter is handled like a boss, just less difficult. It's basically an invisible encounter but with a short sequence before the actual fight, or, a visible encounter except that the visible element may be something other than an enemy. (Such as a switch to call a freight elevator which ends up having enemy reinforcements on it)
-- Door encounters. See earlier post.
EDIT: Monster-in-a-closet. Every time you open a door, a visible enemy oops out and you fight it immediately.
-- Battle tiles. Places on the map that player knows will trigger an encounter if they step on it.
-- Encounter button. E.g. Press Triangle to initiate an encounter.
-- Encounter save point. Sort of like side quests in Crisis Core. From the menu you would be able to trigger battles.
-- Turn based adventure. You navigate the entire game using a menu and battles occur as a result of your choices and may even be random. Also you could avoid battles if the game lets you. (Fight and Escape choices being offered before the actual battle) and maybe escaping would involve a bribe system to avoid encounters in exchange for certain items. (Encounter Tickets which would be earned by completing encounters)
-- The more you explore the higher your alert/wanted level goes up, when it reaches a certain point you must fight a sequence of battles in order to proceed to the next area.
Okay yeah, I think that's all I have for now.
EDIT:
-- Penalty system. In a game with some sort of platforming or puzzle element, every time you fail or fall into a pit or whatnot you face an encounter before returning to the start. The stealth segment in Crisis Core (which was really infuriating btw) is basically an example of this come to think of it. Also, optionally: you fail enough times you no longer have to fight encounters. (Which is what happens in crisis core) Though this idea seems like a disaster waiting to happen on one hand, on the other hand it does seem to make sense on paper because sometimes its a good thing to be punished for failing and actually adds to a game.
-- Monster-in-a-box. One of my earliest ever rpg maker ideas was a game where all encounters were activated from treasure chests. Though it was partly intended to be funny and not something that would go in a more straight laced attempt at an RPG.
-- Whenever a random encounter would happen, instead an enemy appears from off screen and begins chasing you. You can delay this encounter by attempting to get away from it.
-- Invisible trip wire: (Invisible non random) When you step on a certain tile it triggers an encounter. This happens in Mega Man Star Force 3 for certain secret bosses. It's a horrible idea, especially if the field it occurs in already has random encounters. (EDIT: Though come to think of it, all encounters in Crisis Core are handled this way. But as such, you're not surprised by it. Whenever you walk toward the center of any room, you pretty much expect an encounter and usually you're right)
-- Scripted Battles. Self explanatory but not sure how'd you classify this. Basically, every encounter is handled like a boss, just less difficult. It's basically an invisible encounter but with a short sequence before the actual fight, or, a visible encounter except that the visible element may be something other than an enemy. (Such as a switch to call a freight elevator which ends up having enemy reinforcements on it)
-- Door encounters. See earlier post.
EDIT: Monster-in-a-closet. Every time you open a door, a visible enemy oops out and you fight it immediately.
-- Battle tiles. Places on the map that player knows will trigger an encounter if they step on it.
-- Encounter button. E.g. Press Triangle to initiate an encounter.
-- Encounter save point. Sort of like side quests in Crisis Core. From the menu you would be able to trigger battles.
-- Turn based adventure. You navigate the entire game using a menu and battles occur as a result of your choices and may even be random. Also you could avoid battles if the game lets you. (Fight and Escape choices being offered before the actual battle) and maybe escaping would involve a bribe system to avoid encounters in exchange for certain items. (Encounter Tickets which would be earned by completing encounters)
-- The more you explore the higher your alert/wanted level goes up, when it reaches a certain point you must fight a sequence of battles in order to proceed to the next area.
Okay yeah, I think that's all I have for now.
EDIT:
-- Penalty system. In a game with some sort of platforming or puzzle element, every time you fail or fall into a pit or whatnot you face an encounter before returning to the start. The stealth segment in Crisis Core (which was really infuriating btw) is basically an example of this come to think of it. Also, optionally: you fail enough times you no longer have to fight encounters. (Which is what happens in crisis core) Though this idea seems like a disaster waiting to happen on one hand, on the other hand it does seem to make sense on paper because sometimes its a good thing to be punished for failing and actually adds to a game.
-- Monster-in-a-box. One of my earliest ever rpg maker ideas was a game where all encounters were activated from treasure chests. Though it was partly intended to be funny and not something that would go in a more straight laced attempt at an RPG.
-- Whenever a random encounter would happen, instead an enemy appears from off screen and begins chasing you. You can delay this encounter by attempting to get away from it.
Random or On map encounters?
Pardon for double posting, I am on a tablet and I dont know how to copy paste text.(and if I did its probably more trouble than its worth)
Also, games from later eras have random encounters, not always for irony or nostalgia, so it needs to stop being ttreated as something from a by-gone era, instead of the crap that it is and still persists today. You are not clever by putting random encounters in a throwback game so long as there are still non-throwback games with more serious tones and cinematic styles that couldnt possibly mix well with random encounters, but which have them anyway such as FFX, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc, etc.
author=unityIt is justified.
I prefer touch-encounters myself but I certainly don't think a statement like "If you have random encounters at all you're empirically wrong" is justified.
Some people like them, be it for nostalgia for the older gamesThat's the least valid reason to like something. Its even less than a personal bias at that point since its something you were only mentally tricked into liking. (Reminds us of our childhood, the apple pies our grandma used to make, etc, etc) Although... It is good to own up to it and state that as a reason in defense of random emcounters, because it means you basically know more or less at that point that random encounters are bad, you like it as a guilty pleasure only, and were intelligent enough to reach that conclusion. Dare I say many people aren't always able to see through their own nostalgia and end up trying to somehow rationally defend things which cannot be defended, random encounters being a prime example.
for recreating games that feel like they're from that eraThis is not a good excuse because games from that era should not have had random encounters in the first place.
Also, games from later eras have random encounters, not always for irony or nostalgia, so it needs to stop being ttreated as something from a by-gone era, instead of the crap that it is and still persists today. You are not clever by putting random encounters in a throwback game so long as there are still non-throwback games with more serious tones and cinematic styles that couldnt possibly mix well with random encounters, but which have them anyway such as FFX, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, etc, etc.
Random or On map encounters?
@Liberty- Now hold on just a minute, it wouldnt necessarily be breaking trust if the player is aware that every door results in an encounter. By your logic every game with random encounters breaks player trust every time an encounter happens, or just the first time. (And indeed, its hard to reconcile to initial shock of the first encounter in a game, or every single instance of an encounter in an area you've never been right after leaving a safe area such as a town) Why should random encounters be OK, but not the door encounter. In either case its something the player learns to expect after the first few instances. (Ignoring cultural factors such as random encounter games being widespread or the player having played many of them, which don't qualify as excuses)
Also, the entire idea of arbitrarily denoting doors as "safe" or somehow off limits is biased. If not for encounters, the entire map would be safe. Granted, if a random encounter happened in a town that would be upsetting. But by the same logic door encounters would be upsetting in towns but more acceptable in caves and dungeons.
The door encounter idea is not necessarily a good idea, true. Ot was just a thought exercise. If something is a bad idea, I implore you not to do it.
Also, the entire idea of arbitrarily denoting doors as "safe" or somehow off limits is biased. If not for encounters, the entire map would be safe. Granted, if a random encounter happened in a town that would be upsetting. But by the same logic door encounters would be upsetting in towns but more acceptable in caves and dungeons.
The door encounter idea is not necessarily a good idea, true. Ot was just a thought exercise. If something is a bad idea, I implore you not to do it.
Random or On map encounters?
What's wrong with the RTP random encounter system btw? Not that it matters to me personally as I would never use it, however I did try it when following the Ring of Udrai tutorial PDF and didn't notice anything about it working incorrectly. (For the record, I took out random encounters from the game after finishing the tutorial)
Responding to bits and pieces of this thread:
"If your battle system is fun people aren't going to mind a few more battles" We're not talking about a few more, we're talking infinite. (To look at it another way, reducing the encounter rate by half does not necessarily translate into half as many encounters.) Also, the issue is not just the amount of battles but also the way they are delivered: disruptively and assaultively. If you think random encounters are a good idea why not random cutscenes as well. After all, most cutscenes can't be dodged anyway.
If the purpose was to control the # of encounters that occur during a map, then the # of encounters logically should be fixed. If you have a completely linear area and the player will fight about 12 or 13 encounters on average, you might as well lock it down at that amount, even as far as deciding whether it will be 12 or 13. Random battles don't achieve a minimal level since the player could run from battles, and if a minimal level was really the point then you would simply have the encounters required to reach this level as being absolutely mandatory, and disappear permanently once defeated.
If players habitually avoid battles then it means avoiding battles is too easy. If you want the player to face encounters you have to make them, but if they've faced enough then you can let up and let them explore. So maybe the ideal solution is probably to have a certain amount of mandatory battles, a certain amount of optional battles and a certain amount of reusable battles. (And maybe those last two categories of enemies are essentially the same thing, since a reusable enemy is essentially infinite optional enemies) If you let players avoid all encounters totally then they just might. It could legitimately be argued that every single person playing should do the same thing but the only way to do that is through control and guidance.
If you grind with visible enemies, you leave and re-enter areas. So un-immersive! If you grind with random encounters, you walk in a circle in an empty room. So much better! A game needs to use all of the map. If a player can have infinite enemies from a single room (or literally any two spaces in the map) then that is wrong. If the player is pacing back and forth for 10 minutes in order to level, why not make a map that is 10 minutes long to walk through and have the player use that instead. Otherwise you might as well let the player initiate battles from the pause menu, you might as well not have maps at all and make the entire game battles. (See SRPGs)
"Is there going to be a sprite for every enemy in the party?"
Artistic choices are unavoidable for all aspects of the game. But you gave me an idea. Imagine entering a door and a battle triggers in the middle of transferring areas. So you see now how field sprites are optional. The above idea for non random encounters allows players to take their time exploring the area they're in and scout for all exits, then they must think about which one to use. And a minimum level is achieved since there will of course be a minimum amount of areas toward the goal.
No such thing as "too many" random emcounters. If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.
Responding to bits and pieces of this thread:
"If your battle system is fun people aren't going to mind a few more battles" We're not talking about a few more, we're talking infinite. (To look at it another way, reducing the encounter rate by half does not necessarily translate into half as many encounters.) Also, the issue is not just the amount of battles but also the way they are delivered: disruptively and assaultively. If you think random encounters are a good idea why not random cutscenes as well. After all, most cutscenes can't be dodged anyway.
If the purpose was to control the # of encounters that occur during a map, then the # of encounters logically should be fixed. If you have a completely linear area and the player will fight about 12 or 13 encounters on average, you might as well lock it down at that amount, even as far as deciding whether it will be 12 or 13. Random battles don't achieve a minimal level since the player could run from battles, and if a minimal level was really the point then you would simply have the encounters required to reach this level as being absolutely mandatory, and disappear permanently once defeated.
If players habitually avoid battles then it means avoiding battles is too easy. If you want the player to face encounters you have to make them, but if they've faced enough then you can let up and let them explore. So maybe the ideal solution is probably to have a certain amount of mandatory battles, a certain amount of optional battles and a certain amount of reusable battles. (And maybe those last two categories of enemies are essentially the same thing, since a reusable enemy is essentially infinite optional enemies) If you let players avoid all encounters totally then they just might. It could legitimately be argued that every single person playing should do the same thing but the only way to do that is through control and guidance.
If you grind with visible enemies, you leave and re-enter areas. So un-immersive! If you grind with random encounters, you walk in a circle in an empty room. So much better! A game needs to use all of the map. If a player can have infinite enemies from a single room (or literally any two spaces in the map) then that is wrong. If the player is pacing back and forth for 10 minutes in order to level, why not make a map that is 10 minutes long to walk through and have the player use that instead. Otherwise you might as well let the player initiate battles from the pause menu, you might as well not have maps at all and make the entire game battles. (See SRPGs)
"Is there going to be a sprite for every enemy in the party?"
Artistic choices are unavoidable for all aspects of the game. But you gave me an idea. Imagine entering a door and a battle triggers in the middle of transferring areas. So you see now how field sprites are optional. The above idea for non random encounters allows players to take their time exploring the area they're in and scout for all exits, then they must think about which one to use. And a minimum level is achieved since there will of course be a minimum amount of areas toward the goal.
No such thing as "too many" random emcounters. If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.
[RMVX ACE] New to RPG Maker, help me do stuff
I thought of using HP, MP, and TP. Im not sure how TP works exactly but I like the idea of a regenerating resource. I wanted MP to regenerate so I may have to use TP instead and call it MP. (Derp, there's my solution. Why didn't I think of that)
For instance my black mage might have 30/100 MP at the start of each battle, you could use it up right away, or wait until you have more, in order to cast a more expensive spell.
In a standard rpg I might choose to never use MP against normals while just spamming spells against bosses, I don't think I want that. Magic should be relevant all the time.
Meanwhile I'd rename MP to GP (gunpowder) and use it for standard attacks. My original idea was that every time you use a normal attack it costs 1 bullet and bullets would be a finite resource that is not replenished at inns or save points, can only be acquired as loot or by purchasing it. So, an item. The GP idea is merely another way of doing bullets. I wanted for each character would have their own bullet supply, which is possible through GP but not possible if bullet were an item.
What I want is for the in-battle sprite to change to show that I'm damaging the enemy or making it angrier. For example an egg that begins to crack more and more as you keep hitting it. (And maybe then the egg is replaced with a dinosaur at 50% HP, and I can set this enemy to never attack until it has 50% or less HP) Not saying my game will have dinosaurs, the dinosaur egg is an example to show what I mean.
But I guess if that isn't possible its not a big deal, I only needed it for a certain boss and could make do without.
For instance my black mage might have 30/100 MP at the start of each battle, you could use it up right away, or wait until you have more, in order to cast a more expensive spell.
In a standard rpg I might choose to never use MP against normals while just spamming spells against bosses, I don't think I want that. Magic should be relevant all the time.
Meanwhile I'd rename MP to GP (gunpowder) and use it for standard attacks. My original idea was that every time you use a normal attack it costs 1 bullet and bullets would be a finite resource that is not replenished at inns or save points, can only be acquired as loot or by purchasing it. So, an item. The GP idea is merely another way of doing bullets. I wanted for each character would have their own bullet supply, which is possible through GP but not possible if bullet were an item.
What I want is for the in-battle sprite to change to show that I'm damaging the enemy or making it angrier. For example an egg that begins to crack more and more as you keep hitting it. (And maybe then the egg is replaced with a dinosaur at 50% HP, and I can set this enemy to never attack until it has 50% or less HP) Not saying my game will have dinosaurs, the dinosaur egg is an example to show what I mean.
But I guess if that isn't possible its not a big deal, I only needed it for a certain boss and could make do without.
Random or On map encounters?
No game should have random encounters. Period.
I plan to have two kinds of encounters in my game. The first being visible enemies (either walking aimlessly around, or guard patrols with line of sight, hopefully the latter idea is possible.) The second is for an enemy ambushing you the moment you enter an area, which is essentially a scripted cutscene that results in a battle. E.g. "oh crap! He's here! Get him!" *enemies run toward player* *battle starts*
The enemy ambush / sudden cutscene idea could technically be done on any random space on the map, but I don't want the player to be exploring and suddenly be interrupted, as that is similar to random encounters when I think about it. Keeping these events on the starting space avoids this issue completely since the player hasn't started moving yet. It's the best time to have the character start moving on his own.
I plan for these encounters to occur every time, whereas visible enemies would disappear permanently once defeated. Permanently defeated enemies allows a sense of progress in cleaning up enemies from an area. Reoccurring enemies allow the player a way to level even after all other enemies are defeated. Also, having certain battles be reoccurring prevents the player from backtracking to the save point after every battle as doing so would cause those enemies to respawn.
I plan to have two kinds of encounters in my game. The first being visible enemies (either walking aimlessly around, or guard patrols with line of sight, hopefully the latter idea is possible.) The second is for an enemy ambushing you the moment you enter an area, which is essentially a scripted cutscene that results in a battle. E.g. "oh crap! He's here! Get him!" *enemies run toward player* *battle starts*
The enemy ambush / sudden cutscene idea could technically be done on any random space on the map, but I don't want the player to be exploring and suddenly be interrupted, as that is similar to random encounters when I think about it. Keeping these events on the starting space avoids this issue completely since the player hasn't started moving yet. It's the best time to have the character start moving on his own.
I plan for these encounters to occur every time, whereas visible enemies would disappear permanently once defeated. Permanently defeated enemies allows a sense of progress in cleaning up enemies from an area. Reoccurring enemies allow the player a way to level even after all other enemies are defeated. Also, having certain battles be reoccurring prevents the player from backtracking to the save point after every battle as doing so would cause those enemies to respawn.
[RMVX ACE] New to RPG Maker, help me do stuff
Ah, but how will I know if the script doesn't exist already? You could just grab one of those and rip me off. :p
Anyway, I thought of some things I might want for my game that might be a problem:
1) the game will use GP (gunpowder) instead of MP, but will change to MP halfway through the game before later reverting once again to GP. So its like two different RPGs in one. Possible?
2) Boss battle where the enemy visibly changes as you deal more damage to it. (e.g. mech bosses with visible damage, or characters which grow angrier in expression)
Anyway, I thought of some things I might want for my game that might be a problem:
1) the game will use GP (gunpowder) instead of MP, but will change to MP halfway through the game before later reverting once again to GP. So its like two different RPGs in one. Possible?
2) Boss battle where the enemy visibly changes as you deal more damage to it. (e.g. mech bosses with visible damage, or characters which grow angrier in expression)
Is it okay to use music from other games?
I'd consider using free to use / music specifically made for people to use in rpg maker. At least if I had to. However there's one downside to that which is worth pointing out, it's that I'd have to spend practically forever browsing/downloading/listening to music to find the ones best for my game.
Is it okay to use music from other games?
author=CrazeOh, I agree. I had anticipated such a problem if the music is too hard to disassociate from the source material.
It's theft. Like others have said, we don't really care... but it's still theft.
My argument against it is that it can ruin immersion in a game. If you use "Blinded by Light" as your battle theme, Lightning better start cartwheeling onto the battlefield... then again if nobody notices, nobody notices ;V
Granted, by letting me use the music at all it lets everyone else do it too and they might not take these precautions. But if it's just about what I personally would do or think should be done, I would try to pick music that would work even if the player has played the source game and knows exactly what its from. Also, if the player hasn't played the source game, that player should still be able to enjoy the source game if he she goes on to play it afterwards because of me. Also, no bad games. It technically shouldn't matter since many bad games have AMAZING music, but thinking about the source game becomes unavoidable and ends up being depressing to me.
One example is Gravity Rush. The game is sort of a masterpiece, so using the music from it would just feel... wrong! I dont even know how to explain it.
Games - Tester
Games - Other
