[DanKirby]

I've seen varying opinions on the preference of encounter styles in a console-style RPG. Heck, I've even differed the style between my own games...Threads of Life had random encounters, while Shifter will not.

I'd just like to hear some opinions on what kind of encounter system is better.


Personally, I think it depends on the type of game.

Random encounters have always irritated me to an extent. But they may be necessary in a game where advancing depends on simply powering through battles. Most are probably familiar with the frequent level-up sessions before finally defeating a tough boss. Random encounters aid these considerably.

Meanwhile, a few predictable encounters may suit other systems. A battle system that relies more on the strategy of choosing party members, equipment, and battle tactics instead of brute force doesn't require frequent battling to boost your levels. This type of game would be better off with battles activated by enemies on the map or passing hotspots.
A game like Chrono Cross, where levels are only gained by defeating bosses, is a good example.


I'd like to hear what you guys prefer.

[Nephilim]

Well, I have to say that I don't particularly care for predictability. Some degree of randomness in the game is good, if only from a replayability standpoint. But I don't think that necessarily means that the only other alternative is the "random encounter" paradigm.

I think the thing people like about non-random encounters is not that they aren't random, but that they are *designed*. In other words, you could have non-random encounters, but if there's no visible pattern to them, and the same monsters show up again and again, it's really of no difference to the player. But if each encounter seems unique and crafted, then that is intriguing.

The problem with this, and we've discussed this before, is the effort vs. payoff issue. If you craft every single encounter, that's a very high effort-to-game-minute ratio, and given limited resources, makes for a shorter game (or sacrifices in other areas of gameplay). Random encounters have a very low ratio, but aren't as satisfying. That's why I think we see so many hybrid approaches: random encounters, with some crafted encounters sprinkled here and there to retain interest.

Personally, I like games where there are some random encounters. I like having the option of taking some time to level up before I take on that boss monster who kicked my ass last time, rather than having the game so tightly tuned that I have to do each combat perfectly in order to survive. I think this is especially true for the neophyte RPG player who may not be as savvy about conserving healing potions or magic scrolls or whatever - allowing the player to level-up gives the inexperienced players the ability to play the same game as the experienced players if they're willing to put a little more time into their characters.
_________________
Visit the Sacraments web site to play the game and read articles about its development.

[LeoDraco]

Along with what Nephilim posted is another matter: in games where the player has the choice to engage in non-boss fights, there needs to be some mechanism to tell the player that he is over- or under- leveled. For example, in Star Ocean: Till the End of Time, the battle screen comes with this battle meter, which gradually fills up as the player performs actions. Next to the meter is a percent, whose value connotes how leveled the player is against the enemy. At 100%, the player is leveled just right; under 100, he is starting to overlevel; over 100, he is underleveled.

If no such mechanism exists (beyond the obvious, "That boss just kicked my ass"), the game needs some way of keeping the player equitable with the enemy units. For instance, in Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, boss levels were tied to the players level. Similarly in FF8.

Now, personally, in games where growth/level-advancment can occur during any type of battle (this is especially true in games where bosses usually drop items rather than massive experience or money), I would rather have a fully random encounter system: rather than require that I exit a map, and reenter to force enemy units to respawn (or, even worse, cause enemy units to just randomly spawn on the map), I find it enjoyable to just wander around aimlessly and fall into battle. Although, in these types of games, it is nice to be able to "turn off" the effect, via some item/armor/spell.
_________________
"...LeoDraco is a pompus git..." -- Mandrake

[Locrian]

random encounters = I quit. Same for turn based battles. I'm a poopy head.

For the more linear typical console style RPG I don't think the player should have to do much mindless killing to level up in order to defeat a boss. Unless for some reason the player chose to run past most monsters earlier rather than fight. In which case the player deserves hours of boring xp farming. ...Unless the game is set up to be playable through pacifism. Hmm never seen a 2d console style RPG do this.

[Joakim]

Well games where enemies pop out of nowhere... suck. That's just my opinion. But if you can see enemies and have a chance to avoid them (my moving, not by rolling some imaginary dice), then it's ok.

I think the secret behind balancing ecounters is that the strength of monsters is somewhat dependant on whan level you're on. If you're on level 10 then the monster isn't as strong as if you were on level 20. Each monster should also have it's own level which would be the "optimal" level to beat it on.

For example you could use the average formula monster.dificulcylevel = (monster.level + player.level) / 2

Anyways, some random examples:
Monster level: 20, your level: 10, resulting monster difficulcy level = (20 + 10) / 2 = 15
Monster level: 20, your level: 20, resulting monster difficulcy level = (20 + 20) / 2 = 20
Monster level: 20, your level: 30, resulting monster difficulcy level = (20 + 30) / 2 = 25

[DanKirby]

The point where random encounters really get on my nerves is not when I'm trying to level up, but when my characters are really beat up, trying to get back into town to rest and stock up on items. In those situations, I'd rather be given a chance to avoid battles instead of getting ambushed every five steps.
Typical situation: I head into a new area, get in one battle and barely survive. I decide that I'd better get out of there and power up...turn around to go back...WHAM! Another random battle, instant death. Very irritating.

Also, lots of random encounters often discourage me from exploring areas. I don't want to check a path, get hit with 10 random battles, and find it's a dead end with no item or anything there, then have to go all the way back and get into 10 more battles.

Meanwhile, in most games I've played with a "No encounters" item, they give it to you too late in the game.

Both approaches do have their flaws, though.

[Joakim]

Well I think the biggest problem with the battles you see in indie rpgs is that they are terribly boring. Ususally you're simply given a choice of what spell to cast / sword to use and then you see a half arsed animation of an attack. I prefer zelda 1 battles to that!

In my opinion, turn based systems are for macro strategics (think sim city, civilization) and real time systems are for micro stategics (think pretty much any rpg and games like command & conquer or starcraft). Microscopic battles with less than, say 30 monsters/players would require much more dogde skill and attack skill than it would require deep strategy and vica versa for macroscopic battles (eg. civilization).

[Mandrake]

Joakim:
Firstly, Zelda 1 is not an RPG. It contains no aspects of an RPG. If you are talking about an action RPG, maybe you meant to mention Icewind Dale or Sword/Secret/Legend of Mana? If not, then I can't really take your response seriosly. I don't think anyone that says "I hate most Indie RPG's becaz o' turn based battles!" knows an RPG from a hole in the wall. Turn based RPG's are the most common RPG's, non-turn based is an exception to the rule and not the rule itself. If you look at every RPG in history, from table top, to console, to PC, to Apple ][ (insert letter here) to blah blah blah, Turn Based combat is not only common place, but a predominate factor in RPG's.

This is like saying "I like jump and runs, but I hate all that running and jumping", or "I like Adventure games, but I hate all of that puzzle solving". This is why I hate games like FinalFantasy 7. It brought in a crowd of gamers who like the pretty graphics and the plot, and just because they liked FF7 they think that they like all RPG's and can criticize the basic nature of RPG's.

Lately I've come to accept the Mana Games and even Diablo as being RPG's with a different form of combat- but I've also come to loathe people that think all RPG's should be in that vein. These people are not true RPG fans. If you don't like Turn Based Battles, pick up a copy of Doom 3 and leave the RPG's to us.
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

[PhyrFox]

Has anyone ever played the Suikoden series? Personally, I think they generally did the best combination. Most of the series has at least three different battle types: a small battle system, like traditional RPG's (up to six on six), a "personal duel" system (one on one, permanent death for the loser), and a large battle system (control an army, use strategy to defeat the other army). By mixing it up in fairly even doses (yea, there were a lot more random battles than wars, on a count-by-count basis), having a variety of battle systems in one game introduced the concept of mixing together different types of game systems successfully.

Also unique to the game is the inclusion of 108 "main" characters, called the "108 stars of destiny." Many of the characters are "forced" to join you, that is, you can't help but find them, but there are others who only join you when you meet certain conditions (eg, you have a large enough army, you look powerful enough, you can beat them in battle, you have a certain item for trade). In order to beat the game, you simply need to reach the end, but to complete it, you need all the characters.

Characters influenced two of the three battle types: small and large battles. In small battles, of course, certain characters in the same party would have a combo attack that did increased damage, or targeted a larger range of enemies. In large battles, they determined the amount of soldiers you had to use, and many of them were also "commanders" of the soldiers. Even the cooks could launch an attack.

So, maybe it isn't about having random battles, necessarily, or only set battles. The trick lies somewhere inbetween.

On the other hand, one might introduce a system like Earthbound, as well. Enemies which whom your stats overpowered to the point where they can't do damage to you, instantly died when they came in contact with you, instead of drawing you into a battle. These were random battles, but had icons on the screen to "run away" from, more like traditional "set battle" systems.

~= PhyrFox =~

[Mandrake]

here's an older topic on a related note:
http://forums.rpgdx.net/viewtopic.php?t=687&highlight=turn+based+battle
_________________
"Well, last time I flicked on a lighter, I'm pretty sure I didn't create a black hole."-
Xmark

http://pauljessup.com

[Joakim]

Mandrake, thank you for taking this to a personal level, I didn't realize you were such an arrogant prick.

If you had taken the time to read my post a little more intensly, you'd notice:
- I never said Zelda 1 is an RPG.
- I never said I am an RPG fan*.
Oh, and I never played FF7 btw.

So you accuse me of brining in an oxymoron. But tell me: Are there no RPGs with real time battles? Yes? Then how does it compare to saying "I like jump and runs, but I hate all that running and jumping"?

* The reason I hang around here is because of the programming aspect, not the RPGs in paticuliar.

I wonder what is eating you since you had to start this offensive branch and thereby killing any useful discussion that might have followed. Funny this should come from somebody who is a forum admin himself...

Maybe next time you want to get personal, perhaps you could PM me? I hate to continue this war in here, ruining the topic, but you leave me no choice, do you.

If you want to reply to this, you can either PM me or post here and further sidetrack the discussion. It's your choice. I don't tell you what to do. Or what to think. Comprende?

BTW It's funny what Chrystal Quest - which you don't think is an RPG - is doing on this side.

[Mandrake]

[Joakim]

It'll never stop if both of us wants the final word... I've said what I had to say, so this will be my last post unless you bring in fresh accusations. I think you'll find an answer to most of your questions if you read my post once again. I will ignore your irrelevant comments on two typos that I made.

[janus]

HI MY NAME IS JOAKIM AND I AM AN EXPERT ON RPGS EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NOT APPARENTLY MADE ONE EVER!!!!


HI MY NAME IS MANDRAKE AND YOU ARE NOT


MY NAME IS STILL JOAKIM AND I AM VERY OFFENDED
AND YOU ARE FAT

[XMark]

hehehe, this is nothing. Try to go to the rpgcodex.com forums and post what you think an RPG is there :)
_________________
Mark Hall
Abstract Productions
I PLAYS THE MUSIC THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN!