[XMark]

I've been brainstorming ideas for a battle system for The ARC Legacy...

I'm thinking that a hybrid between a tactical battle system and a Final Fantasy style turn based battle system could be interesting. Basically, the battle field will be an 8x4 grid of large tiles, and in each turn the player or enemy can make one optional move and one attack (or other action). The attacking and magic and stuff would work like a typical console style RPG, but the 8x4 grid would give it just enough freedom of movement for things like range and flanking and such to come into play. Basically a really lite version of a turn-based strategy battle.

I've always thought that the FF games felt a little too abstract in the battles. Like, aside from the choice of front and back row your position doesn't really matter, and you don't get any real sense of what the distance between you and your enemy is supposed to be. On top of that, usually the scale is pretty messed up, with human enemies way bigger than the main characters.

Anyway, just putting the idea out there.
_________________
Mark Hall
Abstract Productions
I PLAYS THE MUSIC THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN!

[js71]

Hmm, the only thing I'd say is that you kind of have to be careful with that stuff... a recent SNES-style RPG for the DS that came out last year, Black Sigil, had character positioning on the battlefield as a huge factor and its battles are incredibly annoying in many ways because of it-- though that's mostly due to excessively cramped battle arenas and trying to move around other characters with too-large collision boxes that always get in the way.

There was a SNES RPG called Treasure Hunter G-- one of the later Square games, I think-- that also had a stripped-down tactical battle system, you might want to track down a rom of that (fan-trans only, I think) and check it out.

I'm personally not a fan of tactical RPG battles, but it can certainly be done very well :)

~Josiah

[RampantCoyote]

I thought I no longer liked the big tactical battles with movement and positioning --- thought I preferred the more abstract positioning of most jRPGs nowadays. And action-RPGs. And then I discovered Knights of the Chalice last year. It's a very western style RPG, but I recommend checking it out. It's a variant of the D20 rules system developed for the third edition D&D game.

Smart AI makes that game. Well, smart AI, and relatively interesting battlefields.

It's a bit more complex than what you are suggesting (a much larger battlefield), but the tactical element really, really rocks in that game (and it's an indie title!)

I also think of the Heroes of Might & Magic series, which seems a little closer to what you are proposing here. I think the battlefield is again slightly larger (I can't remember now - but I think it's more like 8 x 12) and it works pretty well.
_________________
Tales of the Rampant Coyote - Old-School Game Developer talks Indie Games, RPGs, and the Games Biz

[XMark]

Interesting... I'll download a Treasure Hunter G ROM when I get home and see how it feels.
_________________
Mark Hall
Abstract Productions
I PLAYS THE MUSIC THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN!

[XMark]

Ya know, I should probably stick with good ol' fashioned console style battles, because if it ain't broke don't fix it.
_________________
Mark Hall
Abstract Productions
I PLAYS THE MUSIC THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN!

[tcaudilllg]

There is something about screen transitions that is incredibly boring. I think it's the combination of -- yeah, it's the interruption. You're trying to get to a chest and you're focused on getting the chest, and then bam, random battle. But anytime you face an unexpected obstacle to your goal, you're going to get annoyed. Trying to keep players from getting annoyed is a big part of making an enjoyable game, in my opinion.

I've known some hard core RPGers who are not annoyed by frequent interruptions. They will fight random battle after random battle with few complaints. I personally can't stand it -- it's gotten to the point where I question why random battles are even in the game. I enjoy tactics RPGs... they are usually well thought out and require a lot of coordination between party members. I can't imagine a tactical RPG system working with random battles though, because that would be beyond tedious. Tactical RPG battles should be rather infrequent, so as not to interfere with the exploring too much.

[Malignus]

[BDZ]

This topic caught my eye because I'm implementing something similar. (I've been lurking here for a long time; life constantly gets in the way of me getting anywhere with my game.) Originally, my game was going to have normal FF-style battles on a separate screen. Then I moved to having Chrono Trigger style battles on the map. Then I realized that some of the things that you mentioned (like range) would add some strategy to the battles if the characters could move around.

Currently how my system works is this: when you encounter a group of enemies on the map, the screen (20x12 tiles) freezes and becomes your battlefield. Each entity can either move or attack during its turn. Movement is tile-by-tile (like FF6) during exploration, so it is tile-by-tile during battles.

I'm not sure how well it will work out...I've had success so far. However, I'm seeing some possible issues with bounding boxes for different sized enemies as well as how ranged attacks are influenced by terrain--my game uses 2.5d graphics, so I may have to limit battles to open areas without tall obstacles.

[Malignus]

[tcaudilllg]

XMark, what you are discussing sounds a lot like Megaman Battle Network's system. Or alternatively, like Robotrek's.

[XMark]

[Hajo]

In another game developers forum, someone suggested to do features "all or nothing" - so if you want tactics, make them deep, otherwise, skip tactics.

Usually such need to be taken with a grain of salt, but the middle ground might end up frustrating - not simple enough to be quick, and too limited to offer new features.

[Rainer Deyke]

[Hajo]

I'm more the "middle ground" type of person myself.

It sure must be taken with consideration. I do not think the one who wrote that in the other forum wanted "all" to be interpreted as "ridiculously complicated". I'd rather think it means "have all essential parts of the feature" - if movement is a big part of tactics, movement should be possible as much as needed to have full advantage of positioning - but not more, since as you said, that would not add anything but confusion.

Well, I posted it more as a thing to think about. Maybe it really doesn't make much sense, but it seemed to tickle my brain in positive ways.

[Malignus]

The "tactics lite" approach suggested here reminds me a little of the Lunar games' combat system, but confined to a grid. Ever played Lunar or Lunar 2?