Auto-battle: Good feature or cop out?

[Billdakat]

This conversation is very interesting. Especially since I am thinking about trying to make a game where all battles are hands off and it is all about your choices of which characters form the party that is the point of the game. A bit like the "send dweller to the wasteland" mechanic in fallout shelter.

 

[omen613]

I personally don't like auto battles. I want to play not watch the game play itself (glares at iOS rpg games lol)


I think we all try to created an auto battle in our heads, crafting that ideal rotation that will defeat every battle. Like thats our goal in the battle to get off that perfect combo that kills the enemy straight out.


And thats just fine! 


I think if you want strategy in your battles you had have create battles that create speed bumps to achieve that perfect rotation. And that leads to players having to adapt to the situation to win all while trying to complete that rotation.


Example:


I have an enemy type I nick name "Jailer" who at the start of the fight picks a random character and paralyzes them until the jailer is defeated.


well that sure can mess up your perfect rotation if a key character is now unavailable. You have to not focus all remaining efforts on the jailer (if you can lol) then do your rotation to beat the rest of the battle.


or you take a new rotation that doesn't involve that character and the jailer is the low priority because other enemies are a much higher priority.


or you didn't even need that character to do your perfect rotation and that battle is won swiftly.


Just how I personally enjoy battles. Adapting to the situation.


Edit:


So ya I'm on the bandwagon of quality of quantity. And if people like figuring out the puzzle once and then putting it on autoplay after that, then I feel that battles are too simple and copy and paste with different enemy skins or they're battles are over so fast there isn't room for strategy (moment of silence for the poison status effect)

 

[Wavelength]

I think it's both - a good feature and a cop-out.  It lets you get away with including more battles than your player deems fun by reducing most of the pain involved, but it also masks the problem of "the battles aren't fun (anymore) for the player" rather than actually solving that problem.


In an ideal situation the battles will never get boring for the player - in practice, even fun battles might not be appreciated by all players, and if your dungeons, world, and objectives aren't straightforward enough, some players (like me!) will get lost occasionally, and won't want to be constantly distracted with battle tactics as they get their bearings.  So I think such a feature is welcome in most games it appears in, for the times where the player doesn't see the appeal in participating in a battle.

 

[kaukusaki]

For the games I write, I use autobattle for NPCs that join the fight for some story reason or another and usually their skills and weaponry are tied. Other times, I might have a helper npc that has a fixed level but can change equipment, or rarely, one that can level and equips can be changed. It all depends. But as for a straight auto-battle mode, I don't use one, since I prefer the player (for the most part) choose what to do in battle. i try to keep it simple, as my games are conversions from old pen and paper adventures i used to run back in the day. lolz. i just finished the exp and leveling system recently for my latest game template. die rolls are fun.