Opinion regarding ATB battle system

[Tohisu]

Hello everyone.

I'm heading to create a commercial project.
I have a lot of ideas but still have hesitations regarding the fighting system.

This is what looks like the fight mechanic of my previous game :

It's an ATB system.
Note that you have, first to charge your "action bar".
When completed, you can choose the skill you will do. Depending on which skill you have choosen, you will charge a second bar or act directly. (Some skills are "instant", and some actions like "Object" or "Guard" too.)

But here is the question I'm asking :
You can notice that, every time you have to choose an action, everything stops, right? So you have the time of reflexion.
Would it be more interesting that the fight continues even when you're choosing your action?
Of course, each time there is an animation, everything will stop.

What do you think?

 

[IAmJakeSauvage]

Hello everyone.

I'm heading to create a commercial project.
I have a lot of ideas but still have hesitations regarding the fighting system.

This is what looks like the fight mechanic of my previous game :

It's an ATB system.
Note that you have, first to charge your "action bar".
When completed, you can choose the skill you will do. Depending on which skill you have choosen, you will charge a second bar or act directly. (Some skills are "instant", and some actions like "Object" or "Guard" too.)

But here is the question I'm asking :
You can notice that, every time you have to choose an action, everything stops, right? So you have the time of reflexion.
Would it be more interesting that the fight continues even when you're choosing your action?
Of course, each time there is an animation, everything will stop.

What do you think?

Most ATBs include the option for either - called wait/active typically. It really depends on the player - and most scripts/plugins include this option as well.

 

[Kes]

Almost all ATB games that I've come across for several years now give the player the choice to either Wait or the battle to remain Active. I have no problems with allowing the player that choice, because it means that each one can play in the way which they find most fun, and that I think is crucial.

If I see a game with Wait disabled, I don't bother playing it. I personally dislike having no time for reflection, the no-wait system penalises slower reflexes, a minor RL distraction can mean game over (happened to me) etc. etc.

Why would you want to deprive players of the choice?

 

[Tohisu]

Giving the opportunity to choose active/wait mechanic is a thing, but in my opinion it's almost giving the choice of "Normal/Easy" mode.
The game would be way easier if I build the difficulty of fights around an "Active system" and the player chooses the "Wait mode".

 

[Kes]

If you want to make a commercial game and want to generate reasonable sales, then I suggest that you do not make your game too niche to achieve that objective - it's hard enough as it is. Active only would, imo, mean that the number of people interested in buying it would drop significantly. Your answer also implies that speed is more important in difficulty in your game than strategic choices (which require a modicum of time to decide), and again this might not be attractive to at least some players.

 

[Tohisu]

Mmmh... you're right.

I think I should give the choice between Active/wait mode.
Therefore, I think, in a aim of balance system, I should accelerate the actions bar in Wait mode and slow them in the Active mode.
I think it would make sence, no?

 

[Wavelength]

I'm in rare disagreement with @Kes here - I do not think you should be giving your player the choice between "Wait" and "Active", because when both systems are available, "Wait" is strictly more advantageous for the player (you will get more actions compared to your enemies, than you will in the "Active" style), so most players will choose "Wait" even if they find it less fun.

Instead, consider why you want the ATB battle system in the first place. Is it for interesting tactical maneuvers regarding the AGI stat? Is it for the feeling of a fast-paced battle that keeps players on their toes? Your answer to why have an ATB should lead you to your answer on should time flow as players make decisions.

The difference between the two is kind of like the difference between Civilization and Age of Empires. One rewards taking a lot of time to consider your options to determine the best possible course of action; the other rewards thinking on your toes and making quick, relatively good decisions without getting too bogged down in the details. I think that both of them can be extremely fun experiences; some people will only like one or the other, but don't let anyone tell you that either one is always a bad choice. It's all about which kind of experience you want to provide for your player.

Regarding the need to put your game down for a moment in the "Active" style - this is a very real issue, but a Pause function should take care of that.

 

[Tohisu]

Thanks for your opinion Wavelength.

I was, me too, considering taking a "Pause function".

What I am looking for for my game is an interesting difficulty. I think an active style forces the player to think fast. It's also more flexible : the player can make the heroes act in a certain order if he waits a little bit.
In the Wait mode, you do not have the choice of which hero acts when. An atb for "hero X" is charged : you have to play "hero X".

 

[S.Court]

I think the choice between "Wait" and "Active" depends of how much do you need to think your actions in your project.

When I wanted to implement ATB in my project, I chose to make it a "Wait" mode in this one, strategy has a importan factor: Status effect work properly on random enemies and sometimes you need to keep your priorities in certain matches, so having time to think your actions is crucial. But why using ATB in a Wait mode when you could just let it as a Turn based system?

There are a good amount of valid answers for this question, but at least in my case, ATB would be important if you want to make Speed has a great factor in your project, decreasing the amount of time your character can make an action adds a lot of weight to this stat, so if stat investment is an important factor and you want to think in a way to make Speed more relevant, but strategic factor is important as well, ATB Wait mode is a good way to accomplish both goals.

 

[Tohisu]

The wait mode is different of the "Turned base" system since there is an "interruption" system : you can interrupt an opponent skill if you use the right skill.

But your argument is making me think that "Active mode" might be a better option for my game.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[kirbwarrior]

But why using ATB in a Wait mode when you could just let it as a Turn based system?

Or CTB. I don't know about your game specifically, but Yanfly's ATB is basically a fancier CTB system. A large part of it being ATB is the fact that you taking time to make choices lets the enemy continue to attack you. This can even be intentional from the player's perspective, where you want to know what the enemy action is and respond to it. With enough AGI, you can react and then get another turn in.

As for Active/Wait, most systems that have that Wait applies when in menus but not on the "main" menu (where you pick Attack, Magic, etc.).

I want to echo @Wavelength but more extreme; Fire Emblem is a game where every single action matter, you control an entire army, you see all the information on the field, and you have literally tons of options. You have to have time to think it out. While in Overwatch, you have at max 5 possible abilities to worry about. You play enough to memorize how those abilities work and when. The game is built around reflexes, with choices being made both proactively and reactively and hesitation is death. Choice is rote, implementation is what really matters.

For an ATB, the large issue I normally see is the large list of options. A good ATB shouldn't let the characters have too many options in battle. The place where tons of options belong is out of battle, with equipment, party management, skill selection, class selection, etc. Once you're in battle, you have literal frames to make choices in to not get screwed over. And that's the charm of it. You're planning your options those three to seven seconds between turns. The point is you have to plan quickly, you have to think fast, and you have to learn timing. In a CTB or normal rpg, you have plenty of time to plan. Things like adapting to situations you can't plan for or systems with a plethora of options you have to consider the entirety of are the norm here, where the game expects you to take a moment (or minute or hour) to decide your action.

Last thing to consider; I can't think of an ATB that's come out in probably the last decade. Even Final Fantasy has stepped away from it in lieu of far more unique systems (unless 15 went back to it). I can't think of a modern day "Chrono Trigger".

 

[S.Court]

Last thing to consider; I can't think of an ATB that's come out in probably the last decade. Even Final Fantasy has stepped away from it in lieu of far more unique systems (unless 15 went back to it). I can't think of a modern day "Chrono Trigger".

I don't want to derail too much this topic, but I Am Setzuna use Active Time Battle system, and was released in 2016 in Japan and in the rest of the worl in 2017

 

[Tohisu]

True, Final fantasy and all the others RPG have abandonned this system since FF9 if I'm not wrong?
I don't know why tho, this system was really pleasant.

 

[onipunk]

They abandoned it because action-RPGs are much more viable in today's market, especially in the AAA space with the amount of money Final Fantasy has poured into it.

Personally I'm in favour of allowing the player the choice for the same reasons as Kes: accessibility. Set the default mode as Active if that's what you're designing the game around, but make the player aware that they can change it if they personally prefer the other system or they're finding the Active mode too difficult. If you can give them the option of making the game easier for them without them having to grind (because enforced grind just isn't fun, no matter how common it is in JRPGs, especially to newcomers), then you should. You're not losing anything by giving the option to less RPG-literate players, like.

 

[Tohisu]

Both modes having downside and upside, i think i'm gonna let the choice to the player.

Thanks for your constructive arguments tho.

 

[jonthefox]

I feel like if you give players the option to pause and think about their decisions, what's the point of even using ATB? Personally, I prefer turn-based systems, but....it sounds like you have a specific vision for what kind of combat system you want (creating difficulty by challenging the player to make quick decisions), so I would just go with that. You will alienate some players that don't enjoy fast-paced combat, but that's the price you have to pay for making a specific niche game - players that DO enjoy your combat system will appreciate it that much more, if it's done well.

It's so easy for designers to feel like they have to try to please everyone, and then end up with a game that feels like it's reaching out in all different directions. I think that in order to make a great game, you need to resist this impulse - always consider how much fun the player will have playing your game, but a lot of the fun comes from a game that is clear and cohesive in design. I know it's scary/risky to do this for a commercial game, but yeah.

 

[Basileus]

It's definitely true that modern RPGs, including Final Fantasy, have all moved away from using ATB systems and I think it's important to understand why that is before rushing into implementing one.

Shifting from Turn-Based to Active-Time is intended to make combat feel more dynamic. But games like The Legend of Zelda were already using Real-Time combat that was even more dynamic and faster-paced. So why bother going halfway? Simple - because Final Fantasy uses Menu-Based Combat. There were a decent number of spells and command options and limited capability at the time to convey all of this to the player. The limiting factor was the amount of time it took to navigate the menus and execute commands. The time waiting for bars to fill can be used to plan out moves and the enemy being able to strike during your "turn" added pressure that made the system feel more dynamic and fast-paced.

That said, ATB doesn't really have a place anymore thanks to much more sophisticated UI and better processing power. Games such as Dark Souls can offer all of the item and spell options of an RPG like Final Fantasy while having Real-Time Combat. Other games that remain Turn-Based often succeed by offering deeper strategic gameplay that requires the unlimited time to plan. And of course you always get nostalgia games like Dragon Quest that do what they always do because that's why fans keep buying them.

If you are making a game to appeal to old-school Final Fantasy players, then ATB can work fine if you balance the turn order right. ATB definitely won't make a game feel fresh or new, it's pretty much limited to nostalgia due to how dated it is. If you were just looking to make combat fast and tense, then a Real-Time Combat system might serve your needs better. If you want to stick to menus and plan to base combat around deep, tactical decisions, then a Turn-Based Combat system may be better since you can give the player time to use the menus and punish mistakes more harshly to raise the stakes while still feeling fair.

 

[Tohisu]

I think both system (wait and active) can fit my game.
I might do a demo where you will be able to see what would look like the fights in both system and why I think it is possible to give the choice.