Random Battles or Enemy on Map?

[AeonSpark]

Hi all.

I was just wondering what you would all prefer to play, given a choice.

I don't particularly like playing random battles myself, i.e. you're trying to get somewhere, and they slow you down. For this there are alternatives of course, no battle items, 'repel' ish items.

But I can understand that they make game design a lot sleeker, the player is forced into battle and will level up at a steady rate no matter how they play.

When it comes to actual event enemies on map I think it looks nicer, it's more clear you're going to be fighting enemies, but being able to avoid them means that the player might avoid them, and not level up. You could put them in places they have to fight them (i.e. between two logs) but then you might as well go random.

At the moment I'm considering random battles with events for more important enemies.

But what are your thoughts?

 

[Indinera]

I prefer random encounters with a minimum amount of "no-encounter" steps after each fight.

 

[deilin]

Hmm...

I use both methodologies, with added features, like the troop contents gets randomized. The same 3 enemy event night produce 3 bats one time, and 3 bandits the next, or a mix of them.

 

[gameon47]

I think it depends on the game. I prefer both.

 

[Indinera]

Players usually like both (although the anti-random encounters league can be louder than the rest), I've had games using both systems and the ones with random encounters did very well. IMO it doesn't matter as much as having a good story or an interesting gameplay. What a lot of players do dislike is 2 steps 1 fight... so try to avoid this!

 

[gameon47]

Yes, in my opinion too, it can be very annoying when monsters attacks too often.

For example if you want to walk through a forest and cannot progress, because all few steps a random-encounter battle starts...

 

[Indinera]

The problem is that 2 steps 1 fight is the result of bad luck and you don't want this kind of bad luck in your game cuz it will just end up frustrating your players.

 

[AeonSpark]

Yeah, two steps one fight would be amazingly irritating. It's enough to disorientate a player, as well as annoy them.

I'd say a threshold of about 10 steps between battles would be quite a good amount, depending on the size of the map of course.

I like the idea about having random sprites for one time then another.

There's something awfully Chrono Trigger-ish about having enemies there on the map with you.

 

[kampmichi]

I think the problem of random battles comes with player preference and the rewards of battles.

For instance many players don´t like to fight lv 1 monsters every 20 steps if they are lv 80 themselves because there is no challenge and no reward(noticeable) of the battle.

others just want´s to rush trough a dungeon to get to the next part of the story an average of 15 steps per encounter is to high for them they will defeat the boss somehow by exploiting it´s weakness or something.

I like random encounters more if i can manipulate the encounter rate by items,skills or other means.

 

[Indinera]

For instance many players don´t like to fight lv 1 monsters every 20 steps if they are lv 80 themselves because there is no challenge and no reward(noticeable) of the battle.

In most games, lv80 players don't have to spend much time (if any at all) in areas where the lv1 monsters are.

others just want´s to rush trough a dungeon to get to the next part of the story an average of 15 steps per encounter is to high for them they will defeat the boss somehow by exploiting it´s weakness or something.

This is why I recommend different modes of playing and different encounter types.

 

[Archeia]

Yeah, two steps one fight would be amazingly irritating. It's enough to disorientate a player, as well as annoy them.

I'd say a threshold of about 10 steps between battles would be quite a good amount, depending on the size of the map of course.

I like the idea about having random sprites for one time then another.

There's something awfully Chrono Trigger-ish about having enemies there on the map with you.

I found 70-100 steps as the good threshold since 10 could get irritating on big/puzzle based maps. (RPG Maker has 10 by default from what I remember)

 

[Necromus]

Both is fine really, its all about how you set them up.

Random encounters need a non annoying frequency, visible encounters need a decent respawn mechanic.

If there is a problem with high lvl chars in low lvl areas, create a system where a group of power X prevents mosnter with lvl Y from triggering battles.

Make visible encounters not triger a battle if your lvl surpases them by ammount Z.

There are a lot of possibilities to make both encounter types work, it just needs some thought behind it.

 

[Indinera]

(RPG Maker has 10 by default from what I remember)

Unless I'm mistaken, RM does not set a minimum amount of "free" steps, so if you get unlucky you can be caught 5 times in 10 steps. Maybe it's different with Ace, I haven't tried this one long enough.

 

[Neon Black]

Unless I'm mistaken, RM does not set a minimum amount of "free" steps, so if you get unlucky you can be caught 5 times in 10 steps. Maybe it's different with Ace, I haven't tried this one long enough.

The number of steps between a random encounter is set when you enter a map or exit a battle.

The calculation used is "rand(average) + rand(average) + 1".

This means it can be anywhere between "1" and "average * 2 - 1". (yes, minus 1, rand will not return the max value it's given)

So the default average of 30 steps means you will get into a battle after a maximum of 59 steps.

This also means if you set the average to 10, you will get into a battle in 1 to 19 steps (ew).

70~100 like Archeia said would be 1~139 or 1~199 steps.

That's why I screwed with it with my scale encounters script.... I don't like battles being so concrete.

Well, this is all in vxa anyway; dunno about vx or xp.

 

[Indinera]

The problem in all of this is the "1".

People can be caught every 1 step for a 3 or 4 fights in a row and they hate that.

It would be better if you could give a limit under which being caught is not possible.

For instance 15 steps free and then only after these 15 the randomization kicks in and you get your 1-19 or... 1-199. So the final number would be:

16-34 instead of 1-19, which is far more satisfying and smooth.

BTW rand (7) gives a number between 0 and 6, not 1 and 7, this is why "it doesn't return the max value it's given".

 

[Necromus]

Just do it the old fashioned way then, common event, your specifications and done.

Just like on RM2K/3, i never used the default random encounter feature there either lol

 

[AeonSpark]

As long as there's not a battle every 5 steps I'd be okay with it.

And as for high levels in small areas I remember an old RPG making enemies stop appearing when you reached a certain level, and then when you come back to

the map later the enemies had scaled up to be more appropriate for your level.

Although as Indinera said it's not often you find yourself in lower level areas at a high level anyway, unless a certain enemy has an item you need and they're in a low level area.

 

[PixelLuchi]

It really depends on the game being made. If you're going retro, then you can use random encounters. If your game is more focused on exploration and solving puzzles and stuff, then I'd prefer on-map encounters.

I use evented on-map encounters in my game, and they are divided into aggressive and passive enemies. While the enemies are few on the maps, the battles are challenging enough ( and they give enough EXP to level up your characters sufficiently ), so it doesn't feel like a chore fighting the same low-levelled/weak enemies over and over again. You can also avoid them completely ( even the aggressive ones, if you're fast enough ).

 

[Fafnir]

I find that changing the formula to N+rand(N)+rand(N) works quite well.

 

[Carillon Nightmares]

Oh boy, Golden Sun: Dark Dawn did that (at the end of the game) and it annoyed the living spizznits out of me. Every several steps the battle music would start.... :'(

I do prefer enemies on the map rather than random encounters. It's a lot better. I don't mind random encounters like in Pokemon, if you walked through the tall grass a battle would start -- At least you know when it's coming.