Should I just use Random Encounters?

[jonthefox]

I originally planned to have visible encounters via randomly moving monster sprites.  As I've been putting monster events in maps, I'm questioning this choice, because I don't want players to be able to skip through maps without fighting at least a few battles.  I also want the world to look and feel immersive.  

So in each map so far, I've placed a good amount of monster events--they move randomly, and at a speed that is faster than player-walking but slower than player-running.  This makes it so that players can mostly avoid encounters, but it's pretty hard to make it from one region to another without accidentally bumping into a couple of encounters.

This is all good I guess, except I wonder if this style of encounters is just creating as much (or more) stress as random encounters would.

If I switched to random encounters, I could:

-still make the player have to fight at least a few battles before reaching the next area

-still have the world feel immersive since monsters aren't seen but still implied/understood to be there

-be careful to not make the rate too high

-disable them during puzzles or after completing a dungeon

-possibly give skills ("stealth") or items ("invisibility scroll") that lower or disable random encounters

What do people think?  It's just a shame that I managed to find/create sprites for all the different monsters I was going to use (they'd still be useful for bosses and mini-bosses I guess).

 

[optimum45]

I actually use both techniques depending on circumstance.  For example, I will never put an evented combat sprite on my world map or any other really large map.  Also, I have trouble with "sentient" monsters in the evented format, because a "sentient" monster would be able to anticipate your movements and beat you to a spot and force an encounter.  I lack that kind of programming skill (for now).

 

[EternalShadow]

Something you do have to understand about random encounters: They are not guaranteed to happen either. A player could still end up underleveled if you're banking on them fighting X before the next area.

 

[Mimironi]

I've never had a big problem with random encounters. Some people hear 'random encounters' and immediately leave.

Just remember to get a script that makes certain battle's escape rates 100%(tsukihime has this script), so even if someone somehow bumps into an enemy every few steps, they can run. And see if you can get an 'encounter gague' or something like that, so we know when the battles are about to happen.

You could have items/skills that lower the encounter rate, or increase them (using a taunt skill outside of battle as an example).

Also, yes. Disable them in areas like puzzles, where battles will literally distract you from the main goal (completing that puzzle).

 

[Eschaton]

My personal problem with random encounters is that they allow players to grind. It's hard to balance around that.

Sure, it's more work, but having finite encounters on the map will be easier to balance.

 

[Bribolox]

Just remember to get a script that makes certain battle's escape rates 100%(tsukihime has this script), so even if someone somehow bumps into an enemy every few steps, they can run. And see if you can get an 'encounter gague' or something like that, so we know when the battles are about to happen.

You could have items/skills that lower the encounter rate, or increase them (using a taunt skill outside of battle as an example).

Also, yes. Disable them in areas like puzzles, where battles will literally distract you from the main goal (completing that puzzle).

I disagree - players should not always be able to run. Make an item they can use to escape it they choose.  That's how it works: fight monsters, gain EXP, defeat the boss.

I also think you should decrease the encounter rate in puzzle area but still have them - that's part of the challenge of the game.

 

[Bribolox]

My personal problem with random encounters is that they allow players to grind. It's hard to balance around that.

Sure, it's more work, but having finite encounters on the map will be easier to balance.

The player SHOULD be able to grind, you balance assuming that they won't, but it should be the player's choice how they play.

 

[Kes]

@Bribolox

One of the most persistent and consistent requests from players is that random encounters be disabled in puzzle areas.  You try to make it sound like it's axiomatic that its "a part of the challenge of the game."  No it's not.  It is perfectly possible to have a game full of (appropriate) challenge without having that.

I give my players the choice of which to have, visible or random encounters.  But I can see why not everyone wants to do that.  If you are having random encounters, however, I think you need to address the "3 steps and it's a fight" problem.  Although an average number of steps is set on the map for random encounters, it is not possible with the default set up to avoid that problem.

There is, however, a fairly simple solution.

[SIZE=10.5pt] The code in the default script Game_Player that determines how many steps until a battle is this:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]class Game_Player < Game_Character[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]  #--------------------------------------------------------------------------[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]  # * Create Encounter Count[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]  #--------------------------------------------------------------------------[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]  def make_encounter_count[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]    n = $game_map.encounter_step[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]    @encounter_count = rand(n) + rand(n) + 1[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]  end[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]end[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]There's a couple ways you could change it depending on exactly what you want.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]@encounter_count = rand(n) + rand(n) + 1 + $game_variables[5][/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This would simply add the amount in variable 5 to the encounter count. This would increase the average by that amount and ensure that many steps have been taken before a battle.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]@encounter_count = [rand(n) + rand(n) + 1, $game_variables[5]].max[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]This would ensure if the determined number of steps is less than the variable amount, it is set to the amount in the variable. This would probably result in a fair number of battles at that minimum amount of steps.[/SIZE]

I think you need to do something like this with random encounters, otherwise the player could get frustrated with the game.  It also gives you a bit more certainty when it comes to balancing, as you will have a more accurate idea of the number of encounters that will happen in a given place.

I let my players vary the random encounter rate using Yanfly's System Options Menu, but that's another story.  I do think it is helpful to the player to give them some item/mechanism to do that.

 

[jonthefox]

I know some people won't like it, but I've already decided I'm going to limit grinding, regardless of the encounter type (e.g. if you're higher than level X, an orc will no longer give you any EXP.  You might still be able to grind for small rewards like gold / item drops, but I doubt anyone would take the time to do this unless they truly loved grinding in itself).  So I'm not worried about the balance issue. 

Edit:  Thanks Ksjp, that's good to know if I decide to use random encounters.   One question, why can't I just add a constant to that formula instead of variable5?  Like say I add +10 at the end, which I'm assuming would mean the player has to take at least 10 steps in between each encounter--thereby alleviating the frustration possibility issue?

 

[headdie]

Personally I really dislike random encounters, primarily because you cant avoid them.  I have reasons for this.

1) When low health and rushing back to your rest point or somewhere you can buy health ransom encounters means it is very likely you will be forced into a battle and your health pool wont last out.

2) When blundering into an area under skilled to pass through it is very unlikely you can retreat to a lower skill area to recover and grind up your levels/kit

 

[jonthefox]

For people that always prefer evented encounters over random encounters, do you still as a player find the need to have an escape option?  or would you be fine with not being able to escape a battle, assuming you can pretty much choose whether to avoid it in the first place.

 

[headdie]

If the game allows I start new areas fully recovered, take a fight or 2 to judge the difficulty and then figure out what health/mana I feel comfortable loosing, when I hit that point I make for a safe area so very rarely use the flee option meaning not having the option is not something I normally miss.

 

[bgillisp]

One thing I did in my game was I wrote a script that did two things:

1: The script allowed me to disable random fights on a per map basis if a switch that I notetagged to the map was on. This way I could mark the map as clear by turning on the switch (say the monsters flee when you defeat the boss). This also makes it really easy to make a town where monsters attack, switch the switch on at the start of the game, then turn it off when the attack occurs, then turn it back on when the all clear is done.

2: The script also allowed me to disable random fights if you were way too overleveled. For example, in my first dungeon, if you somehow get to level 13, the random monsters avoid you in fear. After all, rats aren't going to keep attacking someone who has just decimated 1000 rats in the area. No, they are going to stay away from you and your party.

 

[Chaos Avian]

I find Bravely Defaults approach to random encounters interesting and fun. You could freely whenever you wanted either increase, decrease or turn off random encounters entirely. This means that players can grind to their heart's content, take it easy (though with the game's inherit difficulty level...), or make a beeline straight for the boss/ get out and get back to town safely.

Personally, I like the freedom of giving that much control out to the player but I can see how it can backfire, it isn't the easiest of games mind you.

 

[dungeon diver]

My favorite approach is to limit the number of possible encounters on each combat map, decreasing the encounter rate as it approaches being "cleared".

If it's fully cleared, the player can pick up a reward by going back to a settlement. At certain event points maps will reset and there is also a rare item that will refresh the map you're in if it's in the empty "cleared" state.

This lets me put a temporary ceiling on grinding and also allow players to feel like the random battles they're going through are affecting the state of the world, if only on a temporary basis.

 

[jonthefox]

I think I've decided on a compromise:

1) There will be visible encounters, but not an overwhelming amount --  i.e., for the most they are easily avoided.  This will give maps a good immersive feel, without being stressful or overwhelming to the player.  It will also allow a seamless  transition to some maps which will *only* have visible encounters.   It will also allow extra battle opportunities, for people who do want to fight more. 

2) There will also be random encounters (on most maps, not all) but they will be -very- infrequent.  They will just there to ensure that the player fights at least 2 or 3 battles, before moving on to the next area, or the boss.  With the exception of a few really swift enemies, the player will be able to escape all of these if he wants, at the cost of 1 MP (MP represents stamina in my game).

-edit- I just realized that if the player can escape, it's not really forcing the player to fight.  hmm.

 

[zeello]

NO. Do not under any circumstances use random encounters.

You can see my arguments why here:

http://rpgmaker.net/forums/topics/17934/?p=2#posts
 

But I will go ahead and post snippets for your convenience. Because I am here to help you from making a terrible mistake.

"If your battle system is fun people aren't going to mind a few more battles" We're not talking about a few more, we're talking infinite. (To look at it another way, reducing the encounter rate by half does not necessarily translate into half as many encounters.) Also, the issue is not just the amount of battles but also the way they are delivered: disruptively and assaultively. If you think random encounters are a good idea why not random cutscenes as well. After all, most cutscenes can't be dodged anyway.

If the purpose was to control the # of encounters that occur during a map, then the # of encounters logically should be fixed. If you have a completely linear area and the player will fight about 12 or 13 encounters on average, you might as well lock it down at that amount, even as far as deciding whether it will be 12 or 13. Random battles don't achieve a minimal level since the player could run from battles, and if a minimal level was really the point then you would simply have the encounters required to reach this level as being absolutely mandatory, and disappear permanently once defeated.

No such thing as "too many" random emcounters. If you have them at all you're empirically wrong, and simply adjusting a dial to make it less annoying or more annoying, doesn't change the fact that the game is still terrible.

Also, visible enemies doesn't ruin immersion any more than random encounters do. If you wanted to uphold a particular environment's atmosphere then you could choose to have no battles at all or to have battle occurrences be completely scripted.

There are plenty of ways of forcing the player to fight, you could even make them willingly fight in order to build an enemies-defeated counter, to collect keys to open new areas, or to level up in order to be able to defeat a boss.

Replying to thread:

"Also, yes. Disable them in areas like puzzles, where battles will literally distract you from the main goal (completing that puzzle)."

Good call. But better yet, have visible enemies and don't put them in puzzle rooms and at least that way the player knows there are no enemies in that room without having to walk around a lot in order to realize this.

Although by using visible enemies you could put enemies in the puzzle rooms anyway, since the player will be able to permanently diminish their numbers, something that does not normally occur with random encounters.

"I also think you should decrease the encounter rate in puzzle area but still have them - that's part of the challenge of the game."
How can you sleep at night...

 

[Kes]

@zeello

I think elevating a personal opinion, not shared by all, into some sort of universal truth akin to the law of gravity is perhaps a mistake.  There are players who enjoy random encounters, some who actually prefer them.  I think we should try and keep the number of absolutes and taboos at a low level.

this, btw, is precisely why I allow my players to choose which they want at the beginning of the game.

 

[bgillisp]

@Zello: So in your game all monsters never attack by surprise then? Not too realistic if you ask me.

But seriously, part of the point of random encounters is to show a monster attacking that you could not see coming in advance. Not everything is going to be just sitting there waiting for you to arrive and attack, and the player will not see everything. Do you see every little thing when you are out in the woods? Somehow I doubt it.

 

[Eschaton]

I think I've decided on a compromise:

1) There will be visible encounters, but not an overwhelming amount --  i.e., for the most they are easily avoided.  This will give maps a good immersive feel, without being stressful or overwhelming to the player.  It will also allow a seamless  transition to some maps which will *only* have visible encounters.   It will also allow extra battle opportunities, for people who do want to fight more. 

2) There will also be random encounters (on most maps, not all) but they will be -very- infrequent.  They will just there to ensure that the player fights at least 2 or 3 battles, before moving on to the next area, or the boss.  With the exception of a few really swift enemies, the player will be able to escape all of these if he wants, at the cost of 1 MP (MP represents stamina in my game).

-edit- I just realized that if the player can escape, it's not really forcing the player to fight.  hmm.

It's a good compromise. Just remember to keep them out of areas in which the player might be preoccupied, such as a room with a puzzle, a room whose layout needs to be memorized, or a room in which pacing is crucial for narrative purposes.