Should I just use Random Encounters?

[Seriel]

I don't really mind much either way, although I personally prefer Touch-Encounters because when you go into a new area you can immediatly weigh up how hard it's going to be. Like if there was an optional side-path, but when you go into it, you see a ton of enemies, you think "Uh-oh, maybe I shouldn't be going into here." also, it adds a lot of suspense to the game.

Overall, I think it comes down to personal preference and your game style.

 

[zeello]

@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.

These should be the minority of encounters. If a surprise attack happened all the time, then it wouldn't exactly be surprising, now would it?

"AH! A MONSTER"

"AH! ANOTHER MONSTER! Totally did not see that coming"

"AH! This is getting rather annoying!"

A proper way to do it is to have a visible monster run really fast toward the player from off screen, or to have a scripted sequence occur when the player steps on a certain tile. Or really just about any possible method than isn't random encounters. Laziness and lacking creativity are not very good excuses to resort to a method so fundamentally flawed as random encounters are. Any clumsy solution you can think of on your own in half a minute will still be superior than random encounters provided you actually design your game around that method you chose.

I don't really mind much either way, although I personally prefer Touch-Encounters because when you go into a new area you can immediatly weigh up how hard it's going to be. Like if there was an optional side-path, but when you go into it, you see a ton of enemies, you think "Uh-oh, maybe I shouldn't be going into here."

Agreed with this.

 

[bgillisp]

@Zello: Sure, maybe, however for many monsters, by the time you see it, you are technically in a fight. Ever try to dodge a charging bear? Once you see it, you *are* in a battle.

But, I also think a really fast running monster tends to annoy people as much as random battles. Personally, if I have visual battlers, but the game forces me to run into all these really fast running monsters, it feels like it defeats the purpose, as the battles are unavoidable. Same thing if they always block the path.

Personally, I like the Bravely Default approach, or ksjp17's approach. Let the player decide. No one approach is going to please all players.

 

[Seriel]

Fast running monsters are annoying, but the feeling of success when you get past a strong monster is just.. amazing.

 

[Kes]

Laziness and lacking creativity are not very good excuses to resort to a method so fundamentally flawed as random encounters are. Any clumsy solution you can think of on your own in half a minute will still be superior than random encounters provided you actually design your game around that method you chose.

I personally find this a rather patronizing approach.  I don't think you will find many people who are persuaded by insults.  It is not laziness nor lacking in creativity to give the players the choice.  In fact, it calls for more work and quite a bit of creativity to pull this off well.

 

[Indinera]

Personally whenever there is an option I always pick random encounters.

I like how it's less predictable and more suspenseful if the dungeon is hard.

 

[jonthefox]

Has anyone ever used visible encounters on maps with like 50 to 100 monsters?  I'm starting to get concerned about lag - yet another reason to go the random encounter way.   

Just because monster battles are random doesn't mean I can't use methods like cap the number of encounters per map or something - might look into this as my next alternative. 

 

[zeello]

@Zello: Sure, maybe, however for many monsters, by the time you see it, you are technically in a fight. Ever try to dodge a charging bear? Once you see it, you *are* in a battle.

But, I also think a really fast running monster tends to annoy people as much as random battles. Personally, if I have visual battlers, but the game forces me to run into all these really fast running monsters, it feels like it defeats the purpose, as the battles are unavoidable. Same thing if they always block the path.

Personally, I like the Bravely Default approach, or ksjp17's approach. Let the player decide. No one approach is going to please all players.

At least with visible enemies you have visual warning.

Another way of accomplishing this is with a random encounter gauge. But a reason why this still sucks is because it breaks immersion. The monsters are still coming out of thin air.

In an RPG you have an overhead view of the area, including behind the player. How is the player supposed to be really surprised at this point? That's asking a bit too much.

We should also mind the fact that, as I pointed out earlier, something is not surprising if it happens too often. People are used to defaulting to random encounters so they assume that all encounter systems need to recreate the surprise element. But if anything it becomes more surprising when you enter an area and find there are no encounters. (such as boss rooms) The fact this happens just goes to show a problem with the surprise excuse, since it's not really surprising that enemies are suddenly attacking you, but instead it is a mundane occurrence. The surprise is when it finally stops.

Also, if you are entering a bear-infested forest, it's not exactly surprising to see a bear now is it??

And maybe you'd see that bear coming in advance? You probably have SOME time to react. That bear is a visible enemy.

Granted, it may be impossible to safely proceed while that bear is still tailing you. Solution: Use a global switch, lock all exits until the bear is defeated. That's your random encounter.

Yes, it's annoying for things to happen suddenly. Personally I think the no-no is grabbing the controls away from the player. That's why I try to resist the temptation to have trip-wire encounters and events. Such a method creates a span of time before the event starts and the actual encounter, which is a good thing. It also means it's a depletable encounter (you have to fight it only once) which is another good thing. But the loss of control over your character happens instantaneously, which is a bad thing. But if anything this just goes to show how bad random encounters really are, because it's a laundry list of things a game shouldn't do conveniently wrapped into one.

 

[Kes]

@Zeello

You are very dogmatic about this, so I assume you are speaking from experience, not merely theoretically.

Could you name some games that you think did this well?

Even better, could you give us a link to any game of yours where you've implemented your ideas so that we can do a comparison with our own?

 

[jonthefox]

Update to my earlier idea - I'm going to try using visible encounters, but change the way I was doing them.  Instead of monsters moving randomly, I'm making them "approach".  This allows me to use far less monsters, creating less lag and less work on my part, and also make it not look as visually stressful/overwhelming to the player.  Monsters are fast enough where you still outrun them by sprinting, but barely, and if a large group of them amasses there's a decent chance you'll have to fight a few times before finding the exit / boss / etc. (especially in more tight-quarter maps, but naturally I'll place less monsters in these areas).

 

[Kes]

Sounds like a decent plan.  You'll probably have to experiment a bit to get the right number, but it's perfectly doable.

 

[bgillisp]

@jonthefox: One of my goals is to write a script that allow you to control the random encounter system better. Its on hold at the moment as I need to learn more RGSS to pull it off, but one of the intended features is an encounter cap, which would do what you want.

@zeello: If we are going to talk immersion here, keep in mind that being able to see monsters around walls and extreme distances is not realistic either. In the chibi style of RPG Maker, a tile is about 3 x 3 feet for an indoor map (look at the size of the bed to see why we say that), and on outdoor maps most people assume a tile is a mile or more. So if you are in a deep forest, how are you going to see a monster coming at you from more than a mile away? Or do you just not have encounters on your world map?

 

[Iavra]

On world maps, i would personally either use random or no encounters at all. On normal maps, i much prefer visible encounters.

 

[Seriel]

On world maps, i would personally either use random or no encounters at all.

Yep. Agree fully with that.

 

[bgillisp]

@lavra: I have mine set to an extreme distance, and with safe zones (after all, why do monsters attack you on the road? Don't the guards take care of that?). You can use regions and set it up so that battles only occur in region 1 to simulate that. Though I also used a rough version of my script to make so that if you have fought more than 3 battles since you entered the map, you will fight no more until you exit. That way if the RNG hates you, its over quickly at least.

 

[Seriel]

@jonthefox: One of my goals is to write a script that allow you to control the random encounter system better. Its on hold at the moment as I need to learn more RGSS to pull it off, but one of the intended features is an encounter cap, which would do what you want.

I look forward to seeing this script!

 

[Iavra]

@bgillisp: You could use some kind of entropy system like PoE uses for evasion to ensure, that the player won't get too many random encounters in a row. I think it would feel strange to get attacked 3 times and then being left alone for the next 3 hours as long as you don't leave the map.

 

[bgillisp]

@Larva: Here's how far I got it before I learned I needed to learn more RGSS to take it further. Still can be used to turn off fights by turning on a switch, set a fear level (no battles if average level is above a fixed value), and you can set a limit to the number of fights before they stop coming. Sadly, the last one does not stick if you save then restore, so got some work to do on that.

Here's the link: (removed as bad link, real link on the next page)

 

[Seriel]

@bgillisp: Eh? Why do I have to log in to view the script?

 

[jonthefox]

I haven't thought this through, but wouldn't there be a way to accomplish that through a variable that tracks battles (say +1 after every battle), and then something that gets checked each battle and if variable > X --->  set encounters none?