What is your strategy in a battle?

[C-C-C-Cashmere]

What is your general strategy when in an RPG battle? Do you tend to use a lot of buffs to strengthen your players? Do you like using poison and other ailments to cause detriment to your opponents? What are your tactics that tend to work in most RPGs, perhaps even to an extent where RPG combat systems are flawed?


Myself, I prefer when there is at least one healing spell in the party. An attack buff is also useful, whereas things like poison tend to deal too little damage, they are less useful than I usually think they should be. Buffs should make a whole lot of difference, not a little. I also usually never use the "Defend/Guard" move because it seems to me like a waste of a turn. Generally I want to deal as much damage as possible, and I don't really care too much about buffs.


Sometimes I even just choose the spell that has the most mana cost, and it's usually the most effective one, no matter what the situation. That's what I think is an uninteresting decision.


So what do you guys think about battle systems? What is your general strategy when fighting? How as developers can we combat people using the same strategy over and over again no matter what the fight?


Edit: Also, I feel that the TP system feels flawed to me. It feels like it's arbitrary whenever you can use those abilities, since you can't usually control how much you are hit. In most games, when I see a warrior with TP cost, it kind of is difficult to strategize around that. You either have enough TP, or you don't. You usually can't even use items to replenish it.

 

[Quigon]

Status ailments are the best thing. Finding a combo of them to bring down a massive enemy is awesome.

Read: DON'T MAKE YOUR BOSSES IMMUNE TO POISON OKAY.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

In most games that I played so far? Grind first then Spam your best moves on the bosses and poof, it's all a breeze...


now if that doesn't work (like if I hate grinding on that game), then I try out my different skills/moves available until I find the best one

 

[C-C-C-Cashmere]

@Quigon You're right, status ailments can provide a form of flavour to the battle... if their effects are strong enough, that is!


Also, things like elemental affinities can help too. Say if you use the fire spell too often, you may find that it doesn't work on fire enemies! I think that forces the player to switch up his spells to cater against the enemy. So then they can find that the water spell quenches the fire baddies pretty well. Strategy!


@Engr Shana You're right, it feels like most of the game is trying to find which moves deal the biggest numbers sometimes. There's not much strategy in that now, is there?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

yeah... on earlier parts, ailments seem useful, but since most people makes bosses immune to that... and so we're back to the most basic "strategy" spam attack!

 

[Quigon]

Elements can be fun too if you put more thought into like, fire > ice etc. Like say if you hit something with a water spell, now he's soaked and weak to lightning! Now he's all frazzled and stuff and messed up so now he's weak to earth! You just coated him in rocks and all kinds of stuff though, so your physical attacks don't do much damage anymore~ stuff like that is awesome.

 

[C-C-C-Cashmere]

Elements can be fun too if you put more thought into like, fire > ice etc. Like say if you hit something with a water spell, now he's soaked and weak to lightning! Now he's all frazzled and stuff and messed up so now he's weak to earth! You just coated him in rocks and all kinds of stuff though, so your physical attacks don't do much damage anymore~ stuff like that is awesome.

Good point. But if there's too many of those stuff without visual indicators, people can draw the wrong conclusions. I mean it's hard enough for a person to memorize elemental affinities and that kind of stuff is brought in. It might make sense if the battler gets physically drenched in water, then the person will know "OK, he's a water enemy basically now". Otherwise they might use the lightning skill and say to themselves "this battler is always weak to lightning", but then be confused when it doesn't work later on. So yeah, as long as there's enough visual indication that the circumstances have changed, then it should be fine in my opinion.

 

[kerbonklin]

I am 99% of the time a damage hoe. I never use buffs or debuffs unless truly necessary. Just full-on strongest DPS possible. (and one healer of course)

 

[Milennin]

I use whatever's best and fastest. Sadly, in most games that's usually just auto-attacking while saving your mana for the boss fights. I hate using consumables in games, I want to rely on my character's powers, not stocking up on 99 potions and cheesing through all the encounters.

 

[zacheatscrackers]

I take advantage of boss weaknesses to the best of my ability, first and foremost; don't want to prolong the battle anymore than I have to.

I also buff my party a lot, if need be, and make sure everyone has decent HP so they don't all die on me. We all know how much that'd suck.

 

[Kes]

Buff my party if absolutely necessary, definitely de-buff the enemy.  I think 'Blind' is often a neglected skill, even though it's wonderful against melee enemies.  I use elements a fair amount, but I've also introduced a couple of twists to some standard skills e.g. an all-party healing spell which also damages the enemy.  That one is definitely a case of having your cake and eating it.  If I can find quirky skills like that in other games, I'm likely to use them, just to ring the changes.

 

[GammaVector]

I use whatever's best and fastest. Sadly, in most games that's usually just auto-attacking while saving your mana for the boss fights. I hate using consumables in games, I want to rely on my character's powers, not stocking up on 99 potions and cheesing through all the encounters.

Silly question: I have a character in my game (one of the first ones you get) who is an alchemist, and until about halfway through the game, the only way you're gonna get him to do decent damage is with the consumable battle items he makes. He can use daggers, and comes with a couple of low-power spells, but the items are much more powerful. Now, making those items is relatively simple and the ingredients are easy to find. The only catch is that you can only make them in a "Safe" area, such as the player's house or a plot-related campsite, so you have to plan ahead a bit.


I put this mechanic in as a way to force the player to think about where they're heading and prepare accordingly. The same character can also make potions etc. for much cheaper than you can buy them in stores. You get a tank/healer early on, but it takes a while before he can really heal effectively. For that portion of the game, potions are supposed to be your main source of healing. Would this bother you?

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

That is specific to your game, and obviously, we haven't played it out yet... Also it's a statement, not a question, and it's not silly too since he was talking from his experience from playing OTHER games...


And we all have our own likes and dislikes, he dislikes using items, so what?

 

[GammaVector]

That is specific to your game, and obviously, we haven't played it out yet... Also it's a statement, not a question, and it's not silly too since he was talking from his experience from playing OTHER games...


And we all have our own likes and dislikes, he dislikes using items, so what?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to derail the topic or be a nuisance. I just have a very different battle style. I like using items in battle. So my perspective is very biased. I was wondering if maybe it was a little TOO biased and that if an item-centric style might annoying average players, or players who don't usually use battle items. So, because his bias is basically opposite mine, I wanted to ask what he thought of the mechanic so that I could get a better idea as to player reactions. Because at this point, it's still early enough for me to change it, and I suspect I may be in the minority in favoring battle items. Most people in this topic seem to favor skills.


Also, I didn't mean that what he said was silly. I meant that I was asking a silly question. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.

 

[Milennin]

I put this mechanic in as a way to force the player to think about where they're heading and prepare accordingly. The same character can also make potions etc. for much cheaper than you can buy them in stores. You get a tank/healer early on, but it takes a while before he can really heal effectively. For that portion of the game, potions are supposed to be your main source of healing. Would this bother you?

The problem with consumables being your main source of damage / healing is that the player can't know how much he needs for the next part of the game. You can tell the player you expect them to plan ahead, but that's completely useless advice to the player. When I go into a dungeon, I don't know what to expect when it comes to length and encounter difficulty. Then when I run out of stuff I would be forced to leave the dungeon (assuming I can survive the way back without items left) and go to town to buy more.

Then there's the problem with how much do I spend on items that heal? How much do I spend on items that deal damage? What if I accidentally missclick buy 99x of all damage items and don't have money left to buy healing items and my last gamesave was 30 minutes ago? I'm screwed?

The thing about using Mana as a resource is that it's much more flexible since it can generally be used to both heal and deal damage, and there's usually ways to replenish it even during combat.

Also, one last thing that would make me dislike a character that requires items to do well in combat is that it takes up your source of money. Usually money is required to buy character equipment, but now I might have to prioritize buying consumables for one of my characters over upgrading my party's equipment because otherwise he's going to be useless in any encounter.

 

[GammaVector]

The problem with consumables being your main source of damage / healing is that the player can't know how much he needs for the next part of the game. You can tell the player you expect them to plan ahead, but that's completely useless advice to the player. When I go into a dungeon, I don't know what to expect when it comes to length and encounter difficulty. Then when I run out of stuff I would be forced to leave the dungeon (assuming I can survive the way back without items left) and go to town to buy more.


Then there's the problem with how much do I spend on items that heal? How much do I spend on items that deal damage? What if I accidentally missclick buy 99x of all damage items and don't have money left to buy healing items and my last gamesave was 30 minutes ago? I'm screwed?


The thing about using Mana as a resource is that it's much more flexible since it can generally be used to both heal and deal damage, and there's usually ways to replenish it even during combat.


Also, one last thing that would make me dislike a character that requires items to do well in combat is that it takes up your source of money. Usually money is required to buy character equipment, but now I might have to prioritize buying consumables for one of my characters over upgrading my party's equipment because otherwise he's going to be useless in any encounter.

Those are all really good points. Thank you!


For the first one, as to planning, I'm not letting the player walk in blind! There's the option to do a sort of "scouting mission" before you go into a dangerous area which will give the player an estimate of how many battles to expect (it's accurate within two battles either side of the estimate) and a taste of the enemies they'll encounter.


Also, there IS mana to back this character up. Depending on the point in the game, you'll have at the very least one heavy-damage dealing mage, and the alchemist is (at that point) acting as the healer. Usually you'll have a mage and a physical attacker. Then you get a tank as well. Eventually, you get a mana-based healer, and the alchemist is then able to change from a healing-focused role to a damage-dealing and status-effect support role.


About halfway through the game, when you've found all the characters, your alchemist character becomes capable of holding his own in a fight without using consumables (they're still very useful for status effects and emergency heals, though). He's still perfectly viable as an item-based character, but it gives the player another option if they really hated the mechanic.


There is no level system in my game, so I'm having to find other ways to nerf the player in the beginning and show them getting stronger. A heavy reliance on items for one character in the beginning of the game was one of my ways to do that.


The crafting aspect is also pretty heavily integrated into the game. Like I said, gold is more or less infinite because you can sell the potions you make at quite a profit. And the ingredients for all the lower-level potions that you'll be using in the beginning of the game when money is scarce are very easy and cheap (usually free) to come by. You still have to make the items ahead of time, but dungeons are short and like I said, there's always a scout-ahead option.


Also, as for the battle items, they'll OHKO most things and THKO everything that's not a boss. The catch is that they're consumable, so the player must strategize as to when to use strong mana-based skills (which are of course also limited, but you get a lot more "shots" out of them) or the infinite physical skills of the fighter characters, and when it's just too dangerous to let that enemy live another turn.


Does that information change the way you feel about it? Or would you still hate it? Would it be better to give the alchemist a non-item based way of dealing good damage from the get-go, and trust his position as the only healer (and still have that be item based) to make the player think ahead?


(Again, thank you very much for answering. Your perspective is very different than mine. It's enlightening.)

 

[Milennin]

Does that information change the way you feel about it? Or would you still hate it? Would it be better to give the alchemist a non-item based way of dealing good damage from the get-go, and trust his position as the only healer (and still have that be item based) to make the player think ahead?

(Again, thank you very much for answering. Your perspective is very different than mine. It's enlightening.)

I would be fine with it, if it was well-thought out and the game was balanced around the use of it. What I get from your post is that you did just that, so I think I'd be fine with it, but it's hard to say without having played it.=p

BTW, if you have a playable demo, I'm offering a free test service if you're interested: http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/23832-rpg-tester-service/

 

[CWells]

Depends on my set up. But lately, like, the past year now, I've been pushing the games I've played in what they offer in terms of combat, at least in the ailments/buffs department. Just to see how effective/reliable they are. Almost as if I was...okay I have been experimenting and studying them. And it's been an interesting experience.

It depends on the game I play though. In Skyrim for example, I like archery. I love it. It's fun. And I like slow killing with lingering damage +paraysis poIsons I make. I did however experiment with illusion and conjuration for a whole playthrough and wow was that ever fun. I would pacify some areas, just go in, loot, say "bye" then walk out peacefully. Then in other areas, I would use frenzy to watch a group of bandits or whatever tear each other apart, then I would resurrect the fallen enemies and have them pick off the rest of the enemies in the dungeon. Pretty sick.

And now in Mass Effect, I've been experimenting with technical combat, warping enemy shields/armor, poisoning with toxic bullets while having one other character play my hammer.

My strategy seems to be, if allowed in game:

Stay along the outer lines and manipulate the arena to see what kind of chaos you can cause without getting mauled. Or poison and observe how the game reacts. Observe how enemies react to whatever effects are on them and just enjoy the show...

 

[GammaVector]

I would be fine with it, if it was well-thought out and the game was balanced around the use of it. What I get from your post is that you did just that, so I think I'd be fine with it, but it's hard to say without having played it.=p


BTW, if you have a playable demo, I'm offering a free test service if you're interested: http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/23832-rpg-tester-service/

Thank you for the offer. I don't quite have a playable demo yet, (I started out in the database and have only just started mapping) but I'll be posting it in your thread in the near future.

 

[OM3GA-Z3RO]

Back to topic!!!!!

Normally my strategy is buffing up my characters and then try and find the most effective way to beat my enemies although I am not fond of games that is just Zerg Rush to the boss and beat them through shear firepower, I like to have my battles with a strategy and I would like Variety in my arsenal and not just 1 skill spam.

About Status on Bosses, I am not entirely fond of it because it can lead to many exploits and making you beat the boss with EASE here is an example: FF8 Diablos - He deals insane physical damage and he uses Gravity spells that cuts your HP by half or by 90% of your HP, the only way to beat him is to Blind him, I did not find that fun, once he is blind it is instant GG (Says the guy that never used Blind on him for a little bit of challenge )

In my game I am making my bosses be immune to the basic Status' BUT not Immune to Advance Status' which adds strategy to the game aspect.

Also I have made my game in a way that all skills are useful no matter what so it is fully based on strategy and not constant spams which I despise.