What makes a good battle system?

[Alex Nearwoods]

What makes a good battle system? how do you make a battle system that doesn't get boring after sometime? what about the hud? I would like to read your opinions on the subject. ^-^

 

[Kes]

[move]Game Mechanics Design[/move]

Your questions are probably too broad and vague to get clear and concise answers. The forum that I have moved this to is full of threads looking at specific aspects of battle systems, and I think you will find it helpful to look through some of those.

The most fundamental answers to your question will be along the lines of:

• It depends on the type of game you are making, the type of experience you want to give to your player, and who your target audience is. You could have a great battle system, but if it didn't fit the rest of your game, the player would possibly not find it fun.
• It all comes down to implementation. Your system could be a great design, but if you haven't got the balancing right, or the system is buggy, or your enemies are boring, then no amount of elegant design is going to save you.
• Battle systems cannot be thought of in isolation from the skills you design. The two must fit together.
• There is no one 'right' or 'perfect' battle system. Different players enjoy different things.

 

[Fernyfer775]

Is it fun and balanced well? You're on the right track.

Is the battle system imbalanced as all hell, not fun, have gimmicky mechanics that screw over the player without them being able to counter them, no matter how good or bad they are at the game? You're on the wrong track.

Also, everything that Kes said. ^

 

[bgillisp]

Does it require you to be a mind reader or pray to the RNG goddess to win battles? Then chances are it is not a good battle system.

 

[Wavelength]

What makes a good battle system?

Way too complex a question to answer concisely, but at a high level, I think that good games are either strategically (or intellectually) engaging, viscerally engaging, or emotionally engaging. There are lots of ways to do this; here are a few dynamics you can try to hit (there's no need to hit all of them; focus on what you can do best):

Strategically:

• Force the player to make interesting decisions during battle; make them want to do two things when they can only do one
• Make sure your enemies are varied, so that each battle requires different strategies
• Minimize the effect of RNG, or introduce RNG elements that change situations rather than determining results
• Design battles so that multiple approaches can work
• Ensure your characters' skills and abilities have interesting utility beyond damage and healing
• Make information easy to access during combat
• Find an interesting use for an additional "stat" beyond HP, MP, and TP, and work it into the core of your battle flow

Viscerally (for a turn-based battle system):

• Design quick, punchy, impactful animations for attacks and skills
• Replace numbers, text, and menus with graphics, animations and character expressions wherever possible
• Err toward fast-paced, not slow-paced, battles when determining battler stats
• Minimize the impact of healing on battles to encourage a quick, driven flow
• Minimize the number of clicks/button presses that it takes to do things
• Spend a lot of time perfecting your battle balance, to increase tension and excitement without causing frustration

Viscerally (for an action battle system):

• Make the response time between input and action as quick as possible
• Add physical "weight" to actions, e.g. knockback of an enemy at the end of a combo
• Zealously replace numbers, text and menus wherever it's feasible
• Aim for a battle flow where characters and enemies don't often hit each other in the same moment; give each moment a clear "winner"
• Use visuals to clarify the hitbox of skills and projectiles
• Make characters "feel" different in the way they move and act

Emotionally (emotional engagement is more often achieved using setting, dialogue, or plot, rather than systems, but here are a few ways you can aid the effort using your combat):

• Allow the player freedom to customize their characters' combat style and talents, making the characters their own
• Insert dialogue into combat, telling stories and showing events as the combat unfolds
• Try to show the player something about the world or the plot through enemy battler sprite design
• Have battles that don't force a Game Over for a defeat, but instead alter some part of the story depending on the combat's result

how do you make a battle system that doesn't get boring after sometime?

All of the things above that contribute to a "good" battle system also should contribute to your battle system not becoming boring. But in addition to that, I'd add that focusing on situational strategy in combat (certain strategies will be really good in some situations, but bad in other situations where you'd need to find a different strategy) as you design your system can go a really long way here. Also, opting for Visual Encounters (enemies walking around the maps) rather than Random Encounters is a good choice to reduce the player's battle fatigue - it lets them (try to) avoid encounters when they don't feel like combat at the moment.

what about the hud?

Make it bold and easily readable. Show character faces. Tailor its style to the theme of your game, but never at the cost of readability. Use graphics instead of numbers/words unless doing so will reduce clarity. Allow the player to access detailed minutia (such as descriptions of status effects, known enemy weaknesses, etc.) through an additional button press or menu, but only include relatively important info as part of the HUD.

 

[An Additional Pylon]

Also, opting for Visual Encounters (enemies walking around the maps) rather than Random Encounters is a good choice to reduce the player's battle fatigue - it lets them (try to) avoid encounters when they don't feel like combat at the moment.

This.

It might not directly encompass the subject of your question, but as a side note, see that there is at least several well fleshed out story related NPC's that -- depending on the player's actions -- may or may not turn into enemies. It gives your game a very lifelike touch, acting as a tool of integrating the player into the world of fiction, which sort of blurs this line between the realm of anything you can kill and the realm of what's tangible as a part of the story.

Also, pointless kill off enemy encounters that happen every two minutes while you wander across the overworld that a lot of JRPGs seem to suffer from. Every fight in an RPG should be to some extent engaging, and if there are areas specifically designed for the purpose of loot whoring and farming, they should be optional and clearly designated.

 

[OwMeEye]

I think it very largely depends on the person. Some people like a lot of grinding, some don't. Some people find turn-based battles boring while others find action battles tiresome. To say that rng is never good... but playing dice was always a popular sport, and same with card games so... granted, people add an element of money and hazard into that, but I certainly enjoyed playing cards in my life, and not for money (but perhaps it's because it includes a social aspect, which is generally absent from rpg maker games)

But, I think it really comes down to personal preference. Personally I prefer action/active battle systems, but there were games with tactical battles which I greatly enjoyed. Some games are interesting outliers, if I may step beyond the realms of rpg maker... for example disgaea made me love a tactical battle system despite that I don't usually like them. Or we can take a look at chrono trigger which has some kind of tactical-action hybrid system, also extremely enjoyable.

 

[themaelstorm]

I think this depends on your target audience.

It needs to be fun and interesting.

But say, for the strategy experts fun may be thinking long, playing with the math of things, theorycrafting and so on; while for a newer or casual player, fun is when they see big numbers and find ways to deal with enemy without giving it too much thought.

A hardcore player will enjoy a challenge, they'll like the game when they lose; knowing they have to work harder while others will see death in game as almost like a design flaw.

If you want to make a game for the hardcore strategy experts, you could make the hardest game evur and be praised by the correct people. If you want to make a game for the wide audience, maybe what you need is a luke-warm game with some "hard modes".

 

[Lithalean]

Simple.
Action battle system = Good
Turn based battle system = Bad
I'm just kidding... or am I?

 

[fireflyege]

@Lithalean I do not think action battle system is good, speed can be abused easily in action battle system, and you attacking 3 times before the enemy can actually move or the enemy doing the same is not fun by any means.

 

[Milennin]

For me, mainly to have meaningful choices. A bad combat system always has an obvious, single best option. Basically, battle encounters should allow for different approaches without making one feel vastly superior to the others. On the other hand, they should also not be so brainlessly simple, that no matter what you do, it results in an easy win.
Like, allow skillsets to support an aggressive playstyle, but coming at the cost of leaving battle at low resources. Allow a defensive playstyle, which is slower, but leaves the party in a decent shape after an encounter. Have a variety of skills that can deal with certain situations, but all in their own unique ways. Have skills that offer a good risk vs. reward situation - enough reward that they feel powerful enough to use, but just enough risk that the drawback doesn't feel completely trivial and is something that needs to be taken into consideration before using it.

But yeah... give me choices, and make them matter. That'd probably be the single most important thing when it comes to a good combat system for me. Everything else, apart from the super obvious stuff, like balance and pacing, comes second.

 

[kaukusaki]

It all depends on the style of game you're building. A game heavy on swordplay and battles might warrant an action style battle system whereas a strategy type might benefit from a turn based system. It's up to you.

 

[Frogboy]

If you get into a fight [past the first few] and think, "Alright, let's do this!", you've got a good battle system. If you groan and wish the encounter rate was much lower or that there were way less enemies running around the map, your battle system is garbage.

 

[Poryg]

For me it's quite simple. There's nothing like a good battle system. There are only bad battle systems.
What do I mean by that?
Simply put, a good battle system is the one that makes you completely ignore how good the battle system is. A good battle system is a part of the game. Not a mere battle system. It has progress, it has its' own logic... And everything has its' place there.
I won't be commrnting about the HUD, because if you cannot balance the battle system well, not even the most beautiful graphics can save it. And well, I am willing to sacrifice a lot for a good game balance. So you can use even simple graphics, it's not a bad thing. Just make it fitting the game.
And also, try to use short animations. There's nothing more annoying than to have to watch those boring animations again and again... And save long animations for bosses.