@kirbwarrior I learned something similar from that game (It's insanely easy, story is simple, etcetera. It's a beginner's RPG, but it's one of my favorites anyway). I didn't like the "two hit rule" though. I just adapted it to be "four hit rule" on initial encounter with enemies and then "one hit rule if you come back, since you know how it works now". I just personally find this feels better as a player. I like combat to have an initial challenge, but once you know how to do it, it's easy to just kill it in a single hit and move on. I like the feeling of "raw power" that gives me, as a player. Like I'd earned how powerful I was, and enemies that once gave me problems now suddenly fall in a single swipe of my blade. Also, the bows were made to be used from the Back Row in FF4. This is something the game doesn't tell you at all. ^_^ If you're in the front row with bows, they suffer serious penalties and suck. But, put them in the back row, and they can land critical hits more frequently, inflict states more easily (provided your arrows have states tied to them), and do a lot more damage. They also hit with the usual 90% accuracy of any other weapon. But, again, the game doesn't tell you this at all. I only figured it out by equipping my Mages with them, as they were the strongest weapon most of the mages in the game could even use. As for going thirty seconds without combat. That's actually pretty good in a Random Encounter type game. You know how much ground you can cover in 30 seconds in a Random Encounter game? Meanwhile, games like Skyrim and Fallout 4... 30 seconds isn't a lot of time. That's roughly every two blocks of city. That's a frequent encounter rate for games based on first person views and lots of exploration. Encounter Rate likely is one of the reasons why both systems feel "not working" to me. I feel like the "Visual Encounter" ones are just as frequent as the "Random Encounter" ones, except I can see one set coming. In a 15x30 hallway, I might hit two random encounters before making it to the other side. Or, maybe one if I'm insanely lucky. But, if a dev puts two or three encounters in that hallway via Visual Encounter... Well, it's exactly the same. Even if I can avoid all 3... just means it requires me waste movement time doing so. @jonthefox Ah, video game compulsion. The battle is there, so I must do it. It gives me stuff to complete it, directly impacts how much power I have, how much money I've got, and helps make future sections of this game easier. I'll fight every single battle in a game, whether it's Random Encounter or Visual Encounter. Because killing the enemy is rewarding. Because all that XP, no matter how small, adds up over time. All that money adds up over time. Visual Encounters just make that more controllable for the dev, and makes it more difficult to grind if a player decides they want to. But, that compulsion remains in most gamers. Sure, you could just hit "Escape" in every encounter. You could just avoid the little sprites on the map, but there's no reward for doing so. Unless you just don't want to fight at that moment. I don't know many players that evade a lot of combat in video games. Mostly because that's part of the gameplay and we have this compulsion as a species to defeat all our enemies. Even in Deus Ex games, where you can stealth by every single enemy in a level... You will feel compelled to knock out or kill several of those enemies... or most of them... or in extreme cases, all of them. The act of defeating opponents is like hard-wired into us. @bgillisp Dungeons should feel inhabited by creatures. Hungry creatures. Who think you're a meal. Especially if they attack you. To that extent, all dungeons should have minimum space requirements of 50x50 maps to make them feel lived in All joking aside, yeah you need to communicate effectively to players what things do. I got the same feedback with my "Great Axe" archetype for weapons. The description was something along the lines of, "This unwieldy axe is the most powerful weapon available in the land." I'd basically been thinking, "okay, a player is going to infer that unwieldy means you lose speed using it, and it's probably not very accurate". Cue complaints about how difficult it was to hit with it, even with only a 30% drop in accuracy. Descriptions then had to change and give the exact amount of accuracy loss for the weapon archetype. Complaints then ceased. It would be a lot nicer if the RPG Maker franchise gave "complete equipment breakdown" on equip screens or shop screens. Save us valuable "description text" space. I guess there are plugins that do that, but they're mostly clunky. Still, it's important to tell players exactly what they're getting into with each piece of equipment. Even joke equipment. Not a lot of RPGs do this though. Especially ones with combat in real time. "Oh, this weapon is slow". Well, how slow? Oh, I've got a scale of 1 to 10 here. How much slower is a 5 compared to a 4? Who knows until you equip the weapon! Oh, this armor piece prevents some fire damage. How much fire damage? Can I get a percentage? Etcetera.