Which do you prefer visible Enemies or Non-visible enemies?

[deadsilence]

I like how Ni no Kuni handles enemies. You can avoid them (most of the time), but it requires a bit of luck and skill.

 

[Berylstone]

I don't know if this has been asked, as I didn't see it when running a search, but I wanted to know whether players preferred visible encounters or non-visible encounters?

Your answer is very important so please be as detailed with your response as you can as it will impact the making of future games.

Either way is fine with me.  What matters is the combat itself.  Not how it is initiated in my opinion.

 

[amerk]

This has been talked to death already. It also fits better under General Discussions and Game Mechanics since it's not alienated to one maker. I really don't see the point of another one of these threads that will just rehash the same things all over again.

There is no right or wrong answer, since everybody's preference will be different, and you need to decide your target audience. If you make Touch Encounters, leave enough room for a person to get by without fighting if necessary. If you make Random Encounters, about every 30 to 50 steps should be the appropriate rate. Anything less, it becomes tedious.

Here's the links where this has been discussed, with a quick search of the forum.

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/811-encounters-how-do-you-like-em-how-can-they-be-improved/?hl=%2Btouch+%2Bencounter

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/1788-combat-difficulty-what-do-you-like/?hl=%2Btouch+%2Bencounter#entry19872

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/5274-encounter-types/?hl=%2Btouch+%2Bencounter#entry56203

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/20915-which-do-you-prefer-visible-enemies-or-non-visible-enemies/?hl=%2Btouch+%2Bencounter#entry199481

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/15996-acceptable-aspects-of-retro-games/?hl=%2Brandom+%2Bencounters#entry157674

This one has 11 pages worth of input:

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/803-random-encounters-considered-harmful/page-11?hl=%2Brandom+%2Bencounters#entry134363

This one has 6 pages worth of input:

http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/13106-things-you-dislike-in-rpg-maker-games/page-4?hl=%2Btouch+%2Bencounter#entry133493

 

[Omnimental]

Eh, going over old topics with new people talking can provide new information, so I've got no real problem with another round on the subject.

As to my personal opinion, it depends on the game.  My current preference is to use invisible encounters on the world/over map, and visible encounters in smaller areas.

Invisible encounters tend to be a lot more acceptable to people when there's some method of seeing them coming or dodge them, like a radar on the HUD or a QTE.

 

[West Mains]

Invisible encounters tend to be a lot more acceptable to people when there's some method of seeing them

I know what you meant (and I somewhat agree), but I still got a small chuckle out of reading this.

 

[CWells]

I don't mind either way. I don't get what the fuss is with random encounters though.

 

[deadsilence]

I feel like it ruins the immersion when encounters are too frequent.

 

[Lars Ulrika]

I think these last few replies illustrate the issue very well.

Players will have very different preferences and it simply is not possible to please everyone. So why not do as I suggest and give the player the choice? Mega easy to set up and end of problem. There is, imo, no contest here. Allow the player to pick the mode which they prefer.

There is a problem with that : you have to balance still both encounter rates to make player progression correct whatever the mode they chose.

 

[Dark Messiah]

I don't really like visible encounters unless you're using some sort of CBS that has all fights happen on the map anyway (in which case, they're probably not even considered "encounters" anymore)

However, random battles can be even worse if they aren't balanced correctly. If I'm getting in a fight every 5 steps then it just becomes boring and tedious. But if you keep the encounter rate fair, then random battles are the way to go for me.

 

[Kes]

@Pokeymon

You have to balance anyway, so the only issue is to ensure that the number of battles per map are roughly the same in both modes and that the troops are roughly the same.  There is a simple change to the default script which ensures that the minimum number of steps you take before having another encounter is indeed whatever you have selected for the map - no more encounters every 4 or 5 steps.  Even if you are just going with visible enemies, you have to work out how many encounters to set up, so that doesn't change.  I usually have 3 or 4 different troops per area, and for the visible enemies, I choose the "same as random encounter" option so as to maximise the variety that the player meets.

Balancing is always hard to get right; having both visible and invisible enemies doesn't, imo, add much to that task.

 

[amerk]

The amount of encounters one will face with touch is sure to be different than random.

In my own game, I had an area that was 30 pixels in width and 18 high. I used touch encounters, and I included 4 of them for that area. With visible encounters, somebody is likely to fight the majority of the enemies at least once, and bypass them a second time when/if they respawn.

If I had set random encounters up, more than likely a person running through that area would have hit an enemy once or twice, so roughly a quarter to 1/2 of what I had for touch encounters.

The important thing is the end result. A player facing touch enemies should be able to attack everything once without having to repeat the process several times, and still be fine by the end level boss. Likewise, a player facing random enemies should be able to get through the dungeon without having to spin in circles several times looking for enemies, and still be fine by the end level boss.

Basically, remove the necessity to grind, ensure characters are balanced enough to handle a few fights before having to fully heal up and that they are able to get enough stock supplies, and keep encounter rates down. For touch enemies, probably no more than 2 to 3 enemies for every 17x13 area of space. For random, probably no more than every 30 to 50 steps on average. 

 

[Arkecia]

I can't stand touch encounters where there are many many enemies on one map, like in Grandia 2 (love that game, but couldn't play for too long at a time because of all the enemies) whenever I see an enemy I rush into it no matter what unless the game does something like Radiant Historia and has you in low level areas a lot of the time. At least with both games it was easy to completely dodge all the enemies, but my OCD wouldn't let me xD.

Random encounters are fine so long as there aren't battles every couple of steps, but even then I prefer that to when I see 5-6+ enemies on a relatively small map, clustered together to make me fight more often than I would with random encounters, and rpg fights are rarely fun fighting the same enemy over and over again so it's a constant chore.

 

[Aceri]

I use on-map enemy encounters because ever since my first final fantasy I have hated the random battle system with every fiber of my being. I can't tell you how much I hate running some place and then POP! BATTLE TIME!... I prefer being able to see the battle coming. Even if the map is so packed full of enemies that I have no choice but to engage, I still prefer that over the random battle system.

 

[Silent Darkness]

Let's keep in mind that for budding developers, just might have a harder time going for absolutely no invisible encounters. Because you need to manage all the ding dong damn enemy sprites, and program their movement paths if they have one.

It makes games harder to make, generally. See that as you will.

 

[Aceri]

Don't have to program their movements with the RM program.

 

[Noferatsi]

I'm fine with either or, I'm working on my first game; and this topic was really useful. 

All in all, it's a matter of preference. You can't please everyone. 

 

[Grayborders]

Visibile!!! all the way pls.

invisible enemies are something that only existed to save memory and processing power. 

i hate them, they can be extremely frustrating, downright can make you jump in some games. 

I do understand the counterargument that making them visible and therefore easy to evade, and even make the enemies look silly, but there is nothing worse than having enemies thrown at you and not knowing when you are in a monster infested area or not.

You can still have enemies surprise you, its pretty easy to do, but seeing a sprite make contact with your player is still a million times better than a random battle, this is ofc only MY opinion, but I can still recall many times with my favorite games where random battles pissed me off so much

 

[Galenmereth]

After over twenty years of playing RPG's, I have to say I detest random invisible encounters. The only games where I actually enjoy them are in Pokémon, because of a few factors: Except for caves, random encounters are limited to grass patches. That means I can avoid them most places if I want to. And when I can't, there's the Repel items that lets you avoid random encounters if your lead Pokémon is the same or a higher level than the monster in that area. In Pokémon, it wouldn't make much sense to see the Pokémon beforehand, since finding rare ones is part of the fun. So I feel it's a good and justified tradeoff because of the surrounding mechanics.

 

[Berylstone]

Let's keep in mind that for budding developers, just might have a harder time going for absolutely no invisible encounters. Because you need to manage all the ding dong damn enemy sprites, and program their movement paths if they have one.

It makes games harder to make, generally. See that as you will.

I agree.  It's a lot of extra effort and I'm not sure it's worth it just so you can see an enemy sprite on the screen before a battle starts.

Unless it's an action RPG where the battles actually take place on the map itself, I am not sure why invisible encounters would be a problem.  Chances are if players are so eager to avoid your game's combat then that's the problem right there.  The combat itself.  Because if the battles were fun and rewarding players would not wish to avoid them in the first place. 

 

[mlogan]

I play games to relax, and when I'm low on HP, desparately trying to get to a town and keep running into enemies that might end my game - it is not relaxing.  That's why I prefer enemies I can see and avoid if need be or find to repeatedly battle if I need to up my experience.  Game playing experience has taught me to not be completely lazy and avoid all battles, otherwise I will pay for it by seemingly endless grinding later.  But it's nice to be able to avoid enemies if I need to.