When playing in no-combat mode, I'd always have the feeling that I was missing something. So I would not use this option, however often the in-game battles would annoy me. I want to get the game's full experience.

Instead, you should:
- Make the battles fun (see above)
- Make it possible for the player to avoid most battles (run away, or perhaps have some item that keeps monsters (mostly) away)

That's my opinion on it.

EDIT: Probably not so much an *item* that keeps monsters away... more like a passive skill. It should be available from the beginning, scaring monsters, thus reducing the number of random encounters. I think this is the solution I'd like best.

---

My Wonderful Web Site (C++ SDL OpenGL Game Programming)

I am a signature virus. Please add me to your signature so that I may multiply.

[edited by - randomZ on September 16, 2003 12:58:46 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by randomZ - Make it possible for the player to avoid most battles (run away, or perhaps have some item that keeps monsters (mostly) away)

---

I second that, like in Grandia 2, all monsters can be seen, so you can avoid the fights if you want, this is even more important if you let the player choose the career/class of his character, who would like to play a thief that spend his time fighting unavoidable battle ? What would be the point on being a thief then ?

I''m rather for realistic (believable) battles, which are resolved pretty quickly if one side is good enough. Also there''s no reason for ALL your ennemies to fight to death, most likely if you''re impressive enough, the fight will end quickly because of your ennemies fleeing or surrending.

There''s little reason everything you meet want to kill you, or even attack you to begin with.



-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-

However I think that fleeing enemies might be unsatisfying over time, but I''m not so sure... perhaps it''s okay if you still get the same XP or something.

---

My Wonderful Web Site (C++ SDL OpenGL Game Programming)

I am a signature virus. Please add me to your signature so that I may multiply.

quote:

---

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage
If you want all the plot with just boss battles, you''d have to get rid of the EXP system, or modif it enormously. There was some crappy game for the PS2 (Shadow of Destiny?) where you ran around talking to people and getting info, then running around looking for stuff, and just about anything you''d do in an RPG except actually fighting. It had multiple paths and several endings, but let me tell you, when you''ve got to run six miles through a city, and there are no fights to break up the jog, the game really sucks. A lot.

---

This is off-topic, so feel free to skip (my next post will be on-topic, I promise!), but I feel it needs to be addressed. Sorry. I''ve played Shadow of Destiny through, multiple times, seen all of the endings, etc., etc. And I''ll agree with you that it doesn''t qualify as a good, traditional RPG. But I still think your critique of it is wrong. Why? Because it''s not an RPG, it''s a puzzle game. Is the Seventh Guest an RPG? Of course not. In SoD, yes, you control a character; some might even say that you''re playing his role. But that could be said for, oh, Mario from Super Mario 1. Does that make SM an RPG? No. Similarly, the King''s Quest games (other than 8) are not RPGs.

SoD may not have been a great RPG, but that''s because it never set out to be one. Play it for a time-travelling puzzle game with an intricate plot, since that''s what it is, and then decide whether it''s good or not. When evaluating a game, you must evaluate it as it is meant to be played--otherwise, you could just as easily complain that Final Fantasy X is a horrid first-person shooter, which is just plain non-sensical.

-Odd the Hermit

(Sorry about the rant; I feel better now. )

As for TechnoGoth''s suggestion, I think that it''s a good one, and is a better solution than putting monsters on the map or having a "no encounters" item/ability.

There are some people who play RPGs solely for the character development and story--they view the game as an interactive book, almost. For them, battles simply get in their way and slow them down. (I happen to be married to one of these people.) These people would love the No and/or Key Combat options.

Then there are those who enjoy watching their character grow, shaping them into great fighters/wizards/etc. Most gamers, in fact, fall into this category, perhaps because the first group doesn''t play because of the combat.

And, of course, there are the strange people out there who enjoy walking around outside of Elfland in FF1, killing giants and levelling up. I can''t imagine that there are too many of these types, but that doesn''t mean we should forget them; thus the Action Hero option. (Of course, if the game is such that the battle system rocks, but the plot sucks, more people may take advantage of this mode...but that''s not something you''d want to plan for, right? )

It seems to me that there shouldn''t be many balance changes necessary at all--in a "No Combat" scenario, balance isn''t an issue, since the player isn''t fighting. Simple. In a "Key Combat" scenario, you just need to make sure that the characters have good enough stats & equipment for the key battles; decent play-testing will help find this level (and you have the advantage of being able to slightly "over-power" the characters, since you can assume that most players will appreciate the extra edge). Normal is, of course, normal. The Action Hero raises the most possibilities for tweaking--do you decrease the exp from each battle, raise the strength/numbers of the enemies, or just let people reach demi-god status earlier in the game than normal? Again, play-testing will help find the answer here.

Also, it should be obvious that the player can''t switch between modes, which seems to be a source of some people''s confusion about the idea.

As for my assertion at the beginning that this is a better solution than making the monsters visible: if the monsters are visible, that implies that you can dodge them to avoid combat. However, often they are placed (or move fast enough) such that you cannot get past them without combat (I''ve seen one friend get really upset over this in Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, even though he''s a regular RPG player and very good at video games in general). This is, in effect, lying to the player: saying, "Yes, you can see the monsters and thus avoid them", when in fact, you can''t. And that''s not a good way to endear players.

As for the "No Encounters" items, the problem with those is that you get them far too late in the game. By the time you find one, you''re generally most of the way through the game, having fought through who knows how many hundreds of encounters--they''re a reward for already proving that you can handle the battles. Obviously, this prevents them from being useful to new players, who aren''t sure of their combat abilities (or those who just want the story). And, of course, if you make them available early on, you will end up punishing players who use them, since they won''t be as strong as they otherwise would when they reach a key battle, which is, again, something to avoid. (Yes, you could level the battles to match the player''s stats, but that''s a wholely different issue, which most people don''t seem to like.)

Ok, that was long.

-Odd the Hermit

Anyone remember Zelda 2 in NES? Three icons representing monters/battles will appear and chase you around. If you got hit by them, a battle begins. However, you can avoid this by walking on plain tiles. Plain tiles don''t summon monsters because they aren''t any monsters on plain tiles. Jungles, deserts, and other types of tiles will summon monsters.

So, if you have an urge to kill beasts, go challenge them by standing on a non-plain tile all the time. If you don''t like battles, then walk on the plain tiles. Some areas, though, may not have plain tiles at all. So your dodging skill is in charge.

the point of "no encounters" items, AFAIK, is precisely to help the experienced player to avoid encounters that he has already proved he was able to handle. For instance I am playing Golden Sun on GBA (who knew a little console could have such a great RPG !) and you can get some Feather that lowers the chance of encounters for a set period of time. Similarly, after enough game time, one of my heroes can get a spell for avoiding monsters. This make it very nice, because you dont actually avoid encounters altogether, but they seriously diminish in most areas where they would simply slow you down uselessely (in previously completed areas, for instance), while still occuring in new areas so that the challenge is maintained.
You can always run away from an encounter (although I always forget about it), and if you make a habit of it, the better thing is to increase your Agility.

Just an example to answer Odd the Hermit

---

Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

quote:

---

Original post by ahw
the point of "no encounters" items, AFAIK, is precisely to help the experienced player to avoid encounters that he has already proved he was able to handle. For instance I am playing Golden Sun on GBA (who knew a little console could have such a great RPG !) and you can get some Feather that lowers the chance of encounters for a set period of time. Similarly, after enough game time, one of my heroes can get a spell for avoiding monsters. This make it very nice, because you dont actually avoid encounters altogether, but they seriously diminish in most areas where they would simply slow you down uselessely (in previously completed areas, for instance), while still occuring in new areas so that the challenge is maintained.
You can always run away from an encounter (although I always forget about it), and if you make a habit of it, the better thing is to increase your Agility.

Just an example to answer Odd the Hermit

---

I'm not entirely clear how this "answers" me. I said, "they're a reward for already proving that you can handle the battles. Obviously, this prevents them from being useful to new players, who aren't sure of their combat abilities (or those who just want the story)." You've provided an example of them being a reward. (Other examples are the "No Encounters" GF ability in FF8, the "Peace Rings" and such in FFX, the "White Map" in Skies of Arcadia...the list is extremely extensive, as many RPGs with random battles have some form of item or ability to prevent random encounters.)

My point was that having these items/abilities does not address Technogoth's original concern--the players who want to go from start to finish with either no battles, or only the key (story-line) battles--since these items/abilities are almost always found as result of fighting through most of the game. I also pointed out that having these items/abilities available from the start would most likely be impossible to balance, since a player would not be levelling up sufficiently to survive the key battles, and thus you end up punishing the players whom you're trying to help.

Is that clearer?

-Odd the Hermit

EDIT: Forgot to close my parentheses.

[edited by - Odd the Hermit on September 16, 2003 3:55:36 PM]

That would depend entirely on the point of the RPG in question. Baldur''s Gate without combat would sell exactly ZERO copies. The whole point of the game is combat. Might and Magic? You''d have to rename it Walking and Sleeping.

Can you imagine Diablo with no combat? *laugh*

On the other hand, games like MYST can get away with having no combat because people are playing to see pretty pictures. Solitare and Mine Sweeper are also games where people aren''t expecting combat to play a large part of the game.

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
That would depend entirely on the point of the RPG in question. Baldur''s Gate without combat would sell exactly ZERO copies. The whole point of the game is combat. Might and Magic? You''d have to rename it Walking and Sleeping.

Can you imagine Diablo with no combat? *laugh*

On the other hand, games like MYST can get away with having no combat because people are playing to see pretty pictures. Solitare and Mine Sweeper are also games where people aren''t expecting combat to play a large part of the game.

---

Did you realize that you just said those games ARE NOT RPG ?
Since they are not, we are not talking about them, since the topic is about battles in RPGs.

-* So many things to do, so little time to spend. *-