First, this topic isn't exactly specific for SRPGs but considering that's the next game me and my counter parts are designing I figured I'd try and focus the discussion to the genre. With out current project coming to an end, my counter parts and I are currently working on designing our next game. We have chosen to go with a SRPG this time around. The game will be based loosely on the travels of Christopher Columbus. We're going to use his story as the base of our game story. We will revise history in many ways, but I'll leave all that to another discussion :) What we're struggling with now is how do we balance the introduction of new "innovative" ideas with the proven ideas of traditional SRPGs? There are a lot of things we'd like to do different, but we're afraid if we push the envelope too far the fans of the genre will shy away. What are some of the traditional SRPG mechanics that would be considered a must have? For instance, does the battle system has to feature a grid/hex based board? Could the movement and all in the battles be free movement, but restricted to a certain area (based off some Movement stat), or would that be pushing "innovation" too far? I put innovation in quotes because we're not sure this is even a new idea... Also, it seems a lot of the old job/class systems have falling to the way side in favor of a new "equip whatever skill you want" type system. It seems the old FF Tactics style job system (or Shining Force promotion system) has found it's way out of the genre. Are these systems considered to be too archaic to be implemented in a newly developed game? If so, what elements of these systems would be safe to keep and what elements of these systems should go? See, we're trying to avoid a system where each and every character could potentially have/use each and every skill. We'd love to implement an updated version of the job and promotion system but we're really struggling with how those systems could be combined and/or updated. What we love about these systems (the FFT style job system in specific) is there's always something to work for. There are so many different jobs to unlock, use, and master. I'm hoping to get a discussion started about what "old" elements of SRPGs are "safe to keep" and what areas there are room for innovation in the genre. Any advice and/or suggestions you game gurus have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

The free movement idea was already implemented in Phantom Brave and Makai Kingdom. While the idea was neat for the first 15 minutes, I found it completely destroyed the basic tactic of having meatshields protecting damage dealers because enemies could go right through you. It was all about staying far away and dumping damage on them before they killed you.

For the job/class systems, there's place for both. I can see the need to have everyone equip every skill when you have a small number of units available. You don't want to be stuck with one-trick ponies when you only control 4 characters since that severely limits your tactics and makes the battles monotonous. With more units, you can create rigid classes because you have more characters to give the required skills. However, letting everyone equip every skill when you have a large unit count is just as bad because you end up in management hell. I'd say as long as you have more than 1 choice per unit during battle, both systems should work out. The skill rigidity depends on how you want your battles to unfold.

Our worry with the Free Movement idea was exactly what you explained. It pretty much kills most (if not all) strategy you would normally have with tanks, mid line fighters, and back line fighters. We tried to come up with various ideas to counter that loss but keep coming up empty.

You bring up a very valid point about job/class vs. skill system. If you have only, say, 4 characters to chose from at any given time then limiting them to specific classes is probably a bad idea. Luckily (because I'm a huge fan of jobs/classes), in our game you will end up with a plethora of characters to use at any given time. Most of those characters will be hired mercenaries and unrelated to the story, but they will be usable none the less.

With that said, we're leaning towards have only a few characters be able to enter a battle at a time - probably around 6. There will probably be around 18 - 24 classes, but we're thinking 6 will allow you to get a good balance of roles.

While I'd still love some more input on the questions and ideas I posted in my original post, I would like to pose another idea and get some feedback. We're currently trying to come up with a system that mixes both the job type system seen in FFT and the promotion system seen in the Shining Force and Dragon Quest games.

The best idea we can come up with (for now anyways) is to limit the classes in the horizontal (unlockable) tree to just hybrid classes, while keeping the stronger version of a class in the vertical (promotion) tree. For instance, let's say a base class is Warrior. Warrior would be required to unlock Templar, as would the Healer class. But the Warrior class can also promote to Knight, Fencer, or Axeman. Another example would be the Theif class. The Theif class would be required to unlock the Pirate class, along with the Fencer class. The Theif class could also promote to Brigand. Make sense?

How could we make this system easier to understand and be more enjoyable? While the idea sounds kinda neat, we're starting to think it's a little complicated and may make the players frustrated. What ideas do you guys have on to mix these two (job and promotion) systems together?

Quote:

Original post by gaf studio Our worry with the Free Movement idea was exactly what you explained. It pretty much kills most (if not all) strategy you would normally have with tanks, mid line fighters, and back line fighters. We tried to come up with various ideas to counter that loss but keep coming up empty.

I don't buy it. Free Movement doesn't have to be implemented that way, it could be impossible to run through someone forcing you to go around without having fully grid based movement(it might take a little finesse to get characters to form a wall but it should be as easy as drawing the wall when they get close to another character.) If it did change the strategy some I would think that would be a good thing.

The main disadvantage I see with free movement is it makes programming path finding and ai more complicated, since ai seems to be a weakness in a lot of these games it might be better to stick with a grid system.

Quote:

Original post by stonemetalI don't buy it. Free Movement doesn't have to be implemented that way, it could be impossible to run through someone forcing you to go around without having fully grid based movement(it might take a little finesse to get characters to form a wall but it should be as easy as drawing the wall when they get close to another character.) If it did change the strategy some I would think that would be a good thing.

I agree with the concept here, but how could a free movement system be implemented to still keep the strategy inherent in a grid based system? Should, you could make it so you can't walk through models, but what if you only have 2 guys as a tank? As I type that, I think I answer my own question - if I only have 2 tanks, I can't really defend an area on a grid based system either.

The more I think about this, the more I think I'm liking the free movement system. I say that because we want to try and avoid your typical isometric view. We'd like the game to play out in a full 3d world - somewhat like Valkyria Chronicles on the PS3. While that battle system is some what FPS oriented, I think we could take a battle system like that using more traditional RPG elements. I guess I'm thinking something along the lines of the Final Fantasy 12 battle system - except a more turn based feel. I'm not sure if I'm making sense, I'm just typing my thoughts down as they come into my head :)

Considering my theme here is when to push innovation and when to go back to the basics, I guess gameplay is another area that's safe to touch on (as I did above). What's the community views on a SRPG that's not played out on the typical isometric grid board, but instead played out in a full ("typical") 3D world? Could it work? How would it work, if you were to implement it?

For free movement, you should just have to change the rules to more closely reflect reality, in that control is more about lines of fire than physical obstruction. Instead of blocking things with your sheer presence, block them with the threat of being shot to heck if they come too close. It's not exactly that simple, but that's one of the big things that will have to happen.

Quote:

Original post by gaf studio Could the movement and all in the battles be free movement, but restricted to a certain area (based off some Movement stat)?

What's the reason for doing this?

Quote:

The best idea we can come up with (for now anyways) is to limit the classes in the horizontal (unlockable) tree to just hybrid classes, while keeping the stronger version of a class in the vertical (promotion) tree. For instance, let's say a base class is Warrior. Warrior would be required to unlock Templar, as would the Healer class. But the Warrior class can also promote to Knight, Fencer, or Axeman. Another example would be the Theif class. The Theif class would be required to unlock the Pirate class, along with the Fencer class. The Theif class could also promote to Brigand. Make sense?

Perfect sense.

Quote:

How could we make this system easier to understand and be more enjoyable?

Graphically.

Quote:

Original post by KazeThe main disadvantage I see with free movement is it makes programming path finding and ai more complicated, since ai seems to be a weakness in a lot of these games it might be better to stick with a grid system.

While I agree creating a decent AI in a free movement system would be harder on the programmer, I'm not convinced that it would be worse. In fact, I would argue having a free movement world could quite possibly make the AI that much more sound and realistic.

Quote:

Original post by theOcelotFor free movement, you should just have to change the rules to more closely reflect reality, in that control is more about lines of fire than physical obstruction. Instead of blocking things with your sheer presence, block them with the threat of being shot to heck if they come too close. It's not exactly that simple, but that's one of the big things that will have to happen.

Ah yes. Chronicles does something like this - though I'm not sure it's to stop you from getting to close. If you move while within a certain range of an enemy, as you move that enemy will fire at you. It def. makes you think twice about where you're moving :)

Along the idea of making them "pay" for getting too close, we've been thinking of a way to reward you (and the computer) for staying away from those backline fighters. There are a few different approaches we've come up with, some good ideas, some not so good.

One way is to give the player the ability to set the role of each character (front line, mid line, back line, etc). The front line fighters would lead the way and any mid and back liners behind them would get bonuses to their attack and defense stats. I think this could offer a unique element to a SRPG battle system - the others dont' agree with me :) The biggest issue they have is the player setting the roles of their characters - makes sense, but I'm sure there's other ways to handle it. It could probably be made to be class dependant.

Quote:

Original post by Griffin_KempWhat's the reason for doing this?

The reason we're exploring a free movement world is to try and do something different with the SRPG genre. While the tried and tested grid based system is a great thing, we would like to see if we can take a different approach to the battle system.

By staying away of an Isometric grid based system, we can add different elements into the game to add more strategy - one of the biggest elements is viewing distance. You will no longer be able to tell from the start exactly how many enemies there are and where they are located. This opens us up to a whole line of classes based around scouting - quick moving nimble characters who are pretty weak. Their only job is to scout the area for enemies. While that could be accomplished in your typical isometric grid based system, it makes more sense (realisticly) in a full 3d environment.

--

Another idea we've been talking about is taking the typical SRPG turn based system and going with a more active (ATB) type system. In a system like this, there would be no turns but instead each character and enemey would work off their own timer. When their timer is up, that character is now free to act. This system would open up a whole new realm of possiblities to us, but it also creates a bunch of problems we'd have to solve.

For instance, what happens if you move and get ready to attack someone but the skill you're using has a charge time. Now, before that charge time is complete the enemies turn is up and moves away. You would end up basically losing your turn, you "wasted" moving to that enemy and attacking only to have the enemy move before you could actually attack. With that said though, is that scenario really a problem? Could it be left up to the player to keep track of when enemies turns will be up, and plan accordingly?

My main worry here (and a lot of the reason for this thread) is we're trying to do too much with systems that pretty much define the genre. I'm afraid that if we push too much, and change too much, we'll end up with either an overly complicated game or a game that's just no fun. This is a problem for most, if not all, genres though :)

I feel like a lot of the ideas you're unsure about have been handled in games that already exist.
The potential to miss a target with a skill that needs to charge was in FF Tactics. When casting spells you had the choice of targeting the enemy or targeting the square they were standing on. Targeting the square meant that you might miss if they move, but targeting the enemy meant that they could stand next to your characters and cause you to hurt them as well.
Your class system in which the unique classes are lined up horizontally and derivative classes are lined up vertically sounds a lot like the system in the Disgaea games(worked out pretty well for them).
It might be worth looking at some of these games(though you already seem to be familiar with FFT).