Console-style RPG battle system help
Author
Thats whats I call "rigid turn-based" - essentially, both sides start a turn at time t=0, the fastest characters act first but everyone gets an action every turn. This is what Dragon Quest VIII does. I don't like it, it feels more unrealistic and simplistic.
As far as slow tactics games go, Disgaea allowed you to execute actions whenever you liked. So for example, if an enemy was blocking a corridor, you could order two of your characters to attack it, then execute all stored orders to have the attacks actually go through. Assuming you killed the enemy, you could then send more characters into the corridor it was blocking before. Your turn only ended when you chose "end turn".
If you additionally had all actions resolve simultaneously for a given "execute" order, then you could speed things up markedly. Especially if you included moving characters around in the execution. Much of the time spent in tactical RPGs, I find, is watching your characters slowly walk into position and then watching them slowly perform an attack animation. So parallelize it. :)
If you additionally had all actions resolve simultaneously for a given "execute" order, then you could speed things up markedly. Especially if you included moving characters around in the execution. Much of the time spent in tactical RPGs, I find, is watching your characters slowly walk into position and then watching them slowly perform an attack animation. So parallelize it. :)
Quote:Original post by Derakon
Much of the time spent in tactical RPGs, I find, is watching your characters slowly walk into position and then watching them slowly perform an attack animation. So parallelize it. :)
iv found this to, all the trpgs iv played could go about 3 times faster if the animations wernt so painfully slow
Have you ever tried Future Tactics? It was a lesser known game in the genre, but it tried some neat things with the battle system.
You might want to have a look at a review.
http://www.dignews.com/review.php?story_id=4794
It had a more interactive way of attacking. The method used could probably be compared in some aspects to golf games, with a bit of a timing aspect for the actual attack. The traditional turn based gameplay was still there, but the skill based component added quite a bit of fun and interaction.
I think a play through this game might give you some interesting new ideas for your battle system, because there were multiple weapons which (if I remember correctly) had different ways to pull off attacks. This made mastering certain characters a very fun experience as you tried to learn their tactical aspects, but also master the execution of their attack.
With this sort of system, you can keep your rpg character advancement in, but still leave a little to skill and chance to keep things fresh.
If you're still thinking of going with a realtime tactical system, you may consider trying a game called Myth, which took the RTS idea but boiled it down to combat. No base building or resource management. It's a good game because there is still a very suitable challenge in the management of your units, and since you don't get any more through the course of a battle, managing them carefully is very important.
edit:took out url tags
You might want to have a look at a review.
http://www.dignews.com/review.php?story_id=4794
It had a more interactive way of attacking. The method used could probably be compared in some aspects to golf games, with a bit of a timing aspect for the actual attack. The traditional turn based gameplay was still there, but the skill based component added quite a bit of fun and interaction.
I think a play through this game might give you some interesting new ideas for your battle system, because there were multiple weapons which (if I remember correctly) had different ways to pull off attacks. This made mastering certain characters a very fun experience as you tried to learn their tactical aspects, but also master the execution of their attack.
With this sort of system, you can keep your rpg character advancement in, but still leave a little to skill and chance to keep things fresh.
If you're still thinking of going with a realtime tactical system, you may consider trying a game called Myth, which took the RTS idea but boiled it down to combat. No base building or resource management. It's a good game because there is still a very suitable challenge in the management of your units, and since you don't get any more through the course of a battle, managing them carefully is very important.
edit:took out url tags
Author
Quote:Original post by Derakon
As far as slow tactics games go, Disgaea allowed you to execute actions whenever you liked. So for example, if an enemy was blocking a corridor, you could order two of your characters to attack it, then execute all stored orders to have the attacks actually go through. Assuming you killed the enemy, you could then send more characters into the corridor it was blocking before. Your turn only ended when you chose "end turn".
If you additionally had all actions resolve simultaneously for a given "execute" order, then you could speed things up markedly. Especially if you included moving characters around in the execution. Much of the time spent in tactical RPGs, I find, is watching your characters slowly walk into position and then watching them slowly perform an attack animation. So parallelize it. :)
I just took a look at disgaea. I don't think the game itself holds a lot of appeal for me, but I might play it just to get a sense of the elements to see if I can learn anything from it.
As far as the animation goes, it's not so much about "Why is this taking so long? All I want to do is attack! MOVE YOU SLOW BASTARD!!!" but more the lack of immediacy involved in the game. Tactical games feel like you're playing a very rich and involved game of chess sometimes, and while I like chess (I even have a rank) I don't want my game to feel like that.
Quote:Have you ever tried Future Tactics? It was a lesser known game in the genre, but it tried some neat things with the battle system.
You might want to have a look at a review.
http://www.dignews.com/review.php?story_id=4794
It had a more interactive way of attacking. The method used could probably be compared in some aspects to golf games, with a bit of a timing aspect for the actual attack. The traditional turn based gameplay was still there, but the skill based component added quite a bit of fun and interaction.
I think a play through this game might give you some interesting new ideas for your battle system, because there were multiple weapons which (if I remember correctly) had different ways to pull off attacks. This made mastering certain characters a very fun experience as you tried to learn their tactical aspects, but also master the execution of their attack.
With this sort of system, you can keep your rpg character advancement in, but still leave a little to skill and chance to keep things fresh.
If you're still thinking of going with a realtime tactical system, you may consider trying a game called Myth, which took the RTS idea but boiled it down to combat. No base building or resource management. It's a good game because there is still a very suitable challenge in the management of your units, and since you don't get any more through the course of a battle, managing them carefully is very important.
Thanks, I'll definitely take a look at those games too. I'm not trying to break a lot of new ground, just create something fun that brings a bit of flair and twist to the traditional RPG, and I thought borrowing elements of tactical games might be novel, so looking at tactical games that have borrowed elements from other genres is interesting too. It's the circle of life folks!
Quote:Any potential ideas for creating a hybrid tactical RPG - menu-driven RPG tile hybrid?
Absolutely. Ive had 2 ideas that are floating around in my head that I want to try to implement in the near future.
First would be a menu-driven battle, just like FF, but instead of the usual Attack/Magic/Item/Run, Attack would be broken down into different moves. You start out with the basic Pierce/Slash/Chop, but each can level up RPG-style. There would be a skill tree for each one. The more experience in each move, the attacks you can learn to combo into one. Say in one branch down the skill tree, Pierce Level 2 would be a Parry, then Pierce. Pierce Level 3 would be a Parry, Pierce, then a Spinning Slash. Of course Spinning Slash is a Slash Level 4 move so that has to be built up as well, etc.
Second would be what Im working on right now which is a bastardized X-Com tactical system mixed in with real-time action. Each combat action you can perform takes a certain amount of time units (which change based on skill level). Say you start fighting a goblin. It takes the goblin 4 time units to stab with its dagger and it does. You pick 'dodge' which takes only 2 time units and successfully dodge, but you have 2 left over time units to add on to another attack. Your short sword takes 5 time units for attack, so combined with the 2 left over from your defense, it only takes 3 time units to connect with your short sword. The goblin attacks again with his dagger for 4 time units, but your short sword hits first (since it was quicker) essentially nulling the goblins attack. The only pause in the battle is when you need to decide your next combat action, so its like a slowed down real time. Still need to work out the kinks in that one, but Im getting there.
Author
The first step I'm going to take is going to involve de-emphasis in character movement and position. It can still be a factor, but I'd like to keep movement limited to just a couple tiles or so per turn, if that. None of this "lets leap 8 tiles away to the enemy" junk. Unless they're a dragoon.
Quote:Second would be what Im working on right now which is a bastardized X-Com tactical system mixed in with real-time action.
I would have a little variability in the actual numbers, otherwise people will learn a set pattern that does the best damage. If you have a little variability in this then other moves become more viable.
Also your two proposed systems are not incompatable and could work well together. You might use normal attacks in the semi realtime mode to build a combo. Once the combo is made you have a temporary (ie next move) to perform a special move. The special moves available would depend on your skill levels in that particular styles and also on the sequance on attacks your character has already done (also if you have multiple characters you might give some multi character combos that work the same way).
Quote:Original post by wildhalcyon
The first step I'm going to take is going to involve de-emphasis in character movement and position. It can still be a factor, but I'd like to keep movement limited to just a couple tiles or so per turn, if that. None of this "lets leap 8 tiles away to the enemy" junk. Unless they're a dragoon.
I agree completely. Allowing the players or the enemy too much movement just makes the battle a mess and doesnt allow for efficient movement strategy, which I feel is essential in completing the battle-like feel. Nor does it allow for much evolution of speed. If they start out being able to cover a large region, then theres no reason to develop a speed skill, making your characters less diverse.
Quote:Original post by Edtharan
I would have a little variability in the actual numbers, otherwise people will learn a set pattern that does the best damage. If you have a little variability in this then other moves become more viable.
Also your two proposed systems are not incompatable and could work well together. You might use normal attacks in the semi realtime mode to build a combo. Once the combo is made you have a temporary (ie next move) to perform a special move. The special moves available would depend on your skill levels in that particular styles and also on the sequance on attacks your character has already done (also if you have multiple characters you might give some multi character combos that work the same way).
Actually, Im trying to steer away from the variables in attacks. I have always been bothered by that in the past. If you swing your sword and it hits, it should do more than 1 or 2 damage. Maybe a long time ago, this was acceptable, since the variables could account for different areas of the body hit or damage not absorbed by armor, but Im giving players total control over battles. If your sword hits, its going to do the same amount of damage each time, unless the monster defends (block, parry, dodge) or the sword hits armor (lowering armor HP). Once the 'called shot' and 'anatomy' skills are obtained, the player can do considerably more damage by stiking a sensitive spot.
And combining the systems sounds like a good idea, but I have yet to program just one, so I'll see if I can incorporate both after. Theres a lot of micro-managing in both, and I dont want to overdo it. Thanks though. :D
Author
Quote:Original post by OmegavoltQuote:Original post by wildhalcyon
The first step I'm going to take is going to involve de-emphasis in character movement and position. It can still be a factor, but I'd like to keep movement limited to just a couple tiles or so per turn, if that. None of this "lets leap 8 tiles away to the enemy" junk. Unless they're a dragoon.
I agree completely. Allowing the players or the enemy too much movement just makes the battle a mess and doesnt allow for efficient movement strategy, which I feel is essential in completing the battle-like feel. Nor does it allow for much evolution of speed. If they start out being able to cover a large region, then theres no reason to develop a speed skill, making your characters less diverse.
That's one of the big reasons. Essentially, it takes away from the battle/action tactics and forces some heavily unrealistic movement tactics. One example is the great indy project GalaxyMage (http://www.galaxymage.org/index.php/Main_Page). I don't want to take away from this game at all - it's got a lot of great points, and I think it will be very fun and exciting when its finished. On the other hand, if you play their demo version, you'll notice that you and the enemy get something like 5 tiles worth of movement every turn - which is roughly the maximum amount of distance that the archers in the game can shoot. Essentially, it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, to have characters performing "guard" functions to protect other characters.
Quote:Quote:Original post by Edtharan
I would have a little variability in the actual numbers, otherwise people will learn a set pattern that does the best damage. If you have a little variability in this then other moves become more viable.
Also your two proposed systems are not incompatable and could work well together. You might use normal attacks in the semi realtime mode to build a combo. Once the combo is made you have a temporary (ie next move) to perform a special move. The special moves available would depend on your skill levels in that particular styles and also on the sequance on attacks your character has already done (also if you have multiple characters you might give some multi character combos that work the same way).
Actually, Im trying to steer away from the variables in attacks. I have always been bothered by that in the past. If you swing your sword and it hits, it should do more than 1 or 2 damage. Maybe a long time ago, this was acceptable, since the variables could account for different areas of the body hit or damage not absorbed by armor, but Im giving players total control over battles. If your sword hits, its going to do the same amount of damage each time, unless the monster defends (block, parry, dodge) or the sword hits armor (lowering armor HP). Once the 'called shot' and 'anatomy' skills are obtained, the player can do considerably more damage by stiking a sensitive spot.
And combining the systems sounds like a good idea, but I have yet to program just one, so I'll see if I can incorporate both after. Theres a lot of micro-managing in both, and I dont want to overdo it. Thanks though. :D
Im not sure that I totally agree with this. If you think about it, an attack like a sword slash can have a variety of outcomes, which is reflected in a variable damage number. I don't see why this is now considered unacceptable?
Although my game is class and skill based, its really breaking the mold as far as character advancement is concerned. I think a lot of people dislike my ideas about this from a design perspective, but once I've got something to release, and they actually play it, I think they'll find that it might be just as fun and offer different challenges to overcome.
I'm still contemplating the battle system, and I probably will continue the debate in my head all the way up until the time that I actually start developing that portion of the code.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
