Yep that's what I was referring to. It doesn't help eradicate the Fight command, but it's a tool to explain to the player how that monster is supposed to behave. If the player knows his characters abilities and how they work against categories of monster, he can associate them to new monsters.

Agreed. In the given case that some of the players hit FIGHT because they're not exactly sure how to react to a monster, having classifications can help too.

That's right. Most of the effects are simpler though and only affect the overall damage done. You would use Piercing skills against high defense enemies, Accurate skills/units against high evasion, Snipers against low defense mages, etc. The way the stat system is setup, if everyone has an equal amount of stat to distribute, having a strength implies you have a worse weakness against an average target. This means enemies have more than one weakness so you can use different units and skills to get the job done. In the end, it's similar to FFX, but less clear cut.

Yes. I remember interviews with Dustin Bowder discussing the balancing of Starcraft 2, and how they had to mix and match soft and hard counters into their complex rock-paper-scissor system to keep it moving. In the end, there were hard counters (we all know pikemen will always counter cavalry for example) but a blurred line is good. Versatile characters tend to be weaker overall but definitely a must to round up a party's weaknesses. Versatility must have a value of its own accord.

That said, aren't we merely dodging the problem? We're making the Fight command more interesting if anything, and aren't really coming up with an alternative to allow the players to seek strategy elsewhere. Rather, we teach them how to find strategy within the very command they overuse...

How about some kind of "leveling" system for skills, where if you use the skill certain number of times, it levels up and gives you higher damage?
Basic attacks would level up only so far that later on it won't be useful, so it isn't always wise to just use basic attacks. But then again you don't/can't spam the powerful skills because of the lack of proper resource. So you use the powerful skills from time to time, mixed with the basic attack, to level up those skills for later boss fights.

I feel like that should break up the monotony of mashing the basic attack, because although mashing basic attack will get you through the random battles, it won't help you in the long run, so if you want to become more powerful, you must use other skills even in the random battles.

If the Fight command is so nerged, why keep it altogether?
Wouldn't using weaker and stronger skills be the way to go? (Weaker spells to save on resources, and bigger to capitalize on larger dmg output)?

It feels to me like you're trying to keep the fight command for the sake of keeping it without actually making it part of the greater picture here.
Personally, given the small design space allocated to a clever and elegant combat system, I'd really prefer not having a "useless" option anywhere in there.
See what I mean?

Because sometimes, you can end up spending all your resources that only available option might be regular basic attack (fight) mode. Also in the beginning when you don't have many skills you can rely on the basic attack to help you progress. I guess it'll all come down to clever resource management system if a game implements my style of combat system.

An example from our game is the concept of staggering. This is a flat decrease on the next turn counter that is trigger either by a skill or when scoring a critical hit. One of the character is quick, accurate and scores critical hits more often. One of her skill is a multi-hit attack with an increased critical hit rate. Since her attack stat is lower, it doesn't deal much damage, but that's not the point. The point is to land critical hits and stagger the enemy. Because it's a flat decrease, it has a greater impact on fast targets and provides a good counter to that type of enemy. So whenever the player sees a fast enemy, he knows that's a good counter. If the enemy isn't fast, that skill can still be used, but the resources would have been better spent elsewhere. It's a direct effect because the player can see that enemy was about to take its turn, but because it got staggered, 2 allies can act before and finish it. Compared to casting a slow debuff, the player sees something measurable. Rather than something vague like "that enemy is slower", he sees something specific : "that enemy got delayed and 2 allies acted before".

This also intrigues me a lot, and I see a huge potential in combat system which implements this sort of design. One thing that I would worry about in this situation is that if implemented wrong, it can be used as an exploit, like being able to delay the monster's turn forever, unless some sort of preventive measures are taken (such as making it chance based, or making it so that staggering is non-stackable).

This also intrigues me a lot, and I see a huge potential in combat system which implements this sort of design. One thing that I would worry about in this situation is that if implemented wrong, it can be used as an exploit, like being able to delay the monster's turn forever, unless some sort of preventive measures are taken (such as making it chance based, or making it so that staggering is non-stackable).

I was worried as well when we implemented a similar system, but basically, you can have the effect be reduced the more it stacks.
For example, for each time it was delayed while the enemy hasn't yet taken a turn, you could divide te static value by a said parameter. Thus, at some point, you can no longer delay THAT specific enemy, and should choose to delay another to get maximum gain. But if he is the only real threat left, you might still want to shock it a bit.

As soon as the enemy takes its turn, get the modifier back to 100% and voila. Love in a nutshell!

I wouldn't worry too much about having enemies turn being skipped altogether if this is the player's strategy. Assuming there is more than one mob, its not broken. That said, bosses might need a resistance of some kind though.

Three separate suggestions:

1. As http://store.steampowered.com/app/213030/ does, let the player's mp and health regenerate after each battle, such that the player is not penalized for experimenting with spells. Of course, that does bring its own problems.

2. Make the basic attack its own special move that drains stamina. However, if it runs out, then the character can use several turns to rest and gain some stamina.

3. Make it such that attacks can made from combining normal attacks and "buffs", such that the character has to choose between attack, ice attack, fire attack, super ice attack, or whatever, such that the player never has to just choose one when he can choose both.

Bug 1 in your logic:
Crappy menu system forces them to use the fight command.
You said it yourself, it is 300% faster to choose the fight command.
So why choose the slower method of manually inserting comamnds.

Solution A: Throw the menu into the garbage bin, and use wow's interface + realtime combat.

Solution B: You allow button mashing but it takes a longer time to finish the battle e.g 300-500% more time.

New problem:
The player will use the cookie cutter max dps combo, regardless of enemy type to minimize the battle time.
New bug: All enemies are defeated with the same way, max damage. Max damage is the fastest option,
to minimize battle time. Slows, stuns, cc, hp, armor, heals are all a waste of time
if you aren't forced to use them or instantly die.

Solution B: So you want to completely counter the above problem right ?

B1) Monsters level up with you, and are as hard to beat always.
B2) Make Monsers ignore player stats, player level, and 1-shot you if you dare not have a [strategy guide] with you.

1) Vampires permanently level drain you, while lv 1 you deal 0 dmg, have 0% chance to hit, and die in 1 hit.
counter: cast spell that protects from level drain, wear equipment with protection from level drain.
2) Beholders instantly kill you in 1hit with finger of death / disintegrate.
counter: cast death ward, item with death ward, protection from beholder rays.
3) Medusa can pemanently petrify you and kill you in 1hit.
counter: anti-petrift spell/ equipment.
4) Undead/Werewolf/trolls never die, and reanimate after 3 sec unleash you use holy element/ silver weapon/ fire / acid Element.
5) Spiders can permanently decrease your stats, your lvl 99 character will then die in 1 hit from a lv1 rat.
6) Insert God's Name can permanently transfer you to a maze/or another plane.
counter: restart the game from the beginning wasting 90 hours, or use load game hack if you are a nab that doesnt play permadeath mode.
7) Fire doggies permanently destroy your items, making next boss fight impossible, and require to restart your game.
8) Liches permanently paralyze you until you die or until you throw your computer out of the balcony because you got bored waiting
them to kill you with 1 dmg attacks.

New problem C:

Players have to waste 10 min before each room, preparing their equipment to have the right 100% resists to enter the room,
else instantly die. Then the battle will last 1 min. Total fun: 5%.
Other problems: random god didnt grace you with that equipment.
A) restart game
B) load game hack until you survive it. 5% chance to dodge * 5% * 5% * etc = 0.0000*% chance of surviving = 400 game loads
(thats must be really fun)

Everything dies in 1 hit, hp is useless, heals are useless (you are gonna die in 1 hit anyway, you wont manage to heal).
Warrior's dont exist as a class, only ranged classes exist. The game is a boring prison jail attempt.
Kite for 5 min, perform 1 autoattack, kite 5 min, perform 1 autoattack. Gratz you won a simple monster pack in 30 min,
now move to the next (see diablo 3 inferno).
You attempt to break the laws a stupid nerd game designer made, instead of having fun.

Why have we ended up in this mess.
Because you attempted to make it nintendo hard.

Why?
Because You can always recover to full hp after battle in 0 sec.
A) Potionspaming. Free instant full heals.
B) Hp is a renewable resource.

Solution D:
Allow the player to play as he wishes.
Score his actions:
he wishes to be a potion spam hacker? ok take -score for each item used.
he wishes to stay on same stage for too long ( thus allowing mana / hp to recover to full after each battle ? -score.
he wishes to use the same attacks repitively (because they are better) ? -score (tony hawks combo formula to detect it).
he died (thus used load game hack commamd))? -score
Hit by status effect that ought to be instant kill? -score

he defeated boss? +score.
he killed all monsters? +score.
he picked all items ? +Score.
he found secret rooms ? +score.
he was undetected ? +score.
he killed no monsters? +score.
stage conditions fullfilled ? +score
first time completed the stage? ++++++++++++++++++score

By the end of the stage, his score :
defines what items / xp / achievements he gets.
Worst player: 25% xp. Normal: 100% xp Best : 200% xp

I have a very soft spot for retro-rpgs, but I haven't played one since high school essentially because of this issue. As my gaming time decreased, so did my willingness to sit through "encounters" that were so very important to the game designer that he couldn't even be bothered to design them. At this point, I'm with KylHu. If I can have just the story, that's ok. If I can have the story and an intellectually challenging combat mechanic, that's great, but I will probably not bother with a physically challenging (i.e. one which requires more manual effort than mental effort) combat mechanic just to play a game.
That being said, I have long believed that the first step should be reducing the number of encounters. The problem with long encounters is that (using the default fight mechanism) they get boring or frustrating, and when there's a whole lot of boring, frustrating encounters the game pretty much sucks. So, don't have so many encounters, and now you are free to make them more challenging and more strategically involved. This is exactly why tactical rpgs have always featured fewer encounters than static rpgs, the increased complexity requires more time and more time requires fewer repetitions.

Some of the old era rpgs had the concept of attrition built into them. Where getting through the dungeon and to boss with enough hp and mana to beat them was part of the challenge. Rather having the player recover after each fight force them to carry the damage, fatigue, and injuries along until they can set up camp or return to town. I remember playing FF1 back in the day and limping back to town after a tough dungeon with 3 characters dead and 1 barely hanging on and then not having enough gil to resurrect my entire party.
...
I suppose the real question for me is what problem are you trying to solve? Do you want to make each random battle more meaningful and challenging. Or should the challenge be in the journey. I'd prefer to see the challenge be about getting from town through the deadly swamp down into the depths of dark cave to retrieve the crown from its guardians and then making home again.

I have such fond memories of FF1 (3 dead, 1 barely hanging on, 4 dead once you leave the dungeon and accidentally step back in the poison swamp, or even better, 4 level 20s, awesome gear, promoted to Knights and Wizards and whatnot, saviors of the land, 'Oh hey, what's this Greenish dragon do?').