RPG Combat Systems Discussion

[veloper]

I'm going to be seriously opening myself up for flaming here

You know it!

Basically, in many RPGs grind is king, and time spent playing will trump all else. And yet there are still players out there who look down upon us who play action games and FPSs, saying that we're just not sophisticated and intelligent enough to play real games like RPGs.

Good RPGs are closer to strategy games than grindfests. Those games do appeal to nerds and it's true many other gamers just don't get them.

Most RPGs are either action-RPGs or just plain bad RPGs though, so I won't blame you.

If some Bioware or Bethesda fan bashes your arcady tastes for "not being intelligent enough", feel free to mock them.

 

[auronvi]

In a RPG you shouldn't be the allround super badass who can do everything by just pressing X and go through cutscene after cutscene.

This is what Square-Enix wants to do with the Final Fantasy series apparently.

I came into this discussion hoping it would be a breakdown in all the different combat engines in different RPGs but it's just a QQ fest about grinding. Oh well, I will put my 2 cents in.

RPGs have their origin in the original D&D rule set. Even the first Final Fantasy had damage calculation and leveling up based on a modified D&D rules. Since this is where RPGs started, you of coarse see that still in today's games. While you may not enjoy grinding, there are a lot of people who actually enjoy grinding out hundreds of mobs to level up. I don't ever find myself grinding in Fallout, there is way too much awesome stuff to do in that game. I treat the level up system in both Fallout and Oblivion as a thing that happens naturally as I play. I never decide, "Hey, I want to max out Sneak today." That would just be boring as shit.

AND now to blow some minds. All games combat systems are based on numbers! I will type it again. ALL GAMES combast systems are based on NUMBERS! All of em... not one does not involve the calculation of numbers but not all games show that to the player. In Call of Duty you fire your weapon. The game assigns a base damage value to that weapons attack. Now it takes range into consideration and decreases the damage based on how far you are away. Then when it strikes the player, depending on where it hit it applies a damage coefficient. The outcome decides how much damage to subtract from the players health. In COD, there is no health bar but I can guess that you have 100 health (as a game programmer, this makes stuff real easy), unless you have painkiller or juggernaut on then you probably have more. I bet there are PC mods out there that can even show how much damage you do per shot on someone, I don't know never looked for one.

Now I know your point is that COD takes skill while WoW depends heavily on gear. Now I don't believe that is 100% accurate. Yes, the REALLY good players in COD can use a knife and end with 50:1 kill ratio but the average players have a sort of gear curve based on the leveling up system. They fixed this a little with Black Ops but for the most part, you start out new and don't have access to some of the better weapons and perks, you have a disadvantage to the ones who have those weapons and perks. It's a way to reward the players who have been playing a little longer and gives a goal for the person play to strive for.

Now, I would like to note that I have not place any bias over what system is better, because they both work. The OPs arguments are mostly his own opinion of what he likes better. What it sounds like is you should just stay away from traditional RPGs because grinding and leveling up are probably here to stay... or stick with Bioware games which have more emphasis on dialogue than actually leveling up your character.

If anyone wants to discuss different combat systems in RPGs (both Western and J) maybe I will start the thread.

 

[DustyDrB]

You're forgetting that the "grinding" can be fun itself, and building your stats give you more tools (more choice) in how you resolve situations. Using both a Western and Japanese example: I enjoy the battle system in Tales of Vesperia so much that I can go out and fight enemy after enemy and truly have fun. In Fallout: New Vegas, I can similarly enjoy hunting down enemies. Clearing out an area of Powder Gangers or Deathclaw is satisfying.

 

[Saelune]

I prefer getting XP for kills, then putting points into whatever I want. It's not a grind, either, given how often you have to kill shit just trying to hit up the shops.

You would hate Dungeons and Dragons.
The numbers are representive of chance. Stabbing a guy in the heart would be that lucky crit compaired to stabbing a guy in the ass. Since games dont actually take anantomy into effect directly, this is how it is resolved. As for stats, I liked The Elder Scroll style. You want to sneak better? Practice sneaking. That way if you arent sneaky enough to do whatever, try sneaking up on easier stuff. Still can have grinding, but its more logical. (Practice makes perfect) Makes more sense than slaying a dragon and now knowing how to be quiet...

Having just gotten Oblivion I can 100% assuredly say the man that came up with this system needs to be chucked into a lathe and have their head milled into a perfect cube. Training skills in Oblivion is grind-tastic. I want to play the game, not spam spells at myself!


The system Fallout uses is way better. You get XP for various actions you complete anyways during gameplay, and when you accrue enough, you can pour points into whatever skill you damn well please. You don't have to go out and constantly sneak up on deer, you don't have to make a spell that gives you one second of fire damage and spam that on long hikes, and you sure as hell don't have to sleep to level up. SOOOO much better.

Ok. You go play Fallout enough. Once you get good enough at it, you will suddenly get better at Modern Warfare...
Its grindy sure. But in real life to become good at something you have to "grind" too by constantly perfecting your skills with something. Not like irl you can do weight lifting and just know how to hack computers.

 

[Kahunaburger]

My question for RPGs is the following: is there any reason for me to be involved in the combat? If it's just my dude's numbers vs. their dude's numbers, than the player is really kind of superfluous haha. On the other hand, if the player is involved in the gameplay somehow (say, through action elements or *gasp* actual tactics) then it's actually worth playing.

 

[Magicman10893]

The thing about RPGs is that there is supposed to be a clear progression for the characters. Sure, in FPSs you would progressively get better over time once you learned the tricks, map layouts, weapon spawns and controls better, but RPGs are supposed to show you getting better at something.

In Mass Effect you start out missing 3 out of 5 shots with your pistol despite zooming while standing still and shooting a stationary target that is 20 feet away and end up having to pepper the target with about 10 shots to kill it, but progressively putting attribute points into the Pistol skill you end up making 9 out 10 shots with the pistol firing quickly while running at a moving target and only have to hit the target about 5 times to kill it.

 

[Saelune]

Ok. You go play Fallout enough. Once you get good enough at it, you will suddenly get better at Modern Warfare...

LOLWUT?! this is the silliest shit I've ever read on Escapist. Honest to god.


Playing New Vegas gets me better at MW?! Wow bro. You made my day and it's only an hour and a half old.

Its grindy sure. But in real life to become good at something you have to "grind" too by constantly perfecting your skills with something. Not like irl you can do weight lifting and just know how to hack computers.

I'll let you know when I give more than 0% of a shit about realism in games, especially when those games have twelve foot walking deathbringers, bugs the size of a '57 Caddy(bugs which, in real life, physically could not exist as there is an ultimate cap on bug size), shoulder mounted tactical nuclear catapults, and radiation that has a one in ten chance of making you immortal instead of just killing you.


Realism in games....I lol'd again.

Alright, you're not actually reading what Im saying, nor being a respectable person, which means its ok that I call you a jerk and move on with important things. That is, not you.

 

[Austin Howe]

Another thing that just bugs me about RPGs is that in many of them combat is based around numbers. In particular, the idea that no matter your skill level in other games or your elaborate strategies, the outcome of the battle will come down to whoever's invested the most playtime and has the highest numbers

Good RPGs, or rather, REALLY good RPGs, tend to avoid this. For example, Resonance of Fate. Never have I grinded in that game. Have the bosses kicked my ass? Multiple times? Yes. But typically when I tried something new was when I won. That game asks a lot of the player.

Actually, I'd say developer Tri-Ace knows how to do this pretty well. Aside from a game or two, Tri-Ace games are pretty good at making sure that, as long as you haven't tried to escape from every random encounter, and a boss is kicking your ass, it's pretty much your fault.

 

[Austin Howe]

My question for RPGs is the following: is there any reason for me to be involved in the combat? If it's just my dude's numbers vs. their dude's numbers, than the player is really kind of superfluous haha. On the other hand, if the player is involved in the gameplay somehow (say, through action elements or *gasp* actual tactics) then it's actually worth playing.

Believe me or not, but though I can't say all JRPGs have "tactical" battle systems*, I can say that you'll probably have a lot more fun in JRPG combat in general than in any ARPG/WRPG, especially with a game that has a well developed combat system like Chrono Cross. Actually, in the well designed JRPG, everything goes back to combat. You learned an ability? Use it in combat. That piece of equipment? It won't lift a B-52 from underwater or scare away a certain enemy from you, but you can use it in combat! Combat is the God to which all objects are worship in a JRPG.

 

[valleyshrew]

The worst: FFXIII - barely interactive, shallow strategy (autobattle + libra = redundant spell library), all style no substance. No limit breaks, only control 1 character, stupid summoning, sterile battle arena transitions, jumping wildly and crazy camera direction to make it seem more fast paced, illusion of input when 99% of inputs are autobattle or changing paradigm which you only need 3 of so basically 3 total inputs for the vast majority of the game.

The best: FFXII - streamlined while retaining 100% cerebral interactivity, hugely strategic, customisable and deep. No seperate battle screen. Control all characters on the team. Move around during battles. Formation strategy. Engaging Limit Breaks.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

the idea that no matter your skill level in other games or your elaborate strategies, the outcome of the battle will come down to whoever's invested the most playtime and has the highest numbers

that is simply not true, there are bosses in games where people have beat them at level 1 where others struggle at 99... and even if that was true, you still have to consider the possibilities of ways you can effectively grind to reach that point.

 

[Duck Sandwich]

I like how Exile 3 punishes grinding, in a way. The more time you spend killing a bunch of random enemies to level up (or doing anything besides killing the main "plagues" of monsters that are besieging each province), the more time will pass. And after a certain amount of time, the monsters will gradually ruin the shit out of the province's capital and the surrounding areas. Sections of wall will be destroyed, monsters will be lurking around the outskirts of town, and some NPC's might have either moved to another town, or get killed.

Also, grinding gets harder to do, not just because you get less experience for killing lower level monsters, but if your party is strong enough, monsters will run away from you so you can't kill them.

As far as good RPG combat systems go, Paper Mario 2 is the best one I've come across. Grandia 2 is also up there, as well.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As far as good RPG combat systems go, Paper Mario 2 is the best one I've come across

are you serious? PM2's battle system is plagued with pointless "microgames" that it boils down to glorified quicktime events

 

[Continuity]

My question for RPGs is the following: is there any reason for me to be involved in the combat? If it's just my dude's numbers vs. their dude's numbers, than the player is really kind of superfluous haha. On the other hand, if the player is involved in the gameplay somehow (say, through action elements or *gasp* actual tactics) then it's actually worth playing.

Just because its not action based doesn't mean its not a game or not fun, ok maybe its not your thing but some of us actually enjoy tactical/chance based combat as opposed to skill based. Personally I like all forms of game combat, but there is something charming about designing your character, their equipment loadout, skills, spells, companions etc.. and then using these things tactically to gain victory over mobs, even mobs that are more powerful or a higher level than you, or that come in vast numbers.

So no, the player is not superfluous, the player controls everything that happens like a puppeteer, and in RPG 90% of the combat is preparation anyway, i.e. building a good character with the right equipment and having suitable companions with suitable equipment and spells...

I get that if you're an action fan, and only really play action games then you will find "dice" combat jarring and frustrating.. but you just have to accept that its a different sort of gameplay, and then either learn to like it or just move on.

I like how Exile 3 punishes grinding, in a way. The more time you spend killing a bunch of random enemies to level up (or doing anything besides killing the main "plagues" of monsters that are besieging each province), the more time will pass. And after a certain amount of time, the monsters will gradually ruin the shit out of the province's capital and the surrounding areas. Sections of wall will be destroyed, monsters will be lurking around the outskirts of town, and some NPC's might have either moved to another town, or get killed.

Also, grinding gets harder to do, not just because you get less experience for killing lower level monsters, but if your party is strong enough, monsters will run away from you so you can't kill them.

As far as good RPG combat systems go, Paper Mario 2 is the best one I've come across. Grandia 2 is also up there, as well.

Yeah Exile III is a great RPG, certainly on my top 5 RPG list, even with its somewhat aged tile 256 colour vga graphics. Great game, Great RPG.

 

[Duck Sandwich]

As far as good RPG combat systems go, Paper Mario 2 is the best one I've come across

are you serious? PM2's battle system is plagued with pointless "microgames" that it boils down to glorified quicktime events

Yes, I'm one of the five people that actually *like* quicktime events. I'd take "Press this button at the exact moment that the enemy hits you to counter" and "Press this sequence of buttons within a short time to do more damage" over "Whoops! Through no fault of your own, you missed on that attack that would have killed the enemy because the behind-the-scenes dice roll didn't have a high enough number, so now he's going to live to be able to use his instant kill attack, whose success rate is determined entirely by the aforementioned dice roll. And since the RNG hates you, you have no chance to survive make your time!"

 

[Kahunaburger]

My question for RPGs is the following: is there any reason for me to be involved in the combat? If it's just my dude's numbers vs. their dude's numbers, than the player is really kind of superfluous haha. On the other hand, if the player is involved in the gameplay somehow (say, through action elements or *gasp* actual tactics) then it's actually worth playing.

Just because its not action based doesn't mean its not a game or not fun, ok maybe its not your thing but some of us actually enjoy tactical/chance based combat as opposed to skill based. Personally I like all forms of game combat, but there is something charming about designing your character, their equipment loadout, skills, spells, companions etc.. and then using these things tactically to gain victory over mobs, even mobs that are more powerful or a higher level than you, or that come in vast numbers.

So no, the player is not superfluous, the player controls everything that happens like a puppeteer, and in RPG 90% of the combat is preparation anyway, i.e. building a good character with the right equipment and having suitable companions with suitable equipment and spells...

I get that if you're an action fan, and only really play action games then you will find "dice" combat jarring and frustrating.. but you just have to accept that its a different sort of gameplay, and then either learn to like it or just move on.

The problem is that "I have the biggest numbers" isn't tactical, either. It's just about having the biggest numbers. The tactical element would be there regardless of whether you have to pick the optimal pair of pants for your character or not before you get to the actual tactics part of the game.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

As far as good RPG combat systems go, Paper Mario 2 is the best one I've come across

are you serious? PM2's battle system is plagued with pointless "microgames" that it boils down to glorified quicktime events

Yes, I'm one of the five people that actually *like* quicktime events. I'd take "Press this button at the exact moment that the enemy hits you to counter" and "Press this sequence of buttons within a short time to do more damage" over "Whoops! Through no fault of your own, you missed on that attack that would have killed the enemy because the behind-the-scenes dice roll didn't have a high enough number, so now he's going to live to be able to use his instant kill attack, whose success rate is determined entirely by the aforementioned dice roll. And since the RNG hates you, you have no chance to survive make your time!"

If you're missing frequently then that's a sign that you need to change your weapon, use an accuracy buff, change your party, use a different style of attack, or just something different. The RNG isn't fixed, it only hates you if you mistreat it

My question for RPGs is the following: is there any reason for me to be involved in the combat? If it's just my dude's numbers vs. their dude's numbers, than the player is really kind of superfluous haha. On the other hand, if the player is involved in the gameplay somehow (say, through action elements or *gasp* actual tactics) then it's actually worth playing.

Just because its not action based doesn't mean its not a game or not fun, ok maybe its not your thing but some of us actually enjoy tactical/chance based combat as opposed to skill based. Personally I like all forms of game combat, but there is something charming about designing your character, their equipment loadout, skills, spells, companions etc.. and then using these things tactically to gain victory over mobs, even mobs that are more powerful or a higher level than you, or that come in vast numbers.

So no, the player is not superfluous, the player controls everything that happens like a puppeteer, and in RPG 90% of the combat is preparation anyway, i.e. building a good character with the right equipment and having suitable companions with suitable equipment and spells...

I get that if you're an action fan, and only really play action games then you will find "dice" combat jarring and frustrating.. but you just have to accept that its a different sort of gameplay, and then either learn to like it or just move on.

The problem is that "I have the biggest numbers" isn't tactical, either. It's just about having the biggest numbers. The tactical element would be there regardless of whether you have to pick the optimal pair of pants for your character or not before you get to the actual tactics part of the game.

an enemy with 100HP isnt going to be worried about your 451MP costing attack that does 3000 damage, its not just about "having big numbers"... its about knowing the appropriate number ranges, how to raise certain numbers effectively and how to put those numbers to use. If it truely was "bigger numbers = win" then each battle would only take 1 second

 

[Continuity]

The problem is that "I have the biggest numbers" isn't tactical, either. It's just about having the biggest numbers. The tactical element would be there regardless of whether you have to pick the optimal pair of pants for your character or not before you get to the actual tactics part of the game.

So what... The player is redundant in chess because he's not on the board personally shooting down that rook with an AK47?