No damage ranges No grinding Give you several of attacks immediately instead of waiting half the game to do anything interesting Make attacks useful for something other than damage Make bosses require more strategy than nuke and heal No random encounters
It's so satisfying being able to do absurd amounts of damage in a single turn once you've learned the ins-and-outs of a game's battle system.
It's especially great in games like Bravely Default, where the devs assume that you'll eventually learn how to break the game and start throwing absurdly powerful enemies and bosses at you to compensate.
Darkest Dungeon is a decent example where it has positioning, interesting skills, different classes, varied builds even within classes, etc. It's not perfect or anything at the moment since it's early access shit, but it's a pretty good system fundamentally.
it's not. it was only used back in the day because back then it had more depth contrasted to what's available now. Very few games did it right. Tactics did it right. Turn based is boring and accompanied with random encounters its just a huge annoyance.
>>285633797 Except it being less tactical, dynamic, varied and skillful and far more reliant on the player grinding up power. Unless you're playing something with actual strategy like Go, turn based games are flat out inferior to the freedom and demands of real time games. It's the people who defend 'traditional' JRPG style combat who are autistic and lack the patience and rigor to develop their own ability.
>>285633018 Grandia 2 did a great job. Wide variety of attacks, an actual battlefield where line or circle attacks are important, and the ability to cancel an enemy's move before he can actually pull it off.
I think one of my favorite turn-based RPGs is Phantom Brave, the only real thing it did wrong was needing you to grind in crappy random dungeons at times and that would have been fixed easily by not scaling up encounters as much.
I really wish there was a sequel to Phantom Brave.
>>285633018 It depends on what you are trying to do. Just as there isn't one perfect genre or one perfect game, there isn't one perfect combat system.
That said, in general I prefer when a turn-based system has some sense of pacing and the ability to interfere with, or outright interrupt, opponent turns. Grandia did this well, allowing characters to move around freely between turns and giving a menu selection when a character's turn came up. It meant that you could time your attacks to mess with, counter, or outright interrupt enemy attacks once you knew what you were doing. Mana Khemia/Atelier has a very similar system, and while the characters stay where they are standing during a battle, you can still choose which monsters to go after by looking at the turn order and can even delay or interrupt monster turns with your attacks.
It makes the combat more strategic, without losing the good point of being turn-based.
A decent and fast auto-battle is also an okay option. If the combat isn't going to be good, at least it can be over quickly.
The Guts/Bleeding Health system in the later Mother games is an interesting twist
Basically, HP and Psychic Power (the Mother equivalent to MP) is not lost all at once; rather, said points gradually bleed from your character. The speed at which this occurs is determined by your Guts stat. This allows you to survive hits that you normally would keel over from, or, (theoretically) chain spells that would normally overtax your PP reserve For example:
Your Gunner has 100 HP. An attack hits your gunner, dealing 150 damage. In a rush to save him, you command your White Mage to cast Lifeup (stock healing spell) on gunner, which would heal 150 HP. If the casting animation begins before his HP gauge finally rolls to 0, then the gunner will survive the hit with 50 HP left.
Your White Mage prepares to cast Omega Flash (VERY powerful debuff spell with a small chance to OHKO the entire enemy party). However, before you can cast it, enemy casts Magnet (PP draining spell). Due to the Bleeding PP effect, if your WM's turn comes around before the PP dips below the minimum to cast Omega Flash, he WILL cast Omega Flash that turn.
>>285633018 I quite like Mario & Luigi's battle system. It's one of the few turn-based RPGs that I find tolerable. I like how there are items that can deal infinite damage if you have good enough reactions.
>>285633018 Make the standard "Attack" to open into a menu of different types of attacks, each attack having different levels of effectiveness, accuracy, power, and combat effects. Say one option is to attack the legs of a giant. It doesn't do as much damage as the standard "attack" option which aims at the torso, but a strong hit can cause the giant to fall. Maybe you can attack the wings of an opponent that can fly, rendering that ability unusable after dealing enough damage there. Poisoning a weapon is lethal against most opponents but acts faster if you hit a location with good blood flow. Trying to spear a skeleton does less damage, but clubbing its arm might detach it so it can't attack as effectively.
Throw that on top of timed defensive moves for reduced/avoiding/countering hits and the enemy being able to do the same if you become overly predictable and you have an interactive but still clearly turn based RPG experience.
>>285640665 I liked what it did for making healing a lot more viable. You could stock up turns and blow several of them to raise a character and heal them together, as opposed to just raising them and leaving them vulnerable until next turn. Stocking up turns and blowing them all at once was also nice, especially with how the game handled penalties. (Something that dropped your P.Def to 75% for three turns would do only that, regardless of how many times you used the move.)
Bravely Second was an interesting emergency resource, but the game handled it a bit awkwardly.
I'd still prefer the Grandia/Atelier method of directly affecting an opponent's turns with your attacks, because it makes planning several turns ahead both easier and more relevant. Who you attack with the first character matters, while with Bravely Default it was rarely a factor beyond having everyone attack the same target to kill it first. The system worked great in Bravely Default and what the game was trying to do.
Have it play just like high stakes poker, if you fuck up just once you lose.
I don't like fighting mobs so whenever I played Grandia/Lunar I'd end up five levels too weak to fight him, so you had to the best way to counter every action the ennemies would pull off, it was pretty fun and the fact you had unlimited time to think about a strategy was nice too.
It definitely doesn't fit in every game because all of a sudden how fast you move through the menus in battle can make a big difference, and some people might think that's stupid for a turn-based game.
I really don't see how it's fun to make it completely unforgiving, Etrian Odyssey can already be bad enough about this (though it's usually your fault if you get fucked) and if you try something like Lunatic difficulty in Fire Emblem that's where it REALLY gets to be bullshit.
You basically add additional elements to the rpg outside of the standard attack, heal, and buff/debuff elements.
You can do elements such as
positioning: where players can move around the combat arena and thier attacks and moves have certain ranges. stuff like lunar, final fantasy tactics, arc the lad handle this kind of mechanic
Interactive quick time events: paper mario, mario rpg, and legend of dragoon are well known for this. press x at the right time during ur attack to do bonus damage, smash the left arrow as much as u can to charge the guage for additional hits, press x when the aim cursor reaches the target to hit, and so on and so on.
You can do something like an action turn based system like ff7-9 do or overload turns like bravely default does. theres a lot of fun mechanics you can do, but in the end its about adding something so the standard attack, heal, and buff/debuff aren't so boring.
>>285643228 He's almost entirely right though, the only thing he got wrong is having attack variety, nigga you're supposed to have roles and make sure everyone follows his role and works as a team that's what makes JRPGs interesting.
Etrian Odyssey is pretty solid, it's just sometimes the encounters can be really bullshit e.g getting ambushed by Petaloids and having your entire party put to sleep and then they get raped by party-wide attacks from the other Petaloids and it keeps happening until you die.
>>285645098 You're meant to fight them, so not fighting them is actually the hard thing to do because you're stuck a few levels too low and have to fight the boss and the mobs that do get you that way.
Interactivity. Bunch of abilities that do different things and have different reactions with different buffs and debuffs.
I really liked what LISA did with its turnbased combat >30 party members >you can only have 4 party members in your party >certain party members synergize with eachother for maximum damage, crazy debuffs/buffs >debuffs are actually useful and essential to beating bosses >bosses are challenging and you can't just attack mash, you have to use your actual abilities >Option to use certain items to make combat easier, at the cost of an extra ending and a few party members >no random encounters or grinding, all enemies are uniquely named and have their own gimmicks >press *button* at *insert time here* for maximum damage >press *sequence of buttons* at *insert time here* for maximum damage
>>285645959 >press *button* at *insert time here* for maximum damage >press *sequence of buttons* at *insert time here* for maximum damage tbh i hate this mechanic because it makes me think of guitar hero for some reason
WRPGs have action combat JRPGs have turnbased combat
Turnbased combat is easily minmaxed, can be exploited, and opens a lot of opportunities in terms of preparation and strategy that can't be done as easily in action combat. Turnbased combat is the easiest to balance.
Of course though, I do enjoy muh action combat but action combat games tend to be much more easier.
I think the answer is to give the player a lot of agency and to make it feel like it's on them when they come across tough conditions. Enemy in the overworld catch you from behind? When it transitions to battle your party's up against a wall and running away isn't an option. Can't wait until morning? Proceed at night time, just know that enemies are tougher, then. And so on. I've even thought of having battles where scenery was something you had to bust through to get to the enemy. For example, you're at the giant gate of a castle and you have to attack the giant door all while making sure you don't get fucked up from archers firing arrows at you from the windows, so you'll need some kind of long-range attack to reach them, too.
Turn-based RPGs are still viable, it's just that they need to have a scale and features reflective of the MASSIVE increase in size and memory games can have compared to the SNES days (6 MB at the very most) or even the PS1 days (1.5 GB at the very most). Especially if it's like an indie game for PC or something.
>>285646431 Yeah, so we can get the same generic 3rd person button masher over and over again. No thanks. At least turn-based RPGs actually have game mechanics that make them play like an actual game instead of a walking simulator
>>285646921 Why is there even a HP number when everything is percentage based? Just give characters a health percentage so that they aren't confused as to why they suddenly went up 100 HP but are now taking double damage for some reason.
>>285646431 >>285647940 I'd rather see turn-based RPGs stay turn-based and keep the action combat systems to games which do it well. With an action combat system, if you don't do it well then you just end up mashing the X button like God of War. If I'm going to be playing a boring combat system in a RPG anyways, then I would prefer it's a boring RPG system that doesn't require me to pay attention all the time and wear out my controller buttons while playing. It's basically the reason why QTEs during cutscenes are a problem.
>>285648126 >turn-based strategy RPG You mean like Final Fantasy Tactics? That's rarely done well, mainly thanks to a lot of games using that system insisting on the player replaying fights for the required XP and levels. It's great when it's designed well, but if we're talking about a bad RPG that currently has a bad turn-based combat system, then they aren't going to spontaneously develop a good turn-based strategy combat system.
Because the higher HP numbers as the game goes on will be needed when several tiny percentages (0.25%, 1.50%, etc) combine. Plus, weather conditions can be devastating at the start, but a higher HP count will buy you more time when conditions like heavy rain or blizzard eat away 1 or 2 HP per second. Some things can't be attached to percentages because it would just be impossible to go anywhere. The reason I even thought to use percentages in the first place was because I wanted something hub-based but non-linear, to appeal to hardcore players, speedrunners, and for the sake of replay value. Like the original Zelda where you can go wherever you please, even if some areas are obviously more difficult than others.
>>285648709 >mainly thanks to a lot of games using that system insisting on the player replaying fights for the required XP and levels Examples? I've played quite a few SRPGs but haven't encountered any of those. I'd like to know so I can avoid them.
That said, there are plenty of SRPGs with shallow, slow, boring battle systems. But when done well, they're a blast.
>but if we're talking about a bad RPG that currently has a bad turn-based combat system, then they aren't going to spontaneously develop a good turn-based strategy combat system.
I always assumed most strategy RPGs were FFT tier (i believe it was the pioner or one of the first games to really consolidate the genre). I only tried FFT and XCOM. They were both extremely interesting and demand strategy and planning, but the importance of RNG really kills my boner. I can still recognize that it's a top tier genre, though.
Either this is clearly bait or you just haven't played any RPGs. Turn based combat is varied as fuck and there are tons of ways to keep it fun. The grandia series makes positioning matter and lets you cancel enemy moves before they can use them. Valkyrie Profile lets you combo all of your characters attacks manually at once. Bravely Default has an interesting mechanic to skip your turn to perform twice as many moves the next round. Etrian Odyssey is fun in that you can craft your whole team to your liking, and shit like status effects, status ailments, binds and debuffs are a huge factor and contribute even in boss battles. Resonance of Fate has you using the terrain for cover or flipping though the air raining bullets down on your enemies. Hell, most all turn based games give you the benefit of being able to directly control more than one character to coordinate between a whole team to win your battles rather than controlling the same one note hero.
So really, what about turn based combat ISN'T fun?
It's considered archaic whenever one doesnt bother to add any unique or additional game mechanics to the turn based rpg. You've gotta be a god dam retard to not even bother deviating from the standard mechanics of attack, buff/debuff, and heal.
>>285649415 >but the importance of RNG really kills my boner
what's with fags now and saying ignorant shit like this
there are games where rng shouldn't be a factor; those are games of manual dexterity and acquired technical skill
but this is a strategy game, and part of strategy is things going wrong when you don't expect them to (and incorporating that into your strategy). If these games didn't have rng they'd be boring as fuck, there'd be an objectively correct way to approach any given mission/situation, it'd be a puzzle game not a strategy game
>>285648974 >>285649415 FFTA and FFTA2 practically required you to run through extra missions to get the jobs and levels required. An old PS1 game called Eternal Eyes made you run through each stage 2-3 times just for enough XP. Hoshigami had the same problem, as I recall.
When it was just Fire Emblem/Shining Force, the maps were designed to take into account how much experience you would have and be appropriately challenging. But after FFT, most games seemed to want the same length but without the job system to encourage it, and so they just didn't give out enough XP per map and forced people to replay stages to make up the difference.
RNG does have a place, but there are some games that place too much importance on completely random aspects. I'm playing SMT Nocturne right now and it's not too bad overall, but I can get ambushed at the wrong time by the wrong enemies in the middle of a dungeon and get completely fucked. It can be a fairly big problem early on since you don't always have the proper equipment to deal with it.
There are also spots where RNG just seems to be nothing but a timesink, such as with fusing demons and rerolling until the right skills can be passed on. It doesn't make the game more complex mechanically, it just makes it slightly more dull.
Not the guy you're responding to, but I'm guilty of that. I'd rather prefer action commands to test my reflexes, give the enemies feints and uneven timing in their approach to mix it up. I'm biased very hard towards arcade-like mechanics where it's instant gratification and all-or-nothing difficulty.
KH2FM last world (which has 5+ bosses) and optional bosses (which are a shit ton) is an extremely fun action RPG. KH BBS is also fun, although it's too reliant on second chance / once more (as everything can oneshot you without), which dumbed down what could've been a really good action RPG game.
>He doesn't like the genre that i like >Lol, what a faggot
Do you have some reading comprehension, you fucking retard ? I literally said, through different words, that the genre is good but not for me. The games i tried and by how far i got on them (not much) had a really punishing RNG, as the characters can die and kill on 1 to 3 attacks, so most of the time a critical or miss would fuck you so hard that you simply didn't have time to recover. It's not about the RNG itself, but the impact that a single bad (or good) "dice" roll can have on the entire outcome of a fight.
Chess has no RNG, yet no one discovered the objectively correct way to approach any given situation, despite all the time the game exists and having a fair amount of people invested on finding it.
>>285652182 >yet no one discovered the objectively correct way to approach any given situation
that's because two humans (or, ok, two players, some of whom might be supercomputers) are playing against one another an there's an element of out-thinking your opponent
in a strategy game where both you and the computer have set variables there is a right way to do something and a wrong way, and a bunch of intermediary ways that potentially lead to the outcome you want (kill all the bad guys or whatever) but may be less efficient or effective
rng widens the gap of viable strategies
also I'm sorry if I offended you, I was taking your stance as indicative of a larger push I've seen against rng in games and it's really fucking stupid. I don't particularly care if you don't like the genre or not
Dynamic movement options and fluid turn order (like Grandia 2/3)
Stat effects that actually make a difference
Strategies that make a difference (going full burst shouldn't kill 90% of enemies, there should be an ebb and flow to combat. sort of like if ff13 actually had gameplay) Defensive plays should actually make sense, and make a difference
Options for characters to be varied, stats-wise. like FF10 or Bravely default.
Sparing use of QTE's, maybe when casting big spells or during battle cutscenes
This is probably as far as you can go without making an SRPG.
What do you mean? Most stories are pretty similar, so once the player tunes that out, the combat system is the next aspect of the game that's scrutinized. And if it turns out the battle system is like so many others the story just looks like a coat of paint because it may end up feeling excluded from the context of the battles because the game doesn't reflect the universe it's trying to build. Shin Megami Tensei and Etrian Odyssey have a huge part of their identity based on how great their combat systems are.
I'm perfectly fine with the way turn based JRPGs are, each franchises has enough to keep it fresh. There is also stuff like Ys and Tales of if I want a change of pace. I quite like Valkyria Chronicles and SMT combat personally.
>>285650315 No, RNG is for lazy devs who can't be bothered to add AI quirks, and for turbo scrubs who feel accomplished by brute-forcing their way through games and calling it "strategy".
It's a relic from tabletop games that needed a quick way to simulate complex scenarios, nothing more.
>If these games didn't have rng they'd be boring as fuck, there'd be an objectively correct way to approach any given mission/situation, it'd be a puzzle game not a strategy game Maybe you should play a real strategy game instead of Fisher Price bullshit?
Thread replies: 114 Thread images: 13
Thread DB ID: 43899
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.