Four Alternatives to Random Encounters
11-25-2009, 01:26 PM
That was an interesting reading.
I would add a consideration about the graphics, which a game maker should always be interested in. The fact is simple, everytime you plan to introduce on-map enemies you need those damn sprites. Moreover, as it often happens, if you have different sprites for the party depending on whether they are in map or in battle, similarly you will need two kind of sprites for enemies too. So I would say be sure on which way you want to take, knowing the resources you will need.
Another aspect that often bugs me is: if the enemies wander around the maps, and even chase you, maybe when you get too close, and a battle starts upon contact with them, is the old good transition to the battle screen that natural? Honestly I think it is not. I find an action battle system (ABS) much more logic in that situation.
I like seeing the mosters on the map though, but I don't like this separation of the action. So I've been thinking of another possibility, without resorting to an ABS solution: what if a battle starts according to a probability, the closer you get to the enemies, the more likely a battle is to start. You don't have a 100% probability even when you touch an enemy, and enemies don't chase you. Every time a battle starts, it is "linked" to one particular enemy on the map, which will disappear depending on the outcome of the battle. You can also implement the Population Control Method in the article. Since there is no real "battle" activity on the maps, it doesn't seem too weird when instantly the game transitions to the battle screen and the gameplay changes.
Well, you may not like this idea, but I think that the key element of mixing the characteristics of different types of systems is still valid. So, think about it.
I would add a consideration about the graphics, which a game maker should always be interested in. The fact is simple, everytime you plan to introduce on-map enemies you need those damn sprites. Moreover, as it often happens, if you have different sprites for the party depending on whether they are in map or in battle, similarly you will need two kind of sprites for enemies too. So I would say be sure on which way you want to take, knowing the resources you will need.
Another aspect that often bugs me is: if the enemies wander around the maps, and even chase you, maybe when you get too close, and a battle starts upon contact with them, is the old good transition to the battle screen that natural? Honestly I think it is not. I find an action battle system (ABS) much more logic in that situation.
I like seeing the mosters on the map though, but I don't like this separation of the action. So I've been thinking of another possibility, without resorting to an ABS solution: what if a battle starts according to a probability, the closer you get to the enemies, the more likely a battle is to start. You don't have a 100% probability even when you touch an enemy, and enemies don't chase you. Every time a battle starts, it is "linked" to one particular enemy on the map, which will disappear depending on the outcome of the battle. You can also implement the Population Control Method in the article. Since there is no real "battle" activity on the maps, it doesn't seem too weird when instantly the game transitions to the battle screen and the gameplay changes.
Well, you may not like this idea, but I think that the key element of mixing the characteristics of different types of systems is still valid. So, think about it.