RPG Combat, what do you want?

[sXeth]

I'd like a level of focus on whichever options chosen.

In a skill-based action RPG, I'd expect the RPG elements to give you new options and methods to use. Not simply inflating the numbers. Give me unique abilities to work with, but don't just give me free damage/defense boosts. Especially if it just means the enemies are going to progress by being spongy ssacks of bigger numbers. And don't ever do the Morrowind thing (I do remember other games with it, I think Bloodlines also) where yo ucan hit an enemy but not hit an enemy because your die roll missed.

In a turn-based or tactical RPG I want to see more depth. Positioning and terrain mechanics. Usefuul interactions between multiple party members. Raw statistics are a bit more allowable, as there's a limited representation of accuracy and the like.

 

[bjj hero]

They aren't fighting to kill the enemy though, and they probably can't do things like sneak around, find a lone, unaware enemy and tackle and mercilessly beat the shit of them. Combat sports are operating under the assumption that it's a fair, 1 on 1 fight rather than multiple enemies ganging up on you and that you aren't actually trying to kill each other. And video game combos are about showing off like a fucking peacock rather than actually fighting.

Real life combat by contrast isn't about fighting fair and operates under the assumption (for obvious reasons) that even the lowest ranking enemy soldier is capable of killing you and is trying to kill you, you don't fuck around trying to show off because the enemy is just going to kill you. And if there is no other enemy even a drooling moron only has to a raise their spear to counter your superflashyawesoeomjump maneuver with a simple stab to the face.

On to your weapons comment, I think an axe would be the best tool ever in the 1600s.

Chops heads, Splits armour like a hammer. Why cant I also use it as a really loud lock pick too? In actual real life we still use axes to break doors. If Im in someone elses dungeon then fuck keys, fuck lock picks. Where is my axe?

I'm not sure why you brought this up. I agree with it but this is strictly about combat and lots of people have brought this up. And lots of old RPGs already do this, it's just that Bethesda and Bioware are incompetent so things that were easy in the 90s are somehow fucking herculean tasks today.

I went off on a tangent with an axe, you spoke of swords being lethal, hammers crushing armour and the axe being in no mans land. I was trying to say that the Axe fits as a swiss army knife, quite good at everything but specialist weapons being the best at their chosen job.

We will have to disagree over combos. If Ive risked closing to the point where I can strike you then it makes perfect sense to throw multiple strikes. Following strikes have a better chance of landing as the opening strike compromises your defence and I want to cause as much damage as possible to end the fight and to avoid retaliation.

The thought of hitting someone once then moving away and allowing them to regain composure and continue fighting, rather than finishing, is alien.

Jumping and "showboating" is completely seperate (although there is space for this too amongst skilled combatants).

 

[Redryhno]

The thought of hitting someone once then moving away and allowing them to regain composure and continue fighting, rather than finishing, is alien.

Jumping and "showboating" is completely seperate (although there is space for this too amongst skilled combatants).

Imagine you're making a videogame and you want to make it clear to the player of what's going on, who is who, and where they are.

Now imagine that the moving away bit isn't actually happening in-game, it's just there to highlight the fight.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I want one of two things from RPG combat.

If it's going the "action RPG" route then I want the same things I want from an action game. I want responsive controls, excellent animation, a feeling of weight and impact, a decent amount of variety in the actions available to me, and at least enough challenge to keep me on my toes. In short, I want it to be immediately and viscerally satisfying.

Games that have, to varying degrees, delivered on this for me include The Last of Us, The Arkham series, (and Shadow of Mordor which had very similar combat) Mass Effect 3 and the Mirror's Edge games. If you're thinking that almost none of those are RPGs then you're correct. That's because almost no action-RPGs have ever met my standards.

If the game is going the "tactical RPG" route then I want it to be turn based or at least allow me to issue/queue commands while paused. I want it to be well balanced, so I can't just find one strategy and use it forever. I want it to be both challenging and flexible enough that I can come up with creative solutions and feel clever. I want variety in the kinds of challenges presented.

Games that have, to varying degrees, delivered on this for me include Divinity Original Sin, The Banner Saga and the new XCOM games.

I don't want floaty, weightless action where I wave a sword through an enemy and their health bar goes down a bit (Dark Souls, The Witcher series). I don't want a bad shooter with RPG elements tacked on (Fallout 3+4, Borderlands, Deus Ex Human Revolution. I don't want anything that resembles Diablo. I don't want anything that resembles WoW. I don't want games where success or failure is largely determined by stats and levels (Borderlands again). I don't want games that think challenge involves giving enemies huge amounts of health (too many fucking examples to count). I don't want to be just mindlessly mashing the attack button (Skyrim).

Almost exactly what I was going to say.

The problem with most RPGs is that combat is the main component of the game (which it shouldn't be, it's an RPG!) and when the combat is what I do most in the game and is not to the level of other games, then why am I playing the RPG when I could just play that much better action game with much better combat? That is mainly the problem with RPGs with action combat systems. However, it is also a problem with turn-based RPGs, especially JRPGs. That classic JRPG turn-based combat like the FF series isn't nearly strategic enough to merit it being turned-based. The game just makes you constantly navigate menus selecting rather common sense actions like the guy with the range weapon shoots the flying monster, standard attack vs standard enemy, fire magic vs ice monsters, heal ally with less than %25 health, etc. FFXII proved that the FF turn-based system has no strategy when you can key in a few if-then-else statements (AKA gambits) to make the game play itself. FFXII's system was almost exactly the same as FFX but with gambits. The problem with most JRPG turn-based systems is that positioning plays no role in combat, which when you look at the better turned-based systems like XCOM, Divinity OS, FF Tactics, Chess, DnD, etc. positioning plays a very important role. Try making XCOM play itself in a few if-then-else statements, not going to happen.

The problem with Borderlands and a lot of RPGs with co-op like that is damage and health should stay consistent as you level. If you just got skills as you leveled in Borderlands, that would be perfect. Because you can't play with a friend that isn't within a couple levels of you because you'll either be one-shotting everything as your higher level guns do so much more damage or you can't kill anything with your lower level guns. Instead of getting guns that did more damage, you'd get guns with unique properties. It's also annoying to have to stop and go through your inventory to equip all the slightly better stuff you got from that last dungeon or few missions you completed, and then sell all the now useless crap you have. That's the same issue with Destiny and The Division, you only play to get ever-so-slightly better equipment and guns. Good gameplay is all you need to keep players, not that skinner box shit of constantly playing for the next best thing.

 

[wings012]

As long as it is anything but turn based battles of attrition which requires me to heal every now and then or keep track of a few elemental weaknesses. It doesn't have to be challenging, just give me something that isn't so mind numbingly repetitive or boring.

If it is a JRPG, I like my gimmicks. Be it slapping shit around a 3x3 grid in Radiant Historia or manipulating turn orders and timed attacks in Mana Khemia.

Action RPGs, I just wish the whole level scaling from beginning to end wasn't such a bloody huge range. Deus Ex sits in a comfortable area for me here. Pistol bullets are just as deadly from start to end and there isn't 30 different pistols to climb.

 

[Kyrian007]

For me it doesn't really matter what system of combat an RPG has. The problem is GRIND. A game's combat only gets annoying if you are required to hang out and grind combat for hours before moving on. If an RPG can maintain you as level appropriate for your journey through the game then it doesn't matter how good or bad the combat system is, it won't ever wear out its welcome.

That's why I preferred FF 8 over 7. In almost all respects 7 is easily the better game. But unless I sat around and ground out level after level after level after FREAKING MATERIA LEVEL... you just can't move on. God help you if you want to get Knights of the Round or some of the other high level stuff you really have to grind for days on. FF 8 on the other hand, you can plow through the game to its conclusion. And to get really powered up all that is required is you fight each new type of enemy 1 time... not waiting for umpteen thousands of random encounters, just fight everything once (and not even everything, as some enemies will only have spells to draw you may already have full racks of) draw to 100 for your party (it takes at most take 5 minutes) and you're golden. And that isn't even grinding really, most of the time you'll fight everything the required 1 time just walking from one story mission to the next.

Basically, if I can walk from one quest or story mission to the next and don't have to stop and grind for an hour or so until I'm level appropriate for the next quest or story mission... then it doesn't matter how good or bad the combat is, it will never annoy me.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

my personal favorite is the Mario RPG "timed hits" system (did they come up with that? or are they just the guys who made it popular?)

All the wonderfulness of turn based combat, none of the "Why would you just stand there when it's not your turn" real-world logic problems.

Agreed and I like Valkyria Chronicles, which lets you manually move and aim its troops in a pseudo 3rd person shooter style, for similar reasons.

They're very different games, yet still comparable in that they're both games that offer the strategy and planning of turn-based combat, but offer a greater degree of player input over the outcome of a battle than just selecting an attack or ability and waiting until the canned animation plays out.

 

[ensouls]

Anyone played Lugaru? I quite liked that. Not perfect but quick, responsive and pretty satisfying. No clipping your weapons through every enemy because the combos have a single animation. Regular weapons actually make a big difference to the fight (and you can steal weapons and lose them).

Not that the showy combos can't be fun but they're best in multiplayer games where they're actually hard to land.

 

[bjj hero]

The thought of hitting someone once then moving away and allowing them to regain composure and continue fighting, rather than finishing, is alien.

Jumping and "showboating" is completely seperate (although there is space for this too amongst skilled combatants).

Imagine you're making a videogame and you want to make it clear to the player of what's going on, who is who, and where they are.

Now imagine that the moving away bit isn't actually happening in-game, it's just there to highlight the fight.

Sorry Red, you have lost me. Care to elaborate?

 

[bjj hero]

We will have to disagree over combos. If Ive risked closing to the point where I can strike you then it makes perfect sense to throw multiple strikes. Following strikes have a better chance of landing as the opening strike compromises your defence and I want to cause as much damage as possible to end the fight and to avoid retaliation.

Except from the enemies you aren't fighting with who are now sending sharp objects in your direction because you're sure as hell not avoiding that.

The thought of hitting someone once then moving away and allowing them to regain composure and continue fighting, rather than finishing, is alien.

If you don't kill them in one hit then it's because you only barely hit them and gave a slight cut or bruise and they are already retaliating or they are strong enough that can only give them slight cuts/bruises at most and they are already retaliating. If you need need to get your composure after each little attack like that then go to a fucking gym.

We will have to disagree. 1 downed opponent is one less to fight. Hitting him 2 or 3 times makes sense to me. Styles like kali/escrima prioritise lots and lots of strikes to finish the fight.

On the second point, have you ever fought? Sport or otherwise? After having you bell rung, taking a good body shot or even a heavy leg kick you may well need a few seconds to pull yourself together. Some fighters have that "killer instinct" to close and finish when someone is hurt and are more successful for it. Although fitness helps, hours on a treadmill will not make you any more robust when struck in the head and jaw.

 

[Carton of Milk]

Real time combat, alone instead of party based. Minimal automation; I wanna play the game myself. Responsive controls and weighty but efficient animations. A small number of weapons with versatility, including temporary pickups, instead of upgradable loot that clutters your inventory. Basically, a lot of what RPG isn't.

So you want an action game, not an RPG.

I do. My staples for rpg combat are game like Fable or Kingdoms of Amalur (which is a top 3 of all time rpg in my book, despite it's disappointing bottlenecking claustrophobic "open world" map). Both of which clearly took inspiration from games like Zelda

Oh yeah and i guess DCUO. DCUO was/is limited by its engine and animations but the combat in this game should be emulated by other mmos.

Actually, i WOULDN'T mind "realistic" combat which i hear is what kingdom come deliverance is trying for but apparently it feels a little awkward but then again, real sword fighting should feel a little awkward.


But yeah no turn based for me. I mean i did play the latest Shadowrun and its dlcs and even a bunch of UGC, and yeah i had some fun i can't deny, but i guess the fact that this game is old fashioned in the first place, isometric and all, it felt ok that the combat was turn based. But i don't like it in general. I haven't played a japanese rpg since the first FF they released on the snes (what was that 3 or 4 i think?) for this...well not just for this reason actually, but that's a big part of the reason.

And yeah parties also annoy me though it would be possible to do real time combat well with them.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I can do with a lot of different combat styles as long as there is a bit of depth to it and no hand holding.
What I hate the most is MMORPG style combat where you are simply expected to repeat the same "top DPS" crap billions of times over on endlessly spawning mobs, that shit drives me nuts.
My favorite would probably be Divinity Original Sin, where things are put together in a minimum gamey fashion, common sense reigns supreme there. Everything exists in the world with you, doesn't just appear out of thin air, and by the same token you fight in the world as it is, if you find and prepare your opportune fighting spot you can have a major advantage and do amazing clever stuff that isn't only hilarious but very useful. No one stops you from using a bucket as a helmet, but that bucket makes you nearly blind.

 

[infohippie]

Real time combat, alone instead of party based. Minimal automation; I wanna play the game myself. Responsive controls and weighty but efficient animations. A small number of weapons with versatility, including temporary pickups, instead of upgradable loot that clutters your inventory. Basically, a lot of what RPG isn't.

So you want an action game, not an RPG.

I do. My staples for rpg combat are game like Fable or Kingdoms of Amalur (which is a top 3 of all time rpg in my book, despite it's disappointing bottlenecking claustrophobic "open world" map). Both of which clearly took inspiration from games like Zelda

Oh yeah and i guess DCUO. DCUO was/is limited by its engine and animations but the combat in this game should be emulated by other mmos.

Actually, i WOULDN'T mind "realistic" combat which i hear is what kingdom come deliverance is trying for but apparently it feels a little awkward but then again, real sword fighting should feel a little awkward.


But yeah no turn based for me. I mean i did play the latest Shadowrun and its dlcs and even a bunch of UGC, and yeah i had some fun i can't deny, but i guess the fact that this game is old fashioned in the first place, isometric and all, it felt ok that the combat was turn based. But i don't like it in general. I haven't played a japanese rpg since the first FF they released on the snes (what was that 3 or 4 i think?) for this...well not just for this reason actually, but that's a big part of the reason.

And yeah parties also annoy me though it would be possible to do real time combat well with them.

Whereas my gold standard for RPG combat is, first of all, tabletop gaming like Pathfinder/Ars Magica/Traveler/etc. But for computer gaming, I'd pick Baldur's Gate, or for a somewhat more modern title, Dragon Age Origins was pretty good so long as you kept pausing every couple of seconds to revaluate the battlefield and issue new orders. Arcanum in turn based mode was very good as well, and I'd even enjoy an RPG with a combat system based on action points like the original Xcom games from the nineties.

Just, please, no more of this Dragon Age 2 "awesome button" bullshit for ADD gamers.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

It really depends on what kind of RPG it is.

Generally, I appreciate having multiple combat/build options, and I want at least 80% of the skills to be useful in some way (I hate dead weight skills).

I also really appreciate difficult turn based games where you can "crack" battles by figuring out the right combination of abilities/party members/equipment in order to turn a really hard battle into something more manageable. The Etrian Odyssey series is VERY good for this.

...Unsurprisingly, these are the things I try to put into my own RPG projects. XD

 

[WeepingAngels]

Fast paced, turn based combat. I want to be out of battle in under a minute (except bosses obviously) and I don't want to wait for flashy animations or battlefield movement (unless it's an SRPG). I want random battles so the overworld/local map isn't cluttered by enemy sprites. I want a simple progression system, level up and gain stats and maybe a skill/spell. Bonus stat points are ok too but not required. I don't want a level up system that only awards bonus stat points. I want a level up to improve most or all of my stats a little.

I don't want an ATB type system where we wait for bars to fill up. Some people think ATB is faster than turn based, it isn't. Look at Final Fantasy 7,8,9 and compare them to Final Fantasy 10, the turn based system in 10 is much faster.

 

[MeatMachine]

-Turn-based; don't punish me for taking time to navigate menus and read descriptions
-Party of 3-5, who can freely multiclass or otherwise take on more than 1 [scribed or chosen] single role
-Items, health, mana, and death-states that are reimbursed [partially or wholly] after every battle (to keep your party's livelihood from being 100% tied to your healer's mana pool)
-Every battle must be very challenging, so that you don't ever feel inclined to ration your strong items and abilities
-Bosses that aren't totally resistant to debuffs; debuffs are worthless against weak enemies, and don't work against most strong enemies, so what's the point of ever using them?
-If basic attack commands are present, then implement some kind of engaging trial for each command to keep battles from simply being ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Real time combat, alone instead of party based. Minimal automation; I wanna play the game myself. Responsive controls and weighty but efficient animations. A small number of weapons with versatility, including temporary pickups, instead of upgradable loot that clutters your inventory. Basically, a lot of what RPG isn't.

This. Also, the Diablo-style loot system just ruins an RPG for me quicker than you can say, "bland." Basically, I want Neverwinter Nights' spells, Ninja Gaiden Black's melee combat (Within reason of course. Obviously as a metal-plated warrior, I'm not going to be jumping off walls.) And Thief's stealth with, if I get into a fight, advantage over 1-on-1 fights.

Potions should be very rare and always powerful. And they should stack. HOWEVER, they should definitely have addiction potential and will also have pretty bad side effects if you take too many.

And finally, make the Speech skill/tree/whatever actually USEFUL. Like really useful. As in, if high enough, able to talk almost anyone into following you and even being able to talk enemies into committing suicide, assuming you're able to have a dialogue with them. If suicide is too much of a stretch, just at very least be able to pacify them.

I have nooo problem with classes whatsoever. HOWEVER, if it is a class-based system, give me a lot of classes to choose from! Again, Neverwinter Nights had an awesome number of classes. But kick out the Bard and put in Necromancer class. And the Druid shouldn't just have power over nature but earth, water, lighting, and wind as well to varying degrees depending, of course, on how powerful they are.

 

[MerlinCross]

-Turn-based; don't punish me for taking time to navigate menus and read descriptions
-Party of 3-5, who can freely multiclass or otherwise take on more than 1 [scribed or chosen] single role
-Items, health, mana, and death-states that are reimbursed [partially or wholly] after every battle (to keep your party's livelihood from being 100% tied to your healer's mana pool)
-Every battle must be very challenging, so that you don't ever feel inclined to ration your strong items and abilities
-Bosses that aren't totally resistant to debuffs; debuffs are worthless against weak enemies, and don't work against most strong enemies, so what's the point of ever using them?
-If basic attack commands are present, then implement some kind of engaging trial for each command to keep battles from simply being ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK

Etrian Odessy. Outside of the healing bits, sounds like it'd be right up your alley. And even then you can get skills to heal after battle and healing points in dungeons.

Really that's what I would like from a turn based game myself

 

[chrissx2]

Turn-based like in Divinity:Original Sin or actiony like in Diablo 2 (slightly more tactical)

 

[Amigastar]

Turn-based like in Divinity:Original Sin or actiony like in Diablo 2 (slightly more tactical)

Add Pillars of Eternity or Baldurs Gate to that.

OT:Not much posting since the dead of GT,i see ? Me too, man. I just thought i'm the only one.