If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Welcome to RPGamer's new forums running under Vanilla Forums! If you're run into any odd or strange issues after our software migration please see this thread for details

Random Encounter gets no love?

weylunweylun MemberFull Members
edited February 2006 in Role Playing Games
Am I the only one here to actually prefers random encounters in RPG games?

I just finished Radiata Stories and I don't like it how I can see the monster on the screen. I feel like I always want to fight it because running without fighting for so long is boring.

But I have a few conditions:
1.) There should be ways to reduce the number of random encounters. I really like Tales series' Holy Aura that can reduce the encounter based on your current level and monster level. This way if the monsters are too easy, you can put on the aura and reduce the encounter.

2.) The frequency of the encounter can't be too often. It should reflect the size of the map. I mean some rpg games have way too many random encounters and it just gets really annoying. But I like how Tales and Dragon Quest handle the randomness.


What do you guys think? And in terms of programming, which one is easier? I thought random encounter is easier becaused you don't need to create monsters on the worldmap. lol
«1

Comments

  • SolonSolon Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I'm neutral. Either works, as long as they're done right.
    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
  • DracosDracos Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I enjoy both. Also, there's no question that the implementation of random is easier. There's a reason its older.

    Dracos
  • VigivalgusVigivalgus Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I answered "neutral," because I've seen both implemented very well, and that's what matters.
    In general, though, there are benefits to both.
    I like the surprise associated with randomness. You never know what's going to pop up (beyond a general knowledge of what monsters exist in that area). I have yet to see a game that uses monsters on the world map that are randomly generated. You walk through an area once, and you've seen/fought every monster possible. Now, some games (Baten Kaitos and SO3 come to mind) randomly generate a party for the monster to be supported by, but it still dampens the effect.
    With the monsters on the map deal, I like how they can be integrated into design. It's nice to see the wee beasties roaming around the field before you beat them to a bloody pulp. Quite simply, it looks better. It can make for better gameplay too, as avoiding/attacking the enemies becomes an added element.
    But they can both be good and bad. The FFX Calm Lands made me want to scream, while Wild Arms 3 "party level" system was a nice reprive.
  • cykocyko New Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    i also enjoy both random encounters and seeing monsters beforehand if implemented properly. there is a nice element of surprise with random encounters. but it gets very frustrating when you face a random enemy every other step (like the DC version of Skies of Arcadia. ugh).
  • EliEli Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I actually prefer random encounters. My reason being that I am pretty abysmal at avoiding enemies when they're not random. And, as frustrating as it is to be forced into random encounters again and again because of an excessively high encounter rate (take a bow, Tales of Phantasia!), it's even more frustrating to be offered the ability to avoid said encounters, but still be forced into them because of my utter inability to just avoid the enemies. =P

    For all the time that it normally takes me to avoid a battle when it's not random, I could've fought it, beaten it, and carried on. So...yes, I prefer to just be forced into battles; it used to really bother me when I was younger, but nowadays I've kind of just grown to accept random battles as a part of many (or most?) RPGs. If the option to avoid them is there, then I always try (and fail) to do so. And that just irritates me.



  • DavisDavis 2 Human 2 Furious Full Members
    edited February 2006
    Random battles = t3h ghetto

    Five tons of Flax,
    Davis
  • King Jowy XXIIKing Jowy XXII Regnus Obscura Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(Eli @ Feb. 08 2006,21:07)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"as frustrating as it is to be forced into random encounters again and again because of an excessively high encounter rate (take a bow, Tales of Phantasia!)[/QUOTE]
    Heh...that truly was one of the most horrific examples of random battles I have ever experienced, surpassed only by Albert Odyssey. >.<
  • PhatosePhatose Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I'm neutral on the issue. The only time I can say I'm really uniformly against random encounters versus visable, avoidable encounters is in strat-RPGs where a single random encounter can take a half an hour. I really find it hard to believe that anything of that length should be a suprise for the player, but since offhand the only game I can think of that did that is FFT, and square ditched it in FFTA, doesn't seem to be a big issues.

    Ideally I'd have games designed where any area where you absolutely had to go had only fixed, visible, non-repeating encounters, and repeatable encounters, be they random or visible, would be limited to optional areas for use of the ol' powering up crutch.
  • RIPtoadRIPtoad Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    You should have worded the poll differently. I don't hate random encounters, but I do see myself leaning towards visible enemies these days, preference-wise. The biggest gripe I have with random encounters is when you find yourself having to go through someplace more than once to achieve some objective, you don't necessarily want to have to stop and fight meaningless battles every ten steps--you're after something specific, and at that point the fights simply get in the way of your immediate goal. It was a great pleasure to be able to run the fields in Star Ocean 3 and not worry about getting held up between cities when you didn't want to.

    Random encounters when trying to complete a puzzle or such are particularly odious.

    Another minus for random battles is when you've taken too many lumps already and you need to get somewhere to recover, only to end up in a battle where your escape attempt fails and you are summarily executed. Especially bad in games where you lose everything you did to that point if you hadn't been able to save.

    Still, I do agree that it's okay to use random battles if executed properly. Dragon Quest VIII let you use spells or items to hold off fighting weaker enemies, which wasn't bad when all you wanted to do was get something cooked in the alchemy pot. And I never had a complaint with the battles in FFX, probably because the system was so good that weak enemies could be dealt with extremely quickly. Of course, they also let you customize your weapons to eliminate encounters altogether when you didn't want them, and that to me is a very important component to making random battles palatable.

    At the very least, you need an escape option that will actually work--those who make random battles and low-yield escapes need to be shot.

    On the whole, however, I definitely think I'd lean towards visible enemies. It just seems to put more of the decision making in your own hands, and I'm generally in favor of that.
  • EliEli Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(King Jowy XXII @ Feb. 08 2006,22:02)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"Heh...that truly was one of the most horrific examples of random battles I have ever experienced, surpassed only by Albert Odyssey. ?>.<[/QUOTE]
    Ah, yes, that was indeed horrible. Not so much because the encounter rate was excessively high (it was bad, but not ToP bad), but the loading times were...probably the most foul of any RPG I've played. There was like a three second delay before every single attack =P I actually thought that my Saturn's laser had died when I first started playing it... They really were...shockingly awful loading times... =/
  • DracosDracos Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(Eli @ Feb. 08 2006,21:07)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"I actually prefer random encounters. My reason being that I am pretty abysmal at avoiding enemies when they're not random. And, as frustrating as it is to be forced into random encounters again and again because of an excessively high encounter rate (take a bow, Tales of Phantasia!), it's even more frustrating to be offered the ability to avoid said encounters, but still be forced into them because of my utter inability to just avoid the enemies. =P

    For all the time that it normally takes me to avoid a battle when it's not random, I could've fought it, beaten it, and carried on. So...yes, I prefer to just be forced into battles; it used to really bother me when I was younger, but nowadays I've kind of just grown to accept random battles as a part of many (or most?) RPGs. If the option to avoid them is there, then I always try (and fail) to do so. And that just irritates me.[/QUOTE]
    In ToP, the average random battle took a few seconds and there was holy bottles. =)

    I can think of far worse ones.

    Dracos
  • DracosDracos Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(RIPtoad @ Feb. 09 2006,01:00)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"You should have worded the poll differently. I don't hate random encounters, but I do see myself leaning towards visible enemies these days, preference-wise. The biggest gripe I have with random encounters is when you find yourself having to go through someplace more than once to achieve some objective, you don't necessarily want to have to stop and fight meaningless battles every ten steps--you're after something specific, and at that point the fights simply get in the way of your immediate goal. It was a great pleasure to be able to run the fields in Star Ocean 3 and not worry about getting held up between cities when you didn't want to.

    Random encounters when trying to complete a puzzle or such are particularly odious.

    Another minus for random battles is when you've taken too many lumps already and you need to get somewhere to recover, only to end up in a battle where your escape attempt fails and you are summarily executed. Especially bad in games where you lose everything you did to that point if you hadn't been able to save.

    Still, I do agree that it's okay to use random battles if executed properly. Dragon Quest VIII let you use spells or items to hold off fighting weaker enemies, which wasn't bad when all you wanted to do was get something cooked in the alchemy pot. And I never had a complaint with the battles in FFX, probably because the system was so good that weak enemies could be dealt with extremely quickly. Of course, they also let you customize your weapons to eliminate encounters altogether when you didn't want them, and that to me is a very important component to making random battles palatable.

    At the very least, you need an escape option that will actually work--those who make random battles and low-yield escapes need to be shot.

    On the whole, however, I definitely think I'd lean towards visible enemies. It just seems to put more of the decision making in your own hands, and I'm generally in favor of that.[/QUOTE]
    It all depends on implementation.

    I don't think anyone believes now a days that random battles without some way to tweak the faucet is a great idea. =)

    Dracos
    Lufia 2
  • MasterChiefMasterChief I didn't learn anything! Full Members
    edited February 2006
    Both can be implimented beautifully, and both can be implimented horribly.

    A good example of how visible enimies can be screwed up is when said visible enemies are extremely fast and thus unavoidable. Case in point, Lunar: Silver Star Story. That game had me screaming obscenities because an enemy would notice me from a screen away and then run like Carl Lewis after me, and I couldn't dodge him. Thankfully there was a dash added to Lunar 2:Eternal Blue Complete to help remedy the situation, but it wasn't nearly enough.

    Random battles, of course, depend entirely on the encounter rate. If you're facing enemies every three steps, it's going to get aggrivating, the same as if you don't have an encounter for 5 or so minutes at a time. The trick with random encounters is to balance it out.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    "What the f--- is a Shakespeare?"
    -Rico Valasquez, showing off why no one likes him.
  • SolonSolon Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(MasterChief @ Feb. 09 2006,16:44)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"Random battles, of course, depend entirely on the encounter rate.[/QUOTE]
    ...and the length of each encounter. If random encounters occurred in Xenosaga as often as they did in ToP I would probably have thrown the game out of the window after just a few battles.

    But, as you said, it's all about balancing it out. While XS didn't have nearly as many encounters as ToP, each encounter was a lot longer.
    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
  • King Jowy XXIIKing Jowy XXII Regnus Obscura Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(Eli @ Feb. 09 2006,07:05)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"<table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(King Jowy XXII @ Feb. 08 2006,22:02)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"Heh...that truly was one of the most horrific examples of random battles I have ever experienced, surpassed only by Albert Odyssey. >.<[/QUOTE]
    Ah, yes, that was indeed horrible. Not so much because the encounter rate was excessively high (it was bad, but not ToP bad), but the loading times were...probably the most foul of any RPG I've played. There was like a three second delay before every single attack =P I actually thought that my Saturn's laser had died when I first started playing it... They really were...shockingly awful loading times... =/[/QUOTE]
    Agreed: if WD couldn't keep loading times down without sacrificing the in-battle voice, then it would have been far better if they had. Albert Odyssey suffered from horrible loading times, but that's more the fault of devs trying to load the game up with novelties without bothering to compress them.

    Makes me wonder just where that huge delay went in getting the game to market...though if it is to be believed, WD claimed that they had actually CUT the number of battles and halved the load time! @_@
  • EliEli Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(Dracos @ Feb. 09 2006,07:34)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"In ToP, the average random battle took a few seconds and there was holy bottles. ?=)

    I can think of far worse ones.

    Dracos[/QUOTE]
    I wasn't really complaining about how long they were, though, just that there was (literally) a battle almost every three steps. Regardless of how quickly I could finish them, I still found myself grimacing a little every time the battle transition effect did its thing. Had the battle system not been as novel as it was, I'm sure that I would've given up on the game long before its end.

    I did forget all about holy bottles though, despite absoloutely abusing them, so you've got me there =) And you're quite right in saying that there are much worse games where frustrating random battles are concerned. But somehow whenever I think 'obscenely high encounter rate', Tales of Phantasia is always the first game that pops into my head.

    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(King Jowy XXII @ Feb. 09 2006,08:05)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"Agreed: if WD couldn't keep loading times down without sacrificing the in-battle voice, then it would have been far better if they had.[/QUOTE]

    Oh my, was that what they cited as the reason for the loading times? The voices were mostly just yells and screams anyway, there's absoloutely no way that that's worth those sorts of loading times...



  • death saveddeath saved Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    What if after i finish all the monsters in the area im givin the choice of turning random battles on and i can modify the encounter rate which adds area boss battles like the ones in suikoden3.
    ps:where can i get the orignal suikoden.
  • weylunweylun Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    Yeah, I am sorry but I guess I should make the options more clearer.

    I PREFER random over visible. I shouldn't put a neutral because neutral doesn't mean anything in the poll. lol So I guess the majority of responses is "I don't care"?

    I pick random > visible and I've stated my reason already. I like the surprise factor and it gives me more reason to fight.

    The "Holy Bottle" system in Tales series is great because you can use it to reduce easy battle encounters but it won't let you avoid harder battles.


    I guess another interesting poll will be the punishment of Game Over (when your party all died). lol Most RPG games want you to restart the game when the game is over but some rpg games basically teleport you back to the town/save point and reduce your money earned.
  • SorenLovesIkeSorenLovesIke Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I don't think it matters either way, as long as the game is good. I didn't have a problem with random encounters in, say, Dragon Quest VIII. Skies of Arcadia had very FREQUENT random encounters, but I still loved that game.

    If there's enough to like about the gameplay (not to mention, enough to propel the storyline forward), it doesn't matter at all. However, random encounters can get extremely, extremely frustrating when the battle system is slow, and you just want to get to the end of the game.

    It can work the other way, too. Magna Carta didn't have "random encounters" per se, but I DARE you to dodge some of those enemies on the narrow, narrow walkways. Visible enemies made no difference whatsoever.

    So... I guess I'm neutral.
  • SpideySpidey Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I'd like to point out that how random battles are depend largely on the dungeon design in the game. If you have dungeons with 5 way paths that split into 3 way paths that split into 2 way paths, random battles can be VERY annoying, no matter the encounter rate, because if you go one way , every 10 seconds you think "crap , maybe I missed a treasure at the other split and should go back" Then you say "nah, any second now I'm going to hit the treasure now and then I can go back" and you end up fighting the boss. Then you have to backtrack fighting and fighting over and over again, only to find out the split you missed was really just a dead end. So yeah in case you didn't notice that happening to me in Tales of Legendia tonight, because the dungeons are built like mazes and random battles don't fit this game. A game like Final Fantasy has pretty linear dungeon design so random battles don't bother me in those games at all, they are acceptable. So really there are many factors that involve it, but I generally prefer to see my enemies based on the fact that usually it's implemented better.

    As you can see, I feel that random battles tend to discourage me from exploration, and I love exploration in RPGs. Sometimes I do miss a path and just axe the idea of going back because I don't feel like fighting a bunch of weak enemies on my way there, even with low encounters, because there's, say, maybe one of those paths each dungeon I played in, so I'm exploring the game somewhat less than if I didn't have to worry about fighting at all.

    I guess you could say I'm a fan of Wild Arms 4's implemenation. There are random battles, but once you meet a requirement or beat the dungeon, when you go back you can turn them off. A good implementation of them, but I find most games don't offer good solutions like this.



  • WindWind Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I have nothing against random encounters in rpg's however there are times when I find that they can get on my nerves. That's why I picked the Nuetral option.

    Exessive random encounters like in Skies Of Arcadia ( especailly in a game like Skies Of Arcadia where exploration is soo important in order to make discoveries ) can put a dampener on any game.

    It can also become annoying when you have a high level character and you find yourself fighting really weak opponents ( and you don't get any worthwhile exp or cash and you've wasted your time ).

    Spidey also made a very good point about dungeon/level design. I am less likey to lose my patience with a game with random encounters if the game is reasonably linear. If a game has multiple paths and branching points then that usually means lots of backtracking and lots of thorough explortaion ( which brings me back to Skies Of Arcadia and how exploration is a part of the game ) and that becomes a chore when you forced into a fight with every other step.



  • SolonSolon Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"I guess you could say I'm a fan of Wild Arms 4's implemenation. There are random battles, but once you meet a requirement or beat the dungeon, when you go back you can turn them off. A good implementation of them, but I find most games don't offer good solutions like this. [/QUOTE]
    Sure, but that's only for backtracking and could usually only be used once you had already beat the dungeon. That doesn't exactly help when you progress through the dungeon the first time.

    I personally preferred the way they handled it in WA2/3, with the "!" popping up just before an encounter, and you could choose if you wanted to fight or not. At the same time there was a limit to it, you couldn't just cancel as many times as you wanted. Perfect balance, if you ask me.



    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
  • DracosDracos Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I disliked that primarily on the grounds of when I wanted to 'cancel' battles, I wanted to cancel a bunch in a row. I wanted to lower the encounter rate. having to hit a button every few moments is just as distracting to examing a place as getting into a battle. That said, i'm not a fan of the series in any sense so grain of salt and all that.

    Dracos
  • EliEli Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(Dracos @ Feb. 12 2006,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"I disliked that primarily on the grounds of when I wanted to 'cancel' battles, I wanted to cancel a bunch in a row. ? I wanted to lower the encounter rate. ?having to hit a button every few moments is just as distracting to examing a place as getting into a battle. ?That said, i'm not a fan of the series in any sense so grain of salt and all that.

    Dracos[/QUOTE]
    I wasn't really a big fan of the exclamation (Migrant Gauge? I forget now...) system either. It usually only let you block a few battles at a time and, like yourself, I usually found myself wanting to fight all the battles or block them all. I thought Wild ARMs 4's system was a really good idea, except that WA4 was so linear that there was no real need for it anyway. So I ended up not really making much use of that either. I'd like to see something similar implemented in a game with lots of backtracking and exploration...

    Oh...and was there a limit to Wild ARMs 2's cancelling ability, Solon? I never saw any onscreen display, so I always just assumed that once your level was high enough in relation to that of the encounter, you could always cancel it (barring surprise attacks of course).



  • ScarmiglionScarmiglion Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    Neutral here also. It's totally dependant on more factors than just encounter rate. I agree with the dungeon design aspect too.

    Tales (in general) has one of the better encounter systems (holy/dark bottles, yay!), and I've never had a problem with encounter rates in a Tales game, except for the latter dungeons in Tales of Destiny.

    I greatly prefer the visibility of enemies nowadays though. I have to prefer ones like Star Ocean 3, etc. I mean, sure you can avoid the battles, but it still takes an effort sometimes.

    At least when you can see the enemies coming, you don't have to invent a reason why you could get ambushed or get a sneak attack.

    I just woke up so I've very incoherent. smile8.png
  • SolonSolon Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"Oh...and was there a limit to Wild ARMs 2's cancelling ability, Solon?[/QUOTE]
    To be honest, I don't really remember. I loathed WA2, so I've been trying to forget all about it.

    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"I wasn't really a big fan of the exclamation (Migrant Gauge? I forget now...) system either. It usually only let you block a few battles at a time and, like yourself, I usually found myself wanting to fight all the battles or block them all.[/QUOTE]
    I'd like to say that it's all about taste, but I don't really understand this argument. Of course it only lets you block a few battles at a time....that's the point? I thought the subject in this discussion was ways to reduce enemy encounters, not delete them entirely.

    EDI: Dracos: I also don't get how pressing a button once to cancel an encounter, which takes about 1 second, can be equal to getting into battle, fighting, and then returning to the field. Even with a fast-paced battle system (which WA doesn't have), that would be 30 or so seconds away from the field.



    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
  • DracosDracos Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    The point is you are stopping every few seconds and paying attention to something else regardless. Making a decision relevant to whether or not to fight, checking the migrant bar, etc every time it pops up. In general, when folks want to have a break from combat, its because they want to put their attention somewhere else or make a quick burst of progress. Constantly switching the finger on the button pad between 'run' (grawr to THAT being a button in its own case) and 'dodge battle' isn't really complementary to this concept. It isn't 'equal' in length of distraction, but in doing a puzzle, it's a constant distraction none the less. I'd much rather spread out the length between fights and know that between them I'm only paying attention to the level, then regularly having to pay attention to the option. Of course, I'm not keen on a 'Ding, (!)' thing regularly popping up too, over just a battle transition.

    Dracos
  • SolonSolon Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I guess we differ there then. I didn't see it as a distraction at all, ever. Having played hundreds of games, I think I can handle that much without losing myself in a puzzle or running at the same time. smile6.png
    Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
  • EliEli Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td colspan="2">(Solon @ Feb. 13 2006,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"I'd like to say that it's all about taste, but I don't really understand this argument. Of course it only lets you block a few battles at a time....that's the point? I thought the subject in this discussion was ways to reduce enemy encounters, not delete them entirely.[/QUOTE]
    I didn't say that it should've allowed you to cancel every battle, though, all I said was that I wasn't a big fan of it... Ordinarily random battles don't bother me at all, but normally when I do want to avoid battles in a game, I want to avoid a lot of them (either because I'm trying to solve a puzzle, or because of a particular enemy that I'd rather not run into) and the gauge's ability to block a few odd battles here and there was of no use whatsoever to me in that regard. It's not an argument, and it is all about taste... I just didn't really find it useful.

    I think I would've preferred it had it carried no upper limit, so that you could stockpile it for when you really wanted to use it. Granted, it would've been easily abusable, but I just didn't see how being able to block a few battles every now and then made the prospect of random encounters any more inviting. It was such an insignificant number that I still ended up having to fight battles when I really didn't want to anyway...



  • CyllyaCyllya Member Full Members
    edited February 2006
    I still want to know how everyone gets such high encounter rates in ToP. I've played cartridge, a patched rom (DeJap trans), and an unpatched rom, and I've never had a battle rate anywhere near three steps even if I was using a Dark Bottle. (Though I've never used a Dark Bottle in high-encounter areas like the lower half of Lower Moria, but I assume anyone who's compaining about the encounter rate isn't doing that anyway.)

    ToS has my favorite encounter system. I specify ToS instead of just saying touch encounters because a lot of factors detirmine how good touch encounters are, and ToS got them all right.

    <table border="0" align="center" width="90%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="10" id="QUOTEHEAD">Q
    U
    O
    T
    E</td><td class="QUOTE"I'd like to point out that how random battles are depend largely on the dungeon design in the game. If you have dungeons with 5 way paths that split into 3 way paths that split into 2 way paths, random battles can be VERY annoying, no matter the encounter rate, because if you go one way , every 10 seconds you think "crap , maybe I missed a treasure at the other split and should go back" Then you say "nah, any second now I'm going to hit the treasure now and then I can go back" and you end up fighting the boss.[/QUOTE]
    This is so true. ToL is annoying me for the same reason.

    ToD and especially ToD2j also had that problem with the world map...
Sign In or Register to comment.