Things you hate in the Frontal Battle System

[+ TBWCS 953]

I am making a simple study. For the series of RPG Maker, we always had the Frontal Battle System. If you watched the PR Video back then of RPG Maker VX, the speaker said: "you'll know it when you use it, this is the best system" pertaining to the Frontal Battle System. 

 

Do you agree that Frontal Battle System is indeed the best battle system? So, first, let me take a clear definition of WHAT I SEE in the Frontal Battle System that RPG Maker offers us. It lacks style. For some people who have no ways to make the frontal battle system upgraded, there would be a lot who would be quite disappointed about your game's battle sequence, let alone it is turn based. Literally though, there are a lot of gamers out there that won't play your games especially if it is turn based. But exclude me from those people I just mentioned. I love turn based. To be honest I don't really like ABSes that much, since I've only enjoyed quite a few from company made games and indie games that used Action Battle Systems or those we call Hack and Slash type of games.

 

So to the point, what are the things you hate in the frontal battle system? Take note that I am not only pertaining to the RPG Maker's frontal battle system but also other games out there that uses the same style. What are the things you'd recommend that should be inside the frontal battle system?

 

Many users of the RPG Maker engine had always had their cries over a custom battle system. Some likes a CTB (Conditional Turn), ATB (Active Time), RTB (Real Time), SBS (Side View), ABS (Action Battle), Platformer (like Castlevania's Battle System), and more. I am one of those people. Speaking as a user, I like to see new things getting implemented in my game. But hey, shots fired.

Do you think it would sell if we upgrade it? What makes the Frontal battle system the ones RPG Maker offer us? If it was the only existing battle system we can use, in which way would you make it :"more enjoyable"?

 

The point of this conversation is also to stir up ideas how I (and other people probably who is willing to) would be able to make a cure of it through scripting. I wanted to make it more your time as we play a game someday using the new and modified frontal battle system.

 

[Tsarmina 2,612]

I've always definitely preferred turn-based. I think it would be cool if you could see the back of the actor moving when they attack so the battle system doesn't seem so....static, if you will. 

 

I suppose frontal was used because it's probably the easiest to implement resource-wise or complicatedness-wise, but it all really depends. :\

[+ TBWCS 953]

I've always definitely preferred turn-based. I think it would be cool if you could see the back of the actor moving when they attack so the battle system doesn't seem so....static, if you will. 

 

I suppose frontal was used because it's probably the easiest to implement resource-wise or complicatedness-wise, but it all really depends. :\

 

Did you mean something like this?

 

http://youtu.be/PJ252Sjju7A?t=1m21s

 

It is indeed an interesting concept. This one though needs intense amount of resources, not the script xD This is quite the timing, since I myself have been studying how ti create such system. Almost 5 months thinking how can it be done up to now.

[Tsarmina 2,612]

Oh wow I wasn't expecting something that complicated--I just thought of something simple, like making the characters shake (kind of like the default system, just with the character's back visible). I guess sort of like Pokemon? That is really cool though It would be seriously cool if we had something like this (I would definitely use it!) ^^

[SpookyMothman 361]

Saying FBS is "the best" was basically just a marketing thing. They'd say the same thing no matter what the system was.

 

Please don't dismiss FBS, SoulPour. I feel like a lot of people do, since just about every game I see has some kind of SBS, and it kind of upsets me. There's nothing wrong with either one. In fact, both of them have their places, and they can both also fulfill very different purposes.

 

SBS is very action focused. You see the characters move and attack. It's well-suited for story telling, but not so much for immersion. You can do a lot of things with an SBS that would be either impossible or silly with FBS, and there's not much that you can do with an FBS that wouldn't work better for an SBS.

 

However, I like FBS, and I think I've found it's function. The game I'm making is very character heavy. With the FBS, you're seeing what the characters are seeing. Besides, it's not the kind of game where your characters are master swordsmen with crazy combos or wizards with spectacular magics. These are kids. Teenagers. I've given it a lot of thought, and there is absolutely no way I could ever get an SBS to work with this game. Besides, the game's aesthetics are already very simple and nostalgic. Front-view just works with it.

 

I don't know how I'd change it, or even if I would. I'm not so smart about gameplay, and I like to keep things simple anyway.

Edited August 24, 2014 by SpookyMothman

[TheoAllen 830]

I usually found the FBS is really hard to observe if you have many battler at the same time. The scale goes something like this

• One actor = Action BS, Frontview BS
• Two actors = Frontview, Sideview. Tho, I tend to choose FBS for this one
• Three actors = Preferable Sideview. Frontview almost out from the boundary
• Four actors = Sideview / Tactical. They both have same weight value
• Five actors = Preferable tactical. But sideview isn't really a problem
• Six actors = It should be tactical.

Why I prefer FBS only suit for a few battle members? Because if you have many characters at same time, it's kinda hard to see who is currently attack and who is being attacked. And the battle flow is relative fast. If you have only one actor or at least two, it probably won't be hard. Unlike sideview, you could see the action sequence and see Actor X is attacking slime. It's the solution for many battle members.

[SpookyMothman 361]

I'd say four is a perfectly fine party size for FBS. I mean, the program is already built that way, and everyone's names and HPs show up just fine. It definitely does get a little weird when you have more than that, though.

 

I feel like I'm the only person who'd jump to FBS's defense. ;w;

[TheoAllen 830]

Well, this may just my opinion. Do not get offended

 

Also on the side note, I personally hate to read the battle logs. Yanfly Ace Battle Engine has the solution to make the FBS has better look. Instead of read what battle logs says, it has damage popup. And also animation played on party HUD make them better.

[+ TBWCS 953]

Yes, I see both points. The only way I can think of to update the ones we have now on RPG Maker is to redo everything that is default. Well, as long as we can keep a track of which is which and who is who, it would be much better. I personally like the 4 person FBS, as long as it is well presented. I think the reason why they did not include the Battlers for the characters in Ace which was a feature from XP is because it really gets cluttered. Having been able to revive that feature in my One Soul Battle System really made the screen cluttered. But I want to get Tsarmina's idea. If you show the back of the characters, you can indent them lower on the battle status, that way, it works like how you draw the faces.

 

I also like the idea of the damage pop-up, but be clear that we're erasing the battle log feature.

 

I really enjoyed a lot of FBS games. The reason I liked them were the cool features that you mostly don't get all the time. Since you face the enemy, the focus of the gameplay is how you interact with these enemies. The enemies are animated, they change sprites as they attack, they also react to animations or some even have their individual attack and hurt sounds.

 

Other things can be implemented in an FBS, and that's what we're looking for

[SpookyMothman 361]

Well, this may just my opinion. Do not get offended

Um... oh dear. If I sounded defensive, I didn't mean to. I'm sorry.

 

I wish I could provide some more insight, but I'm pretty content with how the system is out of the box. I definitely wouldn't say it's "the best", or even particularly good. I just like it simple.

Edited August 25, 2014 by SpookyMothman

[+ TBWCS 953]

I am just wondering myself, since it seems that as time goes on Enterbrain is removing and removing features from their RMXP Frontal Battle System. Reviving it in Ace isn't really hard, but to not see it as a default, is very disappointing. Anyhow, to crack things up, this was the PR Video I was talking about:

 

 

I agree with the marketing strategy saying it is the best battle system. I just find facing the enemies myself in a front view really cool especially if they are high quality graphics and models.

[HumanNinja 144]

The guy voicing that video is so cheesy :lol:

 

I can see an FBS battle going like this: Monster graphic jumps forward (getting a bit larger, like zoomed) and when it attacks, the slash animations is enlarged to fill up the whole screen (like it's in your face)! If it's a spell, see the fireball coming at the screen and then the screen looks like it's on fire for a moment.

 

FBS can be cool if enough thought is put into to make it cool. It's kinda like playing a FPS so it would make sense that the enemy attacks take up the whole screen instead of a PCs portrait flashing red. I lose interest in those kinds of FBS battles.

 

I don't think that FBS is necessarily the best battle system but, it can be great with enough thought and effort put into it.

[+ TBWCS 953]

The guy voicing that video is so cheesy :lol:

 

I can see an FBS battle going like this: Monster graphic jumps forward (getting a bit larger, like zoomed) and when it attacks, the slash animations is enlarged to fill up the whole screen (like it's in your face)! If it's a spell, see the fireball coming at the screen and then the screen looks like it's on fire for a moment.

 

FBS can be cool if enough thought is put into to make it cool. It's kinda like playing a FPS so it would make sense that the enemy attacks take up the whole screen instead of a PCs portrait flashing red. I lose interest in those kinds of FBS battles.

 

I don't think that FBS is necessarily the best battle system but, it can be great with enough thought and effort put into it.

 

Yes. That FPS look on a FBS can be pulled out really great too, especially if you're making a game where the player is a gun user or a marksman. I think how graphically the animation are presented would give much of a good look and feel to the game. These alone are its winning points.

 

Though I have to say FBS lacks that in the default maker.

[Intocabille 21]

When they say we know the FBS from before... I actually used RPG Maker 2003 as the first one (I believe it is discontinued and is for free now?) and it had sideway systém. I was kinda disappointed at first. Seeing it as major step back. But then again that was me being used to the old Final Fantasy games I was playing at that time.

In the end I am kinda glad for the FBS, as I am no spriter or such, it makes things a bit easier for me in sense that I don't have to look for-pay for animated sprites for each of custom party member for the fight.

Hmm... but I think it can also break the um... immersion? What I mean is that if the story is told from 3rd person perspective and then you see the battle from the actors point of view it can be a bit weird sometimes? In that case I guess it would help what was already suggested, at least seeing back of the actor taking action. Which in turn will place another load on creators to find-buy suitable images if they can't produce them themselves.

Unless it is like pokemon style as also suggested, where you would use the actual ingame character sprite, but then you would need such for every monster as well, I guess.

The battle log doesn't have to be errased, but it could be made hidden and displayed on key press or an action from menu? It can be useful in tenghty battles, I guess, to see what all you already tried on enemy.

Option to skip the initial party command window entirely could be helpful too.

Also if it should be turn based or not... again I think it has pros and cons? When it is turn based, it makes stressful battles less stressful, in sense of enemy simply waiting for your turn (A funny scene in one of Love Hina episodes, where they had parody on JRPGs and enemy was calling out heroes that they are taking too long). The action time battle systém on other hand can be bad if you know what to do, just need to Scroll through all the items, skills, etc to get to one you want and meanwhile enemy takes another turn.

[+ Retired 274]

FBS can be done well, it just needs decent presentation and a little bit more animation.

 

A good example is Demon Gaze

 

 

 

 

I think FBS is also the easiest to use in terms of resources available for battlers.

 

Lots of people have made frontal battlers for free.

 

Their is only a handful of side battlers (mostly holder and kaduki) so implementation is more difficult for a SBS if you are not graphically skilled.

[Kayzee 4,032]

Really the "Frontal Battle System" is the most basic of basic battle systems you can get. I hear in Japan, the Dragon Quest series, where that style of battles really started, is or was actually more popular then the Final Fantasy series where side view battles are the norm. Though in all but the first few Dragon Quest games all the enemies are fluidly animated. Really I think the battle presentation was selected mostly to make battles use as few art assets as possible, only one frame for each enemy, a backdrop, and some animation sequences. Simple to use and replace art, not a lot of complex animation, and it's not hard to understand.

 

Thing is though, if they care enough to change the battle system, everyone is going to want something different. Even if it's just a purely aesthetic thing like side view battles or animation, people's tastes seem to run in all sorts of directions. It makes a degree of sense to use the most basic of battle systems for the general public, and let people make fancy new systems with scripts that let them use as much animation or complexity as they want.

[Phantaeon 1]

I prefer the Sideview Battle system mainly because it can get more hectic and it requires me to do more. I kinda have this thing where I just want work to doand I don't want to be sitting around. More work generally can cause better aesthetics and will fullfill more of my time. I also like how hectic and over the top it can become because it feels like you've gotten from that simple little fireball to this giant magma demon taht obliterates your enemies with some kind of triple lava lazor.

[Chaos17 31]

FBS can be done well, it just needs decent presentation and a little bit more animation.

 

Indeed.

I suggest people to try the Etrian Odyssey serie and watch how they evolved the FBS by making more deep each time.

At the moment, I'm playing the remake of the 1 on 3DS and I can say that I don't dislike anymore "good" FBS.

[+ TBWCS 953]

I am looking at other FBS using rpg games from the old times and I was really interested how it is still hooking us up till this moment. I guess it goes around how the FBS was presented, as was cleared already in this discussion. Perhaps we want a new look, style or feel of it. We also necessarily want some modifications of it, especially in the RM's FBS.

[Kayzee 4,032]

It should be noted the Etrian Odyssey series is entirely first person anyway, so It makes a lot more sense to do battles that way (I kinda like how they did it in Might and Magic 3-5 better though, where navigation and battle were more seamless, but that is besides the point).

[+ TBWCS 953]

Come to think of it, I only played a few RPG Games so I can't reference that much. Most RPGs I played were SBSes...such as Xenogears, Final Fantasy and Breath of Fire IV. The only FBS games I played was the Phantasy Star series. Personally though, those battler animations in each action for each actor is the winning piece. If you attack, you can really see the actor going to the enemy battler and slash that enemy (when attack action is used). In my opinion and experience as a coder, that itself is hard...but once we can pull that out, FBS might get a little bit more interesting. I personally like how animations work in FBS, since I can really see the effect on the enemy, and our perspective as a player when we got attacked by the enemy.

[Heretic86 14]

I just made a post over at rmrk.net in regards to the exact same topic.  So I'll just quote what I wrote over there.

 

 

I think the reason Enterbrain gave us a Front View battle system was ease of use for the Users.

When I first started using XP, I had a hard time figuring out the layers, but eventually got used to it.  Then VX came out and they redid all the mapping and basically dumbed it town.  I know they dumbed it down because people probably complained that the Layer Mapping System was too much for them to understand.  Problem was they dumbed it down so much that I found it practically unusable.  I think the same thing happened with the Battle System.

Sure, Enterbrain could have chosen to give us another type of battle system, ANY other type of battle system.  But those other Battle Systems would have been total overload for inexperienced users.  I can understand that what they wanted to do was give everyone an Engine where they could just throw in some enemies, configure Hit Points and Agility and Exp, and away you go, you got a game!  Problem is that the standard battle system is just WAY over-simplified.  And games made with the Default Front View Battle System suffer as a result.  However, another type of Battle System would have required too much effort by most to be able to put together an entire game.  If it took a person a week to get one battle working as expected, no game would ever be completed due to the complexity.

They really could have given us a bunch more options.  A Default Battler Animation would have been really nice.  Things like Attack Pose or Attacked Pose or Cast Pose would have been great.  But there is a downside to that as well.  Its a lot of effort to put together the Art for each of those poses.  Not by Enterbrain, but by the average user.  Our average user around here probably doesnt have the artistic skill necessary to create an Enemy, let alone an Enemy with all those additional poses.

Some dedicated members of the community have put together other types of Battle Systems, and created the artwork necessary for them.  The most popular ones have gathered a handful of people to put together more graphics for those battle systems.  So I think Enterbrain was incorrectly concluded that there would be no resources created by the community for other styles of battle systems.

There is always a tradeoff.

One of the problems we have with our Defaults of our editors is that the editors themselves offer an easier interface than mucking with Lines of Script.  I put together a script that allows for SOME animations in battle.  And I think what I came up with is also just way too complex for the average person to use.  It needs to be given a GUI, an Interface directly with the Editor itself.  If we had at least had that, Animations could have been much easier for the community to learn how to incorporate.  So sure, scripts do their job and can work just fine, but the tradeoff is that scripts are usually very confusing and intimidating for newcomers to the Engines.  And lets face it, one of the things that made RPG Maker so popular was its simplicity.  There are other engines out there, but they are no where nearly as easy to use as RPG Maker.  Thus, too many features have the potential to just be overload, and would actually cause less sales.  The more complex engines cost more to put together, and if sales go down instead of up, they will decide on simplicity over features.  Hence, a Front View Battle System.

The Front View Battle System in and of itself isnt bad, it is excessively simple.  What contributes to it being percieved as "bad" is those lack of features that are easy to implement.  Lacking any sort of Battler Animations is another big drawback, and that, by itself, could have made the default battles much more interesting.  Its that excessive simplicity that drives Players away, not Creators.  Creators can create visually stunning Maps, but when it comes to the Battle System, they are almost all stuck looking exactly the same as every other game created with that version of RPG Maker.  And players will get turned off by this.  Different graphics and different skins just dont allow enough creative control over the Battles to make the games themselves really shine.

Enterbrain would also have to deal heavily with Copyright issues.  If they created something that supported Piracy, or theft of content made by others, they'd get their asses sued!  The users are much less likely to get sued, and Enterbrain themselves would be looked at the same way as the courts looked at Napster.  Napster did not steal music themselves, but they provided a tool to distribute stolen content.  Bittorrent is also a company.  Bitttorrent, and the entire torrent network is actually owned by CBS, yes, the same CBS that makes TV shows.  Bittorrent is also decentralized, Napster was not.  And this is how the courts would look at RPG Maker if they had been designed as a tool that supported copyright infringement.  Taking ones graphics out of a game is just as bad as stealing the game itself.  We may not agree on this, but this is the position that the companies that go to court will take.  This may have been addressed by Enterbrain deciding to not copy Battle Systems from existing games, or make their Battle System so similar that copyrighted content would have been used in place of the graphics they provided.

Enterbrain could have also been sued if they simply duplicated the functionality of other popular Battle Systems.  If they had done everything in their power to make the Battle System just like any of the Final Fantasy Battle Systems, again, they'd be sued.  However, this is a bit different than the previous situation as users can create their own Battle Systems that do copy the Style of any RPG without fear of reprisal from companies.  So if I stole graphics from Final Fantasy, thats Copyright Infringement.  But if I put together a script that makes the battle system work exactly like Final Fantasy, that oddly enough is not copyright infringement, because Im not actually using their system.  Yes, it does add to the potential for others to use a script to distribute copyrighted material, but since the scripters arent profitting from creating those scripts, they arent considered that much of a threat.  Basically, its the same way as downloading a movie, or being the one that goes to the theater and records a movie to sell and distribute.

Now, that all being said, I think there are some very good Front View Battle Systems that have come out in the many years that RPG Games, not just RPG Maker games, but RPG Games in general.  A lesser known game called Phantasy Star also used a Front View Battle System, and it had some flaws, but had some strengths as well.  For one, the battlers were animated.  Heavily animated, for games in its time.  Final Fantsy, by comparison was no where nearly as heavily animated, yet, due to its storytelling style, became a much more popular game.  This is back in the 16 bit generation of game consoles, so were not talking Final Fantasy X or any of the 3D games.  And even way back in the day, there were more animated Front View Battle Systems than the ones that Enterbrain gave us.  So yes, I do understand the frustration with the default battle system.

There is another thing to consider when using more complex Battle Systems, and that is whether or not your Players will be able to use them.  I've played many an RPG game, and there have been quite a few that I could not stand their Battle Systems.  Implementation of Cards, battles that took too long, unbalanced, etc.  Now, an average idiot will be able to pick up any game using any Default Battle System of any of the RPG Maker series, and they can damn near immediately understand how to win a battle.  Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, I never beat, battles took too long, and was unbalanced.  RPG Maker Games are fairly easy to balance battles.  Some other battle systems are no where nearly as easy to balance the gameplay.  Sure, they look pretty, and unique, but are more difficult to balance.

The thing is, the Default Battle System can benefit from a couple of things.  Some are Graphical.  Animated Battlers for one.  Other things that can improve the Battle System is functionality.  In my "Collection", I use a Front View Battle System that also has an ATB system and a crapton of added functionality.  Blizzard wrote one of the scripts included called Reflect.  Reflect is one of those staple tradmarks of Final Fantasy.  KK20 wrote another script that allows "switching targets", which allows Item and Spell usage on Enemies, and casting harmful spells on the party.  Combined with Reflect, this adds a lot of complexity to the battles.  I wrote another script that allows Healing Items and Spells to harm Undead.  It provides usefulness to the Reflect and Target Anyone scripts.  The XRXS Battle System (Front View) rewards strategic thinking over battles of attrition.  I also wrote a bunch of scripts that try to enhance Battle Eventing.  Battle Eventing is one of those really important things that make the boring Front View battle system better, by adding strategy and varying gameplay.

I think the biggest problem with most RPG Maker Games in general is that they focus purely on battles of attrition.  The rare game will come along and require strategy to defeat an enemy, but still make it easy and fun.  And that is really the entire point, to make FUN games for Players.  That is what many of the scripts in my "Collection" try to do, as do most other Battle System scripts, is to make games more FUN for players.  Cant beat this boss because it constantly heals itself?  Cast Reflect on the Enemy and let the Enemy heal your party!  Then you can win!  Strategy.  Group of Zombies and its just you and a Healer?  Have your Healer cast some Heals on the Zombies and kill them with ease!  Uh oh, the boss just cast Reflect on itself and it is only suseptible to Magic Attacks?  Better cast Mirror Breaker so you can hurt the boss!  This enemy keeps healing the boss?  Better kill that enemy before taking on the Main Boss!  Have a Hostage ane Exp Bonus / Exp Penalty when dealing with the Hostage, in Battle!  All possible because of Battle Eventing!  Its still simple enough to beat quickly, and speed is part of the reward.

I think we may be asking the wrong question.  Instead of asking about "Things you hate in the Frontal Battle System", we should be asking "What can make ANY Battle System more FUN for Players"?  A bit more complexity without being too complex?  A few more features like Reflect or Heals that hurt Zombies?  Hostages?  Animation?  Moving enemies around?  Being able to do "Pincer Attacks"?  What makes some battle systems fun and others tedious and confusing?  Battle Systems are more than just Graphics.  Ive taken the standard graphics and enhanced the way battles work to try to make them more fun for Players.  I also tried to make it easy for creators to create.  I pulled out Limits that prevented more creativity.  I decided to not dumb things down too much and remove the ability to have creativity.  Most other battle systems sacrifice looking pretty at the expense of not being able to do battle events at all.  It tries to maintain that Balance between offering a Tradeoff, and eliminating the expense.  Just because a creature is Animated doesnt make the game that much more fun; it needs more.  It needs to make sense.  Fire and Water are opposing elements.  Thus, a fire creature that attacks with Fire will be suseptible to Water elements.  The Opposing Elements concept is one that is easy for Players to understand and incorporate into their gameplay style.  But constantly mashing "Attack" and winning every battle without healing will become boring to almost every player after a while.  And to overcome this, something small that can be done without scripts would be to have a Flame Sword equipped when going up against Water Creatures.  Still mashing away, but its a tiny bit of strategy that I think most players will appreciate.

So really, what can we do to make Battle Systems more fun for Players while keeping it simple enough for creators to create games that are fun for Players?  I think that is the BIG question that needs to be addressed.

(For any that are interested, my "Collection" is available for download on the Scripts section of this site, or over at Chaos Project.)

 

Yep, I rewrote a Front Battle System for RMXP and tried to enhance it as much as I could.  I dont own VXA, and it is for XP, so I dont know how relevant it would be here...

 

The point remains, what can be done to make ANY Battle System more fun for Players?

[Kayzee 4,032]

I don't think your copyright comments are valid. If it was just about every FPS made during the 90s would be sued by Id. Heck the RPG Maker combat system is not too far removed form the Dragon Warrior combat system, and one used by a ton of other RPGs. In fact I am not sure copyright covers game mechanics at all, just artist elements and actual code, though I may be wrong. There are just too many games that are way too close to each other. Piracy is an entirely different issue from having similar gameplay elements anyway.

[Heretic86 14]

Copyright would be aimed at Identical Clones, but similarities are usually allowed. One thing people dont know about Id is they made a lot of money by selling licenses to use their engine to create games. The first Half Life was a heavily modified version of Id's Quake engine. And Valve paid to be able to use that engine, so they wouldnt get sued for just creating another FPS.

 

Either way, it strays off topic from Battle Systems and what can be done to make them "fun".

[+ TBWCS 953]

Hi Heretic, been following your posts 3 years ago as well. As far as I remember, you're from CP as well, right? Anyways, it is very interesting to see that you've been doing reworks for the Frontal Battle System. I would say that it is one of the things that most users / creators would need from getting away with out usual normal battle system. I think Effects is important. What do I mean by effects?

 

We can include Breathing or Moving Effects. When the enemy dies, how is the Collapse Animation or the Death Animation handled? We need to make an improvement. Can we make the battlers realistically? For examples, Bats float, Bassilisks move, Slime oozes, and Man Eating Plants should move when they attack. Such effects can change the aesthetics of the battle which MIGHT make a compelling battle scene.

 

Are dialogues handled in Scene_Battle? I guess, fighting and conversing is also one way to make battles interesting.