The Battle System that FFXIII introduced and it's Evolution

#21MalakTawusPosted 8/18/2013 12:02:28 PM
Critical-Limit posted...
MalakTawus posted...
The next step should be to adapt LR's battle system with multiple characters, probably adding to this system a gambit system for characters not controlled (plus the ability to change controlled chracter like in Star Ocean).

Something in that direction could be great imo.


Gambit system for teamates I think is a good idea, as long as they don't do a gambit system for the character you're playing.

I also think they could assign formations through a specific button. Say like L2- opens up a formation menu. So if you're fighting a dragon that does Funnel AoE. you can tell your party members to surround the dragon in a circle like formation around it so when it does AoE it only hits one person and not your whole party.

And then you can fight monsters that are only weak from the back for example. have one character hold hate, while the other 2 are sent to the back to deal damage.

And then you can have elements like if your partners are far away from you you gain access to some moves/commands. And if they are close to you you gain some abilities for being near eachother. Making a formation a positive/negative gain and loss of tools to make it very strategic.


I like the way you and I think


My idea is that you make the gambit for ALL the characters (so when you switch between characters during battle, the battle goes on normally), but the characters that you control won't act on its own following his/her gambit, especially since it would meke any sense with this kind of battle system.

About what you said, the part about formations reminds me something seen in Radiata Stories, if you know what i mean.
---
"Remember, you can make anything as idiot-proof as you want, they'll just build a better idiot...."
#22MalakTawusPosted 8/18/2013 12:05:45 PM
KimMohicanTribe posted...
Critical-Limit posted...
Glad we're on the same page now :D


We are. But XV still looks better than all 3 Lightning games combined imo. Dont hurt me >_<


I'm sure i'll also enjoy FFXV's battle system, but i prefer by FAR hybrid systems and for what i have seen so far,LR's system seems a lot cooler than the "KH-like system" that FFXV seems to use.
---
"Remember, you can make anything as idiot-proof as you want, they'll just build a better idiot...."
#23Critical-Limit(Topic Creator)Posted 8/18/2013 2:36:27 PM
MalakTawus posted...
Critical-Limit posted...
MalakTawus posted...
The next step should be to adapt LR's battle system with multiple characters, probably adding to this system a gambit system for characters not controlled (plus the ability to change controlled chracter like in Star Ocean).

Something in that direction could be great imo.


Gambit system for teamates I think is a good idea, as long as they don't do a gambit system for the character you're playing.

I also think they could assign formations through a specific button. Say like L2- opens up a formation menu. So if you're fighting a dragon that does Funnel AoE. you can tell your party members to surround the dragon in a circle like formation around it so when it does AoE it only hits one person and not your whole party.

And then you can fight monsters that are only weak from the back for example. have one character hold hate, while the other 2 are sent to the back to deal damage.

And then you can have elements like if your partners are far away from you you gain access to some moves/commands. And if they are close to you you gain some abilities for being near eachother. Making a formation a positive/negative gain and loss of tools to make it very strategic.


I like the way you and I think


My idea is that you make the gambit for ALL the characters (so when you switch between characters during battle, the battle goes on normally), but the characters that you control won't act on its own following his/her gambit, especially since it would meke any sense with this kind of battle system.

About what you said, the part about formations reminds me something seen in Radiata Stories, if you know what i mean.


yeah that's a given I think I was misunderstood again. what I meant was gambits you assign to a character don't work if you're actively controlling them. So ya you can gambit everyone, but the gambit system won't work while you're in control. That way if your AI needs to do specific commands you can switch to them real quick to make sure they do it right.
#24psicomelitePosted 8/21/2013 9:02:35 AM
It's good to see a topic like this, but I'd like to offer some corrections.

Saying XIII combat was reactionary is mostly false. Aside from obvious exceptions like Tortoising strong attacks, the player generally sets the pace of the battle by understanding or not understanding the game mechanics, how to construct the right paradigms, and how to execute strategies efficiently. Since TC claims to play SSBM competitively, I'm a bit surprised that he/she doesn't recognize (or is unaware of) the potential of the battle system. You get out of it what you put into it, just like any game with real depth.

Saying XIII had no "APM" aspect to it is even less accurate, especially in light of this self-contradiction TC offered:

Which is why MOST people chose auto-combat in XIII because they couldn't take the time to select 6 moves before the gauge filled.

This actually isn't why most people mindlessly auto (they do that because they don't understand the limitations of the AI and/or are incapable of coming up with efficient strategies), but you get my point. The battle system is built on speed. It encourages speed. Unless you are actively engineering a strategy that results in the fastest possible battle time, you are categorically not doing all you could be doing.

I'd also like to quickly point out that you can "cancel" enemy actions in XIII/XIII-2 with stagger interruptions, Vigilance/Curse, and Feral Links, and that physical and area attacks can be evaded with the proper tactics, despite the limitations to positional control. Go watch NCU gameplay where such tactics are absolutely vital to success. But apparently these don't qualify as "thought-provoking" enough.

Regarding the impression that the series is continually refining its mechanics: XIII-2 introduced some interesting features but placed new restrictions on the player and threw balance out the window. XIII was much better balanced.

I am cautiously optimistic that they'll have a better grasp on what they've built this time around, but I would not get my hopes up that they've figured everything out. There are many poor design choices in XIII and even more in XIII-2.

I'm like pretty sure I never died in FFXIII-2, except when I had to solo Caius as Serah in that one moment.

I enjoy it whenever someone mentions this battle because it gives me a reason to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VHKLBG6ntU

Don't understand the strategy here or can't pull this off? You are not a good player.
---
Valfodr Lv. 99 - 4:13
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H7akDZJMEg
#25TheGreatPotatoPosted 8/21/2013 9:13:41 AM(edited)
'It is evolution'? Do the evolution, baby?
---
Dresdenfall is amazing, if you know what I mean :) /wink wink
'I'm really a man.' - MysteryVeil
#26Lelouch71Posted 8/21/2013 1:23:18 PM
I also appreciate the evolution of FFXIII battle system. LR looks like it will be the best of the three unlike a few in this thread I actually like the FFXIII saga battle system along side FFX-2. So yeah I can kind of see this saga being like a prototype for their next battle system for either FFXVI or even FFXVII.
---
"Your arms are too short to box with God!"
#27Critical-Limit(Topic Creator)Posted 8/21/2013 2:58:56 PM
psicomelite posted...
It's good to see a topic like this, but I'd like to offer some corrections.

Saying XIII combat was reactionary is mostly false. Aside from obvious exceptions like Tortoising strong attacks, the player generally sets the pace of the battle by understanding or not understanding the game mechanics, how to construct the right paradigms, and how to execute strategies efficiently. Since TC claims to play SSBM competitively, I'm a bit surprised that he/she doesn't recognize (or is unaware of) the potential of the battle system. You get out of it what you put into it, just like any game with real depth.

Saying XIII had no "APM" aspect to it is even less accurate, especially in light of this self-contradiction TC offered:

Which is why MOST people chose auto-combat in XIII because they couldn't take the time to select 6 moves before the gauge filled.

This actually isn't why most people mindlessly auto (they do that because they don't understand the limitations of the AI and/or are incapable of coming up with efficient strategies), but you get my point. The battle system is built on speed. It encourages speed. Unless you are actively engineering a strategy that results in the fastest possible battle time, you are categorically not doing all you could be doing.

I'd also like to quickly point out that you can "cancel" enemy actions in XIII/XIII-2 with stagger interruptions, Vigilance/Curse, and Feral Links, and that physical and area attacks can be evaded with the proper tactics, despite the limitations to positional control. Go watch NCU gameplay where such tactics are absolutely vital to success. But apparently these don't qualify as "thought-provoking" enough.

Regarding the impression that the series is continually refining its mechanics: XIII-2 introduced some interesting features but placed new restrictions on the player and threw balance out the window. XIII was much better balanced.

I am cautiously optimistic that they'll have a better grasp on what they've built this time around, but I would not get my hopes up that they've figured everything out. There are many poor design choices in XIII and even more in XIII-2.

I'm like pretty sure I never died in FFXIII-2, except when I had to solo Caius as Serah in that one moment.

I enjoy it whenever someone mentions this battle because it gives me a reason to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VHKLBG6ntU

Don't understand the strategy here or can't pull this off? You are not a good player.




lol you completely misunderstood me, I LIKE the battle system and where it's headed.

But I think XIII was too bland, and It IS reactionairy. You don't do ANYTHING in a sense to "pressure" the AI, or set up baits/traps.

It's 100% you watch what's happening, then you react to the situation by changing to the correct corresponding paradigm.

occasionally it is a good idea to cut attacks short for chains, or specifically choose a move for a situation where AoE benefits more than single attack.

But outside of that the APM is low, you aren't asked to execute much.

which is why I like how it's EVOLVING. I believe it's getting better and better.

I also think XIII is just as good as the older games battle wise, the only difference being, they took away some of the simple obvious micro-mechanics(replacing it with auto-battle), and didn't replace it with much.
#28Critical-Limit(Topic Creator)Posted 8/21/2013 3:05:52 PM
when I say reactionary I mean you are reacting, then responding, you're not on the offensive really. Even when you're on the "offensive" you're doing so because you're reacting to the fact that you're safe to do so.


The difference is, in FFXIII you must react instantaneously because the game doesn't wait for you. Where the older games you could go make a sandwhich while you thought about your strategy.
#29tiornysPosted 8/21/2013 5:57:07 PM
Critical-Limit posted...
when I say reactionary I mean you are reacting, then responding, you're not on the offensive really. Even when you're on the "offensive" you're doing so because you're reacting to the fact that you're safe to do so.

If this is where you're taking your definition of "reactionary", what is your definition of "proactive"?
---
http://etrosgate.com/
#30Critical-Limit(Topic Creator)Posted 8/21/2013 6:02:59 PM
tiornys posted...
Critical-Limit posted...
when I say reactionary I mean you are reacting, then responding, you're not on the offensive really. Even when you're on the "offensive" you're doing so because you're reacting to the fact that you're safe to do so.

If this is where you're taking your definition of "reactionary", what is your definition of "proactive"?



Proactive doesn't exist in FFXIII

The monsters never respond to you except maybe the flan that cures his buddies cuz you hurt them. outside of that they don't. You just deal damage and you react, as they do things to you.




Proactive would be like:

In Starcraft say you are doing Terran vs Terran. Tanks vs Tanks in seige mode (super long range.)


You're at a stalemate where if you attack first, the opponent will land first shots. If you retreat, you lose ground.


Proactive would be like me launching a nuclear missle in range of your tanks but leaving my Ghost out of range of your tanks. this would force you to unseige and back out of the nuke range. This gets you out of seige mode, and I can advance, causing you to do a small retreat and lose ground.


That's Proactive. I took control of a situation and made my opponent react to my actions.