Philosophy of Battle Maps

Hi.

I've been talking with my room-mate, as we are both making our own games in RPGmaker XP, and we've been looking at a lot of different battle systems lately, to see which ones best suit our needs. Basically, you've got your final fantasy menu system, and then you've got your zelda weapon attack system.

We've been paying close attention to these because they are the easiest to adapt with the default settings of RPGmaker, although in theory FPS, fighter games, and other systems are possible. FPS games favor snipers and machine guns; fighter games favor martial artists and melee fighters.

The argument goes something like this:

Final fantasy maps privilege the fighter with a sword, because he gets to wear heavy armor and do lots of damage to a monster

an Archer is totally pwned in final fantasy maps because they do less damage, tend to wear weaker armor, and their range advantage is negated

In a zelda map, the archer can typically eradicate monsters from a range, and dodge incoming attacks some of the time, except area effects and auto hits.

in Zelda maps, fighters can't do damage until up close and personal, and despite armor, get punked by area and auto hits (like death spells and explosions).

In Growlanser and Final Fantasy Tactics, there's some counter measures to these two, but I'd like to hear from other people what kinds of strategies you have cooked up or seen in other games to resolve these issues.

Archer's can own basically everyone (provided that you bring a defensive wall like a viking). For example, my group in Final Fantasy III is typically 3 Rangers stuck in the back row, and a Viking with Dual Shields who's just defensive wall.

In games like Fire Emblem, I typically bring my General in to block off all fighters (excluding Pegasus and Wyvern's, but unless they have a Fili Shield they're usually useless). Then I use my Paladins to aggro the enemy and lure them to impeding death with my Snipers + Rangers.

In LOZ, I can basically kill a Dark Nut with Bomb Arrows. That's how crazy I am with a bow (and clawshot, for that matter). In Phantasy Star Portable, I used a bow to eradicate anybody (using my other character as a wall).

So what's my point? Basically, it's this. Provided you have a defensive wall, bowmen can win in any situation, case closed.

You forget that in many of the "Final Fantasy" styled maps, the archer archetype typically has benefits to make up for the lack of pure power and lack of heavy armor (if the armor trend even holds up, many games allow you to equip any armor on any character anyway, meh, w/e). These benefits usually come as some form of increased defense, as those in the backline take less physical damage, party support, or increased resistances.  These are balance issues that developers need to consider in order to make each character appealing. 

On the other hand, you can always create niche roles for the "archers" on these maps. Think of a boss that you kill in sections, and only the archer can hit the boss's eye, stopping it from casting a terrible spell on your party. The archer in this case isn't necessary, but helps the party by fulfilling a role that the typical warrior can't.  Think of things like this as you try to balance your game.

The "Zelda" styled maps is more of a balance between speed and safety.  To be honest, the Zelda games themselves are great examples of this.  For the vast majority of the enemies, you can pick them off with arrows from a distance.  But this takes quite a while, as arrows deal very little damage and if the target is moving, relies on precision timing to get the job done. On the other hand, I can take my sword, hack my way to victory, dodge key attacks.  Yes, the room for error is dramatically reduced.  Anything thrown your way you'll have less time to react to.  But this method is faster.  Speed versus safety.  If your warrior is "getting punked by area and auto hits", you need to either rethink your approach as a player or consider this weakness as a developer when you're balancing your game.

Well one question is wondering why the hell archers are doing less damage, since the trade for range is lack of armor.  You can make them attack more often, or make them able to hinder the enemy with debuffs.

Fighters can do fine in ABS maps, just let them have a block skill.

character classes don't have to be totally balanced, because you can always reduce or increase their xp requirements. But archers and fighters should be balanced, because they are really both just spins on warrior classes.

Changing xp requirements IS a method of balance.  A class that is statistically weaker than another could be considered worthwhile if it advanced faster.  In other words, a level 30 character of a weak class could be considered worthwhile if the rest of the party is around level 20.  This, of course, becomes obsolete in end-game scenarios, but holds true for most of a game.

are there some common links to snippets or something that add robustness to the strategy aspects of the final fantasy style (vs. zelda)?

I'm talking about stuff like front/middle/back weapons to simulate range delays. All I recall these positions doing is changing the % chance of a character being attacked.

The same could apply to spells or other skills, I'm really sure not sure what the best approach is. I just think "range" should be a huge consideration in battle systems.

I've also been toying with the idea of making event sprites capable of exchanging long range attacks with something like an archer or sniper class, and having the battle screen activate when the party is within a certain range, or after inflicting a certain amount of damage.

Then again that crazy growlanser game keeps coming to mind where you can take X number of steps. Still, the ease of access of a splash screen final fantasy (I-VI) style game has severe advantages in some ways even over a tactical game.

What if only "some" effects worked best on the main map but you had a very limited number of effects, and once you got into 'tactical' range (player touch/event touch) you went straight to splash/FF screen?