Random encounters

[Sathor]

It makes sense that early random encounters in the wild are the usual bandits, wild life attacking and what not but wouldn't it be nice if there were some more challenging encounters later in the game. Eg. you could have your party discovering another party fighting an Arch demon and decide whether or not to side with the demon or the adventurers.

 

Hopefully there will be lots of really hard tactical fights in the game.

 

//Sathor

[NerdBoner]

i want fallout 1 style crazy random encounters...

Edited September 26, 2012 by NerdBoner

[norolim]

Excellent idea with the other party and a demon. I would also like to see some non-combat random encounters in the wild.

[Aedelric]

i want fallout 1 style crazy random encounters...

 

Crazy within reason I hope, personally I would rather not find the Tardis during an encounter.

[Piccolo]

"More challenging encounters later in the game"?

 

I hate level-scaling.

 

If you're going to have random encounters in the game, make them truly random. I should be able to encounter things my character or party just can't handle at lower levels.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Piccolo

[Valorian]

Random encounters are fun, but I'd like the option to avoid them without making XP in the process. I enjoy travelling around the world map, exploring new places.. but I don't want (endless) random encounters to inflate my party's XP as I'm doing so. I'd only tackle the unique ones.

[Bill Gates' Son]

I would love to see a lot of random encounters similar to what's in fallout 2 and fallout New Vegas Not for just finding rare loot or fighting monsters, but we can also have some encounters that show Easter eggs, references to other games, or even random merchants to buy equipment from.

Edited September 26, 2012 by Bill Gates' Son

[kjrubberducky]

"More challenging encounters later in the game"?

 

I hate level-scaling.

 

If you're going to have random encounters in the game, make them truly random. I should be able to encounter things my character or party just can't handle at lower levels.

A way around this is to link difficulty with geography. Main roads and habitable areas have bandits, the edges of the wilderness have wildlife like wolves and bears, and the deep wilderness is where the crazy and challenging encounters happen. So not truly random, just random within a set.

[Piccolo]

A way around this is to link difficulty with geography. Main roads and habitable areas have bandits, the edges of the wilderness have wildlife like wolves and bears, and the deep wilderness is where the crazy and challenging encounters happen. So not truly random, just random within a set.

I'm fine with that, as long as the player isn't restricted in any way from wandering off into some of the more dangerous areas early on in the game.

[Bos_hybrid]

Yes. But in moderation, if every time the party moves to a different area they get waylaid, I won't be happy.

[Sathor]

Yeah I hate level scaling as well, there should be a blood bath if you stumble upon a demi lich in the early game (like in bg2) but since this is specifically random encounters they could be handled so that certain encounters unlock after a certain point in the story line is reached or at specific geographic points as mentioned.

[Gelp]

I like regional scaling if done without breaking immersion. Big nasty bandits don't show up near the Imperial capitol because it's frequently patrolled. But man, if you head out to the wilds you can get curb stomped.

 

Level scaling is okay if they do it very subtly, but it's hard to pull off. BG II did level scaling pretty good, imo.

 

I like my random encounters to be fairly random, but not completely crazy. I also like the idea of having random encounters that aren't necessarily fights. Remember the caravans and whatnot you could run into in fallout?

[Lohi]

I never liked the "roll a dice to see if you travel uneventfully or not". Though in some games you sort of need that to get some more money/bullets/arrows/XP.

 

In BG1 you travel to your destination with game maps, in BG2 there's a lot of land you just bypass as not worth creating a map for, in Fallout you travel to destination with a dotted arrow until you get there or you have an encounter. Each style would want different sorts of rules. If you've got the BG1 style with the entire game world mapped out then random encounters don't make sense, though of course you might want respawning or NPCs that move around. For Fallout style you need to move around to discover stuff, and if you did not have random encounters then the player could just zig-zag around to discover everything with no danger. For BG2 it's in the middle, you don't need to discover new locations by exploring the interstitial areas, so random encounters can be added or removed without much effect.

[Ancoron]

yes please random encounters can be alot of fun when they are not just about fighting.

There should be some crazy stuff like time travelers or portals to different regions or

just some crazy cultist trying to sacrificing someone.

[Merin]

I'm not personally a fan of random encounters, especially if they happen too frequently and make traveling a pain.

 

It's not a deal-breaker for me if they are included, but I've rarely felt they've added anything to my game - save the specially scripted encounters that happen randomly.

 

And there's a distinction - randomly generated, never-ending random encounters is my concern. Scripted, unique encounters that happen at random times - that's fine with me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If there's a resting mechanic, I'd like to see the inclusion of random encounters that can interrupt resting, but aside from that I'd be content with only scripted encounters.

[lolaldanee]

random encounters are one of the most stupid things ever introduced to video games

simply

Edited September 26, 2012 by lolaldanee

[Volourn]

No.

[jtav]

They're fine in moderation. But if I'm stopped several times trying to get from A to B and one of those encounters includes a pack of enemies way above my level, something has gone wrong.

[Crusty]

Random encounters can be fun. But I wouldn't like them to come across too often if I can help it, nor would I like random encounters to be combat based only. What I would like is to have a variety of encounters that are generated/scripted around your choices and the events going on in the world.

 

I.E - you kill a Bandit Leader who has been terrorizing the countryside as part of a questline to gain reputation = no more or much weaker random bandit encounters in the region. Or if a city gets wiped out as part of the story, you can have random encounters with the refugees, etc.

 

If we have map travel that allows direct control (instead of clicking on a location on a list and automatically travelling there), what you could have is a system where travelling the main roads sharply reduces the amount of random combat encounters and running off into the hinterlands increases your random combat encounter rate. It would also give more leeway for more varied higher level random encounters, as you'd basically have to go looking for them.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Crusty

[Gatt9]

random encounters are one of the most stupid things ever introduced to video games

simply

 

So you think it's better to have vast areas of land devoid of life?

 

Random encounters exist because in an RPG, it's modeling an entire world, and you're not alone in it.

[Sensuki]

I assume there will be some kind of random encounter system because they said they are going to make some skills related to getting around the world map more efficiently (avoiding encounters, increasing travel distance etc).

[Gorth]

Crossing fingers and hoping for Storm of Zehir type map (and by extension, encounter) system.

[AwesomeOcelot]

If there's a world map system, I like the idea that some areas are more dangerous and liable for ambush than others, like the Medieval 2: Total War Campaign Map. Also I'd like forms of travel like ship and caravan that are safe, but cost. Random encounters are great, the ones in Fallout were interesting, but the party should be able to avoid large forces, so they should not be forced into encounters they can't flee from unless ambushed. This might make faction play better, because factions could control roads.

[Piccolo]

random encounters are one of the most stupid things ever introduced to video games

simply

 

So you think it's better to have vast areas of land devoid of life?

 

Random encounters exist because in an RPG, it's modeling an entire world, and you're not alone in it.

The idea of random encounters is good... but the implementation hasn't always been great in video games.

 

When not done right (which is often the case) they can come across as too scripted, or often repetitive... which actually harms world believability.