If you use auto battle on RPGs you should be shot on sight, what's the difference between that and mobile slop?

If you use auto battle on RPGs you should be shot on sight, what's the difference between that and mobile slop?
Not just in picrel, but in any turn-based RPG

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago

    Btw Picrel actually sucks too since why enemy movement exists when positioning absolutely don't matter at all? DQXI is guilty of this too.

    • 5 months ago

      >Picrel actually sucks too since why enemy movement exists when positioning absolutely don't matter at all?
      Have you not played Like a Dragon at all? Most moves and even items care about positioning. From everyone being able to kick loose objects for slight bonus damage while repositioning to doing their attack to Ichiban grabbing nearby objects to use as improvised weapons to centered AoE moves like Ichi's bat swing hitting in a circle around his target to Adachi's bullrush hitting enemies in the path to his target(Nanba's pyro belch has a similar mechanic but smaller size) to grenades and bazookas dealing AoE damage, and enemy positioning is also important because they can attack you while you're running past them if you target someone in the back, meaning you can take chip damage or even be knocked out of your attack depending on who you hit.
      LAD does have some issues related to positioning, but "it doesn't matter" absolutely is not one of them, and from what Infinite Wealth has shown so far, it looks like some of those issues are fixed.

  2. 5 months ago

    I was very disappointed by that game. The classes were not differentiated in any meaningful way.

  3. 5 months ago

    Any game that can be progressed through by making it play itself is not a game.

  4. 5 months ago

    >what's the difference between that and mobile slop?
    Ultima 7, RTWP games in general

  5. 5 months ago

    autobattle has been an option in rpgs since the fricking nes era. why should i need to mash attack to kill enemies when i revisit the beginning of the game? obviously you won't use it against properly strong enemies, but in shit like smt on snes for example, you might fight 3 waves of fodder in a row and you have to give commands to six party members. that would mean hitting attack>target 6 times and then confirm to finish setting up the round for a total of 13 inputs, and then doing that three times for a total of 39 a presses, for a fodder encounter that you shouldn't even need to bother with.
    a lot of games also make the actual combat faster with autobattle too, by displaying less combat text. there's no reason not to use it when it's useful.

  6. 5 months ago

    If the game is so brainless to play that mashing one button is a viable strategy why would i just mindlessly tap tap tap instead of just turning auto on and skipping the pointless chore?
    Make the combat fun enought to not want to skip and people wont skip.

  7. 5 months ago

    >Be Dragon Quest VI
    >Characters have intelligence stats
    >It affects how well they perform while in auto battle
    >By the end of the game they will have enough intelligence to always know the enemy's weakness
    >They will always know just how much MP they need to use to defeat the enemy without waste
    >They are capable of reacting to an enemy's attack, and heal the party in the same turn they take damage instead of having to wait the next turn to take an action
    >Auto battle is more efficient than any human player or AI can hope to be (since it essentially cheats)
    Hate the game, not the player.

    • 5 months ago

      >dragon quest 4 on the NES
      >you cannot directly control party members
      >while the normal warriors and mages do their respective jobs you get a party member who is a merchant
      >he will just run to the enemy and hold their mouths shut to prevent them from casting spells

  8. 5 months ago

    >you should be shot on sight
    But isn't that just auto battle as well?

  9. 5 months ago

    >what's the difference between that and mobile slop
    What you have somehow failed to realize here is that the fault lies with the game, not the player. Just play better games where mashing A (or using auto battle, which is the same in essence) is not a viable option.

  10. 5 months ago

    >complains about a feature the games he himself chose to play have
    Lmao even

    • 5 months ago

      Almost any turn-based rpg has that feature nowadays, and even back then it was quite common

  11. 5 months ago

    If a game even has an option to auto battle they are admitting the combat is so shit that you might as well just watch it happen and have failed at a fundamental part of their game.

  12. 5 months ago

    Don't care about random battles. Bosses are the interesting parts of RPGs so the ability to blaze through shitter enemies doesn't matter to me.

    • 5 months ago

      Most RPGs has a handful of true bosses and they've dozens of hours of just the main story, do you just watch the AI do everything for hours and only play when there's bosses?

  13. 5 months ago

    Then maybe make a decent battle system

  14. 5 months ago

    I love auto battle. It's for people who understand that smashing X is not "gameplay".
    Auto battle lets you do what JRPG is mean to do. Prepare your team and kill mobs without needing to heal for at leaast 20+ battles.
    The FF12 gambit system should have become the standard instead of watered down garbage ARPG combat in a fricking final fantasy game.

    • 5 months ago

      >watching the game play itself is true gameplay

  15. 5 months ago

    >weaken the enemy in such a way that they'll be easily finished off next turn
    >hit auto battle
    >have to turn in my gamer card

  16. 5 months ago

    If your autobattle is
    >everyone uses a normal attack on the first available or random target
    it's shit.
    If your autobattle
    >is a viable alternative to manual entry due to physical speed limitations (Earthbound's menus are slow as shit and if someone is in mortal danger with HP scrolling to zero, selecting auto is THE smart play if your priority is to get them healed up ASAP)
    >programmable AI that acts only as you instruct it do (FFXII)
    >the AI knows foes' strengths/weaknesses and can "point them out" by using attacks that are strong against them (even if their exact choice isn't optimal)
    >can circumvent the limitations of the battle system that is normally available to the player (such as changing to a different selected action in the middle of the command execution phase)
    it's good.
    Autobattle is good when it can be treated as another tool in your kit as opposed to a lazy option that replaces mashing confirm.

  17. 5 months ago

    Make fighting fun and people won't skip tmem.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *