• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Can tactical RPGs work without %chance to hit?

V

Venfayth

Member
I'm talking about basically any strategic/tactical RPG that uses a grid and turn based combat, think FF Tactics or XCom or Fire Emblem. Also, I should say I definitely don't have perfect knowledge of this genre so if there is a game that already does this I'd love to hear about it.

To the meat of my question: I hate missing attacks that I set up in advance. I know there's plenty of fundamental design that makes % to hit work as a combat mechanic, but I'm curious to know if you think a game could be effectively balanced in a way that doesn't rely on hit/miss, and how that might work. Whether that means using effective ranges, types-countering-types, or other ways of making combat interesting.

I'm sure there are many people out there who don't mind this as much as I do, I just can't restate how annoying I find going through the process of positioning and planning only to have a 5% chance to miss kneecap everything I'm doing or result in the death of a character.
 
Well, Valkyria Chronicles gives you manual aim and works pretty well, but it still has a lot of stuff that XCOM 2 has, like dodging enemies and range limitations on the weapons.
 
word, I am in the same boat. It isn't a tactical RPG but for example Panzer General: Allied Assault on XBOX360 uses a system of tile bonuses/unit type/ammo/morale/bonus dice to calculate damage with the bonus dice only adding -2 to +2. I think something like that could work with almost any game.
 
First of all, the chance of failure is something you have to integrate into your strategic planning. (I'm not saying it can't be annoying).

Now, as to the question of whether it can work, I do know some systems which make missing completely impossible, but usually they use some type of "glancing blow" mechanic, where you only do a fraction of the damage. I can't readily think of any games of this type in which an action always has a result which is exactly specified.

The closest is Valkyria Chronicles, where a shot lands randomly within a cone influenced by unit stats, and if your target is entirely in that cone that's basically a 100% chance.
 
Valkyria Chronicles handled it well. The bullet will hit anywhere within the crosshair. If the crosshair is 100% over the enemy you have 100% hit chance. It's still percentage but not directly like Fire Emblem or X-COM.

Edit: Beaten.
 
TC McQueen said:
Well, Valkyria Chronicles gives you manual aim and works pretty well, but it still has a lot of stuff that XCOM 2 has, like dodging enemies and range limitations on the weapons.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but ultimately nothing is to chance in Valkyria Chronicles.

Enemies can't dodge if you use stealth and attack them from behind without them noticing you. Unlike XCOM 2's multiple incidents of Squadsight + Concealed + 100% Crit = DODGE; GRAZED, 4 DAMAGE.
 
The Devil Survivor series works pretty well without implicit hit chances, and has a lot of its tactics through use of skills on the battle grid (buffing/debuffing mobility, range, attack, etc.). Then you have the actual skirmishes which have their own skills (for the most part) where you have to plan to hit weaknesses and protect yourself.
 
Durante said:
First of all, the chance of failure is something you have to integrate into your strategic planning. (I'm not saying it can't be annoying).

Now, as to the question of whether it can work, I do know some systems which make missing completely impossible, but usually they use some type of "glancing blow" mechanic, where you only do a fraction of the damage. I can't readily think of any games of this type in which an action always has a result which is exactly specified.

The closest is Valkyria Chronicles, where a shot lands randomly within a cone influenced by unit stats, and if your target is entirely in that cone that's basically a 100% chance.
Click to expand...

Off the top of my head Shining Force doesn't use chance to hit, just that damage occurs within a range.
 
I think the issue you have is a bit of an illusion. It doesn't have much to do with actually missing but with probability itself.

Let's say there is no to hit chance, but all attacks do less damage instead. Furthermore there is a chance for a weak attack as well as a critical attack. In this same scenario, you will never miss but after all the positioning and planning probability can still create a situation where a character dies because you failed to kill that one enemy on the turn before they kill that character. If you landed a normal or critical attack you would have avoided that.
 
Didn't Advance Wars always hit, it was instead just a matter of what % of damage to the unit you would do and the sort of R/P/S style unit matchings that increased or decreased how effective your attack was?
 
Invisible Inc isn't exactly a traditional tactical RPG, but I think it has enough elements of the genre to be included in this discussion. There's absolutely zero RNG in the game when it comes to hit chance - melee, guns, items, or otherwise. It doesn't quite have the sprawl of your XCOMs and Valkyrias, but it offers the same satisfaction (and sometimes greater) on a smaller scale, without any of the "MISSED MISSED MISSED."
 
Without the chance to miss, it makes defensive stats really important. Since it would force very defensive units, gameplay would slow down tremendous. May it be faster with stuff like aggro but that would eliminate PvP. Units also would probably need to be disposable
 
Enduin said:
Didn't Advance Wars always hit, it was instead just a matter of what % of damage to the unit you would do and the sort of R/P/S style unit matchings that increased or decreased how effective your attack was?
Click to expand...

Yeah. damage was constant based on terrain, units, CO's stat modifiers, and who was the attacker/defender.

I imagine the system could be made to work if dragged over to an rpg.
 
Durante said:
First of all, the chance of failure is something you have to integrate into your strategic planning.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely. It's just easy to get in to a groove and forget that 95% doesn't mean it's a sure shot.

Part of the thing that frustrates me with such small miss chances is that it feels like a waste to plan for such a small chance for failure, although obviously it's not if it actually happens. I'm just not the kind of person to play that conservatively, heh.
 
There are two types of SRPGs OP:

The type that use % hit chance as a central mechanic, and those that don't. There are plenty of SRPGs that missing or hitting single attacks both don't have a significant tactical effect and where evasion doesn't come up often unless a character/weapon/the terrain come up. On the other hand you have your fire emblems and Xcom's that basically ask you to plan in such a way that missing one or two attacks doesn't comepletely and utterly screw you over when it's easy for that to be exactly the case.

infinitys_7th said:
The Devil Survivor series works pretty well without implicit hit chances, and has a lot of its tactics through use of skills on the battle grid (buffing/debuffing mobility, range, attack, etc.). Then you have the actual skirmishes which have their own skills (for the most part) where you have to plan to hit weaknesses and protect yourself.
Click to expand...

Devil survivor does have chance to miss, it just doesn't come up very often unless you're using certain inaccurate abilities that do loads of damage. Even then, you're never going to whiff an enemy with every unit of a 3 unit squad. It's in the second category.
 
Totally deterministic tactical combat gets pretty boring, I reckon. Beyond, you know, chess and the like. Invisible Inc. is a bit of an odd one in the equation because it's not really about combat or pitched fights.
 
I used to play FE considering the chance of critical instead of hit. Since most of enemies will hit your character unless you have a class with high speed.

I still remember people complaining to me how FE was unfair because they got a critical hit of 5-10% chance.

I think also hit chance is a good mechanic. An attack has some chance of missing it's target.
 
There was a really good speech by Sid Meier on how high% to hit would cause the most rage.

Fair RNG that isnt swung pro or con is best (aka "Fuck Battle Maison")
 
HaRyu said:
*cough* Chess *cough*
Click to expand...
Advance Wars kind of works similar to chess. Every unit will always hit their opponent, but the difference will always be the damage. Some units have an advantage of another and therefore do more damage to them. So the game centers about doing as much damage as possible, while trying to revise less damage then your opponent through every round.

There is a 'chance'-attribute, but it just makes a difference of 5% of the overall damage (which can be important in the long run and some Generals can boost the value).
 
I was also going to say Frozen Synapse. It's been a while since I played it but it's more or less a rock paper scissor system between assault rifles, snipers, and shotguns. It's highly strategic when you factor in lines of sight, partial cover, and multiple engagements. But there is no % to hit system technically.

I guess it's not really an RPG but it is a turn based strategy game, so it's close.
 
SatelliteOfLove said:
There was a really good speech by Sid Meier on how high% to hit would cause the most rage.

Fair RNG that isnt swung pro or con is best (aka "Fuck Battle Maison")
Click to expand...

It depends on the game. For example: nobody rages about Disgaea's generally high chance to hit. It wouldn't work with Xcom, though, especially if it were fair and enemies just rofl stomp you.
 
SephLuis said:
I used to play FE considering the chance of critical instead of hit. Since most of enemies will hit your character unless you have a class with high speed.

I still remember people complaining to me how FE was unfair because they got a critical hit of 5-10% chance.

I think also hit chance is a good mechanic. An attack has some chance of missing it's target.
Click to expand...

5-10% critical chance on an enemy unit? Might as well be 100%.
 
Miker said:
Invisible Inc isn't exactly a traditional tactical RPG, but I think it has enough elements of the genre to be included in this discussion. There's absolutely zero RNG in the game when it comes to hit chance - melee, guns, items, or otherwise. It doesn't quite have the sprawl of your XCOMs and Valkyrias, but it offers the same satisfaction (and sometimes greater) on a smaller scale, without any of the "MISSED MISSED MISSED."
Click to expand...

I came in here to say this. Invisible, Inc. solves this head-on by displacing randomness and non-determinism to other elements of the game (notably map and item generation). The actual engagements come purely down to skill, positioning, and understanding the enemy/vision mechanics.

Both Code Name: STEAM and SteamWorld Heist, both excellent games, replace hit chance with the skill-based challenge of manually aiming at distant or wobbling targets, but critical chance still plays a role in those titles even when you fire at an enemy's hotspot.

You have to remember that the point of RNG is to prevent the emergence of perfect, optimal, copied-from-the-walkthrough solutions and actually make you strategize situationally. If something else does the job as well as or better than hit chance, I will take it.
 
I'm currently developing a Fire Emblem style SRPG without probabilities. Hit rate just gets multiplied with the damage dealt instead of a dice roll. I may give the option to turn randomisation on (the system is implemented to allow for that), but the default will certainly be not to have any randomness. From my perspective it works well, though I will have some events that are triggered by not conveniently observable variables, which still depend entirely on the way the player plays. Of course, as a developer myself (and solely responsible for the gameplay system) my opinion on that may be skewed a lot. I guess when the game is finished and I get it into some reviewers hands I can see if it is acceptable for people.
 
duckroll said:
I think the issue you have is a bit of an illusion. It doesn't have much to do with actually missing but with probability itself.

Let's say there is no to hit chance, but all attacks do less damage instead. Furthermore there is a chance for a weak attack as well as a critical attack. In this same scenario, you will never miss but after all the positioning and planning probability can still create a situation where a character dies because you failed to kill that one enemy on the turn before they kill that character. If you landed a normal or critical attack you would have avoided that.
Click to expand...

I think I get what you're saying, that having bad luck in a game that isn't deterministic but still has rng will still give you a bad result. I think I'd be ok with that. Some of the alternatives here sound interesting though. Valkyria Chronicles' scope aim mechanic sounds interesting and Advance Wars sounds like it's doing the thing I'm talking about.

I think if the game is deterministic it just becomes a puzzle game, which I don't want.

Ultimately my aversion seems mostly to just having what seems like an advantageous situation swing in a wildly unexpected way.
 
QuixoticNeutral said:
I came in here to say this. Invisible, Inc. solves this head-on by displacing randomness and non-determinism to other elements of the game (notably map and item generation). The actual engagements come purely down to skill, positioning, and understanding the enemy/vision mechanics.

Both Code Name: STEAM and SteamWorld Heist, both excellent games, replace hit chance with the skill-based challenge of manually aiming at distant or wobbling targets, but critical chance still plays a role in those titles even when you fire at an enemy's hotspot.
Click to expand...
In Code Name: STEAM critical hits come alone from position. In the beginning aiming and knowledge of the weak spots are similar important, but at the end only position to actually have line of sight to the spot is what matters. The game just disguises it as an skill-based challenge (what fits the tune and overall presentation of the game).
 
the creatures in heroes of might and magic have 100% hit chance. but a few creatures do have abilities that give them a chance to dodge the attack
 
I haven't played it but Telepath Tactics more closely resembles a traditional SRPG than Invisible Inc and doesn't use dice rolls for combat. The developer explains why in the first bullet point on this list: http://sinisterdesign.net/6-reasons-to-pay-attention-to-telepath-tactics/

I can't agree with output randomness being a "cheap trick" entirely but it is an interesting approach, especially when every game in the genre is now expected to have dice roll mechanics.
 
Metal B said:
In Code Name: STEAM critical hits come alone from position. In the beginning aiming and knowledge of the weak spots are similar important, but at the end only position to actually have line of sight to the spot is what matters. The game just disguises it as an skill-based challenge (what fits the tune and overall presentation of the game).
Click to expand...

Not when you use weapons that spread. I suppose it's strictly positional in its own way, but not something controllable with pinpoint precision by the player.
 
Yeah, I'd rather have them be more similar to chess than rely on critical hits and randomness. Not a fan of randomness in any strategy game really.
 
The annoyance I feel is also significantly less when things go poorly in a situation where it is obviously poor odds. If I'm taking a 50% shot in xcom - I'm mentally prepared for it to go wrong. Whereas if I'm taking a 95% shot in xcom - I'm expecting it to go positively. I think I'd be fine with a system where %chance to hit only apply in very telegraphed situations with heavy odd swings. Minor odd swings are the annoying part.
 
Really not a fan of the crit chance in FE, especially since it's x3 damage. It's a huge swing that's hard to weather without getting killed. Most units can only take maybe 2-3 hits from an enemy of around the same level, so a enemy crit means there's a good chance you just die.

At least when you're fighting with or against myrmidons and other high crit classes you can account for it, but when a regular guy crits you off of a 2% chance it just sucks.

EDIT: Hit chance is a bit different. There's an element of thinking on your feet and making calculated risks. Doing the same with crit chance layered on top of that, and ALSO having it be something generally infrequent enough that it feels like a fluke, is something I'm not a fan of.

EDIT2:
Venfayth said:
The annoyance I feel is also significantly less when things go poorly in a situation where it is obviously poor odds. If I'm taking a 50% shot in xcom - I'm mentally prepared for it to go wrong. Whereas if I'm taking a 95% shot in xcom - I'm expecting it to go positively. I think I'd be fine with a system where %chance to hit only apply in very telegraphed situations with heavy odd swings. Minor odd swings are the annoying part.
Click to expand...

Basically this. It do find myself not really tempering my expectations for the odds in all cases though, haha. Queue that Awkward zombie comic where the enemy hits with a 40% chance and it's bullshit, and you miss with only a 60% chance to hit and it's also bullshit.
 
Chezzymann said:
Yeah, I'd rather have them be more similar to chess than rely on critical hits and randomness. Not a fan of randomness in any strategy game really.
Click to expand...

Ditto. Which isn't to say that randomness is completely bad, but in the extreme cases, it's frustrating. Like in X-COM, missing a 95% chance from next to a guy is dumb.

The excitement from a strategy game shouldn't be from your fate being decided by a dice roll. It should be from your opponent out thinking you. But making an AI out think the player is difficult so leave it to good old chance to make things interesting.
 
QuixoticNeutral said:
l
You have to remember that the point of RNG is to prevent the emergence of perfect, optimal, copied-from-the-walkthrough solutions and actually make you strategize situationally. If something else does the job as well as or better than hit chance, I will take it.
Click to expand...
Random enemy selection/placement for each mission and procedurally generated terrain (within set limitations and rules of course).

Rely on manual aiming and unit positioning. This doesn't mean that skirmishes will be nothing but perfect shot after perfect shot. You can always play with different elements such as armor attributes, status effects, soldier abilities and affinities, bullet types, smoke and flash bombs, etc... for real-time battlefield manipulation.

As someone who's playing through XCOM 2, I've seen how ugly things can get when the RNG gods turn the other cheek :(
 
OniBarubary said:
I wouldn't dislike them so much if they were EVER FUCKING ACCURATE

95% chance to hit my fucking ass
Click to expand...

The problem is that players' intuitive understanding of probability is exceptionally poor. 95% sounds really high until you consider that 5% is one in twenty. Now think about how many shots you are taking every turn, and over how many turns, on a single XCOM map. You should expect a few misses.

Fire Emblem actually corrects for this by fudging the numbers behind the scenes in the player's favour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Can we live in a world without Xbox?
Drama  2 3
122
324
Hector Hall replied
  • Poll
RPGs from my backlog
20
548
PeteBull replied
Atari Acquires Rights to the Legendary Wizardry RPGs
0
153
falconhoof replied
WARDOGS - Tactical Depth & Teamplay Deep Dive
9
279
TwinB242 replied
Time to stop buying and hit the backlog
2 3
119
335
consoul replied
Top Bottom