By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - FFXV Combat System Explained UPDATED With more info and images

Stolen from Gaf, which was stolen from the patent office (yes, square patented this combat system) filed sept 11,2014

ANALYSIS
(Note: I found the technical wording confusing and a bit hard. The text bellow is just my interpretation of it, and I have no idea how accurate is it compared to what it's being said).

1. Technical details on Auto-Attacking

[0008] (...) it is difficult for a player unfamiliar with an input operation of a command to operate the input operation and it thus becomes difficult to complete a requested command input within a predetermined period of time. (...)

In other words, the director thinks that casual players are slow to react to complicated input situations (complex combo buttons or massive command lists in menus), and this hurts their enjoyment of the game.

Tabata seems to be aware of how streamlining might make for a shallow experience to more advanced players, though:

[0009] On the other hand, in a case where a simple command input is to be required, there is a fear that it causes interest of a player, who is familiar with an input operation of a command, in a video game to be lowered.

And then it goes on to say:

[0010] Namely, it is desired to provide a video game processing apparatus that carries out an input request of a command and determination of input completion so that a player unfamiliar with an input operation of a command can readily complete an input operation while maintaining difficulty of an input operation by a player familiar with an input operation of a command.

In other words, inputting commands should be easy and straightforward for casual players, BUT it should still retain some intricacies to provide a challenge to the advanced player.

[0012] up to [0018]

From what I'm getting, a predetermined command should show up on the screen, and upon player's input (press of a button), it would verify (within a timer, more on this later) how many times the input occured. This seems to be the base for the "hold to attack/ defend" design philosophy, and possibly even opens doors for charging magic (the mechanisms are certainly there). There seems to exist a mechanic in place that might cap how high that number can go.

All this would happen under a timer. As stated, within the timer, the game would verify how many times the input ocurred after a button press, but it would also verify if the button was even pressed in the first place. The condition to trigger the timer is, as vaguely written, "set up by the game". This implies that additional actions might be available through other means, before or regardless of a button press, and once available, the player would have a specific time window to pull them off. This is probably reserved, I guess, to all kinds of contextual commands. 

The "number of input actions ocurred within a timer" is heavily emphasized and detailed in the document, so I assume it's going to be very important. It is said, more than once, that this is how they plan to make button pressing challenging to the advanced player while keeping it simple for the casual player. My guess is that we should expect some intrincacies here to make it more complex than just "hold and watch it unfold", or else, the intention behind it to challenge the more advanced player wouldn't make sense. (Maybe holding for a longer time does not always translates to a superior effect? Maybe holding it for a longer time makes you more vulnerable to attacks, unless you interrupt your combo to avoid the attacks?)

[0023] (...) it is preferable that the command receiver receives a command from each of a plurality of players (...)

Interestingly, it seems like it's being designed to handle more than one player, when input from different players occurs.

2. "Gambit" System and Positional Actions

Based on the images available, one of them shows a list of actions + conditions that greatly resembles FFXII's gambit system. On the right side, you have types of actions (Boomerang, Spell A, Spell B, etc). On the left side, you have conditions based on character's positioning (how close or far they are).

Apparently, moving around the battlefield changes/ determines your skillset.

There's another image with a list of examples for positional conditions. "Nearest from player character", "Nearest from allied character", "Farthest from (...)", "In contact with (...)", etc. FFXII had some gambits like that, too, but this one is greatly expanded to the point that it can determine if characters are within 3m or 10m of distance of each other.

The following image gives examples of action methods. "Close attack with sword", "Distant attack with boomerang", "Attack Spell B", etc. I assume that when pressing the button to attack, if the character is far from the enemy, will make the character automatically switch to/ usa a ranged weapon, or at least if specified in a gambit-ish system.

Then, it is shown that the positional condition + attack method "gambits" are priotized exactly as they are in FFXII. Top rows have priority over bottom rows.

In fig 8. and fig 9. the combat flow is shown in the following order:
1) player's sights on enemy;
2) attack instruction (I assume this is when the player can manually press the attack button, if they want to);
3 & 4) specify positional relationship and attack method (AKA, verifies which "gambit" to use);
5) execute attack;

About this figure, the document states that a "control section" occurs within it, right alongside a timer to pull off the command. (It says that there's a time limit of 8 seconds).

[0081](...) notify the player A that it is input timing of the command corresponding to the specific process and of its input time.

This seems to confirm that gambit-driven actions are manually triggered by the player.

ALTERNATE ANALYSIS

According to the patent, the game has an Attack Method Setting Screen (like FFXII gambits), which looks like the following: (This screen can be opened before battle or mid battle by pressing a button)



These conditions/methods are separated in to two:
1. Positional Condition
2. Attack Method

The stuff on the left are positional conditions (eg - less than 3m from Player Character), while the stuff on the right are attack conditions (eg - close attack with Axe). When you want to change these conditions, you click on say "3m from Player Character", and the list of Positional Conditions pop up. This list looks something like below. Same goes for an attack list.




Also, some other notes on these conditions:

  • New Positional and Attack Conditions may be unlocked as the the character levels, buys new equipment or the game progress
  • The amount of Conditions may be increased as the character levels, buys new equipment or the game progress
  • There are priorities for these set conditions, and top condition has the highest priority
  • Manual targeting of enemies (with R1 or L1) can over-ride these priorities
  • The conditions, along with being distance based, can also be directional, like attacking enemies from the front or back


Also came across something that sounded promising for action button mashing fans :P



Around the Network

I don't see how this explains anything... It's all nothing more than a bunch of assumptions. -__-



I've never actually played with the gambit system, but it looks like they're ridiculously overthinking this. Dissidia had tight and easy controls and was actually designed to work on a technically inferior input, at least compared to the DS4 or the One's controller. And yet they're worried about input queueing and combat macros? That's just great. The thing enemies needed the most in Final Fantasy was MORE health so routine enemies take a long time to beat. Enemies have such high health we have to use macros to beat them. Fantastic imagination, S-E.

I really hope I'm reading this wrong, because that looks terrible.



I'll be honest. I didn't understand shit.



"I've Underestimated the Horse Power from Mario Kart 8, I'll Never Doubt the WiiU's Engine Again"

Hynad said:

I don't see how this explains anything... It's all nothing more than a bunch of assumptions. -__-

This is all taken from a patent SquareEnix recently put to the NA patent office. A combat/control system for an RPG. It also goes in hand with what tabata has been saying in a lot of interviews and explains how in hell they can pull off some of the stuff we have been seeing on those trailers.

This is nothing like assumptions, this is actually the most accurate description we have of the combat system so far. 



Around the Network

I'm counting on you, Persona 5. Please deliver.



Intrinsic said:
Hynad said:

I don't see how this explains anything... It's all nothing more than a bunch of assumptions. -__-

This is all taken from a patent SquareEnix recently put to the NA patent office. A combat/control system for an RPG. It also goes in hand with what tabata has been saying in a lot of interviews and explains how in hell they can pull off some of the stuff we have been seeing on those trailers.

This is nothing like assumptions, this is actually the most accurate description we have of the combat system so far. 


All I see is a bunch of maybes and ifs. The patent doesn't go into the specifics and the guys from GAF are only trying to extrapolate on the vagueness of the explanations from that patent and you're passing those as facts. That's a big no for me. 



Egann said:

I've never actually played with the gambit system, but it looks like they're ridiculously overthinking this. Dissidia had tight and easy controls and was actually designed to work on a technically inferior input, at least compared to the DS4 or the One's controller. And yet they're worried about input queueing and combat macros? That's just great. The thing enemies needed the most in Final Fantasy was MORE health so routine enemies take a long time to beat. Enemies have such high health we have to use macros to beat them. Fantastic imagination, S-E.

I really hope I'm reading this wrong, because that looks terrible.

You have to first understand what the gambit system aimed to do.

There are a lot of redundant comands you have to do in your typical final fantasy game. A lot of menu shuffling. You actually spend more time going through menus than actually playing the game. What FF12 aimed to do was automate a lot of those commands. So basically, instead of having to shuffle through menues to select cure whenever a characters life was under 20%, you just set a gambit for that and which ever supporting character you assigned that gambit to will cast sure automatically. You only have to worry about casting cure when that character is killed.

FF15 seems to be taking that even further and fine tuning the feild or context of gambit activation. This is why tabata said "its about movement and positioning" in one of his interviews. Gambits can be fine tuned in relation of the distance of a character from an enemy or an ally. In addition to this, gambits are set for the main character too, so you set gambits for what kinda attacks you do and at what range and with what kinda button prompt. This way, you can set a gambit for exactly what kinda attack chain you pull off if attacking an enemy from the rear, or if attacking a group of enemies while next to an ally.



I've played FFXII and wasn't impressed with its Gambit system. Too much of the game doing the work for you instead of the game encouraging you to use your brain. Yeah... I'm going to be relying Atlus, Nippon Ichi, Gust, Level-5, and others to satiate my thirst for JRPGs with strategic battle systems.



Hynad said:
Intrinsic said:
Hynad said:

I don't see how this explains anything... It's all nothing more than a bunch of assumptions. -__-

This is all taken from a patent SquareEnix recently put to the NA patent office. A combat/control system for an RPG. It also goes in hand with what tabata has been saying in a lot of interviews and explains how in hell they can pull off some of the stuff we have been seeing on those trailers.

This is nothing like assumptions, this is actually the most accurate description we have of the combat system so far. 


All I see is a bunch of maybes and ifs. The patent doesn't go into the specifics and the guys from GAF are only trying to extrapolate on the vagueness of the explanations from that patent and you're passing those as facts. That's a big no for me. 

I don't think its complicated. This all makes sense. It is very much in tune with what has been said by Tabata about the game so far. Yes the patents don't paint the whole picture... but it does put a lot in perspective.