TURN BASED combat in Deadfire?!

[abocstark]

I was trying out the turn-based combat mode on a new character, and I ran into two minor bugs. First, my characters just kind of randomly blurt out variations of "I can't do that". And second, entering scout mode seems to put me in fast mode. I've attached a brief video showcasing them. These are minor, I'll admit, but annoying all the same.

[Sayne]

I really really really just hope that they don't abandon the true game, which is a Baldur's Gate successor... which means RTwP.  

I tried the turn-based and I got the same feeling as always when I try D:OS or ToEE or any game like that:  This is plodding and takes forever, and just feels silly. 

Edited January 25, 2019 by Sayne

[Wormerine]

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.

 

It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! 

[kanisatha]

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

Sure. 'Cause you said so.

 

By definition doing things sequentially is inferior to and less complex than doing things simultaneously.

[kanisatha]

 

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.

 

It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! 

D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming.

[protopersona]

 

 

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.

 

It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! 

D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming.

 

Not really. At best the move from PnP to CRPGs trade strengths for other strengths.

 

PnP is still the king of narrative and player agency. Players are able to have real, tangible effects and changes on the worlds they play in. They can build a legacy. They also have almost complete freedom to do anything they can justify in the limited rules set, and maybe more if the DM is feeling generous. As you pointed out, the trade off is the needed abstraction of turns to control the utter chaos that various situations would devolve into.

 

CRPGs can get rid of the needed abstractions of turn based combat. They can also show you visually what is going on, not just describe it with words and figures. But you are limited to only what the designer can envision and implement. Generally once you are done playing a game there no option to continue in that setting as a new player, dealing with the repercussions of your previous characters impact on the world.

 

One method is not inferior to the other, they simply have different appeals.

Edited January 25, 2019 by protopersona

[Saito Hikari]

A few more observations.

 

- Cipher Ectopsychic Echo says it only lasts one turn, but it actually inflicts damage twice: once during activation, and again at the start of the Cipher's next turn. It's a bit harder to use in comparison to its RTwP counterpart (where it can inflict damage as either of the two characters move and enemies enter its area of effect), but inflicts more damage faster. Total of anywhere between 90-180 damage on average on hits, assuming both attacks hit, from what I've observed.
- Currently, there appears to be rather absurd breakpoints where buffs and afflictions are reduced or increased in duration. For 2 turn buffs, presumably dropping your Intellect to 1 reduces the duration to 1 round, while you need to boost your Intellect to 20 to increase the duration to 3 rounds. This may need some major rebalancing.

Edited January 25, 2019 by Saito Hikari

[Archaven]

 

Me, I dunno. I already run every battle on the slowest speed and plenty of pausing, so turn-based might be my bag. We'll see.

I basically spam spacebar constantly, but there's still a pretty huge difference between rtwp and turn-based to me. I'll probably give it a try once just to see it myself.

 

I hope this really does help boost sales/attach rate a bit, since that's the justification for working on this feature.

I like the idea of semi real time? This is what I did. Set auto pause every 6s. I still enjoy the real time benefits of attack speed, triggers chance and still managing the battle without space spam.

 

What I see is that TB take away elements of attack speed and chance to trigger.

[Cartoons Plural]

 

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

Sure. 'Cause you said so.

 

By definition doing things sequentially is inferior to and less complex than doing things simultaneously.

 

 

ah cool its the 90s again

[Franknstein]

If you saw a ninja then what you saw was a bad ninja

 

There is no such thing as a bad ninja, they are perfection incarnate! It was a finishing show off move by the ninja, to inspire awe and fear in the witnesses, left alive only to spread the tale!

 

But I personally prefer the zombie-pirate-ninjas. The pink pajamas clan. They are posh.

[juanval]

I'm not going to play Turn Based because I like RtwP, but, I'm glad to see that the general impressions of people who have played TB are possitive. Furthermore, I'm reading commentaries on different sites, of people who want to play Deadfire for the first time encouraged by the turn based combat.

[IndiraLightfoot]

 

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.

 

It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! 

 

Yeah, if there's anything that makes you get them tabletop feelz, it's this^! I haven't got around to try it yet, but I'm really looking forward to taking on PoE2 in turn-based mode, taking my time and enjoying abilities and spells in something that resemble our flipping through some PnP manual.

Edited January 25, 2019 by IndiraLightfoot

[Night Stalker]

There is now a dedicated forum for feedback on the Beta version of the Turn-Based combat.

[Wormerine]

 

 

I like the idea of semi real time? This is what I did. Set auto pause every 6s. I still enjoy the real time benefits of attack speed, triggers chance and still managing the battle without space spam.

 

What I see is that TB take away elements of attack speed and chance to trigger.

I do think Turn-Based more naturally bring attention to game mechanics. Having to commit to every swing makes me pay much closer attention to what I do, and what other possibilities are, while in real-time it's easy to keep doing the wrong thing, either by not noticing something, or being just too lazy.

 

A 5% chances to trigger should be fairly useless and less attacks will be performed. If items haven't been rebalanced for turn-based mode yet, I hope it is something Obsidian will look into once the data starts flowing. I also do like how dualwielding simply results in dual attack. It might be a bit too powerful (just calculating in head, how it was just slighly faster in RTwP - maybe a minus to accuracy on off hand?), but it's more natural I think than having reduced recovery. 

[algroth]

 

 

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

 

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.

It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! 

D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming.

Whilst I agree with the other poster that mentions both PnP and videogames having their own strengths and limitations, I also agree with the overall point here. TTRPGs, at least the likes of DnD and its offspring as far as I'm aware, are largely driven by the act of speech and performsnce, and by consequence the information always had to be delivered sequentially, not simultaneously. In terms of combat, it *has* to be developed a move at a time as everyone can't just shout their moves on the spot at the same time and hope the rest to follow what is happening and what everyone is doing and respond adequately. Videogame as a medium removes the need to render actions and situations into words - why not show them instead - and so it allows for several actions to occur or be depicted simultaneously. For TTRPGs the turn-based system is a necessity whereas for videogames it is not, and hence you cannot assume that just because a tabletop source has turn-based combat it is also the ideal or superior form for its videogame adaptation. They're not the same systems working within tge same mediums and boundaries and shouldn't strive to necessarily be alike.

 

Now with regards to RTwP as applied to the IE games I do feel many of its worst aspects are leftovers from the TT experience directly shoehorned into the videogame medium. But already Pillars, and Deadfire since, have been designed not as duplicates or representations of tabletop systems but systems built specifically for a videogame - it's why Josh has largely altered systems, combat and so on for the TT PoE. Already these games flow much smoother and feel more intuitive and rewarding as RTwP experiences over tgeir predecessors. It's a mistake to assume the system in these games was "made to be turn-based", it's certainly a departure from that and I'm sure the TB mode on Deadfire is likely to be wildly different than its RTwP experience.

 

Personally I do far prefer RTwP combat to TB in general - I find it way more immersive and intuitive, whilst the pacing doesn't feel anywhere as clunky. But that's me of course. If you prefer TB instead then you do you - though I don't see why we have to go ahead and behave like utter asshats with all the "sorry fans, what I prefer is superior" remarks. Don't be a ****, seriously.

 

(Written from my phone so apologies for any typos)

[mjahkal]

 

 

 

Well I just completed the very first encounter of the game in turn based mode. I'm sorry to all of you that love RTwP but this is far superior. I hope they include it in all the new isometric games they make as well.

That is something to be said about stat/roll based combat and a turn based system giving player time and space to analyze the situation and choose the best tools for the job.

It's like D&D was designed to be turn-based or something! 

D&D, like any and all other pnp games, was not 'designed' to be turn based but rather *had* to be turn based because that is the only way you can do things with a bunch of people seated around a table. It is a limitation of pnp gaming, and the point of progressing to computer gaming is to overcome the limitations and weaknesses of pnp gaming.

Whilst I agree with the other poster that mentions both PnP and videogames having their own strengths and limitations, I also agree with the overall point here. TTRPGs, at least the likes of DnD and its offspring as far as I'm aware, are largely driven by the act of speech and performsnce, and by consequence the information always had to be delivered sequentially, not simultaneously. In terms of combat, it *has* to be developed a move at a time as everyone can't just shout their moves on the spot at the same time and hope the rest to follow what is happening and what everyone is doing and respond adequately. Videogame as a medium removes the need to render actions and situations into words - why not show them instead - and so it allows for several actions to occur or be depicted simultaneously. For TTRPGs the turn-based system is a necessity whereas for videogames it is not, and hence you cannot assume that just because a tabletop source has turn-based combat it is also the ideal or superior form for its videogame adaptation. They're not the same systems working within tge same mediums and boundaries and shouldn't strive to necessarily be alike.

 

Now with regards to RTwP as applied to the IE games I do feel many of its worst aspects are leftovers from the TT experience directly shoehorned into the videogame medium. But already Pillars, and Deadfire since, have been designed not as duplicates or representations of tabletop systems but systems built specifically for a videogame - it's why Josh has largely altered systems, combat and so on for the TT PoE. Already these games flow much smoother and feel more intuitive and rewarding as RTwP experiences over tgeir predecessors. It's a mistake to assume the system in these games was "made to be turn-based", it's certainly a departure from that and I'm sure the TB mode on Deadfire is likely to be wildly different than its RTwP experience.

 

Personally I do far prefer RTwP combat to TB in general - I find it way more immersive and intuitive, whilst the pacing doesn't feel anywhere as clunky. But that's me of course. If you prefer TB instead then you do you - though I don't see why we have to go ahead and behave like utter asshats with all the "sorry fans, what I prefer is superior" remarks. Don't be a ****, seriously.

 

(Written from my phone so apologies for any typos)

 

 

I always love rude posts telling people not to be rude.  I have been following this closely because, like most older people who hold TT to be their first love, I feel that RTwP is a bizarre abortion designed to dilute and spoon feed complicated tactical decisions to children who can't possibly be bothered to do things like read or do basic math.  See how insulting that was? 

 

Regardless, 90% of the vitriol I have seen around this topic has been from the RTwP side of the argument.  I do not see how a 100% optional, completely ignorable add-on is ruining their experience, but they are certainly up in arms about it.  The simple fact that has to be acknowledged is that these games are supposed to be spiritual successors to the old Infinity Engine games which were based on 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons.  Yes, Dungeons and Dragons is a turn based system.  If you enjoyed Dungeons and Dragons, mechanically, then the RTwP system may seem odd and offputting.  (it always did to me).  I don't hate people who like RTwP, and I do not want anyone destroying their games of preference.  That being said, these games originate from a Turn Based origin and I, for one, am excited to see that option being presented. 

 

I booted the game up yesterday, played about 20 minutes, then went and bought all of the DLC for the game to support Obsidian's decision.  The gameplay went from an annoyance that I had to bear to get to the story to an entertaining part of the game.  I understand that not everyone feels this way, but I don't understand the people who are freaking out because other people are being allowed to play in a different manner than them.  This makes no sense. 

[TheMetaphysician]

I love having both options, and I especially love that they are different -- different abilities become more important, different priorities for builds, etc. It makes playing through the game again more fun and more immersive, which is its main value. I myself prefer the RTwP combat, but like playing both.

 

Basically this gives us a similar thing that total rebalancing mods give us: a way to make an old story feel new-ish again. Thanks Obsidian!

[daven]

Both options = awesome

 

Seems like some of you guys are getting pretty heated about the idea??? I will probably never play the turn based but fair play for putting it in, however it does sort of feel like the developers only half arsed putting it in RTWP by the sounds of it! They should have given it a full arsing.

[Wormerine]

Regardless, 90% of the vitriol I have seen around this topic has been from the RTwP side of the argument.  I do not see how a 100% optional, completely ignorable add-on is ruining their experience, but they are certainly up in arms about it.  The simple fact that has to be acknowledged is that these games are supposed to be spiritual successors to the old Infinity Engine games which were based on 2nd edition Dungeons and Dragons.  Yes, Dungeons and Dragons is a turn based system.  If you enjoyed Dungeons and Dragons, mechanically, then the RTwP system may seem odd and offputting.  (it always did to me).  I don't hate people who like RTwP, and I do not want anyone destroying their games of preference.  That being said, these games originate from a Turn Based origin and I, for one, am excited to see that option being presented. 

 

 

 

I don't think I have seen anyone being upset that Obsidian has added this option (few bitter posts about priorities, or doubts if it was a worthy investment, but nothing outrageus), those some people do seem to be worried that if PoE3 happened they might choose to go turn-based, which wouldn't appeal to them personally. Fair enough.

 

I do like RTwP but as I expressed before I don't believe it is the most intuitive system: there is a reason most game which ask you to play in real time rely on simple math. Analyzing enemy's defences, armor ratings, chances to hit etc etc. isn't doable if you play in real time and that is the game, even though most difficulties are tuned low enough as to allow players to ignore half of the systems. As mentioned by other people, PoE did put a lot of work into making IE gameplay more managable and fit for real-time, but I don't think it is an intuitive system, or nor I believe that those are systems designers would come up with, if "real-time" combat was the starting point. 

 

Would I want series to become turn-based? I would defend developers decision if they choose to follow that route, but as we don't have many games which do real-time thing, I would say that it's a tradition worthy of exploring. 

 

In reply to one of the earlier post which I can't be bothered to look up:

RTwP is not a more efficient system for people who can coprehend things happening at once. While Turn-Based system does make abstract mechanics even more abstract it adds different kind of depth.

[Wormerine]

Both options = awesome

 

Seems like some of you guys are getting pretty heated about the idea??? I will probably never play the turn based but fair play for putting it in, however it does sort of feel like the developers only half arsed putting it in RTWP by the sounds of it! They should have given it a full arsing.

Nope, so far it's pretty great. It doesn't feel like a patch-in 8 months after release mode at all. 

[daven]

 

Both options = awesome

 

Seems like some of you guys are getting pretty heated about the idea??? I will probably never play the turn based but fair play for putting it in, however it does sort of feel like the developers only half arsed putting it in RTWP by the sounds of it! They should have given it a full arsing.

Nope, so far it's pretty great. It doesn't feel like a patch-in 8 months after release mode at all. 

 

I don't mean the turn based was half arsed, i mean it sounds like they only begrudgingly made the game RTWP in the first place!

[Moriendor]

Both options = awesome

 

Seems like some of you guys are getting pretty heated about the idea??? I will probably never play the turn based but fair play for putting it in, however it does sort of feel like the developers only half arsed putting it in RTWP by the sounds of it! They should have given it a full arsing.

 

To be fair, TBM is officially labeled "beta" so they sort of openly admit to "half-arsing" it .

 

That's pretty much my only complaint about it, too. I wish it would not be a beta because I want to play the finished version which means I am going to hold off even longer for my proper full playthrough *sigh*.  I really wish that Obsidian would fill us in on their roadmap for Deadfire.

[thelee]

 

Both options = awesome

 

Seems like some of you guys are getting pretty heated about the idea??? I will probably never play the turn based but fair play for putting it in, however it does sort of feel like the developers only half arsed putting it in RTWP by the sounds of it! They should have given it a full arsing.

 

To be fair, TBM is officially labeled "beta" so they sort of openly admit to "half-arsing" it .

 

That's pretty much my only complaint about it, too. I wish it would not be a beta because I want to play the finished version which means I am going to hold off even longer for my proper full playthrough *sigh*.  I really wish that Obsidian would fill us in on their roadmap for Deadfire.

 

 

i'm just glad that it's labeled as open beta because it means there's at least going to be one more content patch, because i'll be damned if they don't fix the bugs with many summons (and Vela) not level-scaling anymore.

[Frak]

IIRC they say they take feedback until end of February. This likely means final patch in march.

[Frak]

Edit: Feces! Wrong thread!

Edited January 25, 2019 by Frak