TURN BASED combat in Deadfire?!

[InsaneCommander]

Question to people playing TBM: do you think combat is taking more time to finish?

 

I had that impression but I only played one battle to test it...

[Frak]

Yes. Partly because you cannot automate comps, party because you get to see every action from every enemy in succession.

[thelee]

Yes. Partly because you cannot automate comps, party because you get to see every action from every enemy in succession.

 

are there fewer encounters? Deadfire didn't have that many trash encounters, but I could see some fights or areas on PotD being extremely grindy if they aren't shrunk down.

[Wormerine]

Question to people playing TBM: do you think combat is taking more time to finish?

 

I had that impression but I only played one battle to test it...

Well, yes. As everyone takes their turns they do take more time. 

 

If you mean, in terms of actual amount of swing? I don't think so. The opposite if anything, but I can't say if/how balance has changed. I do feel like succesful hits on both sides tend to do more noticable damage, though it might be just the effect of me actually seing every attack and not just noticing that one of the characters is suddenly low.

 

 

Yes. Partly because you cannot automate comps, party because you get to see every action from every enemy in succession.

 

are there fewer encounters? Deadfire didn't have that many trash encounters, but I could see some fights or areas on PotD being extremely grindy if they aren't shrunk down.

So far they seem pretty similar, but they all felt good. I know Josh mentioned that some of the encounters were redesigned because they felt grindy in turn-based. 

[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.

 

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.

I actually agree. I was speaking only to the issue of combat mechanics/system in an RPG.

[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.

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)

Really like this post and agree.

 

Back in the days when I had my TT gaming group and DM'd D&D games, the one rule I always threw out in my game was initiative. I actually did make my players all announce their actions essentially simultaneously, and then we'd resolve the actions based on factoring the time needed for an action to happen. As such a player could not just base their action on what other players said out of character. If you wanted to tell another party member to do this or that it had to happen in character at a cost to you, and it also then meant the enemy knew as well. So even back then, playing TT, my group and I were always trying to overcome what we saw as the highly unrealistic nature of acting sequentially.

[kanisatha]

 

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.

Well summarized, @Wormerine. Thank you.

 

Let's be honest: if tomorrow Larian were to announce that they're going to be making D:OS3 as a RTwP game, there would literally be rioting in the streets from the TB fans. And I would sympathize with those fans. For me, the singular most important positive characteristic of the PoE series is that they are RTwP games. Everything else about these games is secondary with respect to why I love these games. I think it is eminently reasonable for me to want one damn old-school classic RPG series made by a proven quality developer to be RTwP.

[waltc]

 

 

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.

Well summarized, @Wormerine. Thank you.

 

Let's be honest: if tomorrow Larian were to announce that they're going to be making D:OS3 as a RTwP game, there would literally be rioting in the streets from the TB fans. And I would sympathize with those fans. For me, the singular most important positive characteristic of the PoE series is that they are RTwP games. Everything else about these games is secondary with respect to why I love these games. I think it is eminently reasonable for me to want one damn old-school classic RPG series made by a proven quality developer to be RTwP.

 

 

 

Adding in yet another way to play the game is absolutely nothing to get upset about...   If the turn-based play is unchanged, what on Earth would there be for Larian customers to get upset about?  Your mistake is to think it's an either-or situation--it's not--never has been.  Obsidian is simply adding another mode in which to play the game!  So, your argument is defeated before it starts, actually.  Why take the time and trouble just to falsely describe the situation?  Deadfire RTwP hasn't gone anywhere that I can see...

 

I am really loving this Deadfire turn-based play--whereas I but "liked" the RTwP AI-generated combat.  My biggest gripe about the RT is that fights were over in a flash and I could barely keep up with who did what to whom...   This Turnbased approach demands I take a bit of time and I find each fight infinitely more fun as a result--infinitely better than "press the spacebar pause", but as I understand it that mode of play in Deadfire has also been preserved.  Obsidian is well on the way to making a very good game a truly great game, imo.

 

Whereas I "liked" PoE1 and in lieu of turn-based I used the "spacebar pause mode" approach as a poor substitute, I also "liked" the RTwP mode as well.   If you will remember, RTwP was added in after PoE1 was originally released! I remember the integration well.  In PoE1, pseudo turn-based (Spacebar pause, select attack, space bar pause again, rinse and repeat) came before RTwP was actually made useful enough to use, IIRC.   But I "love" (more or less) this turn-based mode--I'm thinking I actually prefer it to Larian's D:OS1/2 turn-based!   What's with the nutty idea that "PoE3 is going strictly turn-based" simply because they've added a turn-based mode for PoE2?  Come on--that's not logical, is it?  As they are honing and refining the PoE2 engine to support *both* it of course would be ridiculous to suddenly hobble PoE3 by making it strictly turn based.  Let's give Obsidian a bit more credit for brains, eh?

[wih]

 

 

 

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.

Well summarized, @Wormerine. Thank you.

 

Let's be honest: if tomorrow Larian were to announce that they're going to be making D:OS3 as a RTwP game, there would literally be rioting in the streets from the TB fans. And I would sympathize with those fans. For me, the singular most important positive characteristic of the PoE series is that they are RTwP games. Everything else about these games is secondary with respect to why I love these games. I think it is eminently reasonable for me to want one damn old-school classic RPG series made by a proven quality developer to be RTwP.

 

 

 

Adding in yet another way to play the game is absolutely nothing to get upset about...   If the turn-based play is unchanged, what on Earth would there be for Larian customers to get upset about?  Your mistake is to think it's an either-or situation--it's not--never has been.  Obsidian is simply adding another mode in which to play the game!  So, your argument is defeated before it starts, actually.  Why take the time and trouble just to falsely describe the situation?  Deadfire RTwP hasn't gone anywhere that I can see...

 

I am really loving this Deadfire turn-based play--whereas I but "liked" the RTwP AI-generated combat.  My biggest gripe about the RT is that fights were over in a flash and I could barely keep up with who did what to whom...   This Turnbased approach demands I take a bit of time and I find each fight infinitely more fun as a result--infinitely better than "press the spacebar pause", but as I understand it that mode of play in Deadfire has also been preserved.  Obsidian is well on the way to making a very good game a truly great game, imo.

 

Whereas I "liked" PoE1 and in lieu of turn-based I used the "spacebar pause mode" approach as a poor substitute, I also "liked" the RTwP mode as well.   If you will remember, RTwP was added in after PoE1 was originally released! I remember the integration well.  In PoE1, pseudo turn-based (Spacebar pause, select attack, space bar pause again, rinse and repeat) came before RTwP was actually made useful enough to use, IIRC.   But I "love" (more or less) this turn-based mode--I'm thinking I actually prefer it to Larian's D:OS1/2 turn-based!   What's with the nutty idea that "PoE3 is going strictly turn-based" simply because they've added a turn-based mode for PoE2?  Come on--that's not logical, is it?  As they are honing and refining the PoE2 engine to support *both* it of course would be ridiculous to suddenly hobble PoE3 by making it strictly turn based.  Let's give Obsidian a bit more credit for brains, eh?

 

I am sure Obsidian would never betray their core supporters - the people who backed POE 1 and 2. However I am not sure what Microsoft would do, so maybe kanisatha is right to be worried a bit. 

 

For me, ditching rtwp mode in a possible POE 3 game is going to be a PR catastrophe.

 

I think that if (a huge if) we get POE 3, then it will have both rtwp and turn based modes. This is the only sane thing for Obsidian to do. It will be more work, but they will sell to both rtwp mode fans and turn based mode fans. And Larian will start getting heat for not supporting rtwp mode

[Saito Hikari]

I'm getting some pretty major yikes reading these posts as someone who barely discovered cRPGs in general a little more than a year ago. The way some you guys talk about Larian and D:OS2 sounds like they personally hurt your family or something.

 

Obsidian isn't dumb. A TB mode being released isn't going to magically lead to RTwP being excluded from all sequels, if there even are any at all. I mean, Obsidian's current project is literally a first-person shooter RPG that has likely already gotten way more attention than both PoE games combined, and yet somehow nobody here feels threatened by that. Nor should anyone, which is the point.

 

I mean, going all crackpot theory about a company going from adding in an entirely free turn-based update and constantly updating a game that apparently undersold to suddenly outright gutting the original combat style in a sequel is a pretty big leap of logic to make.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Saito Hikari

[Grimo88]

I just want to express my love for Obsidian here. I’m not even a turn based guy, but I just adore that the work has been put in to provide this to fans. I am playing now, and the slower pace has just let me appreciate every spell, every detail, every crafting option more than RTwP did. Totally new game.

 

Think about this - they have our money already, and they’re putting this much effort into completely changing their game for a portion of their audience a year after release. What other studio would ever do this? I love these guys so much.

 

It’s also so exciting to see a community give so much good beta feedback. These games really are a partnership with the community. Just so good to see.

[Elric Galad]

To be honnest, if Obsidian manages to achieve a ruleset that can switch from Turn-Based to Real-Time with pause WITHOUT REQUIRING HUGE MAINTENANCE BUDGET TO KEEP THE COMPATIBILITY, it would be great.

 

In this case, they would basically enlarge their market without requiring more investment, which will cause PoE future to look brighter.

 

If the rulesets are too much different, they would have to choose one. It might be turn-based, and this would cause the original gameplay to be abandonned, which makes me sad.

 

Given the current status, I'm not 100% confident.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Elric Galad

[kanisatha]

 

 

 

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.

Well summarized, @Wormerine. Thank you.

 

Let's be honest: if tomorrow Larian were to announce that they're going to be making D:OS3 as a RTwP game, there would literally be rioting in the streets from the TB fans. And I would sympathize with those fans. For me, the singular most important positive characteristic of the PoE series is that they are RTwP games. Everything else about these games is secondary with respect to why I love these games. I think it is eminently reasonable for me to want one damn old-school classic RPG series made by a proven quality developer to be RTwP.

 

 

 

Adding in yet another way to play the game is absolutely nothing to get upset about...   If the turn-based play is unchanged, what on Earth would there be for Larian customers to get upset about?  Your mistake is to think it's an either-or situation--it's not--never has been.  Obsidian is simply adding another mode in which to play the game!  So, your argument is defeated before it starts, actually.  Why take the time and trouble just to falsely describe the situation?  Deadfire RTwP hasn't gone anywhere that I can see...

Maybe you should actually take the time to read people's posts before responding. @Wormerine pointed out that some of us are concerned that this is just a step towards a future PoE3 that is ONLY TB. I responded by saying yes that is my concern, and asking how D:OS fans would react if Larian decided to make D:OS3 ONLY RTwP. So either your reading comprehension is piss poor or you are deliberately misrepresenting my points for whatever asinine reasons.

[kanisatha]

There's nothing illogical about the concern of future PoE games being exclusively TB. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from this addition of a TB mode to PoE2, especially since we know that Sawyer has always preferred TB over RTwP. So as someone else posted here, maybe he wanted PoE to be TB all along but grudgingly went with RTwP because PoE was presented as a spiritual successor to the IE games.

 

Sorry but I don't see the addition of a TB mode to this game as being purely altruistic. My conclusion is that this is being done so that (a) an already existing stable game can be used as a testbed to develop a TB combat system thereby lowering the development cost and with the potential for receving useful beta-tester-like feedback from existing players, and (b) if a decision is made to develop a PoE3 (a big if to be sure), keeping it from being a complete shock to RTwP fans when it is announced that the game will be exclusively TB.

Edited January 26, 2019 by kanisatha

[apher]

I think people like me might be a target audience here.

 

I could never get in to the RTwP mechanics. I loved everything about the game apart from the combat. Immersion breaking characters standing awkwardly while getting hit, waiting for their turn to swing the weapon. Whole scrip thing autopilot. Just not my thing. Started the game good half dozen times but could never finish. That's why I never bought the expansions.

 

Today I've played new TB mode and had more fun than ever. TB will get more people like me to buy DLC and more new people to try the game and surely thats a good thing.

[Saito Hikari]

There's nothing illogical about the concern of future PoE games being exclusively TB. It is a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw from this addition of a TB mode to PoE2, especially since we know that Sawyer has always preferred TB over RTwP. So as someone else posted here, maybe he wanted PoE to be TB all along but grudgingly went with RTwP because PoE was presented as a spiritual successor to the IE games.

 

Sorry but I don't see the addition of a TB mode to this game as being purely altruistic. My conclusion is that this is being done so that (a) an already existing stable game can be used as a testbed to develop a TB combat system thereby lowering the development cost and with the potential for receving useful beta-tester-like feedback from existing players, and (b) if a decision is made to develop a PoE3 (a big if to be sure), keeping it from being a complete shock to RTwP fans when it is announced that the game will be exclusively TB.

 

Then we can ask Obsidian to answer for it when it actually happens, aye?

 

Getting all worked up over it now only serves to make people on the RTwP side of the argument look like they're gatekeeping, and appear particularly hostile to the new players who prefer TB and discourage them from participating in the community. Especially since the entire crux of the argument is a crackpot 'what if' scenario.

 

I mean, we literally had someone a few pages back make an account named 'SAYnoTOturnBASED'.

Edited January 26, 2019 by Saito Hikari

[kanisatha]

I'd like to know from Obsidian what additional improvements, features, content and bug fixing on the RTwP side got cut or sacrificed to free up resources for the TB mode?

[Rooksx]

I'd like to know from Obsidian what additional improvements, features, content and bug fixing on the RTwP side got cut or sacrificed to free up resources for the TB mode?

 

I'd like Obsidian to give me a unicorn.

[wih]

I'd like to know from Obsidian what additional improvements, features, content and bug fixing on the RTwP side got cut or sacrificed to free up resources for the TB mod

I suspect this is a wrong question. Obsidian tries to find new customers. Additional improvements, features, content and bug fixing won't bring many new customers. A turn based mode might. It is like a new release event. Suddenly PoE 2 is in the news again. For that, Obsidian may have allocated additional resources.

 

Here is what Josh Sawyer said recently:

"As time goes on, no matter how good the DLC or expansions are, the attachment rate goes down pretty sharply. If you release content a year after the game comes out, it usually doesn't matter how good it is."

[Manveru123]

Tell that to multiplayer games.

[protopersona]

Tell that to multiplayer games.

Multiplayer games are a different thing from a single player experience. That have different sales trends. Comparing this situation to multiplayer games-as-a-service is just being obtuse.

[house2fly]

I don't see why they would have been planning any features that would have been exclusive to the real time mode, since they don't have any features that are exclusive to the turn-based mode

[Manveru123]

 

Tell that to multiplayer games.

Multiplayer games are a different thing from a single player experience. That have different sales trends. Comparing this situation to multiplayer games-as-a-service is just being obtuse.

 

Considering that this is probably the only single player game ever that gets as much balance patches as MMO titles, I don't see why wouldn't I compare.

[protopersona]

 

 

Tell that to multiplayer games.

Multiplayer games are a different thing from a single player experience. That have different sales trends. Comparing this situation to multiplayer games-as-a-service is just being obtuse.

Considering that this is probably the only single player game ever that gets as much balance patches as MMO titles, I don't see why wouldn't I compare.

Balance patches don't turn Deadfire into a games-as-a-service platform though.

 

Multiplayer games need to extend player retention with drip fed content. It gets more people playing the game over time with there friends, which keeps them buying micro transactions. Single player games don't have this problem.

 

Here the devs have done a major and drastic shake up to the game, something that would never fly in a multiplayer game. It's like having a second launch. Honestly it's a pretty smart move since it gets a new round of media coverage.

 

Your comparing apples to oranges.

[Manveru123]

 

Here the devs have done a major and drastic shake up to the game, something that would never fly in a multiplayer game. It's like having a second launch. Honestly it's a pretty smart move since it gets a new round of media coverage.

 

 

Ever heard about Final Fantasy XIV? It's a MMO game that, well.. did a major and drastic shake up, completely changing it. They called it Realm Reborn or something. Other games implement smaller changes over time, but they do - today's WoW is completely different than WoW 5 years ago, for example. MMO games MUST change and evolve to stay relevant. And best part is, these changes are tied to content updates, and aren't just random overhaul patches coming from nowhere.

 

Single-player games, however, do not have to evolve in the same way. And yet we have one that is getting an MMO treatment. I mean, they just recently nerfed a Monk ability, that worked in its previous form since the game was released. It wasn't even overpowered. Who the hell does that.

 

Single-player games don't have microtransactions, but they do have DLC. MMOs sometimes have both (hello ESO). Paid content is paid content.

 

Obs released 3 new DLC and a new game mode. That's great. Now imagine how great it would be if all those balance patches were actually tied to these updates, not just thrown randomly between them. Like every MMO game ever does.

 

And finally, they're coming out on consoles soon. And since they have turn-based mode now, I expect them to get some serious sales. With a polished game, that used us, PC players, as guinea pigs for balance and bugs. You might be cool with that, but I'm not.