Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Turn order similar to Final Fantasy X


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21
Elric Galad

Elric Galad

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1589 posts
  • Location:Paris

This is a valid question.

I still remember the painful battles of Tides of Numenerra at the ends of Act 2&3.

 

However, IMHO, it can be mostly addressed by increasing the speed of ennemies' animation and/or health reduction (which can be made optional. I expect megabosses to be harder if both players and them get something like -25%/-50% health).



#22
mostundesired

mostundesired

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 108 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

Yeah actions can go off at the same time that's true, the underlying system is still pretty much the same. You just have it when 2 actions occur simultaneously one gets priority based on X. Whether it be dex score or favored to player or enemies.

Now the huge problem with this initiative based system is going to be combats against larger swarms of enemies. FFX is based around low numbers of enemies, now imagine the mode like it is now where against large swarms you're going to bounce back and forth forever taking single actions. The benefit of a round based mode is you're able to fill in more actions on a turn (potentially) and hopefully shorten these encounters.

Do you really want to control a single auto attack, wait for enemy to change , bounce back, and auto attack again? Being able to fit multiple actions on a turn kind of NEEDS to be a thing or TTK will just be super tedious like it is currently


Fair point. Personally, though, I'd rather if be done that way. I remember a specific encounter in Divinity OS 2 where about 12 or more blob enemies were summoned all at once. I would take my actions, then have to wait while each and every one of them took their turn. Rather than tedious, it filled me with dread--the good, video gamey kind where you feel great when you win.

Although to be fair, action points meant my characters could do more than one thing per turn, but the way it played out, it didn't feel like I was doing a whole lot at once. Two or three attacks, maybe, and it still took me quite a few turns to kill just one of them. Point being, swarms won't be that bad so long as they feel like a legitimate threat and/or achievement, and they figure out the damage to turn ratio. I said in another thread that low level accuracy might be a huge contributor to the tedium, and IIRC someone said that once you start having enough accuracy to hit regularly, it feels better.

So I think multiple actions per turn or multiple reoccurring turns could both fix the tedium issue. The former for reasons said before, and the latter because you'll be doing something more frequently (at least the high dex characters). Take that with a grain of salt, though.

#23
Crumbleton

Crumbleton

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 147 posts
Yeah I mean when I was running an assassin/sharpshooter with the arequebus and the modal it wasnt an issue but that's just crazy high accuracy.

Haven't played DOS2 yet it's on my backlog I love the first.

Yeah I know the feel, I remember getting a ton of stuff angry at me in the first and watching enemies barreling down on me from the fog of war was spooky. I enjoy that sort of thing though.

#24
Madscientist

Madscientist

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1475 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

OK, I think that turn based combat will always be slower than real time unless you select absolutely every auto pause option in rtwp.

 

Torment Tides of Numenera was slow as hell. But that was not only because it was turn based, but also how they did it.

 

FFX was one of the faster turn based games, even most boss fights were rather short if you knew what you are doing.

This was because:

- There were less units involved. You had up to 3 characters and up to 4 enemies. You could call a summon and it would replace all party members, not fight together with them.

- Most enemies could be killed with one hit. Even tougher enemies could only take a few hits. With the right tactics ( attacks with multiple hits, exploit elemental weakness ) you could kill bosses very fast. Often I did not kill all enemies as fast as possible so that every party member gets exp. ( You could switch party members during combat and only party members who did something during combat get exp)

- The game did not have combat movement or positioning.

 

Yesterday I fought the bosses of BoW and SSS in rtwp mode. In rtwp it took lots of hits to kill a boss. This was OK because all my chars were attacking at the same time I used summons who also attacked at the same time. I also used attacks that hit several enemies or that hit one enemy several times.

 

In a turn based game, you (and the enemy) need much less attacks to kill the target. In most good turn based games I know you can kill normal enemies with about 2-4 normal attacks. Special attacks or attacks that target their weakness can one shot them. If it takes more than 5 hits to kill something or there is a high miss chance, combat can take forever and become boring. A bad example is Wild Arms 3, where some bosses ( especially the optional ones) have tons of hit points and you just repeat attacks and healing forever.

 

result:

Going from rtwp to turn based is not just about how to translate real time combat to turns and how to determine turn order.

You also have to change damage of attacks, HP of units, what some abilities do and the number of units.

Else it will become very slow and some stats or abilities will become useless or OP.

Adding turns is not enough, you have to balance everything almost from scatch.

 

One more advice: Do not add delay attacks.

These are attacks that push enemies back in turn order or make them skip their next turn.

They are OP in the Trails of cold Steel series (and maybe some other games) where you can prevent most enemies from acting at all.

Hard CC so that enemies cannot act on their turn is fine, but please no stuff that messes with the turn order itself.



#25
Crumbleton

Crumbleton

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 147 posts
So you want them to remove interrupts from turn based mode?

#26
Madscientist

Madscientist

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1475 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

No, Interrupts stay in. You can only interrupt while enemies cast a spell.

I do not want to push enemies back in turn order during their recovery time when they do nothing and just wait for their next turn.



#27
mostundesired

mostundesired

    (3) Conjurer

  • Members
  • 108 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

No, Interrupts stay in. You can only interrupt while enemies cast a spell.
I do not want to push enemies back in turn order during their recovery time when they do nothing and just wait for their next turn.


This might be a hard nerf for rogues, their interrupt on most of their abilities has saved my hide plenty of times. It wouldn't be the same in TB, of course, but something worth mentioning.

#28
Jon of the Wired

Jon of the Wired

    Grognard of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 87 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

After playing (and enjoying) a lot of the turn based combat, I agree that this would be the way to go. The current TB system is a lot of fun, but the damage to the game balance and build diversity is significant. I also think that action speed is too important to the mechanical identity of PoE to be devalued the way it is in the current TB mode. I think a FFX (or FFTA) style TB mode without rounds would feel more like PoE than the current system does.

 

What concerns me, though, is that it's such an obvious idea that I wonder if they didn't already try it and discard it. It's not clear to me what the fatal flaw would be in such a system, but it would be a little harder to grok for players in a number of ways. The biggest downside I can think of is that it would be harder to communicate effect durations to the player. A duration of N rounds is easy to understand, but if you measure the duration in Initiative ticks, it's less clear how long the effect lasts in practice. You'd need to add when an effect ends to the turn queue UI, which could result in a lot of clutter. One solution to the UI clutter, though, could be to add a more compact queue entry style that would be used for effect expiration and cast completion, while the existing style continues to be used for character turns. This would allow you to show more queue entries in less vertical space. You could even have the new entry style handle batches, so in the relatively common case where an ability applies more than one effect with the same duration, the expirations would be shown in a single entry (with details on mouseover). An upside, though, to measuring duration in Initiative ticks as opposed to rounds is that it would make Intellect work a lot more smoothly.

 

The other problem I can imagine is with movement. The current movement system is pretty simple (and generous compared to RTwP), but the OP has already suggested the obvious solution to movement, which is simply to charge Initiative for it (with some maximum movement per turn to prevent players from completely screwing themselves).

 

Even if they have already evaluated something similar, I hope they take another look. The current TB system is fun in the moment to moment play, but it does introduce a lot of problems, most of which just go away completely if you get rid of rounds. Given the pre-existing depth of the mechanics, I really think the TB system is this close to being one of the best combat systems to ever be in an RPG, and more than anything I think a FFX style turn system is what would put it over the top.


Edited by Jon of the Wired, 04 February 2019 - 08:48 AM.


#29
grasida

grasida

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 240 posts
  • Deadfire Backer

One more advice: Do not add delay attacks.
These are attacks that push enemies back in turn order or make them skip their next turn.
They are OP in the Trails of cold Steel series (and maybe some other games) where you can prevent most enemies from acting at all.
Hard CC so that enemies cannot act on their turn is fine, but please no stuff that messes with the turn order itself.


That should just be a matter of implementation. FF X itself had turn delay powers that were really important to mastering the combat system and if I recall, they also had limitations so that it was impossible to delay turns enemy turns for ever. In the case of Deadfire, it’s really easy to envision a clear limitation: knockdown delays an enemy’s turn, but once an enemy is knocked prone and already lying on the ground, they can’t be knocked down again until they get their turn and get back up. You can still shut down casters, but you can’t permanently deny turns to any target.

#30
Madscientist

Madscientist

    (10) Necromancer

  • Members
  • 1475 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

 

One more advice: Do not add delay attacks.
These are attacks that push enemies back in turn order or make them skip their next turn.
They are OP in the Trails of cold Steel series (and maybe some other games) where you can prevent most enemies from acting at all.
Hard CC so that enemies cannot act on their turn is fine, but please no stuff that messes with the turn order itself.


That should just be a matter of implementation. FF X itself had turn delay powers that were really important to mastering the combat system and if I recall, they also had limitations so that it was impossible to delay turns enemy turns for ever. In the case of Deadfire, it’s really easy to envision a clear limitation: knockdown delays an enemy’s turn, but once an enemy is knocked prone and already lying on the ground, they can’t be knocked down again until they get their turn and get back up. You can still shut down casters, but you can’t permanently deny turns to any target.

 

You are right. Maybe I went a step too far.

 

In the Trails series you can equip items that add deleay to normal weapon attacks and you could spam AoE delay/interrupt abilities all day long.

The most powerful enemies are immun, but even some bosses can be prevented from having any turn at all.

 

Inn FFX its a special attack against a single enemy that costs some MP and it takes some time until you learn it.

In PoE2, it would be fine if it is a rival to other class resources.

Should I used ability A that stunns the enemy for x seconds (cannot act, easier to hit, but no damage)  and targets fort or ability B that targets def, does some damage and lets him act y seconds later.

Just remember that it can ruin your game if you implement it the wrong way. ( Which is true for everything in a game.)



#31
protopersona

protopersona

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 214 posts

In the Trails series you can equip items that add deleay to normal weapon attacks and you could spam AoE delay/interrupt abilities all day long.

 

 

The most powerful enemies are immun, but even some bosses can be prevented from having any turn at all.

 

Inn FFX its a special attack against a single enemy that costs some MP and it takes some time until you learn it.

In PoE2, it would be fine if it is a rival to other class resources.

Should I used ability A that stunns the enemy for x seconds (cannot act, easier to hit, but no damage)  and targets fort or ability B that targets def, does some damage and lets him act y seconds later.

Just remember that it can ruin your game if you implement it the wrong way. ( Which is true for everything in a game.)

 

Your example from Trials is just bad game design. Crowd control should always come at a cost and have limits. Seeing as how Deadfire is much more invested in skill use and resource management I don't see how this could be a problem.



#32
SChin

SChin

    Product Services Manager

  • Developers
  • 903 posts
  • Location:Irvine, CA

Hey everyone!

 

Thank you all for the suggestions and ideas for speed and turn order!  I put in a report for this and linked the thread so the team can use it as a reference when looking into this.  If you have anything else to add, please continue to do so here so the team will see it when they come to the link.

 

Thanks for all the help!

 

P.S.  FFX is my favorite :3


  • Elric Galad likes this

#33
arkteryx

arkteryx

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 88 posts

Another upvote for this idea, forcing turns to happen once/round seems artificial and overly beholden to an anachronistic system. This would also fix a lot of the issues with action speed and duration in the current TB mode.



#34
MadeAccountForTurnBased

MadeAccountForTurnBased

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 2 posts

First poster here.  Made an account just to join in on feedback on turn based, as this is my favorite type of game.

 

Like the idea of FFX style speed/action system over turnbased.  Multiple turns including possible repositioning could be overpowered though.  In RTwP, usually the more actions are just continuing to attack, but at a faster rate.

 

How about doing it like the old Darksun D&D games.  You still only get one action per turn, and don't get extra actions for being faster, however If you would normally get 2-3 attacks in that amount of time (because of attack speed and recovery time), when you make an attack, your character attacks multiple times in one action.

 

For example:

 

Warrior with plate mail and greatsword has one action per turn.  He makes a standard attack with his action.  The warrior makes one swing of the sword.

 

Monk with leather armor and lightning strikes and high dexterity.  He makes a standard attack with his action.  The monk attacks 3-4 times in succession before his turn ends.

 

I know all these suggestions have more complications but that is a general idea.  



#35
arkteryx

arkteryx

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 88 posts

I feel like the problem with multiple actions per round is that it perpetuates rather than solves the break-point problem. Getting enough action speed/initiative to get that second attack would become a huge dps bump just like getting enough intelligence to push spell durations to a second round is now. Each extra point is either worthless because it doesn't change anything or drastic because it pushes you over a limit. Every meta build would automatically aim for a couple of specific values. I prefer the ATB/speed based model because it smooths out the rewards, an extra point of dexterity is always useful.



#36
Jon of the Wired

Jon of the Wired

    Grognard of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 87 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

First poster here. Made an account just to join in on feedback on turn based, as this is my favorite type of game.

Like the idea of FFX style speed/action system over turnbased. Multiple turns including possible repositioning could be overpowered though. In RTwP, usually the more actions are just continuing to attack, but at a faster rate.

How about doing it like the old Darksun D&D games. You still only get one action per turn, and don't get extra actions for being faster, however If you would normally get 2-3 attacks in that amount of time (because of attack speed and recovery time), when you make an attack, your character attacks multiple times in one action.

For example:

Warrior with plate mail and greatsword has one action per turn. He makes a standard attack with his action. The warrior makes one swing of the sword.

Monk with leather armor and lightning strikes and high dexterity. He makes a standard attack with his action. The monk attacks 3-4 times in succession before his turn ends.

I know all these suggestions have more complications but that is a general idea.


The balance in an FF X style roundless TB mode would be the same as in RTwP mode, though (including movement, which would now cost initiative), so I don't think that's a major concern. On the other hand, having action speed only affect basic attacks would significantly alter the balance between casters and non-casters, for example.

Edited by Jon of the Wired, 15 February 2019 - 08:32 PM.


#37
protopersona

protopersona

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 214 posts

The balance would be the same as in RTwP mode, though (including movement, which would now cost initiative), so I don't think that's a major concern. On the other hand, having action speed only affect basic attacks would significantly alter the balance between casters and non-casters, for example.

There is a difference though. Say for instance a 6 in Dex gets you one attack, 12 gets you 2 and 18 gets you 3 attacks. Now any Dex from 7-11 and 13-17 is a waste of points since it gets you nothing tangible. Currently in RTwP every single point of Dex does something. With multiple attacks per action it creates the break points issue people have been mentioning. Plus multiple attacks in a single action begins to throw the action economy out of whack if you can exploit it.



#38
Jon of the Wired

Jon of the Wired

    Grognard of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 87 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer
  • Black Isle Bastard!

The balance would be the same as in RTwP mode, though (including movement, which would now cost initiative), so I don't think that's a major concern. On the other hand, having action speed only affect basic attacks would significantly alter the balance between casters and non-casters, for example.

There is a difference though. Say for instance a 6 in Dex gets you one attack, 12 gets you 2 and 18 gets you 3 attacks. Now any Dex from 7-11 and 13-17 is a waste of points since it gets you nothing tangible. Currently in RTwP every single point of Dex does something. With multiple attacks per action it creates the break points issue people have been mentioning. Plus multiple attacks in a single action begins to throw the action economy out of whack if you can exploit it.

I meant that in an FF X style roundless TB mode (which doesn't suffer from the problem you're describing) the balance would be the same as RTwP. I've edited the post for clarity.

#39
MadeAccountForTurnBased

MadeAccountForTurnBased

    (0) Nub

  • Initiates
  • 2 posts

 

The balance would be the same as in RTwP mode, though (including movement, which would now cost initiative), so I don't think that's a major concern. On the other hand, having action speed only affect basic attacks would significantly alter the balance between casters and non-casters, for example.

There is a difference though. Say for instance a 6 in Dex gets you one attack, 12 gets you 2 and 18 gets you 3 attacks. Now any Dex from 7-11 and 13-17 is a waste of points since it gets you nothing tangible. Currently in RTwP every single point of Dex does something. With multiple attacks per action it creates the break points issue people have been mentioning. Plus multiple attacks in a single action begins to throw the action economy out of whack if you can exploit it.

 

 

This is a good point.  But even the old BG games had half attacks per round.  You could have 2 or 2.5 attacks per round.  So one round you get 2 attacks, the next round get 3 attacks, etc.  That mitigates the break point issue to some degree, but it will still exist.  The question is, does it matter?  As long as the gameplay is fun and you can make the type of characters you want (fast ones, slow ones, tank ones, etc).

 

That being said, if the FFX method of having "turns" but not "rounds" is something that can be implemented while preserving the pre-existing rules/stats, that does seem like a more elegant solution. I just echo what someone above me said:  it seems like such an obvious solution that I wonder if there was some huge barrier to implementing it from the start.



#40
protopersona

protopersona

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 214 posts

For all we know the only barrier to using FFX style turns instead of rounds is the devs really liked round based combat. Obsidian hasn't given any feedback on why they have implemented turns in this way.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users