Turn order similar to Final Fantasy X

[Madscientist]

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.

[mostundesired]

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.

[Jon of the Wired]

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 February 4, 2019 by Jon of the Wired

[grasida]

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.

[Madscientist]

 

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.)

[protopersona]

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.

[SChin]

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

[arkteryx]

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.

[MadeAccountForTurnBased]

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.  

[arkteryx]

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.

[Jon of the Wired]

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 February 16, 2019 by Jon of the Wired

[protopersona]

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.

[Jon of the Wired]

 

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.

[MadeAccountForTurnBased]

 

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.

[protopersona]

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.

[arkteryx]

Honestly it seems like it would be easier to implement than the current system, fewer changes needed from real-time.

[Jon of the Wired]

Yeah, it's a bit perplexing. When I first saw the announcement that a TB mode was being added I assumed they were going with an FF X style system because I couldn't think of any other way to preserve the action speed / recovery economy. I was surprised when the beta came out to find that they just... didn't preserve it (well, nominally they did, but Initiative is weak enough that you don't have to care about it). I never considered that possibility because action speed seems so critical to PoE's mechanical identity that I assumed any system that didn't centre it would be a non-starter.

 

I have every confidence in the Deadfire devs, and clearly what they accomplished already with the turn based mode is amazing, so I think they must have introduced rounds for what seemed like a good reason, but I just can't imagine what was so broken about roundless that it was worth nuking action speed (and to a lesser extent breaking Intellect and Resolve as well).

 

The one thing that does seem like a challenge with roundless is the turn queue UI. The one advantage (AFAICT) that rounds (and measuring durations in rounds) gives you is that a lot of events that would otherwise need their own initiative value can instead piggy-back on a character's turn (e.g. effects ending, DoTs pulsing). That limits the number of things that have to be in the turn queue UI, which prevents it from being too cluttered to be legible. For example, consider casting Relentless Storm with five enemies in range. Now each of the strikes for the storm need an entry in the queue, and the end of the stun for each of the five enemies needs an entry in the queue. That's eight or nine (not sure how many strikes the spell actually makes) new rows in the queue UI just because someone cast a single spell. In a decent sized fight, that could easily get out of hand.

 

That said, I don't think the problem is insurmountable. One possible approach would be to have a different type of row in the UI for events which aren't character's turns (so casts finishing, effect durations expiring, DoTs pulsing, etc) which would be more compact (though the existing row element is pretty compact) and more importantly batches all of the effects that are happening between two character's turns, so that there's only ever one row between any two character's turns. Instead of an icon and some text, you could just show a row ordered from left to right of icons where each icon represents an event. Then you can show the full details of what's happening and when if you mouse over the row.

 

Anyway, obviously they've received a lot of feedback about the action economy problems of TB mode, so hopefully they'll have a solution of some sort in place before TB makes it out of beta.

 

Edited to Add: Of course, there is also the obvious solution to these problems, which is to get rid of rounds, but measure durations in Turns instead (which is how FF X does things anyway, and is why it doesn't have to deal with these issues). Things would basically work the same way as in the current TB mode, with effects expiring and DoTs pulsing on character's turns. This means you don't really need any UI changes, and it's no more complicated to understand for the player than the current system. The downside is that it will affect balance, as character's taking faster actions will be affected by things for less "time", because they take turns more frequently, and character's taking slower actions will be affected for longer. You also need to come up with a way to prevent players from ending afflictions early by effectively skipping turns (I guess you wouldn't be able to end your turn without either taking a standard or cast action, or moving a sufficient distance?). It also doesn't do anything to help fix Intellect or Resolve, which would still be somewhat busted. On the whole, though, it would probably still be a big improvement.

Edited February 17, 2019 by Jon of the Wired

[Madscientist]

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.  

 

One of the main reasons why I suggested the FFX like system was to avoid multiple actions per turn and to avoid that some stat make no difference (like dex 1 - 9 gives 1 attack, 10 - 19 gives 2 attacks and so on.).

In FFX very fast char can make several actions in a row if the other chars are much slower. Yes, this increases the number of actions you have to select. But it serves the purpose of counting time "in real time" as good as a turn based game can do. If we allow several actions per turn that depend on stats or the effect lasts more rounds depending on stats we could just keep the current system.

Your example is bad, because DnD has global rounds and I tried to get rid of them.

 

Yes, in FFX or the FF with ATB it was hard to tell how long a status effect will last.