The Problem With Turn-Based: Not in POE

[Novem]

19 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

PEN/AR mechanics wouldn't be so awful if there wasn't double inversion applied to underpenetration. It makes PEN and AR too important, especially on PotD where AR is raised through the board. 

You think "oh, -75% of base dmg isn't that bad" while those 75% get munched by double inversion and turn out to be a 300% malus. While that is somewhat realistic (a weapon that doesn't penetrate armor usually doesn't do much damage) it's also very frustrating in a game - if you don't know the PEN/AR mechanics in and out.

That's another element to the mechanic which I'm very glad you brought up. My arguments have mostly been focused on why it's an unsatisfying system for the target, but it's also a very irritating system for the attacker. You should try that penetration overhaul I mentioned, it scales underpen more slowly.

Edited May 3, 2019 by Novem

[injurai]

16 hours ago, Novem said:

...stem from you just being bad at Divinity.

PS: I hate that you've made me go to such extent to defend Divinity.

You only have yourself to blame for going on a tirade against assumed minutia of my taste in games.

Seems like you'd rather control the narrative around how one talks about the game to such an extent you have to nix obviously tangential comparisons of games to appeal to my sensibilities to dismiss them entirely from the conversation.

I dare you to write a wall again. (PS I will read it.)

[kanisatha]

3 hours ago, Novem said:

Well you shouldn't be happy about it, but you certainly shouldn't be actively hostile about the idea. What you've just said is essentially "I can't have what I want, so you don't get to have what you want either, wahhh". Me, I'm an actual fan of Obsidian the studio and Pillars of Eternity the series, so I'm going to support whatever will make those things successful while still serving their actual audience, people who are fans of these games as deep, complex, role-playing games in general. If it was RTWP that created that success, you certainly wouldn't see me whining about it, because I'm not here just to have my niche within a niche catered to.

Anyways, there has yet to be a financially successful modern day RTWP, narrative driven CRPG that has not banked on nostalgia for sales. Deadfire would've been that game, and it was a failure. We'll have to see whether or not a Pathfinder II is that game (which I would think is most assuredly happening), and I hope so since it would be a shame to see the format completely disappear, but I wouldn't say its incredibly likely based on how the genre has played out since the launch of the original POE.

And no, while Divinity's cooperative play is certainly a factor, the turn-based mechanics (and the way it's sandbox nature interacts with those mechanics) are much more responsible for Divinity's financial success. I would say that when you are trying to measure a game's financial success, you should probably listen to what the people who play it say they love about it, and the co-op is almost always an afterthought to the fantastic combat and the sandbox shenanigans. In addition, ALL of the mainstream, financially successful strategy games are turn-based. And it is very easy to see why, because turn-based games are a lot more accessible due to being less overwhelming. This is regardless of how much you want to reinterpret things for your own convenience.

That is not at all a logical conclusion from what I stated. The idea that they should make an MMO shooter from this is not at all a logical extreme of this conversation, and the implication that it is... seriously disingenuous. Even if we just remember that the one RPG studio which did that (Bioware) created a financial failure with that format.  There's also the matter that Obsidian is a company that makes narrative-driven RPGs, that's their reputation and their specialty. You can only be financially successful by serving your audience and your fans, this is why building and maintaining a brand is super important in the game industry. And it should be remembered that Pillars of Eternity was a game that saved Obsidian as a studio, because they started catering to an audience that hadn't been catered to in a long time. The situation has changed in that the audience now has a great number of games to choose from, and time has seemingly borne out that turn-based is the more financially viable format for these types of games. That's not just my opinion, that's just what any logical person would draw from the data we have access to.

This is essentially a wall of personal opinion where somehow your personal opinion is right and mine is wrong, disingenuous, blah blah. You're clearly not a person with whom one can have a conversation so I'm done trying.

[Wormerine]

4 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the problem with tb in crpgs is that combat, particularly if is a party-based game, will become prohibitive tedious if you increase the number o' adversaries beyond a certain point... a point which is gonna vary slight from player-to-player. get a dozen intelligent designed enemies facing a party o' four or more heroes and even minor encounters may become, as feargus once observed, "soul numbing."

(...)

who does that? after years o' development and months after release, then they decide to retool the engine so it works as a saw and a drill. the post-release hybridization went 'bout as smooth as one might expect, but apparent different than obsidian expected.

I don't think it turned out nearly as bad as you suggest. Frankly, I never found Deadfire turn based combat to be as tedious as Divinity's can get in come cases. 

The biggest issue turn-based had that mechanics tied to real time (ability duration, recovery etc.) didn't translate well. We will see if they came up with a fix next week.
As far as tedious encounters - yes, there are some of them. Boarding ships in TB is just tedious affair, and there were some encounters which really, really dragged on - an ambush in sunken city for example. On the other hand, I felt quite a few encounters got enhanced, showcasing enemy composition, that I didn't notice in my two previous playthroughs. 

I don't think it is the case of how many enemies and how many characters you control, but if an act of giving an order to your unit is an interesting decision to make, or not. 

[Novem]

1 hour ago, injurai said:

You only have yourself to blame for going on a tirade against assumed minutia of my taste in games.

Seems like you'd rather control the narrative around how one talks about the game to such an extent you have to nix obviously tangential comparisons of games to appeal to my sensibilities to dismiss them entirely from the conversation.

I dare you to write a wall again. (PS I will read it.)

Um, the only thing I went on a "tirade" on was your advancement of total misinformation about a game you fundamentally do not understand. I don't care whether you like or dislike the game, but your post was factually inaccurate and based on total ignorance of the topic you were talking about. This isn't about "controlling the narrative", it's about intellectual honesty. If you don't want to be criticized, don't say things which are obviously wrong to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

And I'll write a "wall" whenever what you say is substantive enough to justify it.

[Novem]

1 hour ago, kanisatha said:

This is essentially a wall of personal opinion where somehow your personal opinion is right and mine is wrong, disingenuous, blah blah. You're clearly not a person with whom one can have a conversation so I'm done trying.

Personal opinion? Every substantive point I put up there is backed by a significant amount of evidence, which I just divulged when asked about the topic. Also, it's a little rich for you to use "personal opinion" as a criticism when you think YOUR personal opinion should shape the kind of games an entire studio makes, rather than what brings them financial success (you literally just said that POE should die as a series rather than be recontextualized into a more popular format, can't really buy you as an actual fan at that point). And you never tried to have a conversation in the first place either, you can't exactly say you're done doing something you never attempted. Having a conversation requires you to actually address what someone says in a substantial way, but all you've done is simplistically lash out in an extremely biased and emotional manner.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Wormerine said:

I don't think it turned out nearly as bad as you suggest. Frankly, I never found Deadfire turn based combat to be as tedious as Divinity's can get in come cases. 

The biggest issue turn-based had that mechanics tied to real time (ability duration, recovery etc.) didn't translate well. We will see if they came up with a fix next week.

a bit confusing 'cause you disagree with us, then immediate agree with our main point.  the deadfire mechanics were based on rtwp.  change those mechanics after years o' development and months o' post release content additions were not the way anybody would choose to design a game to take advantage o' both rtwp and tb. "didn't translate well" is the problem we identify... and the source o' wormerine understatement.

to wit, am also gonna suggest the results is worse than you suggest. sure, many folks has kinda taken a grin and bear it approach to the way in which tb broke any number o' mechanics and features, but isn't hard to find many instances o' deadfire fans, such as Gromnir, who have not played deadfire since january.  game has been out a year and 1/4 o' that time, from the moment tb were added, we ain't bothered to do more with deadfire than check and see if specific mechanics were indeed still busted post patch. 

the boards may be misleading at times.  is fan feedback. cannot immediate name another game which, faced with months o' unplayable, we would keep posting on the developer boards. am betting many o' the less dedicated fans o' deadfire who were similar annoyed by tb problems is long gone. fact you don't hear from them is hardly surprising. 

HA! Good Fun!

[injurai]

So I'm advancing total misinformation on my own taste in turn-based games? My reply was meant to be a conversation clarification of my taste for you benefit. To detail one perspective (and certainly not assert I'm somehow backed by the "consensus".) I repeated and explicitly reiterated that I was detailing my taste in turn-based games. 

In total I made 5 references to DOS in 3 (2?) different ways:

• 1st, 2nd, 4th: DOS is far away from what I like in turn-based games.
• 3rd: Games "like" DOS. I feel it's totally fair to say I like more positional turn-based strategies games or more free-form RTwP positioning.
• 5th: I'm fine with people liking it, it's not for me. (but this is just another form of the first way.)

So if you have no problem with my taste or enjoyment of DOS, and "That may be your personal opinion...", "I mean you can feel that way if you like...", and "I don't care whether you like or dislike the game" tell me you're honest when you say you. Then are you you are imaging my transgression of misinformation spreading, misreading all general opinion on specific objective claims against DOS, or are you controlling a narrative to exaggerate DOS strengths more than it's weaknesses? Maybe more than one? Something else? You tell me what's going on.

• "DOS gameplay has a lot of issues,"
• "...despite it's wide swath of design issues."
• "I don't disagree with your criticisms persay,"
• "it's super tedious and adds just about nothing to the game,"
• "PS: I hate that you've made me go to such extent to defend Divinity."

Those weren't needing to control the narrative such that the greater emphasis is on what it does well?

My 5 references to DOS were somehow not explicitly taste related or general remarks on what I do find appealing in turn-based games?

The rest of your post is literally just railing against arguments I never actually made, and the closest is me giving a very general statement on how the strategic options in certain types of games become too "rote" to me. I guess I can see how you might mistake that cursory explanation as being the full extent of conceptions. Yet, it's still personal taste and you still didn't address the specifics of what I said. You addressed some estranged derivative implications that you conjured up yourself. You're wall reads as an attempt to slam dunk on some totally different person.

[Novem]

4 minutes ago, injurai said:

Blablabla

That's a nice wall of lies you've got there, I'm not going to dignify it with a response.

[injurai]

Don't know why expected more from someone that entered the thread with "This is laughable" and has continued to badger every person with a perspective remotely similar to the OP.

[Novem]

56 minutes ago, injurai said:

Don't know why expected more from someone that entered the thread with "This is laughable" and has continued to badger every person with a perspective remotely similar to the OP.

Why would I be anything but consistent on what I believe to be true? And why would I do anything less than call people out for unreasonable, dishonest, untrue, immature, and otherwise silly behavior? I prefer discussion which is intellectually honest, with a clear division established between personal preference and objective analysis. I find it distasteful when people either conflate the two or pretend their opinion should be treated like the latter despite being infested by the former, and otherwise express that they feel the world should conform to their taste irregardless of the perspective and situation of others. I especially find it distasteful when they present their opinion and then manufacture evidence for why they feel a certain way instead of just saying how they feel without the hackneyed (and unnecessary) attempt at legitimacy or substantiating their feelings with actual facts.

More importantly, why would anyone respond to such an obvious cavalcade of mistruths? It's kind of funny you accuse me of trying to "control the narrative" when you yourself see fit to pretend like my initial reply somehow commented on things you didn't say, even though I very thoroughly engaged with every single individual point you made (and, more importantly, your substantiation for and commentary on those points) in a very direct and logical way.

PS: I don't care how you feel or what position you take as long as you're honest about it and what led to your conclusion, I may disagree but I can respect that. When you make things up though in order to manufacture legitimacy for your position, that's intellectual dishonesty and it makes it impossible to have a real conversation. You're allowed to believe and feel whatever you want, and I'll respect that because that's the truth from your perspective, but if you're going to give reasons and try to convince others and legitimize your position as being of overall value, then those reasons need to make sense and be truthful for the sake of being constructive. And when your reasoning is based on ignorance, you need to be willing to re-examine what led to your conclusions and make a better argument, rather than floundering around and taking offense to being corrected (because people are just wrong sometimes, and I would never assume that they would do that on purpose, but the defensiveness that results shows that they usually did).

 

 

Edited May 4, 2019 by Novem

[injurai]

You do realize there was never an attempt to manufacture a legitimacy of my position? Why would I even need that for opinion?

Cavalcade of mistruths? I am literally trying to clarify my exact position so you don't run away with it in an absurd direction. Am I unfairly portraying you? Maybe, but that is how your post read to me given the nature of how you take what I said. As far as you unfairly portraying me? I've never argued the world should conform to my tastes, but why would one not want their tastes met. Should and would like are very different, and I certainly don't like being colored as expecting the world to bend to me.

What did I dishonestly purport as an objective claim thus crossing over away from merely subjective statement? Just 1 example.

What is one of my reasons that is actually based on ignorance? Just 1 example.

Honestly, just reiterate what my position is back to me so I actually know how you are reading me.

[Novem]

I'll be back the day after tomorrow to respond to the whole (places to be), but for these two points in particular...

Quote

What did I dishonestly purport as an objective claim thus crossing over away from merely subjective statement? Just 1 example.

What is one of my reasons that is actually based on ignorance? Just 1 example.

Literally all you need to do is read my initial reply, wherin I very specifically note multiple examples of both of these things.

[Boeroer]

I haven't played Deadfire for some months as well. I mean besides firing it up to test some stuff every now and then. Can't say if that's purely because of the TB-induced bugs to RTwP or just because I got bored in general. But surely the TB messup didn't help.

I am indifferent to the "TB vs. RTwP" topic. I like both. For example I liked the TB game "Blackguards" (but don't like D:OS I and II). And of course I like PoE and Deadfire. So - the combat mode itself is not something that drives me off or attracts me. 

But somehow I don't want to play Deadfire in TB again. I feel an objection to learn anew the mechanics of a game whose RTwP mechanics I already studied in depth and length. Maybe I'm alone with that, no idea. 

So, for me TB mode only brought disadvantages.

Still - I can understand why that mode was introduced.

There are players that stick to one certain system. They like TB and loathe RTwP and vice versa. They use those systems as indicators whether they will like a game or not. Those people won't buy Deadfire until it's TB. So in order to sell more copies of Deadfire adding TB can make sense.

That, and the fact that turn based mode was worked on for Pillars since PoE came out. So they didn't start from scratch. Maybe there wasn't super serious work before they decided to release it - but work has been done on it before.

So when sitting together and brainstorming about ways to increase sales I can imagine somebody saying "Hey we have some TB stubs and it works works quite ok so far. Why don't we finish it and polish it up real nicely to be able to sell to TB fans?"

And doesn't that make sense? Sure, not good for me and Gromnir and others who dropped the game after TB was patched in - but as I already said: we already paid for the game and all DLCs - so it's understandable that Obsidian favors getting some new players over losing a few older ones (not thinking that they planned to lose players with it though. It just happened - but I guess one could have guessed so given the history of "patching" things. )

Edited May 4, 2019 by Boeroer

[Wormerine]

7 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the boards may be misleading at times.  is fan feedback. cannot immediate name another game which, faced with months o' unplayable, we would keep posting on the developer boards. am betting many o' the less dedicated fans o' deadfire who were similar annoyed by tb problems is long gone. fact you don't hear from them is hardly surprising. 

HA! Good Fun!

Perhaps. For me turn-based was a reason to return to the game, I was pretty much done with it, so while it introduced problems, it also made game interesting again to me. I got a taste of it, gave my feedback and voice my concerns and froze my play through waiting for a patch.  I became active on forums once again, as news of incoming patch spread. 

[Stardusk78]

2 hours ago, Boeroer said:

I haven't played Deadfire for some months as well. I mean besides firing it up to test some stuff every now and then. Can't say if that's purely because of the TB-induced bugs to RTwP or just because I got bored in general. But surely the TB messup didn't help.

I am indifferent to the "TB vs. RTwP" topic. I like both. For example I liked the TB game "Blackguards" (but don't like D:OS I and II). And of course I like PoE and Deadfire. So - the combat mode itself is not something that drives me off or attracts me. 

But somehow I don't want to play Deadfire in TB again. I feel an objection to learn anew the mechanics of a game which RTwP mechanics I already studied in depth and length. Maybe I'm alone with that, no idea. 

So, for me TB mode only brought disadvantages.

Still - I can understand why that mode was introduced.

There are players that stick to one certain system. They like TB and loathe RTwP and vice versa. They use those systems as indicators whether they will like a game or not. Those people won't buy Deadfire until it's TB. So in order to sell more copies of Deadfire adding TB can make sense.

That, and the fact that turn based mode was worked on for Pillars since PoE can out. So they didn't start from scratch. Maybe there wasn't super serious work before they decided to release it - but work has been done on it before.

So when sitting together and brainstorming about ways to increase sales I can imagine somebody saying "Hey we have some TB stubs and it works works quite ok so far. Why don't we finish it and polish it up real nicely to be able to sell to TB fans?"

And doesn't that make sense? Sure, not good for me and Gromnir and others who dropped the game after TB was patched in - but as I already said: we already paid for the game and all DLCs - so it's understandable that Obsidian favors getting some new players over losing a few older ones (not thinking that they planned to lose players with it though. It just happened - but I guess one could have guessed so given the history of "patching" things. )

This pretty much sums up my view of things.

[gkathellar]

6 hours ago, Wormerine said:

Perhaps. For me turn-based was a reason to return to the game, I was pretty much done with it, so while it introduced problems, it also made game interesting again to me. I got a taste of it, gave my feedback and voice my concerns and froze my play through waiting for a patch.  I became active on forums once again, as news of incoming patch spread. 

Pretty much the same for me. I'm basically waiting for TB to get some further optimization before I try another playthrough.

[kanisatha]

Boeroer and Gromnir, I agree with you both very much. And Gromnir's point about the pitfalls of adapting from one system to another are exactly my issue as well. The gameplay mechanics that work well for RT don't for TB and vice versa. So adapting the mechanics developed for one to the other will always leave the latter in a less than desirable state. So in my view, the only way a developer can offer both RTwP and TB as equally well-balanced options in a game is by independently developing separate, parallel sets of mechanics for the two modes. And I'm not convinced any developer will be willing to throw that much in resources into their game. Boeroer is correct in the assesment that for Deadfire this was somewhat possible because Obsidian had already invested in tinkering with TB mechanics for the game, to which I would also add that it likely serves as an experiment for them for future games and as such provides some useful value. But I just don't see this being a thing for Obsidian or other developers going forward.

[Wormerine]

13 minutes ago, kanisatha said:

Boeroer and Gromnir, I agree with you both very much. And Gromnir's point about the pitfalls of adapting from one system to another are exactly my issue as well. The gameplay mechanics that work well for RT don't for TB and vice versa. So adapting the mechanics developed for one to the other will always leave the latter in a less than desirable state. So in my view, the only way a developer can offer both RTwP and TB as equally well-balanced options in a game is by independently developing separate, parallel sets of mechanics for the two modes.

Somewhat yes - but the thing is, for the most part PoE design doesn't take advantage of being a real time game - a vast majority of mechanics aren't affected by move from RTwP to TB. It's not lets say Starcraft, which all gameplay revolves about being done in real time. There are some mechanics which are causing major problems. The question is, will Obsidian come up with solution and if they do, is it a solution which consumes a lot of tinkering with individual system. We will find out next week :-). 

[gloomseeker]

Boeroer's mention of Blackguards reminds me that I never finished that game. I liked it a lot but it ended up feeling like too much work. I'll have to start over some time.

I can't see why people resent turn based mode as long as it's entirely optional.

I get the argument that it's diverting resources away from regular patching and bug squishing but I doubt that this had an impact simply because it came late in the development of the game (which may or may not be a good thing as there is some validity to the argument that you shouldn't redesign the fundamental mechanics of a game once it's finished). 

There is no denying that many people are now drawn to the game simply because of the novelty of the turn based mode. 

I for one would rather play turn based because I prefer a slower pace even if it means encounters end up taking longer but then to be frank I'm also the kind of player who keeps hitting the space bar when playing BG and IWD. 

[daven]

Best turn based combat I've seen is Persona 5, and maybe FFX.

Not really into the whole moving pieces around a board style turn based. I put up with Shadowrun: Dragonfall because the story kept me interested. The combat just takes toooooo looooooonnngggg. I think turn based works best when you are trying to defeat the enemy in as few turns as possible and being really efficient. Not wandering around the field.

ANYWAYS! To each their own and all that.

[MaxQuest]

Stardusk78 said:

The Problem With Turn-Based: Not in POE

It is a bit unclear what do you mean here...
As a non-native speaker I can understand this in two ways:

- "Turn Based mode is flawed. But this is not because of the game itself."
> it's like saying that TB has problems, because how it was implemented.

- "Turn Based mode is flawed. But this is because TB doesn't suit a game like POE."
> it's like saying that Need for Speed or F1 would be weird if implemented as Turn Based.

Stardusk78 said:

Whatever ambitions Obsidian might have had, and one can well laud them for it, turn-based was an unnecessary diversion of resources that could have been funneled into the base game by improving pause and play game-play , stability and all other aspects of the core game.

I am kinda glad that there is Turn Based mode now, because it attracts additional players to the game. And more buyers - more chances that Obsidian will make PoE3.

But yes, I do dislike that TB has led to introduction of new bugs into RTwP. It is really weird that new mode has affected the already existing one. Moreover it seems that Obs have underestimated the amount of resources/human-hours required to flesh out the TB; and didn't think deeply the transition of existent game mechanics, specifically action time and durations. Increasing action speed is not reflected that well in a system where you can do only 1 non-instant action per round. But.. if there was a dynamic turn queue, without "hard rounds", I suppose the mapping from RTwP -> TB would become easier. E.g: by the time a 10 DEX character will have 3 turns, a 21 DEX character (with everything else being the same) will perform 4.

Also if both modes map well one into another, it would open up the possibility to switch them back and forth during an already ongoing play-through.

Edited May 7, 2019 by MaxQuest

[Sven_]

Whilst I agree that both TB and RtwP are too different from one another that both should be shoe-horned into a design; I've also come to the conclusion that some inherently AD&D2ish traits suited RtwP a lot more than what's being on offered in RtwP games These days. Aside of the at times cacophony of spells/abilities and generally rolls being resolved  simulataneously; translating AD&D2 to a real-time Party based Environment was Always going to work better as outside of casters, Managing Chars was an inherently less Micro-heavy affair as in D&D3ish onwards, let alone PoE Deadfire (or Tyranny, with ist cooldowns to be tracked and reactivated).

The one thing I'm glad About isn't so much that Deadfire gets a TB patch that resources should or shouldn't have been spend on, as the core game/Encounters where balanced for real-time combat. It's also not so much that People seem to come to Terms with RtwP's many strenghts -- but also its weaknesses. It's that TB Combat for future Projects/IPs may be considered as a viable choice next to real-time again, based on the design, as opposed to Marketing future predictions based on invetiably rather fewer (and smaller scale) games such as ToEE, so that the prediction becomes a self-fullfilling Prophecy, with nobody actually challenging things anymore. Well, at least that's I hope, anyway.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Sven_

[takamorisan]

On a business perspective even being a  PoE 1 backer, I don't think RTWP is profitable in a level where you can fund another project. Sadly the numbers of sale out there show that people wanted to see CRPG back in its "vanilla" state in PoE 1.

Turn based and Coop for RPGs were meant to be the next step, you can see how Divinity 2 performed compared to PoE 2. The fully VA was neat but I would had used the funds to add coop mode. I know people become really stingy with the multiplayer feature, sadly in nowdays Publishers and Devs use as a form to push their personal DRM ( When they don't decide to add both Denuvo and the online feature).

 

[daven]

4 hours ago, takamorisan said:

On a business perspective even being a  PoE 1 backer, I don't think RTWP is profitable in a level where you can fund another project. Sadly the numbers of sale out there show that people wanted to see CRPG back in its "vanilla" state in PoE 1.

Turn based and Coop for RPGs were meant to be the next step, you can see how Divinity 2 performed compared to PoE 2. The fully VA was neat but I would had used the funds to add coop mode. I know people become really stingy with the multiplayer feature, sadly in nowdays Publishers and Devs use as a form to push their personal DRM ( When they don't decide to add both Denuvo and the online feature).

 

This isn't Divinity Original Sin, it's a different type of game. Go play that if you want that exact type of game.