PoE3 combat system poll

[Guest 4ward]

what kind of combat would you like to have in an eventual PoE3?

[Boeroer]

Who would seriously object to "both"?

[Guest Ontarah]

23 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

Who would seriously object to "both"?

Nobody in and of itself.  It's more just a question of resources.  For all that devs say things like "having a multiplayer mode won't do anything with the singleplayer mode" it absolutely does mean resources are getting spent in one place that could have been spent in another.  And considering these guys are for profit companies at the end of the day if the new thing makes more money, they will start making it more and more and more and focusing on it.

That's precisely how Bioware went from "we are making an optional multiplayer that won't do anything to the singleplayer" to making a flat out multiplayer exclusive game within a few games.  

[Boeroer]

Sure, if you take resources into account. But if it's simply about "what you would like to have" then I can see zero reasons to not vote for both. 

If they keep the Deadfire engine then delivering both modes shouldn't be a huge problem resource-wise (or so I would guess) since the foundations (and more) would have been laid already.

If the question was "What would you prefer? TB or RTwP" then this would be a different beast of course. I personally think a PoE3 needs RTwP - just to be a coherent experience as a sequel. But I would welcome a TB game with the Pillars IP (which is not a sequel to PoE/Deadfire) very much as well. 

I don't need multiplayer at all. But if it helps selling more copies and makes more players happy while it doesn't mar the single player experience too much: why not? More sold copies might more than balance out the increased resource cost.  

Edited May 3, 2020 by Boeroer

[Elric Galad]

I agree on that. I would prefer RTwP too, but people answering here are the ones that bought the game. I guess Obsidian should be more concerned about people who didn't.

If it's a condition to get an Eora Based game (with at least same classes), then I'll go with TB.

However, it would require a far better balancing than what they did with current TB. TB is currently an extra for a game whose mechanics were adjusted for RTwP so it's okay. if it's not perfect.

[Guest Ontarah]

I'd actually be okay with a TB that looks more like DOSII and not so much one that looks like Shadowrun, which I found miserable.  I haven't actually played TB on Deadfire.  Maybe I should give it a try.  I just tend to not like TB at all outside of a handful of modern JRPGs.  It was okay in Temple of Elemental Evil.  The main thing I want to avoid are fights that are both hard and really long so that if you screw up you have to repeat some 20+ minute fight over and over. 

Edited May 3, 2020 by Ontarah

[Boeroer]

8 minutes ago, Elric Galad said:

I agree on that. I would prefer RTwP too, but people answering here are the ones that bought the game. I guess Obsidian should be more concerned about people who didn't.

On the other hand: if they change the game in a way so that it appeals to more players - would it still be a game I like?  I mean from my personal perspective this isn't somehting I should wish for - maybe.
 

[Guest 4ward]

2 hours ago, Boeroer said:

Who would seriously object to "both"?

i included the option as i believe that a game that is designed to have turn-based combat only is better for fans of turn-based combat than a turn-based mode that has been added to a game developped for rtwp combat. I didn’t play the turn-based mode in deadfire and perhaps fans actually liked that better than, say, combat in the Larian games. But if i understood Josh Sawyer correctly from that video that Sven posted earlier, the decision to include turn-based mode was good but not perfect for fans of turn-based combat. I would likewise believe that developping a game for turn-based and then adding rtwp combat mode probably wouldn’t be that great either for fans of rtwp combat. Also, what you guys mentioned regarding resources..

[Elric Galad]

3 minutes ago, Boeroer said:

On the other hand: if they change the game in a way so that it appeals to more players - would it still be a game I like?  I mean from my personal perspective this isn't somehting I should wish for - maybe.
 

Yeah, that's why I specifically said that I wanted at least the same classes  

[daven]

This is really flogging a dead horse at this point isn't it??????

[Elric Galad]

16 minutes ago, daven said:

This is really flogging a dead horse at this point isn't it??????

Microsoft could still decide that an Eora based (?)RPG worths it. But I doubt they would go for a "true" PoE3. Too risky.

I am assuming that TB would be the safer marketing choice in this case, or just a completely different system.

"PoE Tactics" with pure TB and wider scale battles (in the style of Bekarna's Observatory first battle) could be a good option with limited ruleset revamp.

If this game had a really really long sale tail and become a cult classic, there might even be a chance for a collector edition with additional content.
My Dreams would be :
- Additional ending

Spoiler

where you can crush Eothas with Wael's titan BEFORE he destroys the Wheel (that would not require that much work).

Seriously, this single change would make the whole story far better.

- Ability to play SSS as a standalone run.
- Of course, additional dungeons or additional cities.

Or maybe an Enhanced PoE1 with PoE2's Multiclass ?

OK, I'm probably dreaming.

[Sven_]

Don't feel particularly strongly about this. I also hope that developers themselves are thinking a little more outside of those boxes. Larian for instance could have simply tried to ape X-Com, like Shadowrun or Wasteland 2 tried. But instead they did their own thing, in turn redefining some what TB(tm) combat can be like in an RPG.  It was genuinelly entertaining to watch the most crucial rolls all going bad in the gameplay presentation of BG3 as well against all odds, and the audience anticipating the result and howling at every unlikely bad roll. That's genuine, and different, and something you'd never get out of the original BG games. 

And that's ok.

For the sake of diversity, and what PoE was meant to be about, and me overall enjoying this too most of the time, I'll vote for real-time with pause (even though it may be better called pause with real-time instead in the more modern/recent incarnations, Kingmaker included as well).  

Edited May 5, 2020 by Sven_

[Gel214th]

On 5/3/2020 at 4:58 AM, Boeroer said:

Who would seriously object to "both"?

Balancing Both is a problem. The Turn Based right now fails to reflect attack speed. It needs to be that the higher the attack speed, the more attacks a character gets. Some powers just don't work, ro make sense. Some Character Attributes make no sense to add points to in Turn Based. Fixing all that would mean a total shift in the way the game works for Turn Based vs Real Time with Pause.

But I've decided that I don't like Round Based combat with RTwP anymore.

It has to be Resource and Cooldown based game engines. Your Mage has 100 Mana, and spells cost X amount. Mana runs out, needs time to recover or chug a potion. Fire off your biggest spells? Then you have to wait for a cooldown. Active, dynamic combat that allows you to stop, queue actions, then proceed. That's the "With Pause" that would work for me now. 

This hacked together RTwP where you have some obscure timed rounds system running in the background as though you were sitting around a table playing Pen and Paper just makes no sense for a computer game. If you're building a Computer game, then build a computer game. If you're doing pen and paper, then do pen and paper. I am no longer interested in titles that tell me they are "replicating the pen and paper feel". No. If I want the pen and paper feel I would play Pen and Paper. 

I support BG3 being Turn Based because at its core, that's what best suits the underlying pen and paper system.

But the Pillars game system was built from the ground up, so they could have done it differently and done it for the Computer rather than try to fake a pen and paper system. 

[Elric Galad]

6 minutes ago, Gel214th said:

Balancing Both is a problem. The Turn Based right now fails to reflect attack speed. It needs to be that the higher the attack speed, the more attacks a character gets. Some powers just don't work, ro make sense. Some Character Attributes make no sense to add points to in Turn Based. Fixing all that would mean a total shift in the way the game works for Turn Based vs Real Time with Pause.

But I've decided that I don't like Round Based combat with RTwP anymore.

It has to be Resource and Cooldown based game engines. Your Mage has 100 Mana, and spells cost X amount. Mana runs out, needs time to recover or chug a potion. Fire off your biggest spells? Then you have to wait for a cooldown. Active, dynamic combat that allows you to stop, queue actions, then proceed. That's the "With Pause" that would work for me now. 

This hacked together RTwP where you have some obscure timed rounds system running in the background as though you were sitting around a table playing Pen and Paper just makes no sense for a computer game. If you're building a Computer game, then build a computer game. If you're doing pen and paper, then do pen and paper. I am no longer interested in titles that tell me they are "replicating the pen and paper feel". No. If I want the pen and paper feel I would play Pen and Paper. 

I support BG3 being Turn Based because at its core, that's what best suits the underlying pen and paper system.

But the Pillars game system was built from the ground up, so they could have done it differently and done it for the Computer rather than try to fake a pen and paper system. 

To be honnest, if PoE2 devs went with an ATB system rather than this absurd round-based ruleset, the transition between both systems would have been much much smoother.

PoE2 TB is beyond redemption in term of balance. It's probably fun enough though, so I guess the goal is reached.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Elric Galad

[SchroedsCat]

RtwP. For the cohesive experience across three games. I don't mind TB too much but it drags fights out for much langer than they need to be. Killing a trash mob in D:OS can take ages.

I also don't give two hoots about a tactical Eora game. The strength of this world lies in it's RPG properties.

[Elric Galad]

The best thing with RTwP is indeed that you can go through Trash Fights faster (or the "trash part" of fights, when a couple of useless mobs are standing.

[Guest 4ward]

but TB games can solve that with less combatants (the trash fights in modern rtwps don't feel that much like easy meaningless fights anymore anyway). While i’m a fan of rtwp – the old rtwp that is – i can see the advantage of TB; during the pause time in TB the player has the feeling that his input is more tactical than in an rtwp. It’s a little bit like chess i think, you make your move and in high expectation await the answer/move of your opponent. TB will always imo be at an advantage over rtwp in that regard. Also, judging from the presentation of BG3 movement plays a more important role than say in old games like pool of radiance, like how the protagonist in BG3 jumps between platforms.

At the same time in modern rtwp games the importance of movement has regressed which i believe is a killer since during real-time nothing really suggests as good to the player that stuff is happening. And it’s important that during real-time there’s stuff happening and less waiting. In modern games you wait and wait some more until finally the action is perfomed which is then sometimes also "solved" by reducing combatants number (instead of adding activity into real-time). When on top of that those actions are a waste then the player might get the feeling that he’s wasting time playing the game (like waiting that the fighter drinks a healing potion but they kill him before he can perform the action or when the enemy is dazed but before you can perform your next action they’re not dazed anymore). Sometimes you also wait out the effect instead of countering it which further doesn’t help the cause for actions during real-time.

There’s in addition quite a lot of info for the player to process like action time being calculated from several different factors with results like 5.4 secs. Which then leads to the wish for cooldowns. 20 yrs before rounds made sure combat has a calculated flow and if 6 seconds-rounds are too much you could reduce it to 4 secs with chars also moving faster (a game like Bg2 plays much better with that change). As a side effect of moving, countering etc. you didn’t notice rounds as a negative effect anyway. So, stuff was happening during real-time – if that doesn’t happen in modern rtwps then rtwp games will remain a niche and eventually die out while TB games will remain succesfull. Which is ironic considering how the old rtwp games renewed interest in party rpgs 20 yrs ago.

I remember also that enemies could be intelligent in Bg2, e.g. in irenicus dungeon the duergar would try to lure you into their ambush. If the game added more clever ai mirroring human player like summoning creatues at you party or retreating and healing, helping out others etc. it would have been an even better game imo.

I believe rtwp is sadly on its way downhill…

[AeonsLegend]

On 5/3/2020 at 10:58 AM, Boeroer said:

Who would seriously object to "both"?

I would object if this means they are both half-assed.

[injurai]

On 5/3/2020 at 4:58 AM, Boeroer said:

Who would seriously object to "both"?

I voted for like in 1 & 2, because I don't want those systems compromised by TB necessities, though in theory I'd be fine with both.

Generally it seems that TB folks are adamantly against RTwP while RTwP people will play games of both systems. The nature of these games being developed with feedback of the community makes me worry how design by committee will work when trying to please two very different camps.

[Boeroer]

8 minutes ago, injurai said:

Generally it seems that TB folks are adamantly against RTwP while RTwP people will play games of both systems. 

Ohhhhh - you didn't read the BG3 forums it seems.

[injurai]

1 hour ago, Boeroer said:

Ohhhhh - you didn't read the BG3 forums it seems.

Do tell

[daven]

23 minutes ago, injurai said:

Do tell

Never read a gaming forum... it's bad news.

[Boeroer]

BG grogs went completely nuts because of TB combat in BG3. 

[injurai]

I see altering the quintessential RTwP series into TB one, fundamentally different than simply offering a new TB game. Fans of RTwP enjoy plenty of other TB games. It's understandable to be annoyed at such a switch. While TB people (at least the vocals ones) are diametrically opposed to letting RTwP games just be. We saw this with Torment and again with BG.

At this point BG3 is just "A Forgotten Realms game set in Baldur's Gate." It's basically a marketing stunt to captivate new audiences off of the prestige of a series they would never actually take interest in. It's just fashion branding to be honest. So you might just say "well it wasn't ever really a BG3, let it go." And people are... but that's not how the game was spun when first being revealed, people had to attenuate to Larian's marketing garble.

When RTwP advocates get annoyed you get the following:

Yuppie trying to dismiss the merits of RTwP without engaging: "Ooh look I'm also "grognard" who likes BG, but I'm also hip and trendy who doesn't "reee" like those ugly old school grognards who can't get with the times."

At which point the actual grognard points out that the yuppie is by definition not a grognard, and the yuppie responds "See what I mean, all that ugly gatekeeping. Good riddance."

(I say this more as a yuppie millennial on the younger side myself, who prefers RTwP.)

You have hoards of people who read lengthy fantasy books who would have no problem reading all of Pillars 1 text. Then you have people who moan about an RPG actually world building before their eyes; Who get upset that the game isn't mostly strategy, but then don't want to even grok the actual tactics and strategy of the RTwP system. I enjoy TB, but I'm frankly annoyed by how the vocal TB players portray RTwP games, and further how those same people want the rich text to be chopped down. PoE1 is really not a bad lore dump, and it's like reading a graphical novel at best. This isn't Game of Thrones. Live and let live, but this should go both ways. Why is RTwP always encroached upon?

My point is vocal TB fans force preference falsification on RTwP communities, they manufacture consent, they lead devs away from the existing market base, convince devs that the market just isn't there. When in fact tons of people engage with all the aspects of narrative and tactics of these infinity-like games. At best you just need to offer an easy story mode for the few that just want story. Which Obsidian actually does! Bless them! Like, I can't imagine a more wholesome and thoughtful approach than Obsidian's, and yet you have InXile and Larian bending over backwards for people that really just prefer the flashy 3D graphics of Divinity to the flat look of Pillars. Once people actually play the games normally they cite Deadfire as being one of the most gorgeous games ever, but it looks flat in trailers. The problem is that these games can be a hard sell, especially in the manner in which the market understands marketing. How will you convince the fantasy reader to set aside FF14 and pick up Pillars when all you do is market it to people who most enjoy lighting barrels on fire to achieve sparkly dazzling easy wins, instead of DnD style tactical exploits. How do you draw in the RTS fans. How will you draw in the avid readers, the lovers of graphic novels, the lovers of visual novels? How will you make it a rich experience for grognards and new comers a like? I think Obsidian does, and mostly the issue is market exposure, not the market.

Yeah, I'm saying a lot. But it's all true. Obsidian has been doing great work at modernizing RTwP and I'd hate to see it fall the wayside. A reason enough to be skeptical of fighting a two front war.

[Boeroer]

Went. Completely. Nuts.