Suggestion: Make a pure turn-based combat RPG

[Megatron]

Um, in real life all things are done in real time be they fine or not. You don't need imagination for that.

Well theoretikally turn-based is real-time, just taken in turns lolol?

 

I was thinking more along the lines of everything done in a sequence instead of at the same time and pausing, but I can dig your pseudo-bull****. Cheers.

[pulp]

Um, in real life all things are done in real time be they fine or not. You don't need imagination for that.

Yeah, that would be fine if all actions are undertaken by yourself - we have FPS for that, relying on your own dexterity and quick-thinking.

 

The difference with RPGs is the fact that you acquire skills that allow you to act or fight in certain ways i.e. your *character* is already micro-managed. Heh, I'll be pugnacious and suggest that a micro-managed character implies the need for a micro-managed combat system, which TB provides.

[Volourn]

Pulp: Enemies just charge at you? Weird.. Manye nemies try to avoid melee with you. Espicially archers or spellcasters. Heck, in tb games enemies charge right at you. The weakness there is in a game like TOEE a mage can cast fireball and aim it so perfectly right down to the millimetre. yeah, that's realsyic or even fun or challenging.. Not. True, NWN has an edge because it's only one controleld character but last i checked this wasn't a dbeate of single vs. party based combat but tb vs. rt or rtw pause. NWN has lots of tatics involved in it and even int he OC there are many times where if you just charged straight ahead you'd die. Heck, in TOEE most of the time I didn't need *nay* planning to be victoriuous as most battles involved absolutely retarded and on e dimensional monsters ala bugbears or other melee type or absic archers thrown in. You don't need to be that quick thinking or dexterious at all to play NWN just fine. It isn't that fast paced like an FPS due to the inherent 6 second rounds. I always micro manage in NWN as I do in tb games.

 

Mega: Sure.

[Nexus]

I said this back when Lionheart was in development, but I think we should let the developers do any kind of combat they want, as long as they work it out and make it fun. I love Fallout's TB combat. I also don't mind BG and BG2's RT w/ pause. And I like Gothic's RT combat a lot--it's not even close to as clicky as Diablo's. I'd rather see the developers come up with their own ideas, wihich they'll enjoy developing more, rather than something they "think" the fans want or trying to go for some middle ground as Arcanum did, when they don't have enough time or energy to do so. (Both Arcanum's RT and TB combat were lacking and horribly unbalanced.)

[Greatjon]

@pulp

I too, actually like the option to micromanage combat. I just don't like being forced to do it. Also, you seem to be focusing on past implementations. There's no reason why more options could not be included in a future game, while also streamlining the interface to avoid the messiness you mentioned.

 

@Zantetsuken

>It allows for much more combat options that RT or RTWP, since real time combat systems involve a streamlining of the interface and options to keep combat as less dependant of the interface as possible. TB doesnt suffer from this, because a player has all the time in the world to access these options, so cutting them out is unecessary.

>It allows for careful planning of actions based on turns (which would be similar to the pause function of RTWP, in a way).

There's no reason why an implementation of RTWP could not fulfill these points.

 

>The ability to gauge your achievements in combat is somewhat lost in RT or RTWP, because everything goes off at once and you can't judge how well your decisions are working until you see someone fall dead on the field. Look at chess and look at the ability you have to gauge how your actions are having an effect on the enemy's "troops", on a step by step basis. You don't have that much of a chance to do this in RTWP.

I guess that's part of my point. I don't think you should be able to easily evaluate your strategy after each particular move. Everything should be happening at once, and if your plan starts to break down, well, that's what the pause is for.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my guess is you think that simulating combat must entail a realistic component instead of a lenghtly depiction of everything that happens on a battlefield. But, is real time combat in a CRPG that realistic? Most of the RT or RTWP combat I've seen entails some contradictions to the realistic idea, such as characters being able to move and attack, but not being able to do it simultaneously (something TB allows for in abstract ways, by using something like Time Units or Action Points: a character spends 3 APs to move, 2 to fire, and another 3 to move - instant simulation of combat behaviour); or even two characters firing ballistic weapons right in front of each other until one falls (how many people have you seen trading shots at point blank range without moving in real life?).

Yes I think combat should at least attempt to mimic reality. In the past, there have been games on both sides that model things fairly unrealistically, that's more a function of the underlying system, rather that just RT vs. TB.

 

As for the time the turns take, there is this little something called a speed slider which allows combat to go faster. Most TB games have, or should have, this. Also, RTWP isn't allowing you to dictate the pace of combat in a better way than TB, given TB and RTWP have pauses for you to decide how to act. In TB the pause is automatic when its your turn, in RTWP its made by you, but in both cases you still decide what to do and when to do it, as the game is paused for as long as you like. Sure, giving you the freedom to pause and handle its pace is dependant of you in RTWP, but you'll realize that, most of the time, you pause as many times as a TB system would to depict turns.

Both a speed adjustment for TB and pause for RT are both really solution to the same problem: trying to combine the strengths of both of the systems. I prefer RT with pause, because, even if I'm pausing as or more often than the ends of turns would come up, I'm still controlling the pace directly and can start or stop it at any time.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

There's no reason why an implementation of RTWP could not fulfill these points.

 

Except that RTWP is RT at its core, and by nature RT systems cant provide it by the reason I pointed out above. There always has to be a measure of streamlining. Thats why it should be either system, not a hybrid which isn't better than either system.

 

The main problem with RTWP is that its a hybrid that contradicts itself. It tries to keep the action of real time to make combat fast and exciting, but fails because it adds the ability to pause. An RT system is built around the concept of player reflexes, and requires the player to be constantly interacting with the game; having the ability to pause to plana nd queue actions removes the challenge of fighting in RT, and the fast-paced nature of it (amusingly some people claim that TB is way too passive, but had no problem with the passiveness of IE combat, which involved pausing, issuing orders, and just look as they were carried out - almost like TB). At the same time, it tries to keep the tactical component of TB, but fails because your ability to gauge your strategy isn't as good, and because it doesn't carry the same amount of combat options. One can play the part of the optimist and say an RTWP system could fulfill these glaring flaws in the future, but how and what for? If we already possess RT for the challenge, interaction and fast-paced combat it provides, and TB for the planning and tactical component, and if both systems work like a charm, why waste time in RTWP when it has almost zero benefits (and these benefits usually belong to user preference, and are not factual improvements)?

 

As for the second point, I had already stated it in what I previously wrote.

 

I guess that's part of my point. I don't think you should be able to easily evaluate your strategy after each particular move.

Why not? Why shouldn't players be able to see if what they just did, or if what they planned, is working out? In this case, how would we be able to tell if we were winning or losing?

 

Everything should be happening at once, and if your plan starts to break down, well, that's what the pause is for.

 

That's the problem. Depending on a pause feature in that case ends up being a quick way to correct your mistakes in combat, an "escape method" which should not exist. Adding pause to an RT system comes off as a cop-out. A player should succeed by either using his brains or his reflexes, not by how fast he can hit the pause button. I accept that you're talking of preferences, but if we go with the concept of realism, and of not being able to measure our actions on the field of battle, then pausing is extremely unrealistic - as unrealistic as turns - and a contradiction in your point. If realism is what you're after, then your argument should be to defend and/or prefer real time, not real time with pause, as the pause isn't realistic at all. And if you believe one shouldn't be able to make assessments of his strategy, then approving of a pause feature is strange, given that's the entire purpose behind adding a pause feature into an RT system.

 

Both a speed adjustment for TB and pause for RT are both really solution to the same problem: trying to combine the strengths of both of the systems.

 

They're quite different. A speed adjustment works outside a combat system; a pause feature doesn't. One is only affecting framerates, not the entire combat system philosophy such as what a pause feature is doing.

[G3N13]

That's the problem. Depending on a pause feature in that case ends up being a quick way to correct your mistakes in combat, an "escape method" which should not exist. Adding pause to an RT system comes off as a cop-out. A player should succeed by either using his brains or his reflexes, not by how fast he can hit the pause button.

Are you being ignorant?

 

Why do you want TB? Because you can't do 2 or more things at the same time. RTWP IS the solution for it: With pure RT you need more feedback and instant controls than you can achieve without a) oversimplification of controls and hence the actions & game B) AI takes care of most actions c) direct neural link d) inhuman mouse hand RT is mainly FPS for this particular reason. (RTS is just isometric FPS )

 

OTOH TB is better if you prefer better AI; the one that doesn't overpower with the ability to control more resources at the same time than any human being can (vs RT AI) or just better AI that has more time to crunch the number. Perhaps if you prefer to use cheese TB enabled methods and tactics.

 

OT: All games are TB, only the turn length differs

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Are you being ignorant?

 

One time warning. Drop the attitude.

 

Why do you want TB? Because you can't do 2 or more things at the same time. RTWP IS the solution for it: With pure RT you need more feedback and instant controls than you can achieve without a) oversimplification of controls and hence the actions & game B) AI takes care of most actions c) direct neural link d) inhuman mouse hand RT is mainly FPS for this particular reason. (RTS is just isometric FPS )

 

Someone translate this. Thanks in advance.

[Volourn]

Warning? Are you a mod?

 

I just find it funny people say that Rt with pause lacks tatics comapred to turn base combat. It all depends on the options the devloper gives the PC. NWN has more options for combat than POR2 depsite them both "sharing" the same ruleset yet POR2 is turn base. Why is that? Simple. POR2 lacks the options to use. Same thing with the relationship with NWN, and TOEE except TOEE has the edge in this department. Why? Because TOEE gives you more options. That's all that matters. People who say RT w/pause loses tatical options comapred to tb combat ar ejust being silly as NWN has more options than most role-playing games. Weird.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No, I'm not a mod. But I'm also not someone who likes to be insulted for no apparent reason. I don't know about you, but I don't.

 

I just find it funny people say that Rt with pause lacks tatics comapred to turn base combat. It all depends on the options the devloper gives the PC.

 

Perhaps you're forgetting that combat options need to be tweaked to be used in that environment, and that real time is limiting towards the amount of tactics you can have? Pausing it to issue orders doesn't undo the fact that its still real time.

[Volourn]

Actaully, I don't mind being insulted. I find it funny, actually, when it happens as it *usually* means the person has decided flinging insults is more important then the issue at hands.

 

 

Combat options are always tweaked no matter the combat system. TOEE proves that that despite being the most accurate D&D rules system in a D&D game yet; there was still quite a bit of twinking done.

[Greatjon]

Except that RTWP is RT at its core, and by nature RT systems cant provide it by the reason I pointed out above. There always has to be a measure of streamlining. Thats why it should be either system, not a hybrid which isn't better than either system.

 

The main problem with RTWP is that its a hybrid that contradicts itself. It tries to keep the action of real time to make combat fast and exciting, but fails because it adds the ability to pause. An RT system is built around the concept of player reflexes, and requires the player to be constantly interacting with the game; having the ability to pause to plana nd queue actions removes the challenge of fighting in RT, and the fast-paced nature of it (amusingly some people claim that TB is way too passive, but had no problem with the passiveness of IE combat, which involved pausing, issuing orders, and just look as they were carried out - almost like TB). At the same time, it tries to keep the tactical component of TB, but fails because your ability to gauge your strategy isn't as good, and because it doesn't carry the same amount of combat options. One can play the part of the optimist and say an RTWP system could fulfill these glaring flaws in the future, but how and what for? If we already possess RT for the challenge, interaction and fast-paced combat it provides, and TB for the planning and tactical component, and if both systems work like a charm, why waste time in RTWP when it has almost zero benefits (and these benefits usually belong to user preference, and are not factual improvements)?

If it came down to just TB or RT with no in between, I'd pick TB. I don't want the system to depend on player reflexes or skill with a mouse, and I don't want the challenge to come from those aspects of the system.

 

When I say real time with pause, what goes through my head is much closer to a simultaneous turn based system with arbitrary turn length controlled by the player than to a system that's supposedly fast and exciting, relying upon player mouse skills and reflexes, with pause added in.

 

As for assessing strategy. I think it's just as possible to determine how you're doing, whether you're winning or losing, in a real-time system. I just prefer a system where you have to be able to keep track of many things at once, rather than being able to review each individual choice separately as it's happening. Even a simultaneous turn based system would accomplish this to my satisfaction.

 

That's the problem. Depending on a pause feature in that case ends up being a quick way to correct your mistakes in combat, an "escape method" which should not exist. Adding pause to an RT system comes off as a cop-out. A player should succeed by either using his brains or his reflexes, not by how fast he can hit the pause button. I accept that you're talking of preferences, but if we go with the concept of realism, and of not being able to measure our actions on the field of battle, then pausing is extremely unrealistic - as unrealistic as turns - and a contradiction in your point. If realism is what you're after, then your argument should be to defend and/or prefer real time, not real time with pause, as the pause isn't realistic at all. And if you believe one shouldn't be able to make assessments of his strategy, then approving of a pause feature is strange, given that's the entire purpose behind adding a pause feature into an RT system.

I don't know what larger escape method there is than a pure TB system where you can react to each enemy in turn, rather than having to plan your entire move ahead, and react as everything is happening at once. And of course there should be some mechanism to prevent instantly changing from one action to another, but that basically breaks down to some predetermined time elapsing for different actions. Turns happening, just in the background, and asynchronously, but simultaneously. Or something like that.

 

Realism. My preference for realism is not for the player to try to make sense of a chaotic maelstrom that's proceeding faster than they can react. And I'll take gameplay and fun over realism every time. I just don't like TB systems where each character moves separately on their own turn. That's the part that seems too artificial for me.

 

They're quite different. A speed adjustment works outside a combat system; a pause feature doesn't. One is only affecting framerates, not the entire combat system philosophy such as what a pause feature is doing.

I think they both take place outside the combat system. In essence, they're both controlling the pace of combat. The ability to pause and give orders is really just being able to choose how long you want turns to be. It doesn't mean that you can change any order at any time. Once an action is started, there still has to be some kind of cool down period before you start to do something else entirely. It kind of comes to what I said before about simultaneous, asynchronous, variable length turns. I think the best way to accomplish this is through RT with pause.

[Nexus]

Having seen 20+ page RT vs TB topics on the old BIS and Interplay mesage boards (which I'm sure the ex-BIS people remember fondly), you guys are not going to resolve this issue anytime soon. It came up during Lionheart's development, during Jefferon's, during Van Buren's, in the general feedback forum, and anywhere people could have a say on it. You've got martyrs for TB, others who'll crusade for RT, and a few heretics like me who like 'em all, as long as they've been well thought out and present options and a challenge. As long as they're fun and interesting. And that's what I think people are forgetting. TB isn't going to make a game better if the rest of the game sucks. RT isn't going to worsen a great game, except in the minds of a few. Which is why I say let the devs choose. Whatever they're game for. In my writing classes, I learned that while it's important to write for an intended audience, it is just as important to write for oneself, so that you can have enthusiasm for your work and make it better. I believe the same applies here.

[Iolo]

TB is preferable to RT, for me. They can always make improvements like in TOEE where enemies move simultaneously to speed things up. In a D&D computer game, all of them really should be TB because the system being adapted is TB. Otherwise, you wind up with all of these hacks and incorrectly or strangely implemented rules like in BG or NWN.

[Volourn]

Yeah, because tb D&D computer games like TOEE don't have hacks and incorrectly or strnagely implented rules. Hmm..

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Combat options are always tweaked no matter the combat system. TOEE proves that that despite being the most accurate D&D rules system in a D&D game yet; there was still quite a bit of twinking done.

 

Thats not exactly the point. You said that RTWP could have the same amount of tactical options than a TB game, but RTWP is still RT, regardless, and you know well that some things just can't be done, nor carried out the same way.

 

@Greatjon:

 

When I say real time with pause, what goes through my head is much closer to a simultaneous turn based system with arbitrary turn length controlled by the player than to a system that's supposedly fast and exciting, relying upon player mouse skills and reflexes, with pause added in.

Apparently the confusion stemed from giving similar names to different things, then. You were thinking of something somewhat different from Baldur's Gate, or NWN, which was what I was thinking by reading RTWP, so that's probably where the confusion came from.

 

Also, that second system isn't RTWP exactly: Diablo is RT and requires constant player input; IE games dont. That was the point i was also trying to make back there, as RTWP don't even require player reflexes, and becomes passive.

 

As for assessing strategy. I think it's just as possible to determine how you're doing, whether you're winning or losing, in a real-time system. I just prefer a system where you have to be able to keep track of many things at once, rather than being able to review each individual choice separately as it's happening. Even a simultaneous turn based system would accomplish this to my satisfaction.

 

Well, like I said back there, both TB or RT allow you to see how you're doing, but TB has the advantage of allowing you to see it on a more relaxed frame of observation. RT is too hectic for it; its manageable, but only if the amount of things to track down is reduced.

 

I don't know what larger escape method there is than a pure TB system where you can react to each enemy in turn, rather than having to plan your entire move ahead, and react as everything is happening at once. And of course there should be some mechanism to prevent instantly changing from one action to another, but that basically breaks down to some predetermined time elapsing for different actions. Turns happening, just in the background, and asynchronously, but simultaneously. Or something like that.

Despite having turns, TB doesn't allow you to stop the action if you're about to make a mistake. Even if you have a turn to decide how to act, the act is majorly carried out automatically. The pause feature allows for that, instant cancellation of possibly wrong moves or stopping wrong decisions from being carried out. Its much more of an escape method in that sense. Turns aren't an escape, they're just showing in detail what a character would do in real time.

 

As for the separate turns, its not uncommon for characters to carry out their turns simultaneously. ToEE did this. Enemies would often have the same turn in the sequence and would move simultaneously, solving the usual downtime of combat. This isn't done for party members because they are all under your control. But its quite possible to have 2 or more NPCs, like enemies, to act simultaneously on a TB system. An NPC control scheme like that of Fallout (automatic), but with simultaneous movement for NPCs. But automating NPCs isn't always a good idea.

 

I think they both take place outside the combat system.

 

I disagree, but i already gave out my view on why i disagree on that one, so I'll refrain from posting it again.

 

@Nexus:

 

Well you're certainly right there. I'm not a devoted fan of pure RT, but I can see its merits (fun included), and can adapt to it. And while I prefer TB over all else for combat in a CRPG, i understand how it doesn't appeal to people looking for realism. I can even tolerate RTWP, but I've yet to see it bring more fun that pure RT or more options than pure TB, hence why I don't understand the overall hype around it.

[S4ur0n27]

The topic subject in itself is wrong : combat RPG?

 

This like a white blackman?

 

A RPG focused on combat is s**t.

[Volourn]

Sauron: i take it you don't like TOEE, IWD series, the Gb series, the M&M, anf the list goes on?

 

Zant: tru;.

 

As for overall, i should clarify for those who don't know (not that they'd care); but I actually like tb combat myself. I'm not *arguing* against it even if seems that way sometimes. Heh.

[Iolo]

Yeah, because tb D&D computer games like TOEE don't have hacks and incorrectly or strnagely implented rules. Hmm..

Far less so than NWN did.

[Volourn]

Never said otherwise. of course, I could be a jerk (and I am); and point out POR2 which is a tb game and look at all the things it did. so i guess that proves that tb games are awful int hat regard, huh? Like is aid, NWN has the most tatical combat ina rpg this side of TOEE.

[Iolo]

Never said otherwise. of course, I could be a jerk (and I am); and point out POR2 which is a tb game and look at all the things it did. so i guess that proves that tb games are awful int hat regard, huh? Like is aid, NWN has the most tatical combat ina rpg this side of TOEE.

No that just proves that the developer of POR2 couldn't make a good game. They didn't do much better with D&D Heroes. Or you could use Lionheart as an example that SPECIAL doesn't translate to RT games.

 

I don't recall there being much good tactical combat in NWN. I think the fact that the party size was much smaller and you had no control over your companions has something to do with that. I think Freedom Force was more tactical than NWN.

[S4ur0n27]

No I don't like IWD or ToEE. NWN either.

 

These are action games.

[Volourn]

Iolo: Well.. I didn't play Ff so i won't comment on it. That said, NWN OC had lots of good tatical combat despite only controlling one character.

 

Another side q, why you pick that avatar?

 

 

 

Sauron: Cool.

[Greatjon]

Well, like I said back there, both TB or RT allow you to see how you're doing, but TB has the advantage of allowing you to see it on a more relaxed frame of observation. RT is too hectic for it; its manageable, but only if the amount of things to track down is reduced.

There's absolutely no reason you can't have the same amount of options available in RT that you can have in TB. The problem comes in being able to make use of them, hence pause. Although in some past games, RT may have been hectic, and thing may have been cut out to make the game flow better, there's no reason it has to be that way. How does TB have "the advantage of allowing you to see it on a more relaxed frame of observation" if you can pause the game at any time?

 

Despite having turns, TB doesn't allow you to stop the action if you're about to make a mistake. Even if you have a turn to decide how to act, the act is majorly carried out automatically. The pause feature allows for that, instant cancellation of possibly wrong moves or stopping wrong decisions from being carried out. Its much more of an escape method in that sense. Turns aren't an escape, they're just showing in detail what a character would do in real time.

How can you walk into a mistake in TB when you only have to decide the actions of one character at a time? Other characters can ready actions and such, but it's harder to do. There's also no reason in a future game that a pause feature would mean instant cancellation. You might be able to alter the course of action part way through, but ideally, not cancel it flat-out. This kind of feature isn't really needed in TB, because nothing else is moving while it's your turn. And TB does not show what a character would be doing in real time; in real-time, everything else would be moving, and they'd have to react to that. A RT with pause system both allows the player to fall into more difficulties by having everything happening at once, but has the added flexibility to reissue orders in such a situation.

 

As for the separate turns, its not uncommon for characters to carry out their turns simultaneously. ToEE did this. Enemies would often have the same turn in the sequence and would move simultaneously, solving the usual downtime of combat. This isn't done for party members because they are all under your control. But its quite possible to have 2 or more NPCs, like enemies, to act simultaneously on a TB system. An NPC control scheme like that of Fallout (automatic), but with simultaneous movement for NPCs. But automating NPCs isn't always a good idea.

But that doesn't change anything that happens during the player's turn, it doesn't even really change what would happen without the simultaneous turns. It just makes the turns go a bit faster.

 

I have enjoyed games with RT, TB, and varying degrees in the middle in the past. Also, I think that in a good RPG combat should be on the fringe, not the focus of the game. Alas, in most games, even if they don't focus on combat, combat takes up a large portion of time. From my experience with combat in previous games I think RT with pause is the best solution, sharing some of the strengths of both RT and TB

[S4ur0n27]

My avatar Volourn?