This is the kind of cRPG combat that I like

[Gyges]

I prefer the more awesome fights we have nowadays to the old ones, but at the same time i dislike the oversimplification of them and the lack of need for more advanced strategies. Dragon Age 2 had fancy fights but no depth to them. It had been simplified down to hack and slash and spell-spamming. I did like that you could use repositioning in the battlefield to gain an advantage but many skills where of little use because there was never really a situation that needed their use. Enemies were simply too retarded. I was not a fan of the cannon fodder parts though.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Gyges

[Tale]

My response to everything tends to be "new, new, new." I definitely don't want to see the old dolled up and repackaged. But I'm not expecting that. I similarly don't want to see something recent dolled up and repacked. That's not new, either. It's just younger. But I would lean more favorably to a system like older systems than one like recent systems.

 

That said, I preferred the tactical of party based isometrics just in general. Modern games tend to be less tactical and focus on one character. Even when party based, you only control one character at a time. I don't really want that. Beyond that, I'm not really a good judge.

[LadyCrimson]

Hm. Not sure I like the poll choices either. They don't fit me, is all.

 

For 3D games I'd say Kotor and FNV (when not using VATS). For "isometric" I'd say Baldur's Gate/IWD series. I definitely prefer party/group rpg's, both for combat and in general. And overall, I haven't liked the way combat style is going in recent years....in most genres, not just rpg's. But sometimes this is largely because of UI choices more than anything else.

 

I also think it's important to note that it's not really fair to compare combat/controls of games like WoW (an MMO) with something like BG (single-player). Sometimes certain combat mechanics do well and represent one style/genre of gameplay while not being good for another. Thus I can enjoy a game like WoW on its own, but not want, say, a hypothetical new SP sequel of BG to emulate it. Oranges and apples.

[Amentep]

I can't really give an answer.

 

For example, Wiz8 allows the opponents to break party ranks across a 3D field. Old Wizardry you fought a group of opponents all on one field. The new way radically altered the efficacy of area affect spells for the player - something I *hated* in that game. I still liked the game, though, and I can't fault them for thinking - "hey, we don't have to keep doing the same thing now that technology could allow us to do other things". They just didn't come up with a satisfying "other thing" to me.

 

I'm probably okay with the system as long as its balanced and fun to use; I'm not terribly beholden to a particular way to resolve combat.

[rjshae]

Another poll with incomplete answers. Not really conclusive. Ah well.

[Metabot]

You need to be able to pick multiple options.

[timobkg]

The choice is not DA:O and DA2. It is either one. Do you understand the difference between logical AND and logical OR? It's a logical OR. There are only 10 choices in a poll. I had to do the same thing to all of Black Isle's games. Do you think IWD1, IWD2, and PS:T had the same combat system? IWD2 wasn't even a 2nd ed. system anymore. I removed the Electronic Arts reference from the New Bioware even though it cannot be denied that Bioware is now owned by Electronic Arts and that the founders are gone.

If you can't make a good poll, don't make a bad one. You can't lump DA:O and DA2 together, and neither can you lump IWD and PS:T together. Many people liked one, but not the other. I'd argue that BG and IWD have more in common than IWD and PS:T.

 

Combat systems hinge on implementation. The same combat system can have a terrible implementation or a great one, and thus play and feel completely differently, and the poll completely ignores that.

[Gurkog]

Dark Age of Camelot had great combat. Too bad it was an indie title with limited resources... then EA bought and killed it. I liked WoW combat circa WotLK. I quit the game before Cataclysm was released so I don't know how its current combat system compares. Those games are MMOs with rotatable cameras though. I am not sure how their systems would work with a fixed position camera. I know WoW's combat was heavily inspired by Diablo and Warcraft.

 

The Torchlight series has some mechanics they could take inspiration from. Charge meter system that effects many skills, including ones on cooldowns. Perhaps Grim Dawn and Diablo 2 could inspire things as well.

 

There are good segments of mechanics out there to copy and paste, but not entire systems.

[PeonWarrior]

I voted for Dragon Age Origins because I really felt the game is the spiritual successor of BG and combat is a modernised version of traditional DnD. Seriously, resting with fade out screen after a battle here and there really takes away the realism.

 

DA2 on the other hand is a POS. Don't go reinvent the wheel please

[Merin]

Bad poll is bad.

[Skie Nightfall]

What's the difference between Arcanum and ToEE? Both are turn based no?

There should be a mana based option, without cooling, but with other stuff.

[Hoverdog]

What's the difference between Arcanum and ToEE? Both are turn based no?

arcanum = ****ty system that allows for both RT and turn-based, both of which suck

ToEE = great implementation of turn-based pnp D&D combat

[IndiraLightfoot]

I just realized: How much action shall this PE-combat have? What pace? I'm rather old school, and given the party-based IE-feel to it so far, I would have the party-strategy aspect as the priority, and action and colourful spells and explosions as something I wouldn't prioritize. In many ways I think NWN2 was a good compromise in that regard. Something that received some criticism was the slightly stiff combat sequences (but those complaining did so on grounds of animation and available weapon models animated IIRC). Ideally, I could live without tapping a mouse-button like a madman or going all out combat, like God of War or Kingdoms of Amalur. I want the party RPG aspect to shine and stand out.

[Lady Evenstar]

For me the poll misses the point because what is enjoyable in a single-protagonist game is so different from what works well in a game with full party control. It doesn't matter whether my favorite games are single-protagonist action RPGs or party-based tactical RPGs. I can enjoy both, and this game will feature party-based goodness.

[Bloody Hypocrite]

I'm not sure if anyone has ever played it, but I did enjoy the magic system from Realmz. It's a spell point based system, but aslo allows the player to pick the magnitude or power level of the spell being cast. It also allowed the caster to prepare a certain amount of scrolls at a greater cost outside of combat, making it into a sort spell point vancian combo.

[Ninjamestari]

There are a number of benefits from using a Mana based spellcasting, as it allows interesting spell concepts such as mana burn and mana stealing. Also, as an energy of the soul, mana makes much more sense than spell slots. To me a Mana based system enhances immersion. Spell slot system works great in pnp, but it just doesn't make any sense storywise. Mana system also allows you to have diversity in the way you regain your spellcasting ability, someone might have a spell that converts health into mana, some other caster might even be able to regenerate mana during combat (passive regeneration of health and mana should be available, but they should have a high cost to them, or at least they should be restricted to some special classes. Maybe there is a caster class that can regenerate mana, but has a very limited mana pool preventing them from casting the most powerful spells or something like that).

[FreeMayk]

U cant compare Dragon Age Origins with Dragon Age 2. Those two games not have same genre.

[Gatt9]

Poll is biased.

 

Fails to differentiate between some obviously different combat systems (DAO and DA2), includes MMORPG's in a question about single player games, and fails to have a single turn-based example (Such as Fallout).

 

The last set of questions demonstrate obvious bias in their phrasing as well, note the first and last options clearly indicate "This is better!" while the middle option is phrased to make it sound neutral towards "Modern" styles.

 

Poll author is also operating under the incorrect assumption that "Modern" is in any way new, it isn't, most "Modern CRPG's" are genre shifts and contain combat found in other genres, or they're even more stale than the game the author considers "Old". Skyrim comes to mind, it's the epitome of stale, it hasn't changed in 15 years.

[eimatshya]

As far as party based combat goes, I thought ToEE nailed it. I like it when my characters do what I want, when I want them to. I also like the ability to position characters precisely and have them stay put without constant micromanaging. In RTwP games, party positioning is an enormous headache. It takes forever to get the characters into position, and by the the time you do, it's usually too late. Also, you have to constantly fiddle with them to get them to stay in position. DA:O was the worst because enemies could just push through your defenders even when they were positioned properly.

 

However, since they've already said that they're going the RTwP route, I guess the point is moot.

 

I don't have any strong preferences in the area of magic except that it not be Vancian. I thought Arcanum's magic system was the most interesting mechanically that I've seen in a CRPG, so I guess that would have me leaning towards a fatigue system, but I've never really had a problem with a mana or cool-down system in other games, so I'm indifferent overall.

 

The last question was the hardest since I don't really have any strong feelings about the direction combat has been going in CRPGs. I would say I'm indifferent. There have been some recent games where I enjoyed combat and some older games where I enjoyed the combat and a lot of games from both eras in which I found combat to be quite dull. I thought the combat in the Dragon Age games was overall pretty bad, but it wasn't any worse than the combat in the IE games.

 

I just find RTwP combat to be extremely dull in general. It lacks the strategic depth of turn-based games like ToEE, Jagged Alliance 2, or Final Fantasy Tactics while also lacking the excitement of a twitch-based game like Jade Empire or ME 2. RTwP games just sit in an awkward middle area that, for me, isn't very fun. Ideally, I'd want games with party based, tactical combat to be turn-based and games without such a focus to be twitch-based. However, since RTwP is sort of the standard for story-based CRPGs, I've gotten used to having to slog through tedious combat sections to get to the interesting parts. As such, I don't really care anymore about the combat in P:E. They've already decided to take a direction I am unlikely to enjoy (which wasn't a surprise for me, given that they set out from the beginning to recreate the feel of the IE games). My hope is that combat sections won't be interminably long like in DA:O or that I'll be able to find ways to circumvent much of it altogether (the devs' comments on non-combat skills make this sound plausible).

 

So, worst case scenario, combat will be boring, and there'll be a lot of it. Which isn't really a bad of a scenario since it's the norm, and I'm used to it. Best case scenario, combat will be largely avoidable or over quickly (or even, by some miracle, combat will be fun, although I'll believe an RTwP system can be fun when I see it). Whichever way it turns out, as long as Obsidian lives up to its standard of excellence in the story department (and I have no reason to believe that it won't), I'm sure I'll enjoy P:E, however hum-drum combat may be.

[Drakxii]

I don't really understand this poll... why are we selecting games instead of combat systems?

[edeheusch]

I don't really understand this poll... why are we selecting games instead of combat systems?

I agree with you but I would say that we are selecting developer instead of combat system.

For example there is no good reason to regroup Icewind Dale 2 that is based on the 3^rd edition of D&D with Icewind Dale 1 and Planescape: Torment that is base one the 2nd edition like the Baldur’s Gates series (they differ a lot in matter of characters progression).

Also the combat system of DA2 is an excessively simplified version of the one of DAO and I would definitively not classify them together.

It would make much more sense to have the following categories:

- Baldur’s Gate 1, Baldur’s Gate, Icewind Dale 1 and Planescape: Torment (based on D&D 2nd edition)

- Icewind Dale 2, Neverinter Night 1 and Neverwinter Night 2 (based on D&D 3rd edition)

- Dragon Age Origins

- Dragon Age 2

[ReyVagabond]

Personally, for the modern RPG I liked Dragon Age Origins and NWN2, Top down camera ala Baldurs Gate. And I Hated DA2. So for my vote was for DA:O mixed with DA2 witch I hated.

 

The first one with to top down camera was the closest thing to the old times, but it had some skills here and there to make the fighting with the warrior a little more compelling that the BG point and attack. So that’s why it gets my vote.

 

In relation with magic ill vote for the a mix of Valant and exhaustion,

 

The memorization of spells, I find it a strange, you have to memorize a big ass spell but once you reach certain expertise those spells you should never be able to forget them, once you have practice, for example a song, after X days of practice is like a second skin you never forget it.

And the Sorcer system is more or less a mana system.

 

A Mana system I don’t like because it creates a resource only usable for Mages and magic users creating balance problems in my opinion. I think all Classes should or use their 100% unique system or use all the same system and an Endurance-Stamina-Exhaustion system I think it works.

For example have you ever run for two hours, you end up depending on factors tired, or have you ever finished a test and you end up tired with no will to do anything but to rest. Well that the logic behind this wilding a sword or taping into your soul to create some magic is just consumes stamina.

 

A reagent system could be good for the biggest more expensive spells a way to access spells that are some what more powerful that your current character is capable to do, but this is more like a magic items and stuff like that.

 

Well in conclusion I want a Valant and Exhaustion-stamina system.

A Wizard to tap into the magical real resource not magic recourses but natural stamina and I don’t think cooldowns is necessary but the biggest spells have powerful drawbacks like casting times exhaustion after the spells heavy stamina cost. etc.

 

If you want to cast fireball after fireball there should not be a cooldown that hinders you but something more primal like after doing a fireball you will consume a big chunk of your stamina and you will be exhausted for a short time making your next spell you cast consume more stamina.

 

This comes with an idea for stamina or endurance as a basic system to rule every action in the game. For example you need to rest to recover your stamina, and if you pass some day without rest you have penalties, you need to drink and eat to keep you stamina high, and there are no magic potions. I want combat to be about set recourses before the fight now how many potions you have to spam.

 

But that’s just me.

 

And considering the last the MMOs mechanics, for example for me games like Dragon Age Origins had a simplified MMOs idea (still I thought they had too many skills) for a party balanced System.

Still it’s all in the Animations I want cool animations that even if I have plenty of skills most of the action happens in the background of the game with excellent an epic Animation. But its all about mix and match, an usual mmo like WoW, ToR, Everquest, have tons of skills to micromanage because mostly because you control just one character. But the idea of using active combat skills with some other passive skills and many more ideas is the right thing for me to do the game environment is an evolving one. And it should keep evolving with this game.

 

But what can I say the number of skills, abilities, Spells is something to requires heavy balance.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In a combat system for a cRPG the main requirement I have is for success in combat to be determined by character skill and not player skill. The cooldown for basic attacks is something I actually like in RTwP cRGPs (IMO, DAO actually handled basic attacks pretty well).

 

With spells and special abilities, I really like limited mana/stamina/uses instead of cooldowns. My preferred system would be a mana/stamina per day system that accommodates both spontaneous ability-use/casting and preparation of spells. The reason I favor this instead of a spells/abilities per day system is that magic users can prepare the spells they want without being stopped by a 8-th level limit, and combat classes can use abilities like rage or stunning fist more instead of quivering palm just because they have a "per day" limit for that ability.