RTwP versus Turn Based Combat

[ogrezilla]

I like both systems, but "trash fights" are much more annoying in turn based because they just take longer. Not that I like the unimportant fights that you really can't lose in either, but they are worse in turn based imo. I never played the fallout games when they were new, so I tried playing it a few weeks ago. Walking out of the vault in the first Fallout and fighting those rats is one of the least enjoyable introductions to a game I've ever experienced. I'm sure it gets better, but that just put a bad taste in my mouth and I loaded up Icewind Dale instead.

Edited October 6, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Umberlin]

I think the issue there is with 'trash' fights in general . . . it's a plague on real time or turn based or any type of gameplay.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Umberlin

[ogrezilla]

I think the issue there is with 'trash' fights in general . . . it's a plague on real time or turn based or any type of gameplay.

absolutely. I was just pointing out that its amplified by turn based combat. The lack of required strategy basically slaps you in the face when you still have to choose every action individually.

[Osvir]

I'm sure it gets better, but that just put a bad taste in my mouth.

 

Endure my friend, endure. You are just 231 left-clicks away from the magic.

 

On Turn-Based, I love it too. Disgaea is one of my favorite games~ Nippon Ichi <3

Heroes of Might & Magic too, as well as other Turn-Based games (Temple of Elemental Evil, one of them and it works really well in it).

I wouldn't mind seeing more of the Temple of Elemental Evil system... this makes me curious as if it is possible (granted resources are enough) if some sort of Temple of Elemental Evil-ish system Option can be dropped/coded into or on top of the real time option somehow. I wouldn't know, I'm no programmer. Just curious.

[Rostere]

Why are some people even discussing real- time RPGs without pause? Hardly relevant in any way, is it? Real time RPGs with automated pause options represents the ideal combat system, in my opinion. The advantage of real- time over turn- based is all about concurrency of actions. A good example of this system being implemented is HoI 2 (although it's definitely not a RPG).

[ogrezilla]

Why are some people even discussing real- time RPGs without pause? Hardly relevant in any way, is it? Real time RPGs with automated pause options represents the ideal combat system, in my opinion. The advantage of real- time over turn- based is all about concurrency of actions. A good example of this system being implemented is HoI 2 (although it's definitely not a RPG).

someone was wrong on the internet. I'm sorry, but that can't be tolerated haha

[Captain Shrek]

Why are some people even discussing real- time RPGs without pause? Hardly relevant in any way, is it? Real time RPGs with automated pause options represents the ideal combat system, in my opinion. The advantage of real- time over turn- based is all about concurrency of actions. A good example of this system being implemented is HoI 2 (although it's definitely not a RPG).

Hmm. That is a curious opinion. What do you think of Combat in Diablo?

[Kaelan]

Diablo would be unplayable if it had backstabs, attacks of opportunity, crowd controls spells, reach weapons, buffing/debuffing and had one person controlling a party of characters. The reason it works without pausing is because you have a much more limited set of options at any given time.

 

The advantage of real- time over turn- based is all about concurrency of actions

 

I can't see how that could possibly be an advantage for this type of game, given the enormous amount of strategy you lose when that happens. The only reason I can see for making a system real-time is if you're interested in making the core gameplay twitch-based, like Diablo or Star Ocean. If you ever have to pause, that's a sign that it should have been turn-based in the first place (especially if you end up like the hard mode in Dragon Age, where you're essentially pausing every two seconds and the game becomes much slower than it would have been were it turn-based).

Edited October 9, 2012 by Kaelan

[hideo kuze]

ToEE

 

 

/thread

[ogrezilla]

Diablo would be unplayable if it had backstabs, attacks of opportunity, crowd controls spells, reach weapons, buffing/debuffing and had one person controlling a party of characters. The reason it works without pausing is because you have a much more limited set of options at any given time.

 

The advantage of real- time over turn- based is all about concurrency of actions

 

I can't see how that could possibly be an advantage for this type of game, given the enormous amount of strategy you lose when that happens. The only reason I can see for making a system real-time is if you're interested in making the core gameplay twitch-based, like Diablo or Star Ocean. If you ever have to pause, that's a sign that it should have been turn-based in the first place (especially if you end up like the hard mode in Dragon Age, where you're essentially pausing every two seconds and the game becomes much slower than it would have been were it turn-based).

I disagree with this post so much

 

there is no inherent loss of strategy between real time and turn based. Real time is much harder to properly implement your strategies, so developers typically design them to require less. But a lack of strategy or tactics is not an inherent quality of real time. RTwP is in my opinion a happy medium between the two. It allows time to actually give commands to multiple units, but it doesn't simplify things to one unit doing something at a time.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Kaelan]

There is no inherent loss of strategy between real time and turn based.

 

Making units act concurrently doesn't complicate things, it simplifies things: a huge array of strategic options are no longer feasible.

 

- Initiative is meaningless in real time (which is extremely important in D&D-type systems, as anyone who's ever played a D&D caster will know)

- Movement ranges are meaningless. There's no reason for a unit to stop moving before it gets to its destination, and there's usually nothing its opponents can do to stop it before it actually gets there (especially when there's several units moving at the same time)

- Movement is less precise (you lose 5ft steps, running, withdrawing, etc; anyone can move any distance at any time)

- Attacking is less precise (you lose the ability to strategically use single attacks, full attacks, keeping opponents out of range with bull rushes, etc)

- You lose "Ready vs." actions, because everything happens too fast for them to be useful

- You lose reach weapons, because anyone can just waltz in and out of your threat range whenever they want (again, because everything happens too fast)

- You lose the ability to aim spells effectively because units keep moving all over the place, making it extremely difficult to avoid friendly fire (every time you move your tank, enemies just immediately follow him; you never get a chance to throw a spell after he backs away, nor do you get to open combat with a spell as enemies often are right next to you by the time it goes off)

- You lose the ability to use positioning to control the battle effectively (i.e. you can't use Enlarge Person on your tank to block a hallway, because it's not tile-based, so anyone can walk wherever they want, whenever they want)

- You break the action economy (no swift actions, quickened spells, etc.)

- You lose surprise rounds (even if you notice the enemy first, by the time whatever attack you're using goes off, they'll already have started attacking you back)

- Attacks of opportunity are a lot less useful. Making a Lockdown build is almost out of the question.

 

The reason it's hard to do these things in real-time is because this system is not meant to work in real-time. It's just a bad combination. The strength of a real-time system is quick, twitch-based gameplay (Star Ocean, Diablo, Dark Souls, Witcher, etc.). It's very very bad for strategy-RPG type gameplay.

 

Play ToEE, then play NWN and compare. There is a huge difference.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Kaelan

[ogrezilla]

play checkers, then play warcraft 3. There is a huge difference. No, don't do that. Because giving examples that support your argument is not the same as your argument being right.

 

Look, you are making a lot of arguments about your preferences. you are making a lot of arguments about common game design and attributing them directly to the real time system. You even make the ridiculous assertion that real time games can't use positioning to control battles effectively because they aren't grid based. Sure, real time doesn't have movement range. But real time does allow for different movement speeds. Different, not better or worse.

 

Turn based games inherently allow you to have more control than a real time game. That makes it EASIER to use good strategies. But that is not an inherent problem with real time. The strategies are still valid, they are just more difficult (or even impossible) to pull off. Adding in pause eliminates that problem.

 

 

These points show how strategy is different, but not worse or lessened.

- You lose the ability to aim spells effectively because units keep moving all over the place, making it extremely difficult to avoid friendly fire (every time you move your tank, enemies just immediately follow him; you never get a chance to throw a spell after he backs away, nor do you get to open combat with a spell as enemies often are right next to you by the time it goes off)

 

These points are design issues, not real time issues

- Movement ranges are meaningless. There's no reason for a unit to stop moving before it gets to its destination, and there's usually nothing its opponents can do to stop it before it actually gets there (especially when there's several units moving at the same time)

- Initiative is meaningless in real time (which is extremely important in D&D-type systems, as anyone who's ever played a D&D caster will know)

- You break the action economy (no swift actions, quickened spells, etc.)

- You lose surprise rounds (even if you notice the enemy first, by the time whatever attack you're using goes off, they'll already have started attacking you back)

- Attacks of opportunity are a lot less useful. Making a Lockdown build is almost out of the question.

 

These points are solved by allowing pause (and really aren't removed with real time, they are just very difficult do to controls)

- Attacking is less precise (you lose the ability to strategically use single attacks, full attacks, keeping opponents out of range with bull rushes, etc)

- You lose "Ready vs." actions, because everything happens too fast for them to be useful

- You lose reach weapons, because anyone can just waltz in and out of your threat range whenever they want (again, because everything happens too fast)

 

This point is just plain wrong

- You lose the ability to use positioning to control the battle effectively (i.e. you can't use Enlarge Person on your tank to block a hallway, because it's not tile-based, so anyone can walk wherever they want, whenever they want)

 

And I'm not sure what you mean by this one

- Movement is less precise (you lose 5ft steps, running, withdrawing, etc; anyone can move any distance at any time)

[Kaelan]

play checkers, then play warcraft 3.

 

And those games have absolutely nothing in common, so what exactly does that have to do with the point I was making?

 

Because giving examples that support your argument is not the same as your argument being right

 

Actually, it is. On the other hand, "you're wrong" is not a counter-agument.

 

These points are design issues, not real time issues

This point is just plain wrong

These points are solved by allowing pause

 

So here's the thing: when you make an argument, you have to actually justify why you're right. You don't get to just assert things without backing anything up. Your entire reply is essentially "No, u!". And you clearly are unfamiliar with most of those mechanics if you think adding pause makes any of them usable in real-time. The reason they don't work has nothing to do with "thinking time", it's a problem with units taking turns concurrently. Pausing doesn't change that.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Kaelan

[ogrezilla]

- You lose the ability to aim spells effectively because units keep moving all over the place, making it extremely difficult to avoid friendly fire (every time you move your tank, enemies just immediately follow him; you never get a chance to throw a spell after he backs away, nor do you get to open combat with a spell as enemies often are right next to you by the time it goes off)

That's not a difference in strategy, its a difference in difficulty.

 

- Movement ranges are meaningless. There's no reason for a unit to stop moving before it gets to its destination,

you are describing mechanics. as a counter example, movement speed is meaningless in a turn based game. It results in different strategies, not diminished strategy.

 

and there's usually nothing its opponents can do to stop it before it actually gets there (especially when there's several units moving at the same time)

This is purely game design. It has absolutely nothing to do with being real time or turn based.

 

- Initiative is meaningless in real time (which is extremely important in D&D-type systems, as anyone who's ever played a D&D caster will know)

Literally moving first is not meaningless. If you can start acting before the opponent knows you are there, you will get a meaningful advantage. If you don't act before they can react, there is no good reason you should get that advantage. That isn't diminished strategy, its different.

 

- You break the action economy (no swift actions, quickened spells, etc.)

Cast times and attack speeds largely do the same thing. There's no reason you couldn't include quickened spell mechanics or swift action mechanics into a real time game. In fact, real time games do it all the time.

 

- You lose surprise rounds (even if you notice the enemy first, by the time whatever attack you're using goes off, they'll already have started attacking you back)

Same answer as initiative

 

- Attacks of opportunity are a lot less useful. Making a Lockdown build is almost out of the question.

That's a game mechanic that could be implemented regardless of real time or turn based combat. It might lead to wonky animations I guess, but there's nothing stopping the mechanic from working in real time.

 

- Attacking is less precise (you lose the ability to strategically use single attacks, full attacks, keeping opponents out of range with bull rushes, etc)

Can you explain this? I don't see how it has anything to do with real time or turn based beyond being more difficult to do in real time. You lose the ability to know what the outcome of one attack is before deciding what another should do, but that just changes strategy it doesn't diminish it.

 

- You lose "Ready vs." actions, because everything happens too fast for them to be useful

No you don't. They are harder to use, but they can still be used. Especially with pause.

 

- You lose reach weapons, because anyone can just waltz in and out of your threat range whenever they want (again, because everything happens too fast)

weapon range is more difficult to utilize. you don't lose it. the strategy is different but its not gone or diminished. And keep in mind, you can move in and out of the enemies ranges too. That's added strategy for real time.

 

- You lose the ability to use positioning to control the battle effectively (i.e. you can't use Enlarge Person on your tank to block a hallway, because it's not tile-based, so anyone can walk wherever they want, whenever they want)

Just no. I just blocked a pathway in Icewind Dale with my fighter and paladin while the rest of my party used ranged attacks (included a two handed sword using fighter who could reach over the two in front of him) while the enemies couldn't pass through them. Unit collision doesn't go away when you get rid of tiles. And for the record, you can do turn based games without tile-based environments and you could even do real time games with tile-based environments if you wanted to.

 

- Movement is less precise (you lose 5ft steps, running, withdrawing, etc; anyone can move any distance at any time)

You can still keep distance between units in real time. Its harder, but you can do it. You can still have movement modifiers in real time. I'm not sure I get what you mean here.

 

 

And no, you can't prove something right with one example. You can support an argument with an example, but you can't prove it right with a single example. ToEE being more strategic than NWN2 doesn't mean every turn based strategy game is more strategic than every real time strategy game.

Edited October 10, 2012 by ogrezilla