RTwP versus Turn Based Combat

[Althernai]

How do you know there are no rounds? Did the devs actually say this at some point of time?

They have said it multiple times. The most clear statement was actually in one of the podcasts, but they've also addressed this in interviews and Kickstarter comments. For example:

What we are moving forward with right now is a system that does not require a pure round system.

 

Regarding the rest of your post: you've given it a lot of thought, but your analysis is severely flawed.

 

The word tactical is quite broad. It can be used for any genre you can think of starting from action to strategy, but not so much in adventure. But to be qualitatively considerate it applies best to strategy genre. RPGs can be a mix between strategy, Adventure and action and then some other elements (typically tiered/leveling mechanics). Depending upon how much part of each had entered the RP game, the level of tactics required changes considerably. Games that focus on tactical combat require certain amount of 'consideration time' before action is taken. Thus, it makes sense to choose a time-keeping device for a game with respect to the number of tactical decisions available and the depth of such decisions. i.e. If the characters in the game under the player control can take a large number of possible actions and the same holds for the enemy then it makes sense to choose a time-keeping system that allows larger consideration times.

So far, so good.

 

Computers by default are always faster than the player. If in a continuous time keeping system with deterministic mechanics, such as Round based or AT based, the computer is given free reign, the player will NEVER win. Thus difficulty for these games is always artificial, in the sense that evenly matched characters in the game will always be biased towards computer victory. In evenly matched turn based games, where the results of actions are purely deterministic, the game will always have a fixed outcome (if there is no starting move bias) of draw if the player is an expert. Otherwise the computer will always win. Only in a game which has mechanics with random component to it, can a player have a chance to win.

Absolutely not. Computers are faster and if the game was played on the timescale of milliseconds, then they would always win. However, if the characteristic timescale of the game is on the order of seconds or longer, being faster does not help them because humans are smarter and learn from their mistakes. Given sufficient complexity and "human" timescales for thinking, a good player will always win an evenly matched game even if the system is purely real time. For example, consider StarCraft. It's a real time strategy game which requires even faster clicking than most real time RPGs because there are many more units (and structures, which you rarely deal with in RPGs) to take care of, but competent human players easily beat the hardest "evenly matched" difficulty and even the difficulties in which the computer cheats are not so hard.

 

The main point you are missing here is how difficult it is to make decent AI. It took half a century of work by some very smart people for computers to be able to beat humans at chess (which is far simpler than party-based RPGs or RTS games). For something like Baldur's Gate or Project Eternity, it's just not going to happen: the difficulty comes from the computer starting with more resources than the player or other inequalities. In a RTwP RPG, the small edge that the computer games from reacting in microseconds is immaterial.

 

You are correct about purely real time games needing to have either fewer characters or otherwise lowering the complexity, but I don't understand why you don't address RTwP separately because the pause functionality completely changes all of that. The only fundamental difference between turn based and RTwP is that turn based has a well defined order in which the characters act whereas RTwP actions are not in an easily predictable order. If anything, this increases the degree of complexity (i.e. in your terminology, it increases the total number of strategies factorially).

 

Now, this doesn't mean that a RTwP game is automatically complex -- the complexity is a function of the rule system, encounter design and various other things. However, there is no reason a RTwP system is less strategic or less tactical than a turn based on.

[Captain Shrek]

@Althernai

 

 

Absolutely not. Computers are faster and if the game was played on the timescale of milliseconds, then they would always win. However, if the characteristic timescale of the game is on the order of seconds or longer, being faster does not help them because humans are smarter and learn from their mistakes. Given sufficient complexity and "human" timescales for thinking, a good player will always win an evenly matched game even if the system is purely real time. For example, consider StarCraft. It's a real time strategy game which requires even faster clicking than most real time RPGs because there are many more units (and structures, which you rarely deal with in RPGs) to take care of, but competent human players easily beat the hardest "evenly matched" difficulty and even the difficulties in which the computer cheats are not so hard.

 

 

Hi.

 

I do statistical simulations each day that are impossible by human standards even to imagine. What you are probably referring to has a statistical name. It is called Heuristics. As I said, you need to cripple the AI to defeat it. Humans are benefited by their Knowledge base. If you allow computers to have a heuristic data base as well (completely reasonable with a neural network, nothing fancy there) you will never win. To be precise, even the computer vs human chess games DO NOT HAVE HEURISTICS. They are crippled. But still they defeat humans.

 

The main point you are missing here is how difficult it is to make decent AI. It took half a century of work by some very smart people for computers to be able to beat humans at chess (which is far simpler than party-based RPGs or RTS games). For something like Baldur's Gate or Project Eternity, it's just not going to happen: the difficulty comes from the computer starting with more resources than the player or other inequalities. In a RTwP RPG, the small edge that the computer games from reacting in microseconds is immaterial.

 

Read that again. I am talking in an absolute sense. I can demonstrate that your average PC will never allow you to win if you make the AI heuristic. It has more than enough memory to hold many iterations from a gamplay ensemble, so many that we can't match it. Again put in neural net and allow it to learn and bingo! you will lose. We cripple it by not allowing it to learn. This kind of heuristic + branching AI is not present in games becuase they are games. They are meant to be winnable (mostly) and devs do not care enough about these issues (Why should they?).

 

You are correct about purely real time games needing to have either fewer characters or otherwise lowering the complexity, but I don't understand why you don't address RTwP separately because the pause functionality completely changes all of that. The only fundamental difference between turn based and RTwP is that turn based has a well defined order in which the characters act whereas RTwP actions are not in an easily predictable order. If anything, this increases the degree of complexity (i.e. in your terminology, it increases the total number of strategies factorially).

 

Now, this doesn't mean that a RTwP game is automatically complex -- the complexity is a function of the rule system, encounter design and various other things. However, there is no reason a RTwP system is less strategic or less tactical than a turn based on.

 

Ganz falsch.

 

I have clearly stated in OP that Pause does make the game easier.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Captain Shrek

[Althernai]

I do statistical simulations each day that are impossible by human standards even to imagine. What you are probably referring to has a statistical name. It is called Heuristics. As I said, you need to cripple the AI to defeat it. Humans are benefited by their Knowledge base. If you allow computers to have a heuristic data base as well (completely reasonable with a neural network, nothing fancy there) you will never win. To be precise, even the computer vs human chess games DO NOT HAVE HEURISTICS. They are crippled. But still they defeat humans.

How do you think chess computers work? Simple as chess is, solving it exactly is not computationally feasible. Of course they use heuristics. And nobody cripples the AI -- we simply don't know how to make it good enough.

 

Read that again. I am talking in an absolute sense. I can demonstrate that your average PC will never allow you to win if you make the AI heuristic. It has more than enough memory to hold many iterations from a gamplay ensemble, so many that we can't match it. Again put in neural net and allow it to learn and bingo! you will lose. We cripple it by not allowing it to learn. This kind of heuristic + branching AI is not present in games becuase they are games. They are meant to be winnable (mostly) and devs do not care enough about these issues (Why should they?).

Do you even know what a neural network is? I have worked with them in the context of separating signal from background in particle physics. They learn, but not in the sense that you are talking about -- they're not well-suited even to chess, never mind something like BG2 where there are dozens of rapidly changing inputs at any given time and a change in even a single input can completely change the situation (i.e. there's no continuity).

 

I have clearly stated in OP that Pause does make the game easier.

I was referring to tactical possibilities, not difficulty. A RTwP game allows for much richer potential tactics than a real time one.

[Captain Shrek]

 

How do you think chess computers work? Simple as chess is, solving it exactly is not computationally feasible. Of course they use heuristics. And nobody cripples the AI -- we simply don't know how to make it good enough.

 

 

Most chess programs are LEAF EVALUATION. Meaning an energy function is minimised wrt given number of steps. heuristic programs are available but seldom used. And of course we haven't figured out how to make perfect Heuristic programs. That means that it is not the fault of the computer which is perfectly capable of processing such a st of commands if we can't deliver them. As I said, I am talikng in an absolute sense.

 

Do you even know what a neural network is? I have worked with them in the context of separating signal from background in particle physics. They learn, but not in the sense that you are talking about -- they're not well-suited even to chess, never mind something like BG2 where there are dozens of rapidly changing inputs at any given time and a change in even a single input can completely change the situation (i.e. there's no continuity).

 

I think I am not interested in this I know you know argument. You have failed to understand a simple point: That I am talking about the capacity of computers not the currently available algorithms. To understand that simply consider that you can't beat the toughest fights in most games in the first go on an average. Now ask yourself how you win them.

 

 

I was referring to tactical possibilities, not difficulty. A RTwP game allows for much richer potential tactics than a real time one.

 

Tactical possibilities that are available to YOU (player), you mean. No doubt. That is exactly what I mean by easier. That you can now access these possibilities that were otherwise difficult to access earler without pause. Read the OP for all references.

[Jarmo]

I like both. NWN and ToEE are the two D&D games who's combat I enjoy the most. And they're not completely similar.

 

Turn based system gives more control, but has two main disadvantages:

• everything takes an awful long time
  
• it can be unrealistic and cheesy
  

The second bit takes a little explaining, so let's assume your 4 archers decide to kill the enemy wizard before she casts.

In realtime, you order everybody to fire and the wizard dies.

In turn based, the first archer fires and misses, the second archer fires and kills the wizard.

Now the other two archers can do something else instead. How does that make any sense?

 

I'm not sure which one I'd pick, but since Eternity will be rtwp it's a moot point anyway.

[ogrezilla]

Removing time to think even to the point of real time does not remove strategy or tactics. It just doesn't. You are objectively wrong. It is harder to make the correct strategic or tactical decision in real time, but they are just as valid in real time as in turn based. Other factors that go into those games may remove the need to use strategy and tactics, but that's game design and not a direct result of the real time control. Many developers surely consider the lack of time to make decisions and thus make the decision making process simpler by removing options or making problems more straight forward. Again, that is a game design issue, not a real time issue. Say you are presented with two identical scenarios with the same options. One is real time one is turn based. Both have enemies performing the same series of actions. They are both tactical and strategic because they are the same scenario. The real time scenario is more difficult to deal with because you have less time to think, but if the AI is going to do the exact same thing in each scenario then the same strategy and tactics should be effective in each scenario.

 

The difference is that in most games, the AI would not do the same thing. The Turn Based game would probably be designed for you to make good decisions every time. The Real Time game would probably be more forgiving by giving you advantages to make up for it. But again, that is not a direct result of the real time or turn based difference, it is a design choice. If the AI was equal in both scenarios, both scenarios would be equally strategic and tactical. The real time game would also have the added difficulty of reaction time, reflex and quick decision making.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Removing time to think even to the point of real time does not remove strategy or tactics.

 

Did anyone claim that? Where?

[ogrezilla]

I like both. NWN and ToEE are the two D&D games who's combat I enjoy the most. And they're not completely similar.

 

Turn based system gives more control, but has two main disadvantages:

• everything takes an awful long time
  
• it can be unrealistic and cheesy
  

The second bit takes a little explaining, so let's assume your 4 archers decide to kill the enemy wizard before she casts.

In realtime, you order everybody to fire and the wizard dies.

In turn based, the first archer fires and misses, the second archer fires and kills the wizard.

Now the other two archers can do something else instead. How does that make any sense?

 

I'm not sure which one I'd pick, but since Eternity will be rtwp it's a moot point anyway.

ya this is my issue with TB too. I mean, its still a lot of fun. But its not like fighting at all. Its like playing a board game. The fact that two things can never happen at once works because its a video game, but it leads to strange situations like you described. Its not the time you have to decide that annoys me -- I love RTwP -- its the prescience of it.

[Shadenuat]

Now the other two archers can do something else instead. How does that make any sense?

 

You assume every TB system is turn-per-character. It's not. Sometimes it's player-side vs. PC-side based.

[ogrezilla]

Removing time to think even to the point of real time does not remove strategy or tactics.

 

Did anyone claim that? Where?

yes, metiman did.

The idea of real time combat without built in pause mechanics being tactical is ridiculous. If you love popamole combat and can't get enough of clicking pixels to death with your mouse, at least be honest enough to admit it. Or go play against an excellent chess player, but limit your turns to no more than 1 second and allow them to take as much time as they need to make a move. Come back and report the results Mr. I-am-as-fast-a-thinker-as-a-computer. There can be no debate about whether turn-based is a more strategic style of gameplay. It is that pretty much by definition. You can argue all you want about whether it is a fun style of gameplay, but it is clearly more strategic unless you are just fighting without thinking.

he keeps supporting that view too

 

And for the record, I disagree with the notion that switching from TB to real time even reduces strategy or tactics.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ogrezilla

[ogrezilla]

Now the other two archers can do something else instead. How does that make any sense?

 

You assume every TB system is turn-per-character. It's not. Sometimes it's player-side vs. PC-side based.

Like something where you tell all of your units what to do one at a time, but they play out simultaneously? That sounds interesting.

[Captain Shrek]

Removing time to think even to the point of real time does not remove strategy or tactics.

 

Did anyone claim that? Where?

yes, metiman did.

The idea of real time combat without built in pause mechanics being tactical is ridiculous. If you love popamole combat and can't get enough of clicking pixels to death with your mouse, at least be honest enough to admit it. Or go play against an excellent chess player, but limit your turns to no more than 1 second and allow them to take as much time as they need to make a move. Come back and report the results Mr. I-am-as-fast-a-thinker-as-a-computer. There can be no debate about whether turn-based is a more strategic style of gameplay. It is that pretty much by definition. You can argue all you want about whether it is a fun style of gameplay, but it is clearly more strategic unless you are just fighting without thinking.

he keeps supporting that view too

 

And for the record, I disagree with the notion that switching from TB to real time even reduces strategy or tactics.

 

All I have said, just for clarificaiton since this point keeps coming up, is that it is INCONVENIENT to handle a lot of option in RT. It is inconvenient to do it for RTwP when you have a large party.

[ogrezilla]

ya sorry I was really responding to him.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ogrezilla

[metiman]

I suppose a real time game could be strategic if you could slow down time. Just an implementation detail I guess. So you people are actually saying that you have just as many strategic or tactical options in a battle against, say, Kangaxx in real time as you do when you freeze time by pausing? Makes no sense to me at all. If you could think through all of your options in real time then fine, but most people cannot do that. The enemy has time to be strategic only because it is controlled by a fast thinking computer. For me a real time fight against Kangaxx or Firkraag without cheese would only have one result: the death of my entire party. With pause available everything changes.

[ogrezilla]

I suppose a real time game could be strategic if you could slow down time. Just an implementation detail I guess. So you people are actually saying that you have just as many strategic or tactical options in a battle against, say, Kangaxx in real time as you do when you freeze time by pausing? Makes no sense to me at all. If you could think through all of your options in real time then fine, but most people cannot do that. The enemy has time to be strategic only because it is controlled by a fast thinking computer. For me a real time fight against Kangaxx or Firkraag without cheese would only have one result: the death of my entire party. With pause available everything changes.

you don't seem to be able to separate the difference between having options available and having time to think them all through or to execute your decisions. If pause is removed and nothing else changes, every single strategy and tactic you had with pause is still valid, just much more difficult to execute. But the strategy and tactics are completely unchanged.

 

not having time to think of the best solution doesn't mean that solution doesn't exist.

Edited October 5, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Osvir]

I didn't read, but whether there is a Turn Based solution (A la Baldur's Gate, which was Turn Based in the mechanics. Would Baldur's Gate had been a Text game only you would've seen it as taking turns), or a Real Time Based solution I want a Pause function.

 

That's all I'm asking for really.

 

EDIT:

L0L But, no u r wong.

 

I admit defeat. Now let's be friends!

 

<3 intended for all of you from me (And probably from Shrek too, I'm sure)

I couldn't help it, I just thought it beautiful in the midst of the posts and wanted to highlight it

 

2nd EDIT:

 

And I can't help it! Someone said that RT can not be truly strategic (metiman) where I think you are wrong.

 

As a rather seasoned League of Legends player, as well as a noob StarCraft II player, Real Time is all kinds of strategic.

Whether it is Real Time, Turn-Based or whatever it is, it will always hold it's own Strategy.

 

You have no idea how much my mind works Real Time to access the best strategy when I play League of Legends:

 

* Wards

* Enemy movements

* Typing/Communication with the team

* Positioning

* Vision

* Map awareness

* Who should I focus on the enemy team?

* Where should I throw my spells and how will that benefit my team?

 

Whilst in Baldur's Gate I can take my time by simply pressing "Space" or the Pause button and access the situation from a Chess perspective. In Baldur's Gate I have all the time in the world to solve the situation, strategically, and in League of Legends my time is running out (I have to think and react fast) and I have to choose my strategy before it is too late.

 

I wish to highlight this so there is no confusion or misunderstanding:

I would not like to see a real time system being used in a Baldur's Gate-esque game without the PAUSE function

 

EDIT: This quote is a response to the Turn-Based mechanic.

High exploitabiltiy and some very slogicly silliy situations are not a weakness?

 

How is it exploitable? Explain/Elaborate.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Osvir

[Osvir]

Delete this post~ the first post wasn't visible until after I posted this post zzz

 

Sorry! :/

Edited October 5, 2012 by Osvir

[metiman]

I suppose a real time game could be strategic if you could slow down time. Just an implementation detail I guess. So you people are actually saying that you have just as many strategic or tactical options in a battle against, say, Kangaxx in real time as you do when you freeze time by pausing? Makes no sense to me at all. If you could think through all of your options in real time then fine, but most people cannot do that. The enemy has time to be strategic only because it is controlled by a fast thinking computer. For me a real time fight against Kangaxx or Firkraag without cheese would only have one result: the death of my entire party. With pause available everything changes.

you don't seem to be able to separate the difference between having options available and having time to think them all through or to execute your decisions. If pause is removed and nothing else changes, every single strategy and tactic you had with pause is still valid, just much more difficult to execute. But the strategy and tactics are completely unchanged.

 

not having time to think of the best solution doesn't mean that solution doesn't exist.

 

What difference does it make if an option is "available" if there is no time to choose it intelligently or in some cases even to use it?

[ogrezilla]

I suppose a real time game could be strategic if you could slow down time. Just an implementation detail I guess. So you people are actually saying that you have just as many strategic or tactical options in a battle against, say, Kangaxx in real time as you do when you freeze time by pausing? Makes no sense to me at all. If you could think through all of your options in real time then fine, but most people cannot do that. The enemy has time to be strategic only because it is controlled by a fast thinking computer. For me a real time fight against Kangaxx or Firkraag without cheese would only have one result: the death of my entire party. With pause available everything changes.

you don't seem to be able to separate the difference between having options available and having time to think them all through or to execute your decisions. If pause is removed and nothing else changes, every single strategy and tactic you had with pause is still valid, just much more difficult to execute. But the strategy and tactics are completely unchanged.

 

not having time to think of the best solution doesn't mean that solution doesn't exist.

 

What difference does it make if an option is "available" if there is no time to choose it intelligently or in some cases even to use it?

there is time to implement and execute SOME strategy and tactics. Its just a matter of you thinking of the right ones fast enough. The strategy and tactics are still there. The difference is they aren't the only thing that matters anymore.

[el pinko grande]

I've never understood the mystique that turn-based games seem to have for some people. The argument that they're somehow more tactical than RTwP strikes me as backwards. Not that I think that turn-based is less tactical, per se, but I think most of the attraction to turn-based lies in the fact that it simplifies things for the player. Instead of having to manage multiple characters and situations simultaneously, it breaks things down into discrete, easily comprehended little chunks. Certainly some turn-based games can be pretty serious- ToEE springs to mind. I think that's the exception rather than the rule. I think more often than not, turn-based games are pretty simplistic, stuff like Heroes of Might and Magic or Final Fantasy Tactics. And I like both of those games. But the idea that they're somehow more tactical than a RTwP game strikes me as absurd on the face.

[Grimlorn]

In your experience folks fight in turns, waiting patiently for whoever is next? Really? Turns are a tidy abstraction, i.e. artificial.

So is all combat in all games. This isn't found just in turn based combat. I can create examples out of other combat modes.

[Grimlorn]

I don't really think there are any weaknesses with turn based combat. Real time with pause has that whole move in real time, fight in turn based thing. So if you get hurt you can move out of range of a mob in real time, while the rest of your party takes it's turns fighting and killing the mob and mobs usually have no way of closing the distance. I think in IWD you can actually do an action for your turn, then immediately after it's done you can move for a few seconds while your turn ends. I think that's a bit weak too.

 

 

High exploitabiltiy and some very slogicly silliy situations are not a weakness?

I don't get the high exploitability point. That just sounds like bad design in games if you can exploit. Unless you're referring to the logic of taking turns in combat being bad, then I don't know what you're talking about. Those are really just preferences imo. Same with if you prefer more fast paced action. Mechanically I think turn based doesn't have problems as long as it's designed well.

[Jarmo]

Now the other two archers can do something else instead. How does that make any sense?

 

You assume every TB system is turn-per-character. It's not. Sometimes it's player-side vs. PC-side based.

 

Sorry, I'm not following you now.

 

Fallout Tactics had Individual Turn Based and Squad Turn based models, in the latter you moved all the men and then the enemy,

in the first it was all mixed. But if that's what you mean, I can't see how that changes my point. It's all supposed to happen simultaneously,

yet the second one to act always knows how the first ones action unfolded/is unfolding.

 

Combat Mission had my favorite style of all time, you gave orders to everybody and so did the enemy,

then there was (in that case a minute of) action unfolding during which all troops were trying to carry out their orders.

Awesome system but I don't see it working well in rpg setting.

[Shadenuat]

Jarmo, what are you not following, if you just made an example of a system like that yourself?

You think you "order" someone, well, I don't. I think in TB you act as every character depending on his initiative and ability to comprehend combat and make fast decisions, like getting inside his skin. These two archers noticed wizard in your example first and fired and killed him, before other two spotted the guy and understood what act should be taken. It's abstract, yes, but it gives you a ****ton of options to choose from and tactical window inside which you can operate with maximum precision and play characters as you'd think they actually would play, not like crappy AI would play them. It actually makes their actions more intelligent and closer to what a real party would do.

[Umberlin]

I think I always prefered a well done turn based system, simply because it lends itself more, in my mind to real RPG mechanics. An RPG, in my mind, should never be about player skill like twitch, reflex. They should have input like, "you go here" or "you say this" but all their decisions, in my mind, should be a result of what their character would do, what their character 'statistically' can do. A turn based system with tile based movement, where a character can only move as their stats and mobility allow is a superior RPG system in my mind. A player moving their character around freely, in my mind, defies the limitations of a character's statistics.

 

It's not about whatt you do, in an RPG, in my mind, it's about what the character can do. A turn based system that forcefully limits you to what a character can do is my preference.

 

That said . . . a real time system can work too. You can limit that by statistics, as a developer, if you really want to. You can axe out player input like reflex, if you really want to. It's just most developers don't do that very well, or fully, or, in some cases, at all. I know it can be done well. There are some examples. And I know Obsidian are definitly going real time with pause, which a good way to go in my opinion, but I definitly wouldn't shed a tear if they dropped that and went full turn based tile combat that's fully limited, in every way, by characters and what they 'can' do statistically . . . not what the player can do.

 

Like I said though, the system Obsidian are going with can work just fine too. I see no loss in the real time mode as long as it's done well.