Turn based Combat

[Jarrakul]

Gizmo:

 

You're right, I am faulting TB games for something they're not trying to do. That's why I'm faulting the TB system. It isn't doing something that I think it should be doing. As for the abstract nature of turn-based combat, I find that detrimental to my enjoyment. I think, frankly, that this particular type of abstraction serves to limit my options with regards to timing and positioning. Since I like timing and positioning, and think they're tactically interesting, I think this is a problem. So I don't like TB games. (Also, when I play TB games, I always find myself wondering why I don't just go play D&D.)

 

Shrek:

 

I follow your argument until you say "Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game." I see why TB games necessarily need more tactical depth than other games, but not why tactically intensive games need to be TB, especially as compared to RTwP. Your argument is framed as though the important thing about TB games is that you have time to think, but RTwP provides this. So why do you say they're less tactically interesting?

 

I also don't understand what point you're making about rounds. Do you think they're good or bad? What do they have to do with AI (the same problems crop up whether you have rounds or not, or even in turn-based play)? Personally, I think they're a terrible misuse of the computer's resources, left over from PnP days. PnP development and video game development are very different things, and the technical necessities of one should not be applied to the other.

[Captain Shrek]

 

 

Shrek:

 

I follow your argument until you say "Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game." I see why TB games necessarily need more tactical depth than other games, but not why tactically intensive games need to be TB, especially as compared to RTwP. Your argument is framed as though the important thing about TB games is that you have time to think, but RTwP provides this. So why do you say they're less tactically interesting?

 

 

TB will allow you sit back and consider all the possibilities (TS) at your disposal and apply them as you choose without concerning about response. RTwP is prohibitive in that respect that it will force you press SPACEBAR every moment to get the same level of control. That system exists not so that it can emulate the TB gameplay; otherwise you'd rather use TB gameplay to do it since it can do the same function with less hassle.

 

 

I also don't understand what point you're making about rounds. Do you think they're good or bad? What do they have to do with AI (the same problems crop up whether you have rounds or not, or even in turn-based play)? Personally, I think they're a terrible misuse of the computer's resources, left over from PnP days. PnP development and video game development are very different things, and the technical necessities of one should not be applied to the other.

 

Rounds are better than AT based gameplay. They give you a breathing space. I drew a comparison to TB there, I hope you noticed just to draw attention to the point that they are a (I will not call it a relic since it is an extant living system; but consider the tragedy of such a quip when I am on a cRPG forum) analogue of PnP inspired TB combat.

[Jarrakul]

I suppose, technically speaking, there is a near-infinite amount of possibilities in a RTwP system, and you can't realistically have time to consider all of them. Why is this a failing? By pausing every few seconds, you can easily get as many options as TB provides. More, considering that you also choose when to pause. I fail to see how that's tactically uninteresting. Different sure, but less deep? In what way? As for "the same function with less hassle" I disagree. The pause in RTwP serves much the same purpose as the TB, but the real-time offers many more possibilities. Why? Because when the situation changes, I can react to it immediately. You might call that twitch-based, and there would be an element of truth to that (although it's rare hard to press the pause button in time), but why is that less tactically interesting? It seems to be that tactical depth would include as many factors as possible, so why exclude reactionary actions?

 

Why do you need more breathing space in a RTwP system? Isn't that what the pause is for? For that matter, do they even offer breathing space at all? I don't recall them doing that in IE. They just regulated the speed at which things could happen, which isn't a unique property of rounds. A slow attack speed would have had exactly the same effect.

[Captain Shrek]

I suppose, technically speaking, there is a near-infinite amount of possibilities in a RTwP system, and you can't realistically have time to consider all of them. Why is this a failing? By pausing every few seconds, you can easily get as many options as TB provides. More, considering that you also choose when to pause. I fail to see how that's tactically uninteresting. Different sure, but less deep? In what way? As for "the same function with less hassle" I disagree. The pause in RTwP serves much the same purpose as the TB, but the real-time offers many more possibilities. Why? Because when the situation changes, I can react to it immediately. You might call that twitch-based, and there would be an element of truth to that (although it's rare hard to press the pause button in time), but why is that less tactically interesting? It seems to be that tactical depth would include as many factors as possible, so why exclude reactionary actions?

 

Why do you need more breathing space in a RTwP system? Isn't that what the pause is for? For that matter, do they even offer breathing space at all? I don't recall them doing that in IE. They just regulated the speed at which things could happen, which isn't a unique property of rounds. A slow attack speed would have had exactly the same effect.

 

I think I must have made some mistake writing that particular essay since all and sundry accuse me of claiming that RTwP is somehow inferior. I have made NO SUCH CLAIM.

 

In fact I believe that RTwP fits certain kind of gameplay better than TB. I am just against the FACT (!) that RTwP makes it difficult to manage too many options at all points, sometimes even frustrating the player if the AI fails to keep up with expectations. That is why I am giving an Example of NWN2. The combat hardly ever plays out (at least for me, and hence why I am generalizing without proof) the way I expect because even slight freedom given to party, it somehow always takes silly decisions. In NWN I never had this problem with an almost equally complicated system (although the story left a bitter taste) because it is not really party based.

[Gizmo]

It isn't doing something that I think it should be doing.

...And it's not the point of it.

 

As for the abstract nature of turn-based combat, I find that detrimental to my enjoyment. I think, frankly, that this particular type of abstraction serves to limit my options with regards to timing and positioning. Since I like timing and positioning, and think they're tactically interesting, I think this is a problem.

Yet this seems somewhat like wanting to place one's knight on any square of the chessboard, rather than adhere to the rules of the game. The opponents are equally bound by the rules, so there is no need to bend them... When one plays chess (or Go for example), one plays to win by the rules; it's the same for any other TB combat game I've ever played; whatever the system, however abstract ~or not.

 

Not everyone likes Chess or every other game of TB combat; that's why there are other styles.

 

So I don't like TB games. (Also, when I play TB games, I always find myself wondering why I don't just go play D&D.)

TB doesn't really equate with D&D to me... D&D is turn based, but Turn based is not inherently D&D ~even when it's fantasy themed.

 

PE looks like it could be an alternate take on IWD2 with ten years advancement of the technology; and with some of the same minds behind it.

Good things are afoot; (but everyone here knows that ).

 

I would ask and hope that Project Eternity manages to avoid the one brutally annoying aspect of AI (seen in IWD2), and that is that when the AI went hostile and the target went invisible, the AI would Bee-line straight to the next party member (even if they were hidden on the other side of the map, with a maze between them).

Edited October 18, 2012 by Gizmo

[NerdBoner]

I don't mind turn based when it comes to big boss battles or tough fights...but when I have to kill a horde of gibberlings with my demi-god level character in a turn based scenario i'd rather just rip my own heart out and watch its last few beats before i die.

[Jarrakul]

I think I must have made some mistake writing that particular essay since all and sundry accuse me of claiming that RTwP is somehow inferior. I have made NO SUCH CLAIM.

 

In fact I believe that RTwP fits certain kind of gameplay better than TB. I am just against the FACT (!) that RTwP makes it difficult to manage too many options at all points, sometimes even frustrating the player if the AI fails to keep up with expectations. That is why I am giving an Example of NWN2. The combat hardly ever plays out (at least for me, and hence why I am generalizing without proof) the way I expect because even slight freedom given to party, it somehow always takes silly decisions. In NWN I never had this problem with an almost equally complicated system (although the story left a bitter taste) because it is not really party based.

 

You claimed that RTwP had less tactical depth. Again, I quote "Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game." If this statement is true, where does that leave RTwP? Certainly not at the top of the tactics heap, or even tied with TB. And that is the claim I seek to refute, or at least call into question.

 

You're absolutely right that AI can cause all sorts of problems. But these are problems with AI, not with the RTwP system. If turn-based games were inclined to use party AI, you'd see similar problems. Personally, I don't like AI in my RTwP games. Always played IE with the AI turned off, and I thoroughly enjoyed puppetting my entire party around. So yeah, if the don't let me do that and force another NWN2 on me, I'll be upset. But there's nothing in the RTwP system that inherently requires that.

 

...And it's not the point of it.

 

Yet this seems somewhat like wanting to place one's knight on any square of the chessboard, rather than adhere to the rules of the game. The opponents are equally bound by the rules, so there is no need to bend them... When one plays chess (or Go for example), one plays to win by the rules; it's the same for any other TB combat game I've ever played; whatever the system, however abstract ~or not.

 

Not everyone likes Chess or every other game of TB combat; that's why there are other styles.

 

I recognize this, which is why your argument confuses me. I'm not challenging TBs right to exist as a game style, or your right to enjoy them. I am simply saying that I don't enjoy them, complete with an explanation based on my subjective preferences. Why does that bother you so much?

 

TB doesn't really equate with D&D to me... D&D is turn based, but Turn based is not inherently D&D ~even when it's fantasy themed.

 

D&D is more fun (for me), in roughly the same way, than every turn-based game I've ever played (except some board games, and of course other PnP RPGs). Whether or not it's fantasy has nothing to do with that, because it has nothing to do with what the game feels like to play.

 

That said, this is hardly the crux of my argument. Not that I'm even particularly trying to argue.

 

PE looks like it could be an alternate take on IWD2 with ten years advancement of the technology; and with some of the same minds behind it.

Good things are afoot; (but everyone here knows that ).

 

I would ask and hope that Project Eternity manages to avoid the one brutally annoying aspect of AI (seen in IWD2), and that is that when the AI went hostile and the target went invisible, the AI would Bee-line straight to the next party member (even if they were hidden on the other side of the map, with a maze between them).

 

We're in agreement here. AI omniscience is just silly.

[Captain Shrek]

 

You claimed that RTwP had less tactical depth. Again, I quote "Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so thatTS are actually realized within the game." If this statement is true, where does that leave RTwP? Certainly not at the top of the tactics heap, or even tied with TB. And that is the claim I seek to refute, or at least call into question.

 

You're absolutely right that AI can cause all sorts of problems. But these are problems with AI, not with the RTwP system. If turn-based games were inclined to use party AI, you'd see similar problems. Personally, I don't like AI in my RTwP games. Always played IE with the AI turned off, and I thoroughly enjoyed puppetting my entire party around. So yeah, if the don't let me do that and force another NWN2 on me, I'll be upset. But there's nothing in the RTwP system that inherently requires that.

 

 

As I see it, AI and time keeping mechanics of RTwP can not be separated.

 

 

I must emphasize that. If you do not agree with me there, I am unable to continue this discussion. To do so is folly and may not work out as expected.

 

 

I did not say that RTwP is less tactically suited. In fact I said that RTwP is a hassle to use for deep tactics when not implemented correctly. I also suggested two solutions to rid of this issue:

 

1) Slow down time

2) Reduce party members.

 

I am very happy with a non-party based RTwP NWN2. Make that and I am easily pleased.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Captain Shrek

[Jarrakul]

I suppose we're unable to continue this discussion, then. It seems to me that the IE games provide a perfect example of how RTwP can be implemented without relying on AI (sure, they had optional AI, but it was hardly essential). If you don't think RTwP can be separated from AI in spite of this evidence, I don't really know what to say.

 

I agree that RTwP doesn't work well with deep tactics if not implemented correctly. NWN2 is a great example of this, as you rightly point out. But there are potential implementation problems in any system. We have an example of how RTwP can be done well in the IE games (it's their greatest strength outside of storytelling, IMO), hinging on the non-reliance on AI. But again, I suppose I can't really make this argument if you refuse to acknowledge this non-reliance.

 

EDIT: More typos than I can tolerate. :/

Edited October 18, 2012 by Jarrakul

[wickermoon]

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. (Thesis. Points of the thesis are held deliberately vague.)

 

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. (assertion, no prove. Also disproved by the fact of chess players beating chess playing computers - THE deterministic system)

 

This is a two way necessity (TB <-> Deep Mechanics) since if the developer wants to provide deep mechanics to the player, he should also allow the player the time to consider them. Thus a game with deeper mechanics ideally should be TB so that TS are actually realized within the game. (assertion, not fact. Counter-thesis: Starcraft 2; fast-paced real-time strategy game with focus on tactics. Also assuming that a one-way dependence of TB->Deep works in reverse (Deep->TB); counter-thesis: deep mechanics don't need to have a TB system.)

 

Please do not misunderstand: these games DO require strategizing. But not strategizing the way tactical has been defined in this post. (statement/assertion, not fact; counter-thesis: RT(wP) game do require tactical thoughts on positioning and action queueing.)

 

Thus an action game which necessitates preparation before a battle (potions, choice of weapons etc) is smart but not tactical in the same way as a game with party members with distribution of differing skills. The distinction is purely artificial to facilitate a clean division. (assertion that RT-RPGs are action games with little to none similarities to TB-RPGs without prove. Falsification of facts.)

 

I will claim that such games are best played with few party members (1- 4) and have less combat options per action. Sound heretical, but to me, it is a good design decision with the time-keeping system in mind. (subjective, therefore not relevant)

 

A game that offers 10 options per action and is real time driven without pause would make no sense to have all these options, because to win you'd either require to cripple the AI severely or have a hand-eye coordination + genius of batman. (subjective. Withholding the fact that tactical and strategic preparation plus player affinity counter the number of choices; that options can be designed for certain situations, thus making the choice inherently - and easily understandable - unfavourable; that player minds will filter out choices based on this. Number of choices available != complexity.)

 

This is so because the Computer has instantaneous, absolute and precise control of its units, while a human being can meaningfully control one unit at a given point of time. (assertion)

Thus what he can do, the AI can do better. (assertion that the AI has the same amount of choices at its disposal -> AIs are limited by programming, whereas players are not, creating strategies and tactics the AI cannot know about, therefore will not be able to deal with)

 

It is interesting to note the apparent inspiration of the idea of a round from the idea of a turn. Round is a one sided time-keeping device that allows greater synchronicity or at least a temporal scale for the player to control his units. Even if individual units are not synchronized, rounds act like mini alarms giving the player a breathing space. The problem with them is of course again the AI and the number of options. (assertion, based of false assertions mentioned before)

 

Those who play NWN2 see this often. The Units if left with even slight freedom start acting up with their 'in-duh-viduality' by casting nuking spells or AOE spells on their own party, running heedlessly into enemy Area of Free Attack zone or buffing themselves up un-necessarily. It is of course sometimes necessary for Units to act on their own. But since the correct balance between automation and tactics is hard to achieve (or you'd have skynet) these things typically do not work out as expected. The solution to that in IWD was that AI was overall too dumb and relied on strong but small 'organised' (scattered but balanced) mobs instead. But again this is a sub-optimal solution.

(wrong conclusion. If the Player-Character AI is weak, so is the NPC/Enemy-AI, otherwise the balance is inherently unfair, thus the difficulty for RTwP games is artificial and the argument is not-withstanding. Also, "sabotaging" the player via weak-AI is not the fault of RTwP, but the AIs. The same would happen for a turn-based system where the AI takes over. Therefore the only comparison to be done can be between turn-based and an NWN2 party that is controlled wholly by the player alone.)

[Captain Shrek]

I suppose we're unable to continue this discussion, then. It seems to me that the IE games provide a perfect example of how RTwP can be implemented without relying on AI (sure, they had optional AI, but it was hardly essential). If you don't think RTwP can be separated from AI in spite of this evidence, I don't really know what to say.

 

I agree that RTwP doesn't work well with deep tactics if not implemented correctly. NWN2 is a great example of this, as you rightly point out. But there are potential implementation problems in any system. We have an example of how RTwP can be done well in the IE games (it's their greatest strength outside of storytelling, IMO), hinging on the non-reliance on AI. But again, I suppose I can't really make this argument if you refuse to acknowledge this non-reliance.

 

EDIT: More typos than I can tolerate. :/

 

Just that this does not end on a misunderstanding:

 

Those who play NWN2 see this often. The Units if left with even slight freedom start acting up with their 'in-duh-viduality' by casting nuking spells or AOE spells on their own party, running heedlessly into enemy Area of Free Attack zone or buffing themselves up un-necessarily. It is of course sometimes necessary for Units to act on their own. But since the correct balance between automation and tactics is hard to achieve (or you'd have skynet) these things typically do not work out as expected. The solution to that in IWD was that AI was overall too dumb and relied on strong but small 'organised' (scattered but balanced) mobs instead. But again this is a sub-optimal solution.

 

I have highlighted the relevant portion. Rest it there for the context.

[Gizmo]

I recognize this, which is why your argument confuses me.

We're arguing?

(I was just point it out that it wasn't intended to compare with RT/wP; These kinds of games don't compete in the same field; I wasn't trying to convince you to change your mind; just that it was sort of like getting mad at a pear tree for not giving you oranges.)

 

We're in agreement here. AI omniscience is just silly.

Indeed. Edited October 18, 2012 by Gizmo

[Hormalakh]

Edit: Now that I've read the arguments more fully, I believe that this whole argument is moot. If we consider that this game is RTwP and allow (as Baldur's Gate II does) the game to autopause when conditions are met (characters action is over and ready for next action, chracters round is over, etc), then effectively you are given a wider range when it comes to playing the game. For someone who wishes to determine each action for each character, (effectively a turn-based game) you are allowed to do so, and for the player who has shortcut keys ready and wishes to take combat at a more real-time pace, can also do so (by removing the autopause).

 

If I'm not mistaken, the whole reason we were going into RTwP for this game was because this game was meant to not follow the D&D rules of rounds/turns and was to be action-time based. Thus casting a spell could take 12 seconds for example while swinging a staff would take 2 seconds. An example of this is found in Baldur's Gate II. When casting lower-level spells, the casting time (action time) for these spells is very short, whereas higher-level spells actually take longer to cast (some taking several seconds). While this wasn't a D&D mechanic Baldur's Gate II tried to implement it differently in a computer game, because it was feasible to do so. So we had casting times that differed with the level of the spell. With a robust autopausing mechanic (for those who wish to make tactical choices) and effective/customizable short-cut keys (for those who wish to chose one of many choices in real-time) you have probably the widest range of playing-styles.

 

I think that people who favor turn-based action should not be clamoring for a turn-based game, but rather a robust and effective autopause that would allow the game to play to the style that they enjoy. At the same time, I think that people who favor real-time action should be clamoring for effective short-cut keys and methods to take multiple actions at a time. Starcraft and starcraft II are excellent examples of what I'm taking about. Very high-level players can make a hundred or more (some more than 200 actions per minute) effective action choices per minute. The game allows improved real-time strategic play because of effective short-cut keys and "auto-casting" mechanics.

 

http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Actions_per_minute

 

tl;dr - With autopause and shortcut keys you could either play it like its chess or like its starcraft 2.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Hormalakh