If Project Eternity was turn-based...?

[ogrezilla]

the definition of "fact" has been completely lost in this thread.

[Natter]

Why should TB be more challenging or more tactical? In my experience, most TB games are rather simple. In the first hours of gameplay it might be interessting to figure out the machanisms, but later it becomes rather simple and boring. What good is micromanagement, if you have several options, but only one (or maybe two) is the obvisious best joice? I can't see a lot of tactic in games like HOM&M, Shining Force, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy or Fallout.

What I loved about the IE games was the possibility to prepare for battles. That was the point to think about different strategies. And many challanging fights could be won or lost by preparation.

[Churchwarden]

For me, the beauty of RTwP is that not every character has to be managed every round. Martial classes with strong basic attacks can stand up front (or in back if archers) and slash/shoot away while the wizards, druids, etc. can be micromanaged on a spell-by-spell basis. Tactics are still important with "autoattackers" who need special positioning to be most effective, and they are often the characters I spend the most time tweaking their gear. With six party members, I like not having to manage every single character every single round of combat.

[Angry Chief]

I love turn based games.

[Kecaw]

Well i have nothing against turn base and i would suport the game even if it was buut would i want PE to be turn base ? the answer is no. Sorry but i cant see a game like that to be turned based, yes i did play the old fallout games so i know what mechanic that would be and how it works, but considering this they would have to re model the whole system of playing to, because if the game is going to be somewhat like baldurs gate then taking baldurs gate and turning it in to a turn base ... sorry but that dosnt work for me.

[timw03878]

I perfer the pause system of Baldur's gate and Planescape myself.

 

As long as there's no stupid crap like regenerating health and injury kits like in dragon age, this game is a must buy for me.

 

My party members getting up and brushing themselves off after having a sword thru the head, completely breaks immersion for me.

[Grimlorn]

Would have stopped this debate here, but you elevating your opinions of what makes a better game to the level of facts is fairly irritating and just plain wrong.

Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range.

 

Fact: There are typically more options in Turn based combat RPGs compared to RTwP. Meaning you have different attacks. Like AoOs or Trips or Disarms. There's typically less emphasis placed on these options in favor of simply autoattacking so combat goes by quicker and the player isn't forced to pause several times during one turn/round. I'm trying to remember if there were AoOs in RTwP games. If there were then moving to not trigger them would require a lot of pausing.

 

Fact: Controlling a party in real time is chaotic that's why there is a pause. This is an admission right here that real time combat is bad for this situation.

 

They insert a pause and party A.I. to automate things for the player so the player isn't overwhelmed with Real Time combat. Why not just keep it turn based? Because some people have ADHD and can't sit there a 1-3 minute encounters in turn based? It has to be over in less than 30 seconds or they get bored? Who cares what those people think? Let them play Dragon Age 2 and 3 where everything is crappy real time action combat.

 

Fact: Party A.I. doesn't always do what you order it to after you unpause. So they waste a turn or you have to pause again and reissue a command.

 

Fact: Enemy A.I. is better in Turn Based games. Not sure why, but I'm assuming it's just easier to program an A.I. in a turn based, grid system while in Real time it's just too difficult to get the A.I. to work well.

 

These are all facts and have been demonstrated in games. If you can't recognize these are facts and not opinions on how mechanics have worked in RPGs then I don't know what to tell you. This is what I've been saying all along. That turn based mechanics work better than RTwP and are less exploitable.

 

The only bad thing I've heard about Turn Based combat is the combat takes longer. But that's working as intended giving the player full control of his party.

 

While I do like RTS games because you have to make decisions quickly. That's what real time is there for. It doesn't mean there are more options like with Turn based combat. Just that you have to multitask several things at once and the pressure is due to time and keeping track of everything. Things are simpler because of this. Ex: WC3 and SC2. Blizzard uses a rock, paper, scissors system with armor types and damage types keeping things relatively simple for controlling mass units.

 

In turn based games (not just RPGs) you have time to think. Plan your strategy, read several moves ahead, adapt to your opponent's strategy. There's so much you can do. In real time this becomes chaotic and difficult to manage.

 

Also, Dream is wrong. Players don't always pick the best strategies with enough time. Mistakes are made even with unlimited time and you can't always know what your opponent is doing exactly and even if you do, you can still lose. My guess is he's never played any chess before and is just making up crap. Personally, I play Go which is quite a bit more complicated than Chess. Computer programs can't compete with average amateurs at that game. Even pros who play games make mistakes from time to time and misread the board, misread their opponent, etc. And they spend several hours on most of their games. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is a joke and either incredibly ignorant or perhaps he's just trolling like I thought.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Grimlorn

[khango]

Would have stopped this debate here, but you elevating your opinions of what makes a better game to the level of facts is fairly irritating and just plain wrong.

Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range.

 

Fact: There are typically more options in Turn based combat RPGs compared to RTwP. Meaning you have different attacks. Like AoOs or Trips or Disarms. There's typically less emphasis placed on these options in favor of simply autoattacking so combat goes by quicker and the player isn't forced to pause several times during one turn/round. I'm trying to remember if there were AoOs in RTwP games. If there were then moving to not trigger them would require a lot of pausing.

 

Fact: Controlling a party in real time is chaotic that's why there is a pause. This is an admission right here that real time combat is bad for this situation.

 

They insert a pause and party A.I. to automate things for the player so the player isn't overwhelmed with Real Time combat. Why not just keep it turn based? Because some people have ADHD and can't sit there a 1-3 minute encounters in turn based? It has to be over in less than 30 seconds or they get bored? Who cares what those people think? Let them play Dragon Age 2 and 3 where everything is crappy real time action combat.

 

Fact: Party A.I. doesn't always do what you order it to after you unpause. So they waste a turn or you have to pause again and reissue a command.

 

Fact: Enemy A.I. is better in Turn Based games. Not sure why, but I'm assuming it's just easier to program an A.I. in a turn based, grid system while in Real time it's just too difficult to get the A.I. to work well.

 

These are all facts and have been demonstrated in games. If you can't recognize these are facts and not opinions on how mechanics have worked in RPGs then I don't know what to tell you. This is what I've been saying all along. That turn based mechanics work better than RTwP and are less exploitable.

 

The only bad thing I've heard about Turn Based combat is the combat takes longer. But that's working as intended giving the player full control of his party.

 

While I do like RTS games because you have to make decisions quickly. That's what real time is there for. It doesn't mean there are more options like with Turn based combat. Just that you have to multitask several things at once and the pressure is due to time and keeping track of everything. Things are simpler because of this. Ex: WC3 and SC2. Blizzard uses a rock, paper, scissors system with armor types and damage types keeping things relatively simple for controlling mass units.

 

In turn based games (not just RPGs) you have time to think. Plan your strategy, read several moves ahead, adapt to your opponent's strategy. There's so much you can do. In real time this becomes chaotic and difficult to manage.

 

Also, Dream is wrong. Players don't always pick the best strategies with enough time. Mistakes are made even with unlimited time and you can't always know what your opponent is doing exactly and even if you do, you can still lose. My guess is he's never played any chess before and is just making up crap. Personally, I play Go which is quite a bit more complicated than Chess. Computer programs can't compete with average amateurs at that game. Even pros who play games make mistakes from time to time and misread the board, misread their opponent, etc. And they spend several hours on most of their games. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is a joke and either incredibly ignorant or perhaps he's just trolling like I thought.

 

Your facts are not facts.

 

In real combat moving and attacking are part of the same thing. Likewise, you could put a healing potion in your camel-back and use it while fighting, just like astronauts have straws in their helmets and road bikers drink without letting go of the handlebars. It's not high technology, either.

 

Likewise, 'options' are not a function of the existence or lack of existence of pause or turns. Properly speaking they should be a function of first person tactics, and thus in both turn based and pause based games can not be controlled fully outside of silly 'special moves.' The idea that with either game you are actually controlling a meaningful combat decision such as whether to attempt a disengage, or choose, say, parry 1, 4, or 7, is silly. Tactical decisions are not discrete take-turns events. At best you can let everyone make a decision and then execute them at once, but to make meaningful decisions in melee requires first person, not 'activate ultimate strike rage.'

 

You site thinking ahead in turns as somehow preferable and more ideal than knowing what commands to give when. What you are really saying is that you can not deal with realistic combat because it is 'chaotic' and too difficult to manage.

 

This is silly. In real combat you have to constantly update your tactics and approach. If you disengage the exact same way 3 times in a row, you will die. In real combat if you both execute 'lunge' at the exact same time you will probably both die. In real combat you can stop what you're doing at any time and try a new approach. In real combat because each member of a side on a melee has some idea of what's happening you can respond as a group and need only a few short commands. Real time with pause is very analogous to this -- pause allows for the initiation of tactical actions at the appropriate moments much as a human would, especially with autopause. You can wait for a critical miss, analogous to someone over lunging, and then use that moment to disable a defensive spin type ability and counter attack while they're suffering the appropriate penalty. Hopefully the AI might be smart enough to have been saving a magic missile so that your attack is disrupted while their fighter regains his balance.

 

Even chains can considerably more complex than this, and they fit well into a realtime with pause system, whereas in turn based systems such realistic tactical considerations by definition CAN NOT EXIST. Turns become discrete and there's no ability have such complex chains of interaction without making things entirely unmanageable. Let's try to reconstruct the same scenario in a turn based game.

 

Your opponent critical misses. You now have to wait for the rest of hist party to do stuff before you can do anything. It's finally your turn. Maybe he now has a temp penalty or something so you can try to disable your defensive ability and attack (hopefully it doesn't take an entire turn to disable it). You attack, and it has an immediate effect. His party a) couldn't tell he critical missed until it was the other team's turn, b) couldn't support him by trying to knock back the counter attack, and c) even if the turns were per character, would still have to guess that the enemy would disable defensive spin and react to it, without it actually occurring, leaving the character in question to make some other decision instead.

 

Turn based combat not only takes forever, but is also completely disconnected from any realistic fighting or tactical scenario involving combat, and tedious as hell.

 

Likewise, your 'Party AI doesn't do what you want it to' complaint is actually an artifact of turn based systems, which tie actions to 'turns,' instead of making them discrete, interruptible, or of actual length, not a downside of RTWP.

 

As for AI, I can't say I've noticed enough to make a generalization like yours, but what you seem to be saying is that "turn based is simpler so it's easier to make an AI." That just sounds stupid, but whatever. As pointed out above, RTWP is more realistically tactical, and as such likely to involve more thought and AI.

 

Which brings me back to thinking. You can obviously spend as much time as you want doing that in both systems, so I can't see how you can make it into a difference.

 

Like you I play go, maybe 10k KGS on a good day, but I really can't see it's connection here. I mean sure, you can have a ko fight over making different groups live, and it's a little like pressing an opponent with a series of attacks designed to leave some sort of final opening, but I don't think go for the most part translates very well into fighting analogies. And as pointed out above, unless you have first person high precision control that level of person to person combat isn't really possible with either turn based or RTWP.

[Grimlorn]

Playing the realism argument makes no sense. RTwP is just as unrealistic as turn based. You realize you can move in real time but your attacks took 6 second turns/rounds in the IE games, right?

 

It's a game. It's not going to be realistic. This has nothing to do with the points I was making.

 

And yes my facts were facts.

 

The Go thing wasn't an analogy. Read Dream's posts in response to mine. He makes up a bunch of crap about turn based games like chess.

[Nihatek]

I really love turn based games - you know your skills, your attacks better, you got time to adjust you strategy - to think of without everything getting messy or 3 times longer.

 

Fallout was great with that, i also loved Heroes of Might and Magic, Spellcross, Civilization.

 

Yeah, you can say, that you got time to arrange things in games like baldurs gate or icewind dale by pausing - but i couldnt get rid of the feeling, that i am slowing the game. And after some time i found it contraproductive, because i was just able to tank and spank almost without the pause, but with the feeling that fight was inefficient, chaotic and then i just lost my mood to fight anyone - because i got no feeling from well done work.

 

If i knew this would be turned base (i know you dont know) - i will pledge 3 times more to the game....

[Game_Exile]

Are all of you people forgetting that they are adding a STAMINA mechanic to combat??? This is awesome in a RTWP system because it puts the primary focus of your calculations on how to spend a visible(!) stamina meter instead of pausing constantly to make perfect timings on all your actions. The important thing with calculations is that they deal with things that are visible and obvious to the person who is calculating. The point of making something "turn based" is not really to "freeze" time and give people time to deliberate (because any game that allows you to pause will do that), but to split time up into neat easy to define sections that you can make calculations with.

 

And since you can now make calculations around a stamina bar, you should add designed limits on the frequency with which the game allows you to pause. Combat should at least look more action packed, so instead of having unlimited (and frequent) pauses you should be able queue up multiple commands like you can in an RTS game. You can also make pausing itself cost stamina meter so that you must select a character when you pause and only be able to issue commands to that character during the pause. And if you want to coordinate your party's actions better, you can do something like give certain party characters a leadership stat so that when you pause with their stamina, they (you) can issue commands to other party members as well. There are lots of possibilities for more action AND more interesting and complex calculations, now that there is a stamina bar.

 

Fewer pauses and more action is what I want! If you're trying to show a cohesive world that has lots of detail, lots of activity, and smooth animations that play out in real time during exploration, then the combat parts NEED to play out in real time or they will not even look like combat (think about the horrific turn cycles in the Fallout games). You cannot make what is supposed to be the most action packed parts of the game the parts where by far the least activity is happening. It would break the game's immersion.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Nihatek]

Why should TB be more challenging or more tactical? In my experience, most TB games are rather simple. In the first hours of gameplay it might be interessting to figure out the machanisms, but later it becomes rather simple and boring. What good is micromanagement, if you have several options, but only one (or maybe two) is the obvisious best joice? I can't see a lot of tactic in games like HOM&M, Shining Force, Fire Emblem, Final Fantasy or Fallout.

What I loved about the IE games was the possibility to prepare for battles. That was the point to think about different strategies. And many challanging fights could be won or lost by preparation.

 

Fact that games are simple does not mean that turn based games are not more challanging or if they are - it depends on your setup and computer AI.

In Fallout it was just about one person (in my case) and my companion just attacked randomly (and meattanked) - but i was able to kite efectively, i was able to weaken enemy just with one gun (not to mention how it might work if i got several different spells to chose from)

Yeah, it is about preparations - Steel panthers are great example for that - when you could arrange your troops on battlefield for 2 hours - but in Steel panthers it was also about execution, how to use your pros and cons (that tank does not see on left or right - just in front of him), how to get rid of enemys tanks (even if you didnt have propere munition to get through the shell)

 

(disclaimer - this was about 10 years ago - so it might be different name of the game, but point still stands)

 

And second argument for execution

Heroes of might and magic is easy game to play, right? Oh yes. But you have more variables in the game - more troops, hero to cast spells - imagine it in real time with pause - it will be just rubbish - yeah, some fight would last lot less (does not matter if 30 seconds or 2 minutes for me), but in big fight you were able with clever thinking to adjust your strategy to your army and enemy and you simply got more choices, you wont be using in real time fight

- if you want to cast haste to get iniciative and destroy their main damage dealer

- or cast slow so your shooter would be able to shoot and weaken enemy sooner then he comes to you

- or cast forgetfullness to simply dont let his archers shoot

- or cast blessing when you know you will increase your damage more then by using some spell direcly and you got faster troops so you will be able to fully use it in your advantage

- or cast some direct damage

- or cast armaggedon, because your troops are immune to fire and you will have time to cast other spells next turn

 

In real time combat - it just starts, and you just adapt, you pause, you do something and you watch, sometimes you do some move or change target - but you are not in full control of it - you are not making that big difference like you can in turn based combat.

 

And if it is challanging or not - it is all about calibration, skills you might chose

 

Real time combat might be nice if every character in your group would be comanded by another player and it might look like some MMO, but otherwise i like turn base and only that. If there will be Baldurs combat with pause - i will say that i will go through the fights just to see how story is continueing and not for my personal pleasure - there is just nothing to enjoy in that kind of fight

[Nihatek]

Are all of you people forgetting that they are adding a STAMINA mechanic to combat??? This is awesome in a RTWP system because it puts the primary focus of your calculations on how to spend a visible(!) stamina meter instead of pausing constantly to make perfect timings on all your actions. The important thing with calculations is that they deal with things that are visible and obvious to the person who is calculating. The point of making something "turn based" is not really to "freeze" time and give people time to deliberate (because any game that allows you to pause will do that), but to split time up into neat easy to define sections that you can make calculations with.

 

And since you can now make calculations around a stamina bar, you should add designed limits on the frequency with which the game allows you to pause. Combat should at least look more action packed, so instead of having unlimited (and frequent) pauses you should be able queue up multiple commands like you can in an RTS game. You can also make pausing itself cost stamina meter so that you must select a character when you pause and only be able to issue commands to that character during the pause. And if you want to coordinate your party's actions better, you can do something like give certain party characters a leadership stat so that when you pause with their stamina, they (you) can issue commands to other party members as well. There are lots of possibilities for more action AND more interesting and complex calculations, now that there is a stamina bar.

 

Fewer pauses and more action is what I want! If you're trying to show a cohesive world that has lots of detail, lots of activity, and smooth animations that play out in real time during exploration, then the combat parts NEED to play out in real time or they will not even look like combat (think about the horrific turn cycles in the Fallout games). You cannot make what is supposed to be the most action packed parts of the game the parts where by far the least activity is happening. It would break the game's immersion.

 

First - not everyone want action packed game like you. There is plenty of them already. But i still think this one will be same, because ACTION is just everything right now.

 

And Fallout system is not horrific to everyone - there are times when we dreamed of playing Fallout multiplayer - because we so loved the system. Only thing that was bad there was that computer was really slow on his moves: i did my, then another player was marked - several second - he moved, pause-he shot-pause - pause - another marked. It was slower then it could be - but damn got - system is still great.

[StaticSpine]

The optional turn based combat (like in Arcanum) would be great!! I'm missing turn-based cRPGs so much...so if there is an option to make combat turn-based or real-time every single fan|backer will be happy!

[StaticSpine]

Oh yeah, forgot to mention that I loved The Temple Of Elemental Evil for turn-based combat.

[Starglider]

No, I would not have backed this project if it was a jRPG.

 

To feel even slightly realistic, combat has to have an element of frantic chaos, not 'swing sword, take a sip of tea, consider 100 tactical options, read a web page, cast spell, take dog for a walk, look up strategy guide, have thief do backstab...'

[Dream]

Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range.

 

 

Being able to abuse things is a function of how well the developers code the game, not whether a game is turn based or real time. On top of that TB games have their own unique abuses such as front loading single shot massive damage abilities with high costs and maximizing the speed stat (or simply save scumming until you go first) to ensure you kill your opponent before they can even react (HoMM with massive packs of black dragons comes to mind).

 

Fact: There are typically more options in Turn based combat RPGs compared to RTwP. Meaning you have different attacks. Like AoOs or Trips or Disarms. There's typically less emphasis placed on these options in favor of simply autoattacking so combat goes by quicker and the player isn't forced to pause several times during one turn/round. I'm trying to remember if there were AoOs in RTwP games. If there were then moving to not trigger them would require a lot of pausing.

 

 

 

In that very statement you use the word typically meaning not always meaning it's once again up to the developer how many options they want to place in the game, and not whether or not the game is RT or TB.

 

Fact: Controlling a party in real time is chaotic that's why there is a pause. This is an admission right here that real time combat is bad for this situation.

 

 

 

If that was the case then every game would be turn based. The fact that RTwP exists is, by your logic, an admission that turn based combat is bad for this situation as well. You ever thought that RTwP was created to fix the issue inherent in TB games and not RT games?

 

Fact: Party A.I. doesn't always do what you order it to after you unpause. So they waste a turn or you have to pause again and reissue a command.

 

 

 

Once again that's entirely dependent on how well the developers code the AI. TB games can have **** AI and be full of bugs just like RT ones.

 

Fact: Enemy A.I. is better in Turn Based games. Not sure why, but I'm assuming it's just easier to program an A.I. in a turn based, grid system while in Real time it's just too difficult to get the A.I. to work well.

 

 

 

Again, up to the developers. I wont disagree that it's easier to program AI for TB games, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to write good AI for RT games. You're all about challenge here, so why do you want to deny the developers the challenge of having to work hard to get good AI.

 

Also, Dream is wrong. Players don't always pick the best strategies with enough time. Mistakes are made even with unlimited time and you can't always know what your opponent is doing exactly and even if you do, you can still lose. My guess is he's never played any chess before and is just making up crap. Personally, I play Go which is quite a bit more complicated than Chess. Computer programs can't compete with average amateurs at that game. Even pros who play games make mistakes from time to time and misread the board, misread their opponent, etc. And they spend several hours on most of their games. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is a joke and either incredibly ignorant or perhaps he's just trolling like I thought.

 

Professionals, by and large, don't make mistakes. If a professional chess player misreads the board it's because he had an off day, or, more likely, because he wasn't able to react fast enough (which is the point of the timer). Do you honestly think NBA players have sub 100% FT percentages because their aim sucks? Even I can hit basket after basket with relative ease when it's just me on the court. If there's no pressure the skill ceiling for an activity is relatively low; perhaps your problem is you simply can't hit it.

Edited October 27, 2012 by Dream

[Nerei]

Would have stopped this debate here, but you elevating your opinions of what makes a better game to the level of facts is fairly irritating and just plain wrong.

Fact: You can abuse movement in RTwP combat while in Turn based you can't. Attack, move, attack, move. Heal, move, heal, move. Or move while rest of party attacks at range.

So in other words you cannot abuse TB combat? Okay, I will have to remember that next time I abuse the 2012 version Xcom to death! Abuse is a matter of game-design, not a matter of it being TB or RT.

Face it, you can abuse all systems even those specifically designed to try and avoid it which Xcom 2012 actually is!

Fact: There are typically more options in Turn based combat RPGs compared to RTwP. Meaning you have different attacks. Like AoOs or Trips or Disarms. There's typically less emphasis placed on these options in favor of simply autoattacking so combat goes by quicker and the player isn't forced to pause several times during one turn/round. I'm trying to remember if there were AoOs in RTwP games. If there were then moving to not trigger them would require a lot of pausing.

Typical and fact does not mix well in this sentence. Typical will indicate that even if it is commonly like this there are exceptions. Your very own words is that it is possible for RT to have these options, ergo it does not have to be less. If it is possible (which your statement says) it is down to the designers to do it right and not about if it is RT or TB.

Given that your opinion is that mechanically TB is better than RT, this "fact" is irrelevant.

Fact: Controlling a party in real time is chaotic that's why there is a pause. This is an admission right here that real time combat is bad for this situation.

 

They insert a pause and party A.I. to automate things for the player so the player isn't overwhelmed with Real Time combat. Why not just keep it turn based? Because some people have ADHD and can't sit there a 1-3 minute encounters in turn based? It has to be over in less than 30 seconds or they get bored? Who cares what those people think? Let them play Dragon Age 2 and 3 where everything is crappy real time action combat.

 

And here we jump to conclusions. First of why does it have to be chaotic? Why is that an admission of anything? Is it bad if something is chaotic?

 

The AI is a tool that helps you play like you want to. I do not see why is that an admission of anything except that it is something players want.

If you do not want to control the entire party all the time the AI can help you do that. In turn based I have to control every character, every round. If I do not want to go through managing all of my party all the time for fights that are near trivial, I can do that in RT, but not in TB (yes even ToEE had encounters that could be fairly trivial). If I just want my archer to fire arrows at a target for the next 3 rounds the AI helps me do that, why is that a weak point? It simply means I do not have to do busywork!

 

I did not know you had been a game designer at all the companies that ever made party based games with part AI's in them, or if not that you had seen internal documents from them. For if neither of these are the case then you are just making your own conclusions based on incomplete information and thus at best have a shaky fact, at worst just plain wrong.

 

Also wow, seriously? Assuming that games you do not like is made for people with ADHD? Assuming they cannot focus on something for more than 30 seconds? Assuming their opinion is less than yours? Sure you cannot be more offensive?

 

I assume you are also aware that Dragon Age is by many regarded as the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate and ultimately the base mechanic are fairly similar (RTwP, healing kits etc are just specifics). Your claims are generic enough to cover BG also, being directed at RT combat.

Does that mean that the opinion of the people that like the IE games and prefer that style to TB are also not worth anything?

 

If you want one good thing from Dragon Age it is actually the AI. Did you know that there are competitions to building the best AI in some games? Claiming party AI is something that simply cheapens the game is just wrong. It can just as well be something that adds to the game.

When I played Dragon Age Origins my main joy was getting a mod that made the controlled character use it's AI commands and then the fun was to see how far the party could go with the AI I made. That is AI adding a different aspect to the game, a challenge that is impossible to get in TB games like ToEE.

 

Fact: Party A.I. doesn't always do what you order it to after you unpause. So they waste a turn or you have to pause again and reissue a command.

That is a design issue or a programming issue, not an inherit problem with the RT mechanic. I can claim the same with TB, I have had situations where I accidentally clicked wrong in Xcom and had my character move to a wrong position (usualy caused by elevation making it hard to click the right place). In that case I have to reload or probably lose a soldier. This is a design problem, not a problem with RT mechanics.

 

Fact: Enemy A.I. is better in Turn Based games. Not sure why, but I'm assuming it's just easier to program an A.I. in a turn based, grid system while in Real time it's just too difficult to get the A.I. to work well.

Again this is a design problem. And if you want counters try playing ToEE with Vanilla AI, it is atrocious. There are plenty of example of bad TB AI's.

 

These are all facts and have been demonstrated in games. If you can't recognize these are facts and not opinions on how mechanics have worked in RPGs then I don't know what to tell you. This is what I've been saying all along. That turn based mechanics work better than RTwP and are less exploitable.

 

The only bad thing I've heard about Turn Based combat is the combat takes longer. But that's working as intended giving the player full control of his party.

No it is your opinion you elevate to facts, if you cannot recognize that then I could say you are the ones having problems. That you cannot take anything people that do not support your ideas as anything worth considering is also saying (again consider the Dragon Age style games being designed for people with ADHD).

 

You even take things that some people do not like and raise it as good things! If people do not like the slow combat, it is a legitimate problem. It may work as intended, but for those players the intention is wrong!

 

While I do like RTS games because you have to make decisions quickly. That's what real time is there for. It doesn't mean there are more options like with Turn based combat. Just that you have to multitask several things at once and the pressure is due to time and keeping track of everything. Things are simpler because of this. Ex: WC3 and SC2. Blizzard uses a rock, paper, scissors system with armor types and damage types keeping things relatively simple for controlling mass units.

 

In turn based games (not just RPGs) you have time to think. Plan your strategy, read several moves ahead, adapt to your opponent's strategy. There's so much you can do. In real time this becomes chaotic and difficult to manage.

 

There are other real time games than Warcraft or Starcraft and given that your standpoint is TB is better than RT, we can look at those also.

 

Go play a few Paradox Interactive grand strategy titles and come back to me and say that RTS (RTwP) cannot be as complex as TB. If you are going to claim you can play through the grand campaign of Hearts of Iron III without extensive thinking and planning I am simply not going to believe you. Those games are more complex than the majority of TB games I have played.

Compare that game to say Axis and Allies, basically a TB version of the same scenario! There is a pause function yes, but you can play though it on a set speed, multiplayer does just that.

Playing that game without pause is basically handling massive amounts of information in a real time scenario and can be insanely complex.

 

You also keep hammering that RT is simpler than TB, which again is nothing inherit to RT (again try and play say British Empire though the grand campaign of Hearts of Iron III, for added difficulty try without using the pause function).

 

There is no reason except conscious design choices to make RT simpler, Paradox does in most cases prove that.

You may find more complex TB games than HoI III sure but that does not mean you cannot make RT complex as complex as TB, it has been done.

We can take MoO III a great example of a super complex TB game. That game is so complex that it allows you to automate functions to keep you from information overload.

By most accounts the complexity of MoO III is just too much and too badly executed, especially coupled with a broken AI. The assumption that more complex have to mean the game is better is flawed, most people would say MoO III proves that.

 

 

Also, Dream is wrong. Players don't always pick the best strategies with enough time. Mistakes are made even with unlimited time and you can't always know what your opponent is doing exactly and even if you do, you can still lose. My guess is he's never played any chess before and is just making up crap. Personally, I play Go which is quite a bit more complicated than Chess. Computer programs can't compete with average amateurs at that game. Even pros who play games make mistakes from time to time and misread the board, misread their opponent, etc. And they spend several hours on most of their games. Pretending this stuff doesn't exist is a joke and either incredibly ignorant or perhaps he's just trolling like I thought.

 

Players can always fail, no one is perfect. The ability to fail has nothing to do with time, the chance of failing however does. having one or two weeks to plan your move does probably not mean much, having 20 seconds or 2 hours does.

If you are going to claim that time has nothing to do with your ability to process the information a game give you and formulate a strategy from it, you are plain wrong.

If time was not a factor in your ability to formulate a strategy the only thing that should limit you is mechanically how fast you can execute your moves. After all additional planning should not matter.

If the time-limit is tight it adds pressure to the players and increases the challenge and the person better able to handle that challenge is the one that usually wins.

 

There are actually TB games that allow you to set the amount of calculations the AI can make for each turn. The longer it has the harder it generally is as it has more “time” to evaluate the situation. That is an example of time mattering when it comes to making a strategy and planning ahead.

 

Having infinite time is a help to anyone planning their moves. Naturally it does not guarantee a perfect result as you do not have perfect information, but it does make it easier, there is no way around that.

 

 

Wow this got a bit longer than planned

Edited October 27, 2012 by Nerei

[Grimlorn]

Professionals, by and large, don't make mistakes. If a professional chess player misreads the board it's because he had an off day, or, more likely, because he wasn't able to react fast enough (which is the point of the timer). Do you honestly think NBA players have sub 100% FT percentages because their aim sucks? Even I can hit basket after basket with relative ease when it's just me on the court. If there's no pressure the skill ceiling for an activity is relatively low; perhaps your problem is you simply can't hit it.

haha what a joke. Keep on making up crap. Professionals make mistakes all the time, just less than the average person. To pretend this doesn't exist or there aren't limitations to different people is some kind of joke.

 

You guys can use the it's just bad A.I. excuse, but that's just your opinion. You can't prove that it can actually be done because it hasn't been done. For all we know it's simply a technical limitation at this point and my points still stand regardless. In the IE games, if I remember right, mobs just attacked the closest party member usually. If you moved out of range of that mob then it would give up chase and just attack the closest party member. No going specifically after your vulnerable weak characters. No way to close the distance when you were out of melee range.

 

I assume you are also aware that Dragon Age is by many regarded as the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate and ultimately the base mechanic are fairly similar (RTwP, healing kits etc are just specifics). Your claims are generic enough to cover BG also, being directed at RT combat.

Does that mean that the opinion of the people that like the IE games and prefer that style to TB are also not worth anything?

The people who think RTwP is better than Turn Based are wrong. I've pointed out facts. This isn't about personal opinion or preference. This is about mechanics and which one objectively works better. Dream and your posts are hilarious. You're trying to make up a bunch of excuses or crap to justify your opinion and make your opinion seem right. I'm the only one debating rationally and objectively here. And yes some people's opinions are worth less than others. If someone thinks that Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is the best film ever, their opinion is worthless. That's just the way it is, but I'm not arguing that. I'm simply providing examples of why Turn Based works better than RTwP. You guys are the ones getting upset over nothing.

[Adhin]

I prefer real time but I like turn based 'sometimes'... usually depends how complex it is. ToEE for instance I loved but it was a great adaption of most of PnP rules. I believe however you can do most of that in real time as well with a pause same as IE. I think most turn based games are boring due to the lack of interesting stuff to do in general... XCOM doesn't give you a lot to do but i still enjoy the hell outa that though. But that has a lot more... I dunno, at stake I guess and alot more around it then just the combat its self so it works out well.

 

In the end real time can keep things moving quicker when they don't have as much interesting tactical options like ToEE had but you could easily do bullrush, grapples and anything, really, in real time as well.... no real limiting factor just cause its real time. Also you don't manage 'everyone at the same time' in turn based, its still one at a time where as in IE, when you puase, you literally manage as many of them as you want right there and then let it play out. I ultimately, find that more interesting regardless of the level of complexity in there systems or rules.

 

So i'm not sure what to vote as, I prefer real time, but would still support and enjoy turn based? So I guess yay but also I don't care to much but ultimately prefer real time...Wheres my 'Adhin, if its you, pick this option'?

[evdk]

Wheres my 'Adhin, if its you, pick this option'?

In special snowflake Bioware games, maybe Sadly, the forum software does not support the Dialogue Wheel ® © TM

[BasaltineBadger]

Turn-based combat only felt more intense to me, but real-time combat with pause is all-right, but easy to mess-up. It worked well in BG, but was boring mess in NVN2.

[Adhin]

was kind of boring in NWN1 too. NWN1 ultimately had better controles for the individual then NWN2 but the only thing that kept NWN going was the community and the ease(ish) they had for setting up servers which NWN2 ultimately didn't handle as well. In the end its the only thing that kept me playing NWN for 10 years, persistent world servers and that comes down to a... MMO like thing. The only reason I've ever played an MMO for any amount of time (which, at base, are all pretty crappy games) are the people you get to interact with on a constant basis... same with NWN1 with online.

 

Anyway, already said my actual feelings on it and I ended up voting for yay since I would still support and enjoy it if turn based. I'm just happier with there current real time approach, bioware snowflake or not.

[ogrezilla]

Neither Real Time with Pause nor Turn based is inherently more strategic or tactical than the other. Developers tend to make RTwP games more lenient as far as requiring the best possible strategy or tactics, but that is a development choice and not an inherent flaw of a RTwP system. RTwP typically makes up for that shortcoming by requiring you to keep track of the entire battle at once. Neither is better; they are just different.

 

I personally enjoy both. I would say single unit at a time turn based (like final fantasy tactics) is my favorite, following by real time with pause followed by full team turn based (like fire emblem.) But really it just comes down to the game.

Edited October 28, 2012 by ogrezilla

[Nerei]

Professionals, by and large, don't make mistakes. If a professional chess player misreads the board it's because he had an off day, or, more likely, because he wasn't able to react fast enough (which is the point of the timer). Do you honestly think NBA players have sub 100% FT percentages because their aim sucks? Even I can hit basket after basket with relative ease when it's just me on the court. If there's no pressure the skill ceiling for an activity is relatively low; perhaps your problem is you simply can't hit it.

haha what a joke. Keep on making up crap. Professionals make mistakes all the time, just less than the average person. To pretend this doesn't exist or there aren't limitations to different people is some kind of joke.

 

You guys can use the it's just bad A.I. excuse, but that's just your opinion. You can't prove that it can actually be done because it hasn't been done. For all we know it's simply a technical limitation at this point and my points still stand regardless. In the IE games, if I remember right, mobs just attacked the closest party member usually. If you moved out of range of that mob then it would give up chase and just attack the closest party member. No going specifically after your vulnerable weak characters. No way to close the distance when you were out of melee range.

 

I assume you are also aware that Dragon Age is by many regarded as the spiritual successor to Baldurs Gate and ultimately the base mechanic are fairly similar (RTwP, healing kits etc are just specifics). Your claims are generic enough to cover BG also, being directed at RT combat.

Does that mean that the opinion of the people that like the IE games and prefer that style to TB are also not worth anything?

The people who think RTwP is better than Turn Based are wrong. I've pointed out facts. This isn't about personal opinion or preference. This is about mechanics and which one objectively works better. Dream and your posts are hilarious. You're trying to make up a bunch of excuses or crap to justify your opinion and make your opinion seem right. I'm the only one debating rationally and objectively here. And yes some people's opinions are worth less than others. If someone thinks that Transformers Revenge of the Fallen is the best film ever, their opinion is worthless. That's just the way it is, but I'm not arguing that. I'm simply providing examples of why Turn Based works better than RTwP. You guys are the ones getting upset over nothing.

 

 

So what we say is just opinions and what you say is fact? I am not sure what world you live in, but I definitely hope I never enter it.

I must say though it must be really great to be able to say things and it just becoming facts. Personally I would probably use it to end poverty and starvation instead of focusing it on computer games.

 

You agree that you decide what opinions are worth something and those that disagree with your opinion is worth less?! wow talk about being openminded!

 

Several words comes to mind but I am pretty sure it is against the forum rules to use them in the description of other users.

 

In any case all you bring up is your "facts" as well as pretty much both ignoring and now outright saying how little regard you have for opinions that differ from your own. That alone means that any discussion is not really possible and this debate is effectively over.

 

 

I have to admit though that you have convinced me of one thing. I now agree that some opinions are worth less than others. For one I now regard your opinion as being worth about as much as that of the average ant on New Guinea.

 

Have fun living in your own world and if you ever get to Earth, please do not look me up.

 

Edit: don't bother replying to me, I will not be reading it anyway

Edited October 28, 2012 by Nerei