Project Eternity Update #36: Off to our elfhomes, but first...

[Malekith]

Turn-based, of course, *forces* combat pauses every time its the player's turn to attack. By Employing real time with pause, Obsidian is admittedly offering up the most logical compromise: allowing real-time fans to enjoy uninterrupable combat flow, while giving turn based fans the ability to emulate turn-based combat by pausing whenever they want (to issue orders, think about their next attack, etc.)

Therefore, I'm against it, even if it does "fix" so-called 'cheater-illogic' like being able to cancel an attack you started, or being able to do stuff outside your turn or whatever. Not that any of this makes a lick of difference. They're not going to put limits on pausing anyway. This is an RPG, not some shooter or RTS game.

 

Turn-based combat has clear limits on actions that can be taken in each time interval. And you don't emulate turn-based combat by pausing whenever you want, because there is no pausing and reissuing commands between intervals in turn based combat. First you call this "the most logical compromise", then you talk about "cheater illogic" not mattering because Obsidian promised to make the compromise that is supposed to be the "most logical", lol.

 

Having any command pause at all is a compromise from a real time system. The reasons for having limits on command pausing aren't based on some compromise pact with the developers or some "illogic" having to do with turns. The issue is how the players will need to approach and think about combat, especially with respect to their own competence and skill. It shouldn't be nearly as pronounced as in action games, but it should definitely show up more, especially in the absence of the sort of strict calculations you can put in turn based systems.

All your arguements come from the fact that you prefer realtime combat , which by definition is more "actiony". Many people hate more action in combat, and if in the pitch Obsidian have said that the game will be realtime without pause a good portion of the people would not have donated.I know for sure that i would not. FFS there were complains because some people wanted turn-based, or because in the last update the rogue abilities sounded reactionary like from an ARPG and many didn't like it.I'm not so hardcore and to be honest i prefer RTwP from turn-based, but i despise pure realtime.In tactical rpg player's skill shouldn't matter at all.It's your character's skill that matters. Or to put it better, the players skill should be mental and not hand-eye coordination and reflexes.Thats what most people who complain about "twitchy" combat mean.That is the reason that in most turn based systems,while there is a limit in each turn,that limit is never time

 

Also a sidenote.... the bottom line here, really: The IE games didn't have pause limits. And they were fine. Better than any game I've ever played that does.

^ also this

Edited December 27, 2012 by Malekith

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but I would like a game for once that doesn't require me to slaughter 5,000-1 million bad guys to "win." IF I could use my skills to send creatures back into the netherworld, or stun them long enough to get away and I had an opportunity to be more of a pacifist I'd rather go that route. However for whatever reason it seems like game design 101 if you're not causing blood baths and mayhem, you're doing it wrong.

 

Sorry I went off on a tangent, I think it would be fun if we could have contingencies, similar to how they did them in IWD2 and BG series. I mean even in football games they choose their play and still have freedom to audible before the snap to switch up things. I'd like the option of choosing my skills, but have a hot key or something to switch my player or party's behavior if they spot a mage and can react accordingly for example. They could have those types of behaviors apear briefly on screen to react to, and if you don't you have to pause and manually do it.

[JonVanCaneghem]

Turn-based, of course, *forces* combat pauses every time its the player's turn to attack. By Employing real time with pause, Obsidian is admittedly offering up the most logical compromise: allowing real-time fans to enjoy uninterrupable combat flow, while giving turn based fans the ability to emulate turn-based combat by pausing whenever they want (to issue orders, think about their next attack, etc.)

Therefore, I'm against it, even if it does "fix" so-called 'cheater-illogic' like being able to cancel an attack you started, or being able to do stuff outside your turn or whatever. Not that any of this makes a lick of difference. They're not going to put limits on pausing anyway. This is an RPG, not some shooter or RTS game.

 

Turn-based combat has clear limits on actions that can be taken in each time interval. And you don't emulate turn-based combat by pausing whenever you want, because there is no pausing and reissuing commands between intervals in turn based combat. First you call this "the most logical compromise", then you talk about "cheater illogic" not mattering because Obsidian promised to make the compromise that is supposed to be the "most logical", lol.

 

Having any command pause at all is a compromise from a real time system. The reasons for having limits on command pausing aren't based on some compromise pact with the developers or some "illogic" having to do with turns. The issue is how the players will need to approach and think about combat, especially with respect to their own competence and skill. It shouldn't be nearly as pronounced as in action games, but it should definitely show up more, especially in the absence of the sort of strict calculations you can put in turn based systems.

 

First off, I view this suggestion sort of like I view speed chess. I respect that people play it, but I probably never would. It would also be silly to suggest that all chess must be played with limited time to think. The game of chess, much like party based combat in roleplaying games, involves some rather detailed decisions that can take time to ponder. One might eventually be able to make these decisions quickly, but not as a beginner. And without ever allowing "think time", the novice would be stunted in their growth as a player. They would make unnecessary mistakes caused not by poor strategic choice, but by lack of game rule knowledge.

 

Here's the problem with importing this to PE... it's not chess. Not only will it be staggeringly more complex than chess rule-wise, but we will all be starting out as novices.

 

I do think, however, that this would be a nice "challenge mode" option that you could select. I have always disliked people who suggest "just impose the challenge on yourself." It would be easy enough to add a little pause meter for those who want to turn it on as an option. It could drain when you pause the game, and refill while the game is not paused. I personally might enjoy a version where you have a fixed number of pauses per combat, almost like time-outs in most sports. You'd really think before pausing and make the most of each pause.

[Rostere]

Limits on pause = **** nonsense.

[Few]

I'm probably the only one who feels this way, but I would like a game for once that doesn't require me to slaughter 5,000-1 million bad guys to "win." IF I could use my skills to send creatures back into the netherworld, or stun them long enough to get away and I had an opportunity to be more of a pacifist I'd rather go that route. However for whatever reason it seems like game design 101 if you're not causing blood baths and mayhem, you're doing it wrong.

 

Yes this is absolutely how I feel and wrote about it a little in a few threads some time ago. It seems as though most people thought that this idea is not even worth taking the time to consider and unfortunately in an interview with one of the developers they state that there will be no way to play the game as a pacifist. I myself was hoping, probably a bit too much, that they might invest some time in creating abilities etc that can result in non lethal methods and I am slightly disappointed. I never really expected them to implement the ability to do a full non violent play-through but I was still hoping and I still am I think.

 

Regardless though I still think this will be an awesome game

[rjshae]

Okay, so that's at least two pacifists out of the 73,986 supporters.

 

For me at least, a non-lethal RPG is basically an adventure game. If you're facing evil minions, diplomacy isn't always going to cut it.

Edited December 28, 2012 by rjshae

[Few]

Okay, so that's at least two pacifists out of the 73,986 supporters.

 

For me at least, a non-lethal RPG is basically an adventure game. If you're facing evil minions, diplomacy isn't always going to cut it.

 

hehe, united we are strong!

 

But if you are facing evil minions, such as adorable little kobolds, surely you could at least use magics to put them to sleep or banish them back to their true plane of existence or even use some methods of knocking them unconscious. :D

Edited December 28, 2012 by Few

[Sannom]

Non-lethal could also mean using stealth, include a 'tie them up' option for fallen enemies (looking at you, Commandos 2) and outright refusing quests that requires you to kill someone. The main path would need to have ways to avoid or skip some of the important confrontations too.

[Sannom]

But if you are facing evil minions, such as little adorable kobolds

 

(1) surely you could at least use magics to put them to sleep or even use some methods of knocking them unconscious. :D

(2) banish them back to their true plane of existence

 

(1) Although those don't generally change the gameplay that much. I don't like it when the option is merely esthetic.

(2) That would require a very specific background for the game, though. Too binding, I think.

[Few]

I was just giving some standard examples of pacifist solutions to problems that I'm sure could be changed lore wise to fit the game with the mechanics effectively remaining the same as in the examples I mentioned.

 

Then again I'm not a game designer so I've no doubt that the methods that I would try to implement would end up being terrible. I just really really really really hope that there will be ways to get around the majority of the content without killing things; failing things in general then at least encounters with sentient beings.

 

Oh and a "tie them up" option sounds awesome

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I'd be ok with if we could just incapacitate the baddies like what happens to us if we run out of juice and get knocked out in a fight. If there was a fencer/swashbuckler profession I'd probably play as that. His play style might be someone who tosses smoke bombs and runs away, or tosses flash grenades to stun them for example. Maybe my attacks would come in so fast the enemy's get turned around and confused and attack their comrades. For some reason I kinda picture myself as that black pirate guy from the princess bride.

[Stun]

Okay, so that's at least two pacifists out of the 73,986 supporters.

 

For me at least, a non-lethal RPG is basically an adventure game. If you're facing evil minions, diplomacy isn't always going to cut it.

Indeed. As much as I dislike the whole notion of murder-grinding for exp, I wouldn't be very entertained by a game that allows you to do away with it outright. It's got to be a major part of the experience in order to keep my interest. Otherwise why bother with all the detailed classes, combat abilities, weapons, spells etc?

 

But that said, a perfect RPG imo would mix it up to stop the monotony. A reasonable ratio of must-kill to can-subdue... say 3:1. For every 3 encounters, give us one where you can talk your way out, or simply incapacitate the enemy so you can move on.

[Malekith]

I think they said that there would be multiple solutions to quests and ways to avoid combat.When they said that you could not play a pasifist they meant that you could not avoid all combat situations in the game and play a pasifist as an ideology.You could still play a character that is afraid or don't likes combat and avoids it most of the time.And for the bulk of the game you will be able to.At least i think it will be that way.Thats why they go with XP for objectives and not per kill

[Few]

I think they said that there would be multiple solutions to quests and ways to avoid combat.When they said that you could not play a pasifist they meant that you could not avoid all combat situations in the game and play a pasifist as an ideology.You could still play a character that is afraid or don't likes combat and avoids it most of the time.And for the bulk of the game you will be able to.At least i think it will be that way.Thats why they go with XP for objectives and not per kill

 

If that is the way it will be that would be just wonderful! keeping my fingers crossed.

[xSigma]

Well, like Falkon Swtchblade before me posted : Why not use stamina to our pacifistic advantage? When we(the char) gets stamina down, we get knocked out...why not knock out the npc's as well, and only 'kill' or finish them when you search/loot their bodies.

I would love a pacifistic playthrough. Skyrim killed my barehanded character when I noticed you can't level up your fists.

Edited December 29, 2012 by xSigma

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I think they said that there would be multiple solutions to quests and ways to avoid combat.When they said that you could not play a pasifist they meant that you could not avoid all combat situations in the game and play a pasifist as an ideology.You could still play a character that is afraid or don't likes combat and avoids it most of the time.And for the bulk of the game you will be able to.At least i think it will be that way.Thats why they go with XP for objectives and not per kill

 

yeah to be clear, I'm not talking about only diplomacy skills, but I'd like to have several tricks in & out of combat, be that slight of hand, out lasting enemy's in a stamina match off until they yield, combat tactics that confuse or distract, non combat abilities such as stunning/knocking out, pick pocketing, acrobatics, maybe even some type of ability to change my appearance so I look like one of the baddies, etc.

[Game_Exile]

All your arguements come from the fact that you prefer realtime combat , which by definition is more "actiony". Many people hate more action in combat, and if in the pitch Obsidian have said that the game will be realtime without pause a good portion of the people would not have donated.

I don't understand why people wouldn't want combat to be "actiony", when combat is pretty much the highest representation of "action". It is, by definition, where the most action happens. And it's not like I'm demanding a game where people have to be mouse and keyboard ninjas to win combat encounters. I'd just like to see a system where there is more tangible benefit for making the right decisions at the right time.

 

FFS there were complains because some people wanted turn-based, or because in the last update the rogue abilities sounded reactionary like from an ARPG and many didn't like it.

What does it matter if some people wanted turn-based? Combat in P:E is going to be in real time. And the big issue with turn based combat isn't necessarily if it is more "actiony" or less "actiony"; it is whether or not you have a system where it is appropriate to demand more precise and/or more elaborate calculations from the player.

 

In tactical rpg player's skill shouldn't matter at all.It's your character's skill that matters. Or to put it better, the players skill should be mental and not hand-eye coordination and reflexes.

Yes, I meant skill in the broad sense, and skill should matter, of course. I've already mentioned that the player shouldn't have to constantly micromanage individual combatants. Obviously, in a squad based tactical combat system, you want to be thinking about and making moves with the bigger picture in mind, and you shouldn't have to execute many elaborate maneuvers with pinpoint timing. But that doesn't mean there should be an escape button for every time you **** up. If "mental" competence and skill have nothing to do with time, then why does every single standard aptitude test, from grammar school to higher education, have strict time limits?

 

That is the reason that in most turn based systems,while there is a limit in each turn,that limit is never time.

Everyone needs time to make elaborate and precise calculations from broad assessments of the playing field. Good turn based systems demand that the player make these calculations.

 

First off, I view this suggestion sort of like I view speed chess. I respect that people play it, but I probably never would. It would also be silly to suggest that all chess must be played with limited time to think. The game of chess, much like party based combat in roleplaying games, involves some rather detailed decisions that can take time to ponder. One might eventually be able to make these decisions quickly, but not as a beginner. And without ever allowing "think time", the novice would be stunted in their growth as a player. They would make unnecessary mistakes caused not by poor strategic choice, but by lack of game rule knowledge.

 

Here's the problem with importing this to PE... it's not chess. Not only will it be staggeringly more complex than chess rule-wise, but we will all be starting out as novices.

The demands in a game of chess rely on the quality of your opponent. I don't expect that players will have to know very elaborate sequences of moves and countermoves in P:E, nor do I think it would be appropriate to design combat so that players would have to do this (though some people might want this sort of thing).

 

For novices, there should be an opportunity to learn the ins and outs of the combat system as the game progresses. It's not as if you start the game with every single combat ability at your disposal, anyway.

 

I do think, however, that this would be a nice "challenge mode" option that you could select. I have always disliked people who suggest "just impose the challenge on yourself." It would be easy enough to add a little pause meter for those who want to turn it on as an option. It could drain when you pause the game, and refill while the game is not paused. I personally might enjoy a version where you have a fixed number of pauses per combat, almost like time-outs in most sports. You'd really think before pausing and make the most of each pause.

Yeah, there are lots of ways to limit command pauses, with varying effects. A meter, like the one you suggest, could be based on some stat as well (like intelligence?). I'd like to see resource costs integrated into the game, instead of isolating a pause mechanic just for "gameplay" purposes. The pauses should be invisible (obviously they are not), or they should have some marginal place in the story/setting, like a character's ability to swing an axe.

[Lephys]

I don't understand why people wouldn't want combat to be "actiony", when combat is pretty much the highest representation of "action". It is, by definition, where the most action happens. And it's not like I'm demanding a game where people have to be mouse and keyboard ninjas to win combat encounters. I'd just like to see a system where there is more tangible benefit for making the right decisions at the right time.

 

If you want timing to be rewarded, then why do you want limited windows for the player to put that timing to work? In a turn-based game, you get the pause between turns to figure out your meaningful calculations. When you're ready, the next turn executes. Not the next 12 turns. Just the one. Why would it be bad for a real-time game not to let you pause whenever you wanted? If you pause 15 times while someone's casting a spell, who cares? What strategic advantage does that give you? Being able to pause doesn't mean you can mulligan choices. You'd still only be able to change the queued up actions AFTER the current action. So, what reason is there to require someone to control 6 characters, real-time, with more than 1 decision at a time?

 

If you were really in combat, making tactical decisions, and you were about to fire a crossbow bolt at an orc that had your friend pinned down, so as to save your friend, but some other orc threw an axe at your friend and killed him before you actually took the shot, would you not re-assess and look for a different shot with the change in circumstances? Since the player cannot make such a choice as quickly as each character's virtual brain could, why not allow a pause? No one's favoring rewind that I know of. Just pause. If you were a Mage instead, and started casting a protective shield on that friend, then stopped casting when the other orc throwing-axed him to death, then you're still out that cast-time. And you made the point about different characters actions happening at different times, unlike the global round timer in a turn-based game, so is that not all the more reason to allow timing to count by allowing you to take advantage of all the time you can?

[xSigma]

Stop with the pause argument already. Why do the actions of someone playing a SINGLE player story game affect you. Don't like pause? Don't use it. Don't force it down our throats, it hurts.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Limits on pause = **** nonsense.

[Stun]

And it's not like I'm demanding a game where people have to be mouse and keyboard ninjas to win combat encounters.

Actually.... yes, you are.

 

I don't see how you can call it anything else. You're advocating that the player be able to effectively carry out every attack, counter attack and defensive action of 6 individual characters, each having their own huge set of class abilities, special attacks, spells from spellbooks and memory, against a computer-contolled group of enemies with similar arsenals.....all on the fly, without pausing. That sounds pretty darn L33t-ninja to me.

 

 

You've either never played an RPG in your life or else you're being deliberately dishonest here to get a rise out of us. There is NO WAY any non-dumbed-down party-based RPG combat system can offer a truly tactical experience in the spirit of the old school rpgs by forcing what you're suggesting upon us. Limiting pausing simply won't work. it will eliminate thoughtful tactics and replace them with twitch-based hand-eye coordination. And you know it.

 

Again, PE is not an FPS, where all you have to think about are the guns you've got in your hands and where the enemy is. It's a game with more than a half dozen different classes. Each one having dozens of abilities and special attacks for the player to choose from. It's a party-based game where high level spell-casters will have spellbooks containing dozens upon dozens of spells. Its a game where you'll probably find your party split up on the battle field, with mages dueling each other in the back, while your warriors fight off enemy warriors and archers on the front lines..... at the same time.

 

 

 

I'd just like to see a system where there is more tangible benefit for making the right decisions at the right time.

Oh *Bull*. If that's all you wanted, then here. let me suggest a game for you to try out: Baldur's gate 2. Go get it. Play it. Roll yourself a specialist mage. Then venture out and find yourself a cleric. And a berserker, and a thief, and maybe another mage. Now take your party out and try to defeat the game's mind flayers, liches, beholders, trolls, vampires, dragons and garden variety spell-casters.

 

Then come back and tell us how it went for you. How... even with pausing, the game STILL demanded that you drop the right spell at the right time against the correct opponent...with Pain and death being the punishment for failure. How... even with pausing, the enemy mage still managed to get his power word: silence off on you before you could could finish casting Finger of Death. Or how that enemy warrior STILL managed to land the killing blow against your cleric before she finished casting Heal.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Stun

[Game_Exile]

You're advocating that the player be able to effectively carry out every attack, counter attack and defensive action of 6 individual characters, each having their own huge set of class abilities, special attacks, spells from spellbooks and memory, against a computer-contolled group of enemies with similar arsenals.....all on the fly, without pausing.

Good point. There is an issue with the UI here, and whether or how the game should pause when accessing "lists" of class abilities, spells, etc. Obviously there are many ways everything (the UI, the choice of spells, active/passive abilities, limits/costs on pausing, etc.) can look, which could be more appropriate or less approprate for a real time combat system with limits on pausing.

 

There is NO WAY any non-dumbed-down party-based RPG combat system can offer a truly tactical experience in the spirit of the old school rpgs by forcing what you're suggesting upon us.

I am pretty sure there are MANY ways to make a good squad based tactical combat system with limited command pauses. "Truly tactical"? Yeah, I remember BG2. The vanilla game was piss easy with free saves and reloading, at least after you figured out how the spells work. All the challenge was in learning what shows up in the tougher combat encounters (especially with insta death spells and spell protections on liches, dragons, etc.). There was very little improvisation in the tough battles (outside of "exploits", like with traps), and no need for it in the easier ones.

 

Limiting pausing simply won't work. it will eliminate thoughtful tactics and replace them with twitch-based hand-eye coordination. And you know it.

A good combat system with less micromanagement and limited command pauses will help to eliminate over elaborate combat puzzles, and have more opportunities for thoughtful tactics. I'm talking about a system where you don't necessarily have to react to every little thing that happens, rather you evaluate what's happening on the battlefield and execute the correct tactics, understand? Competence is also knowing what you should be paying attention to at any given time, and that does not equate to "twitching". That's what I know.

 

It's a party-based game where high level spell-casters will have spellbooks containing dozens upon dozens of spells. Its a game where you'll probably find your party split up on the battle field, with mages dueling each other in the back, while your warriors fight off enemy warriors and archers on the front lines..... at the same time.

You know you will be able to queue up combat commands in P:E, right? And if a mage has to open a spellbook in the middle of battle and read from the correct passage, then why shouldn't it cost him something, if it's not going to be time?

 

I don't expect P:E to put so much emphasis on puzzling out the correct order of commands from the start of battles, with pinpoint timings for player actions. Pause is still there if you need to coordinate better, and limits on pauses should be designed along the lines of how the player needs to use them, obviously.

 

How... even with pausing, the game STILL demanded that you drop the right spell at the right time against the correct opponent...with Pain and death being the punishment for failure.

"Pain and death", oooh I'm so ****ing scared. There is a big difference between making the correct decisions as combat progresses, and pausing every time you are confused or see that there's something wrong and then figuring out timings and making decisions when there is no stress at all. Pausing itself should be a signficant decision with some risk because it is a game changer, plain and simple. It should not always be the safest or smartest decision to make.

 

How... even with pausing, the enemy mage still managed to get his power word: silence off on you before you could could finish casting Finger of Death. Or how that enemy warrior STILL managed to land the killing blow against your cleric before she finished casting Heal.

Yes, you do know that rounds were simulated in BG2, right? So you made the wrong guess about what to do in these situations. So, what? "Tactics", my ass. And why shouldn't stuff like this happen with or without limits on pausing?

Edited December 31, 2012 by Game_Exile

[Lephys]

Pausing itself should be a signficant decision with some risk because it is a game changer, plain and simple. It should not always be the safest or smartest decision to make.

 

Oh man... I've really gotta use the restroom, but, I'm not sure the pause is worth the risk! o_o

 

The only valid, reasonable argument you have is "People shouldn't be allowed extra time to think about things. They should just think faster." Because that's all pausing does, besides provide convenience when returning to your game from a restroom break as opposed to re-launching the EXE and loading your save just to get back to the game after a 5-minute break.

 

How is it a "game changer"? Does pausing enhance your spell damage? Does it give you more attacks in the same amount of game time? What do you think's going to happen if someone has pause limits, and they have trouble keeping up with combat, and they make a mistake that they COULD'VE fixed by pausing the action and issuing command changes to the party, and their party all dies? I suspect they'll re-load the game and try again. And again, and again. Unless of course you think we should institute load limits. "Nope... you can only re-load the game once per day. Sorry. You'll have to try again tomorrow, u_u."

 

I hate to tell you, but humans have different speeds of tactical processing. We've all got different brains. So, unless you plan on arguing that people who think more slowly are inherently stupid and crappy people who don't deserve to get to play a game just because YOU want to limit your own pauses to challenge yourself to think faster, then there's absolutely no reason to limit pausing (and definitely no good reason).

Edited December 31, 2012 by Lephys

[xSigma]

Hmmmmm back on to the topic of Elves...

are Elves going to be unique? Or just the same ol' classical elves?

[Stun]

<stuff>

Ok, this is far beyond my threshold of worthless message-board debate Tedium. So I'm not going to totally engage, here. Instead, I'll just try to sum up your "desires" in one simple sentence. And also, since you've been extremely careful not to give anyone on this thread an Example of a game that ever did what you're proposing (probably for fear that it would kill your entire argument if you did), I'll go ahead and read your mind on that one, too.

 

Here goes:

 

You want a (limited) party-based version of Witcher 2... complete with QTEs and all that stupid split-second-reaction-or-die crap it contains. Am I right? Of course I am.

 

Yeah... No F***ing thanks.

Edited December 31, 2012 by Stun