Torment: Tides of Numenera

[ShadySands]

Interesting but on these kickstarted games would that be as much of an issue? I mean since voting is limited to backers and they know exactly how many of those there are 

[Keyrock]

Hmm... not a backer, so I don't get a vote. Turn based would be my preference when/if I decide to buy the game after release.

 

I played X-Com 3 Apocalypse not long ago (at least I think that was the one) where space bar would skip enemy movement (or rather fast forward it) bringing goons from start of turn position to either end of turn position or stop if engaging in combat It worked most excellently. Don't care about watching enemy movement animation,  hit space bar a few times. Want to get a better look at what direction enemies are arriving from, watch one or two enemies (and then fast forward the rest). Would also interrupt FF if suddenly popping into view of one of your squaddies (because of overwatch fire).

 

But then, X-Com 3 together with JA2 does have some of the most fun turn based combat out there.

JA2 is the gold standard in turn-based combat.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

Also, who logs in just to vote that they don't care? 

such stuff is a jackarse test. vote "i don't care" and then explain how it  is stoopid for people to care 'bout such n' such feature... jackarsery. 'cause REAL role-players don't care 'bout combat mechanics? some clowns ain't satisfied with being indifferent. nope, they wanna make sure you recognize how childish it is for you to care.

 

*shrug*

 

am getting if issue in question were something optional-- let developers know that wasting time and resources on piffle or puffery is unnecessary. however, is not possible to genuine argue that combat mechanics of a crpg that will include significant combat is an incidental or negligible feature. nope, is no good reason for going through effort to login and then try and convince others that you don't care regardless of your login... and 3 paragraph rant 'bout how much you don't care. is a litmus test for jackarses. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lexx]

I voted tb, because I never liked rtwp in such games.

[melkathi]

 

 

 

 

Also, who logs in just to vote that they don't care? 

such stuff is a jackarse test. vote "i don't care" and then explain how it  is stoopid for people to care 'bout such n' such feature... jackarsery. 'cause REAL role-players don't care 'bout combat mechanics? some clowns ain't satisfied with being indifferent. nope, they wanna make sure you recognize how childish it is for you to care.

 

*shrug*

 

am getting if issue in question were something optional-- let developers know that wasting time and resources on piffle or puffery is unnecessary. however, is not possible to genuine argue that combat mechanics of a crpg that will include significant combat is an incidental or negligible feature. nope, is no good reason for going through effort to login and then try and convince others that you don't care regardless of your login... and 3 paragraph rant 'bout how much you don't care. is a litmus test for jackarses. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

And so he rants about people ranting...

[Ganrich]

It's because he cares.

[melkathi]

It's because he cares.

 

If I didn't care more than words can say

If I didn't care would I feel this way?

If this isn't love then why do I thrill?

And what makes my head go 'round and 'round

While my heart stands still?

Edited November 22, 2013 by melkathi

[Bester]

It's gonna be a tight, they're gonna have to accommodate both, right?

[Bester]

After reading the update with things like "Please remember that this vote is advisory only. Above all, please remember that our goal is to provide the best possible experience for the game, and if the final decision is not your preferred choice, we ask you trust our ability to deliver a solid game.", it becomes clear that they're gonna go with TB and not care about 51% of the backers who paid 2 mil to make it happen. 2 mil scam.

[Bester]

Maybe they'll even rig it for their own agenda. To save time cause they're too lazy to make RTwP and they already have a turn based system. Just can't be bothered to make what fans want.

[Gromnir]

 

 

 

 

 

Also, who logs in just to vote that they don't care? 

such stuff is a jackarse test. vote "i don't care" and then explain how it  is stoopid for people to care 'bout such n' such feature... jackarsery. 'cause REAL role-players don't care 'bout combat mechanics? some clowns ain't satisfied with being indifferent. nope, they wanna make sure you recognize how childish it is for you to care.

 

*shrug*

 

am getting if issue in question were something optional-- let developers know that wasting time and resources on piffle or puffery is unnecessary. however, is not possible to genuine argue that combat mechanics of a crpg that will include significant combat is an incidental or negligible feature. nope, is no good reason for going through effort to login and then try and convince others that you don't care regardless of your login... and 3 paragraph rant 'bout how much you don't care. is a litmus test for jackarses. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

And so he rants about people ranting...

 

 

we could post vacuous and inane one-liners, but that job seems to be taken.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lexx]

Bester is a funny guy.

[Gromnir]

After reading the update with things like "Please remember that this vote is advisory only. Above all, please remember that our goal is to provide the best possible experience for the game, and if the final decision is not your preferred choice, we ask you trust our ability to deliver a solid game.", it becomes clear that they're gonna go with TB and not care about 51% of the backers who paid 2 mil to make it happen. 2 mil scam.

 

wouldn't that conversely mean that if rtwp were chosen as the mechanic o' choice, then the developers don't care about the 49% who paid 2 mil to "make it happen," or some such? if choosing one way or other is developer indifference, then no matter what you got some significant % o' game purchasers who is getting scammed, yes?

 

am not wanting to play the game, see the movie, or read the book that is the result o' patron democracy. if you give folks everything that they want, you will be hated. result will be a mess AND boring. gotta surprise folks and give them different and/or better than what they desire. 

 

*chuckle*

 

am recalling when iwd2 were in development. josh reveals some possible kit ideas... this were when iwd2 were still a 2nd edition game.  the feedback josh got were what one might expect-- people wanted Superfantabulous God-Killer kits. josh's kits were too boring and weak. so, as a joke, josh comes up with revised kit suggestions. revised kits were over-the-top, game-breaking munchkin fare... but the majority o' posters didn't get the joke. boardies Loved the new kit suggestions. hilarious.

 

regardless, this thing is nothing more than a poll. if it were a vote, then there would needs be some kinda tiered vote weight given to those who contributed more money, yes? it would be rather unjust if bob, who contributed $10,000, got same input as those piddly $20 contributors. such a vote would be very complicated and might complete alter the poll numbers currently being seen. heck, does this poll even have numbers for a legit quorum at this point? there were somewhere 'round 75k backers, yes?   we sees 'bout 9k votes... and each person got 3 votes, yes?  current poll gap is a whopping 37 votes btw. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Spider]

I don't feel strongly about it to care to vote, although I am not sure a TB combat system will go well with the experience they sold me on.

 

To me, turn based combat means a fairly strong tactical element to said combat. In a game where the narrative is such a strong focus, I feel that adding a strong tactical layer to the combat will detract some from the narrative. Then again, it certainly doesn't have to be as bad as in PS:T either.

 

Then again, if the developers feel one style serves the game they're envisioning more than the other option, I'd say just go for that one.

[ilhdr]

The only TB argument seems to be make combat very little importante in the game.

[Bester]

we sees 'bout 9k votes... and each person got 3 votes, yes?  

 

W-w-w-what?!??!? YOU HAD 3 VOTES??!?

[Keyrock]

I don't feel strongly about it to care to vote, although I am not sure a TB combat system will go well with the experience they sold me on.

 

To me, turn based combat means a fairly strong tactical element to said combat. In a game where the narrative is such a strong focus, I feel that adding a strong tactical layer to the combat will detract some from the narrative. Then again, it certainly doesn't have to be as bad as in PS:T either.

 

Then again, if the developers feel one style serves the game they're envisioning more than the other option, I'd say just go for that one.

Wait, what? 

 

I don't understand. How does having strong tactical combat detract from the narrative? To me that's like 1 + 1 = lederhosen.

[Spider]

Because time spent on making good combat is time not spent on the narrative.

 

Also, turn based fights take longer, meaning given the same amount of fights, combat will be a larger portion of time spent with the game.

 

And for me personally because interesting tactical combat have a way to turn it into a numbers game, where I care more about the tactical abilities of party members than what they contribute to the story.

 

I like games with challenging combat, and I like turn based games as well (like the latest X-com for example). But for me, that's not where the focus in a Torment game should lie.

[Keyrock]

But, by the devs own statement, implementing turn-based combat would be quicker and easier since they already have a turn-based framework in place from Wasteland 2.

 

 

 We can adapt Wasteland 2’s combat system, modified to work best for Torment.

 

Not to mention that they wouldn't have to spend as much time making companion AI.

 

 

Companion AI becomes less necessary (you directly control each party member on their turn).

 

Hence, to your first point, implementing turn-based vs RTwP would mean more time they could spend on other things, such as narrative. So you could have your cake and eat it too.

 

Also, I agree to some extent with combat not being the focus. That doesn't mean they should just gloss over combat and have garbage combat like P:T. For me narrative and character development is the meat of most RPGs, not just Torment, but that doesn't mean that other people don't play RPGs more for combat (double negative for the win!). The game is being made with more people than just myself in mind.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Keyrock

[Gfted1]

But, by the devs own statement, implementing turn-based combat would be quicker and easier since they already have a turn-based framework in place from Wasteland 2

Doesn't PE share the same engine and resources? It would be hilarious to see it go down the TB road too.

[Elerond]

 

But, by the devs own statement, implementing turn-based combat would be quicker and easier since they already have a turn-based framework in place from Wasteland 2

Doesn't PE share the same engine and resources? It would be hilarious to see it go down the TB road too.

 

 

It would go against their description about the game in the KS, which would be quite bad thing to do.

[Keyrock]

 

 

But, by the devs own statement, implementing turn-based combat would be quicker and easier since they already have a turn-based framework in place from Wasteland 2

Doesn't PE share the same engine and resources? It would be hilarious to see it go down the TB road too.

 

 

It would go against their description about the game in the KS, which would be quite bad thing to do.

 

Yeah, while I would be in favor of this personally, this would definitely fly in the face of "making a modern day Infinity Engine game" (I'm paraphrasing). Plus, Obsidian made the RTwP decision long ago and the system is probably already partially in place.  It would almost be worth it for the LULZ though.  To me personally, that is, for the entertainment factor of the backlash.  Almost certainly not for Obsidian, because they would have to deal with said backlash with a straight face.

[Tigranes]

I wish I could just staple this to everybody's heads:

 

(1) TB and RTwP are different systems from the ground up. It's not turn based just because you can pause. The kind of combat experience you get is different. 

 

(2) TB is not necessarily slower than RTwP. RTwP is not necessarily 'less tactical' than TB for a given game. 

 

(3) No, you can't have both, because the investment required is much higher than the sum of two systems, not less. 

 

Anyway, I'm glad the vote is close, they should choose whatever they want.

[ShadySands]

The devs seem to be favoring TB so I'm pretty sure they will go go turn based unless it's an overwhelming majority (my guess is at least 2/3 and is based on nothing) that votes RTwP which doesn't seem likely at this point

[Zoraptor]

I do rather feel like voting for TB, specifically because the people whining about TB have motivated me to do so.

 

(2) TB is not necessarily slower than RTwP. RTwP is not necessarily 'less tactical' than TB for a given game. 

Cannot really agree with that part. There may be some overlap in speed between the two where a quick TB is faster than a slow RTWP implementation, but RTWP is definitely a quicker system most of the time as you only have to pause it when you want to rather than as in most TB systems at the end of each round, and because if you have, say, a six second round then it's played out x times by x actors to cover that full 6 seconds in TB, rather than one time simultaneously by all actors. But conversely that extra time allows for planning and tactics to be better implemented, rather than a blizzard of pause/ unpause and twitch reflexing. It's a bit more hazy when you get a hybrid or non standard system like wego/ simultaneous turn based...

 

But yeah, they should do what they want, they know the game and what should work far better than we do.