Jump to content

Welcome to Obsidian Forum Community
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Poll. Should the 'Invisible Combat Round' of IE Games Return ?

combat round ie game poll tactics rtwp

  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

Poll: Should PoE remain round-free or should it have 'hidden rounds' where everyone's actions are limited, like in the old IE games ? (78 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want the 'inv. combat round' of IE Games to return ?

  1. Yes. I want Combat in PoE designed based on inv. combat rounds that determine everyone's actions. (25 votes [32.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.05%

  2. No. I prefer the new system, re-balanced & tweaked until it can be made to work. (53 votes [67.95%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.95%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1
constantine

constantine

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

At the current state of the game, combat remains its major flaw, where instead, this should be one of its major strengths. Obsidian is trying their best to eliminate bugs & tweak combat to make it fluid & fun-to-play. Backers are crowding the forums suggesting ideas on how to 'fix' combat since everybody wants combat to feel as enjoying as in the IE games, but also refreshed, absent GM sucker punches and not susceptible to exploits and cheesy tactics.

 

All of this effort is sincere and worth commended for.

 

 

The purpose of this poll is to determine whether you feel a radical change in combat should occur.

 

 

Back in the IE D&D-like games, there where 'invisible' combat rounds that determined each & everyone's actions. Although that is arguably not the best way to handle combat in a RTwP game, it worked well placing limitations & making combat more easily to control (for the GMs) and easier for the player to handle. It is easier for a GM to design encounters when she knows what each combatant can & cannot do due to mechanical limitations of the combat round. This knowledge can extend to balancing out every single game aspect, from encounters to begin with, up to class abilities & weapons/armor.

 

It may be possible that combat in PoE is 'chaotic' as many describe due to the absent of such a limitation. However, this does not cancel the fact that with everyone's best effort combat can be made to work retaining its current round-free state.

 

 

You can vote about it, say your opinion & make your predictions/suggestions.



#2
Cantousent

Cantousent

    Forum Moderator

  • Validating
  • 5895 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Gold Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Lords of the Eastern Reach Backer

I didn't vote yet because I'm going to think about what you said.  I will say that I believe the primary reason for the combat rounds of the IE games was the turn based aspect of 2nd edition.  I think that caused problems in and of itself, but they managed to hash out the issues pretty well.  Still, even the combat rounds in the IE games didn't completely reflect the way rounds worked in 2nd edition, if I remember it right.  Off hand, I would say they need to stick with their new system, but I'll probably leave the voting to people who spend more time with the beta.



#3
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
While I don't prefer the new system and it does need a looking into, I'm not sure that Josh Sawyer would want to do that.

Having recently done a full IWD playthrough, the IE Combat Round actually does feel very good and I know there was a big kerfluffle at the start of the Project "HAH WE DON'T NEED ROUNDS WHERE WE'RE GOING!" and "Thank fark they're getting rid of that horrible IE combat system" etc

However there is one (huge) advantage that the IE system has.

Players tend to issue their party commands all at once at the start of combat, usually while paused. Due to the time division, characters that require new action-based inputs do so at around about the same time (due to per-unit timers ending at the same time).

In Pillars of Eternity this is not the case, and different characters have different actions that have different speeds, which is modified by Armor, Dexterity, Items, Abilities, Spells, Feats etc. Due to this factor, characters often require new actions at disjointed times, and since many people pause to issue characters a new command, and most classes have a more active nature than the Infinity Engine games, the amount of pausing required increases dramatically. This is magnified by the lethality of combat, as well.

It also 'feels good' when characters perform a string of uninterrupted attacks in a row in the Infinity Engine games, before a cooldown between those three attacks, rather than a longer cooldown between every single one. A character performing 3 attacks per round feels very satisfying.

So while I have always found, and more particularly - recently found that the IE style implementation of rounds actually feels really good, and makes it very easy for players to control multiple characters, I am not sure that is a direction the developers are interested in going in, primarily because they said they were not going to I suppose.

It is possible that the issue with combat speed, pace and lethality can be solved by using the current or a slightly modified current system, I think that is worth attempting first.
  • Tanred, Marky and Namutree like this

#4
dukefx

dukefx

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 341 posts

A round based system would create the need for APR. If you look at the IE games or DnD 3/3.5 based games like the NWN series you'll notice that every class has something called attacks per round. This doesn't sound bad at all until you realize that a fighter in a full plate swings his greataxe a lot faster than a rogue his dagger in leather armor. PoE has a system that overcomes this nonsense in a very logical way (although numbers still need to be tweaked). Creating a round based system would really complicate things.



#5
constantine

constantine

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I know that this is not a direction the developers are eager to turn to. And I'd want it that the new system be made to work (and be fun all the while), despite it alienates me. But time is growing short, progress is slow and I fear that I may end up playing the game with 'Sensuki's Combat Mod for PoE'  :p



#6
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

:p


  • Rahkir likes this

#7
Sensuki

Sensuki

    Subway Apathist of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 9965 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Steam:STEAM_0:1:1229809
  • Pillars of Eternity Silver Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

This doesn't sound bad at all until you realize that a fighter in a full plate swings his greataxe a lot faster than a rogue his dagger in leather armor..

 

Not if the attacks per round are balanced against weapon damage. Daggers could attack more and do less damage (just as they do now). It's just a different time division.

 

Just an example

 

1/apr - Greatsword 18-24 damage

3/apr - Dagger - 6-8 damage

 

DPR = 18-24 :p

 

Anything that increases attack speed would have to have a 1:3 effect in that instance though.

 

To be honest ... that does actually sound way more intuitive and easier to understand  :devil:


Edited by Sensuki, 30 October 2014 - 09:09 AM.


#8
dukefx

dukefx

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 341 posts

I didn't say it couldn't be done properly, but it would complicate things and complications mean delay.



#9
constantine

constantine

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

As I see it, what is complicated is the current system. Complicated, as is it complicates things in combat. Many more variables make it harder to balance out anything from classes to weapons.

 

Anyway, voting is pretty clear in what people want, so its best everyone continue their focus in fixing combat.



#10
prodigydancer

prodigydancer

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 429 posts

I like rounds because I like DnD combat and particularly 2nd Edition rules. Out of principle I voted for rounds but adding them would be equal to designing a new combat system. Maybe not from scratch, maybe they'd be able to salvage 1/4 of what they have now. Still it's not something you want to do that close to release.



#11
4ward

4ward

    (4) Theurgist

  • Members
  • 377 posts
  • Deadfire Silver Backer

i voted yes because i had great fun with BG2 combat and also am familiar with that combat system and don't see the necessity to get accustomed to a new one. Thank you.



#12
Mr. Magniloquent

Mr. Magniloquent

    (6) Magician

  • Members
  • 672 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

No way. I had some free time, so I got a good gaming session in today. I cleared the whole Dyrford area, and combat was smooth and joyful. My characters hardly ever interrupted my commands, so combat felt cohesive and tactical. Does it need tweaking? Absolutely. They need to law out a master map of all abilities and chart them in accordance to their relative effects and power so that their timings can be balanced optimally. That's not really that much work to do. This system is working (less than ideally), but working. It will improve, and combat shall be glorious.



#13
Gfted1

Gfted1

    Forum Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 5871 posts
  • Location:Chicago, IL
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer

Voted for the old system as I cant make heads or tails of when party members are ready for new commands. The desynchronized party members means Im pausing every few seconds to issue orders. As an aside, the second option of "until it can be made to work" made me lol. How do we know that's a given? "I choose the non-busted option, if it happens". :wacko:


  • 4ward likes this

#14
constantine

constantine

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Voted for the old system as I cant make heads or tails of when party members are ready for new commands. The desynchronized party members means Im pausing every few seconds to issue orders. As an aside, the second option of "until it can be made to work" made me lol. How do we know that's a given? "I choose the non-busted option, if it happens". :wacko:


It really bafles me whether it was from the very beginning, back at the Kickstarter Campaign, when the 'round-free' combat was decided. I know it was supposed to be RTwP, as in the IE games, but of course those games *did* have inv. combat rounds.

It feels like combat tries to simulate ARPG style, when this is clearly intended for controlling a single character, not a party.

The result (IMO) is unnecessary chaos. Why do so many agree that this flawed system stays ?
  • 4ward likes this

#15
constantine

constantine

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

Voted for the old system as I cant make heads or tails of when party members are ready for new commands. The desynchronized party members means Im pausing every few seconds to issue orders. As an aside, the second option of "until it can be made to work" made me lol. How do we know that's a given? "I choose the non-busted option, if it happens". :wacko:


It really bafles me whether it was from the very beginning, back at the Kickstarter Campaign, when the 'round-free' combat was decided. I know it was supposed to be RTwP, as in the IE games, but of course those games *did* have inv. combat rounds.

It feels like combat tries to simulate ARPG style, when this is clearly intended for controlling a single character, not a party.

The result (IMO) is unnecessary chaos. Why do so many agree that this flawed system stays ?

#16
Skipperro

Skipperro

    (2) Evoker

  • Members
  • 61 posts
  • Location:Munich, Germany
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I didn't voted because as long as somebody fixes combat issues to be more playable, I don't really care what kind of mechanics solve this problem.

 

You may be right, that this system needs combat rounds, maybe some other tweaks will work just as fine or better or maybe there is a possibility to solve combat problems in multiple ways. I won't pretend, that I'm game designer or that I know how to fix PoE combat. All I know is, that I've enjoyed combat in Baldur's Gate(s) and Icewind Dale(s) but PoE combat right now is exhausting and unsatisfying. 



#17
wanderon

wanderon

    Nomadic Wayfarer of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1273 posts
  • Location:Upstate NY
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I voted to keep the current system because every build gets a little better and I see no reason to return to a 10 year old system just because it worked 10 years ago. I also voted for it because at 66 I probably have a bit more patience to let the new baby grow and not toss it out with the bathwater.

 

It seems to me over 2/3 of the posts on this forum are clamoring for a clone of the IE games and that's not what I signed up for at all - this is a beta and it's getting better I'm ready to watch it grow into a new and exciting game - if I want to play an IE game I have them all already... :p


  • Doppelschwert and Lychnidos like this

#18
constantine

constantine

    (5) Thaumaturgist

  • Members
  • 514 posts
  • Location:Athens, Greece
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Backer
  • Fig Backer

I voted to keep the current system because every build gets a little better and I see no reason to return to a 10 year old system just because it worked 10 years ago. I also voted for it because at 66 I probably have a bit more patience to let the new baby grow and not toss it out with the bathwater.

It seems to me over 2/3 of the posts on this forum are clamoring for a clone of the IE games and that's not what I signed up for at all - this is a beta and it's getting better I'm ready to watch it grow into a new and exciting game - if I want to play an IE game I have them all already... :p


You have a point there. However, we all can agree that if they based combat on the old system, all the extra dev. time could be spent on adding more polish in the game overall & giving extra focus to quests/story.

Now the major focus is trying to make combat work as intended and be fun.

#19
PrimeJunta

PrimeJunta

    Arch-Mage

  • Members
  • 4900 posts
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer
  • Kickstarter Backer
  • Deadfire Silver Backer
  • Fig Backer

I don't think the timing system has much to do with the problems in the combat at all. OTOH I like the idea of things affecting how long things take at a more granular level than haste/slow.


  • Doppelschwert likes this

#20
Namutree

Namutree

    Compulsive Double Poster of the Obsidian Order

  • Members
  • 1711 posts
  • Location:Michigan
  • Pillars of Eternity Backer

 

I voted to keep the current system because every build gets a little better and I see no reason to return to a 10 year old system just because it worked 10 years ago. I also voted for it because at 66 I probably have a bit more patience to let the new baby grow and not toss it out with the bathwater.

It seems to me over 2/3 of the posts on this forum are clamoring for a clone of the IE games and that's not what I signed up for at all - this is a beta and it's getting better I'm ready to watch it grow into a new and exciting game - if I want to play an IE game I have them all already... :p


You have a point there. However, we all can agree that if they based combat on the old system, all the extra dev. time could be spent on adding more polish in the game overall & giving extra focus to quests/story.

Now the major focus is trying to make combat work as intended and be fun.

 

While I think it was a mistake to go without rounds; I believe it would be more work at this point to go back and change it.







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: combat, round, ie game, poll, tactics, rtwp

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users