|
I do not think the downside of RTwP is so much a balance question, as it is a question of how much stuff do you have that you could potentially do? The real-time aspects of Arcanum and PS:T for me quickly became a way to resolve a battle, when the outcome was already decided. Before that point, especially if you played as a mage, you had to pause to do things effectively, but a better control scheme might have solved that (PS:T was notoriously 'meh' in the combat department). If you give people a lot of choice in which abilities or tactics to use, which I think follows naturally from a design decision to have every encounter matter, then a scheme that allows you to consider these options carefully would fit better. Or to put it another way: If you expect people to pause often, since you want people to think about their actions, what effective difference, beyond the choice to make yourself feel less on control, does RTwP make over turn-based? I run a weekly Numenera TT campaign, and a thing that sticks out in the system is that at the lower tiers, you really don't have a lot of options for what to do. Even when they get to tier 3, each character has maybe 2-3 skills or abilities (not counting numenera) that apply to any given situation. The thing is, once you get past that hump (which could easily change by just making other foci and descriptors, something they have at least hinted they might well do), suddenly you get a lot of options in the last 3 tiers. Which fits better is, I think, going to depend a lot on how they balance the amount of options. Personally I think the safe bet is turn-based. Any sort of real-time scheme needs skills to be designed around that to flow properly, whereas I think skills designed for use in turn-based (or during pause) can work in both scenarios.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Zore posted:Yeah, and how do you do this? Do you assume they pause and reposition every time any character's abilities come off cooldown? Only when they're in crisis mode trying to figure out what to do next? Every minute or two to make sure their plans are executing properly? You balance it exactly like you'd balance turn-based combat, because that's essentially what it is. The point of RTwP has always been basically to serve as "turn-based, but with a fast-forward option so you don't have to put as much effort into killing a pack of kobolds for the millionth time". Turn-based combat is incredibly annoying (as usually implemented) in trash encounters or when few abilities are available to characters, because it puts a floor on demanded attention/interaction time: even if all you're going to do is select "attack" for the next three rounds, you still have to select it on every character, every time. It's unplayable in large encounters for essentially the same reason: every freaking rat in the 20 rat pack gets its own animation phase that takes three seconds to play.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
Also RTwP can't be exploited in weird ways and is a little more similar to real life than turn based.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
How is RTwP any less weirdly exploitable than turn based?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:27
|
|
|
Line Feed posted:How is RTwP any less weirdly exploitable than turn based? Because all characters move at the same time instead of the enemy having to wait until you've finished your turn and used your last couple action points or whatever they call them to move everyone around a corner or, if you''re fighting against a melee critter, to move just that little bit too far away so they can't move to you and attack, which is the way I always won fights in Fallout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
You can do cheesy things like that in RTwP systems too. Just kite enemies around the room, constantly plinking at them from range until they fall over. They both have dumb things like that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Well sure, but kiting is a thing you could theoretically do in real life to an enemy if you were faster than them and had a missile weapon. Hiding around corners during their 'turn' is less so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
But you said in turn based combat you could "move just that little bit too far away so they can't move to you and attack", which is exactly the same thing. And you can hide behind corners for cover in real life.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Line Feed posted:But you said in turn based combat you could "move just that little bit too far away so they can't move to you and attack", which is exactly the same thing. And you can hide behind corners for cover in real life. I was referring more to being able to hit them in melee combat but they can't hit you because you strike them and then move away. Having a missile weapon and them not having one, and being faster, should enable you to pretty much attack them with impunity. Being faster but still needing to stand next to them to deal damage shouldn't, but in turnbased sometimes it does. And you can hide behind corners in real life, but the difference is that when you come out from behind that corner they can shoot you back, whereas in turnbased games if you do that during your turn and get back behind the cover before their turn starts, they can't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Chairchucker posted:And you can hide behind corners in real life, but the difference is that when you come out from behind that corner they can shoot you back, whereas in turnbased games if you do that during your turn and get back behind the cover before their turn starts, they can't. Yeah, those aliens sure can't shoot you when you move around corners on your turn in X-Com!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 04:30
|
|
|
This is how these RPG arguments always go. Consider game mechanic X, think up a situation where mechanic X fails, inflate that edge case into something that happens all the time, pretend you've actually played a game where this happened, endorse mechanic Y because QED.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:45
|
|
|
Chairchucker posted:And you can hide behind corners in real life, but the difference is that when you come out from behind that corner they can shoot you back, whereas in turnbased games if you do that during your turn and get back behind the cover before their turn starts, they can't. Unless the game has an overwatch option, which many do. Literally nothing about RT is like "real life combat". Same with turn-based, of course, since neither one is realistic. Chairchucker posted:Well sure, but kiting is a thing you could theoretically do in real life to an enemy if you were faster than them and had a missile weapon. Yeah, no. This is just a matter of your preferred video game abstraction, there's no reason to pretend real life has anything at all to do with this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:55
|
|
|
I think most turn-based WRPG combat is garbage aside from tactical RPGs like XCOM: EU but its mainly because they're so many trash mobs and you miss all the time, its the main reason why I barely got into the first two Fallouts. If they are seriously limiting combat to only a certain amount of combat situations than it might work well enough.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 05:56
|
|
|
Accordion Man posted:I think most turn-based WRPG combat is garbage aside from tactical RPGs like XCOM: EU but its mainly because they're so many trash mobs and you miss all the time, its the main reason why I barely got into the first two Fallouts. If they are seriously limiting combat to only a certain amount of combat situations than it might work well enough. Yeah, I tend to agree. Very much like PS:T, the combat was the least interesting part of the Fallout games. That said, I don't feel I've played enough TB WRPGs to generalise. JRPGs can do TB right, you get things like FFT and Tactics Ogre, but I don't think I've ever played a truly turn based WRPG where I liked the combat. EDIT: Temporarily forgot about ToEE, that played well. CottonWolf fucked around with this message at 12:52 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
If TB can work for any WRPG I think Torment is the one, few encounters and the crisis system seem like a decent fit for it. On the other hand saying that you are happy that there won't be many fights isn't exactly a glowing review of a game mechanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
Mortal Sword posted:Unless the game has an overwatch option, which many do. Real life happens in real time. Real time combat is a closer simulation of real life than turn based, which real life does not happen in. This is not (just) a matter of preference, this is a matter of literally, one of these is how real life happens and one is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
I wasn't under the impression that Torment would be attempting to be any kind of a realistic simulation
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
I think the turn based combat's board game-style play better suits a game that requires heavy reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
Chairchucker posted:Real life happens in real time. Real time combat is a closer simulation of real life than turn based, which real life does not happen in. This is not (just) a matter of preference, this is a matter of literally, one of these is how real life happens and one is not. Video games are not real life. Let's have fun with circular arguments!
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:17
|
|
|
Chairchucker posted:Real life happens in real time. Real time combat is a closer simulation of real life than turn based, which real life does not happen in. This is not (just) a matter of preference, this is a matter of literally, one of these is how real life happens and one is not. Hahahahaha. Your own statement serves to somehow discredit itself by virtue of how batshit crazy it is. A truly magical thing.  Tell me more about a fantasy isometric rpg and the gateway into realism through combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
There are many elements of games, particularly role playing ones, where it is seen as a positive thing if it's more realistic. (Balanced against things like game balance and how fun it is etc.) A lot of people like it if characters react 'realistically' to the things their characters say in conversations. A lot of people like 'realistic' physicsy interactions. (Fire spells interacting with grease spells as one example that a couple other recent kickstarted RPGs have mentioned they're doing.) Suggesting that combat being more realistic would, in a vacuum, be a positive thing, should not be seen as an odd thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:53
|
|
|
Tighter than I thought it would be. 1,375 to 1368, RTwP to TB.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
RTwP had pulled ahead by about a hundred when I voted just now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
Dammit, now I have to go register on their forums so I can vote for Holy Turn Based Combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Man I would love for them to straight up be inspired by XCOM with their turn based stuff (and could you imagine an amazingly done close combat turnbased thing - with it maybe broken up into subturns?). RTwP is kinda not nearly as good as turn based, even when they're both at their best, for isometrics. Good turn based is always better, because you can do so much more. RTwP feels so...swarmy...like I'm controlling ants or playing starcraft (which is a pretty fun game). TB feels more personal, like I have more control over specific actions and abilities. I wonder if it would be neat to have everyone move first as main turns, and once all movements was finished to then go into their initiative based (modified by original distance) secondary turns for combat. I don't know if that is bad, but it sounds like if better people than I worked at it it could be interesting. Drifter fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
Drifter posted:RTwP is kinda not nearly as good as turn based, even when they're both at their best, for isometrics. Good turn based is always better, because you can do so much more. Yeah, you can actually play combat and make meaningful choices, rather then watch your little men flail away on autopilot and occasionally click to drink a healing potion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
I'd vote for RTwP because XCOM:EU is the only turn-based WRPG I've played that wasn't a frustrating chore, but I can't seem to right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
It seems like the most numerous complaint (I have not read much) I have seen is that people like RTwP so when a combat episode gets boring or overly long they can just unpause and have the computer run the AI script the player set/created beforehand and just get the combat over with. Maybe to devs could implement TB and then have an time-flow option where you can select up to three (or whatever) turns and say: [pc1] attacks [enemy1] with [*combat_option1*, *combat_option2*, *combat_option3*]; if [enemy1] dies, carry choices over to [enemy2] and then the game just animates that in real time. Or something.  I have no problem creating scripts and stuff like with RTwP, but I like being able to specifically control all my people and watch every interaction play out one after another through TB. Drifter fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Drifter posted:It seems like the most numerous complaint (I have not read much) I have seen is that people like RTwP so when a combat episode gets boring or overly long they can just unpause and have the computer run the AI script the player set/created beforehand and just get the combat over with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, you can actually play combat and make meaningful choices, rather then watch your little men flail away on autopilot and occasionally click to drink a healing potion. Have you ever played an IE game? Because there aren't any you can beat just by "watch[ing] your little men flail away on autopilot and occasionally click[ing] to drink a healing potion" (except, perhaps, ironically, PS:T). My main problem with TBC is that it is glacially slow compared to RTwP. No, I don't want to wait 3-5 seconds per entity per turn to watch every entity in combat individually animate every attack they make (especially when I've seen every animation a million times before). It's loving obnoxious. John McCain fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Accordion Man posted:Pretty much, I just want the combat in Torment 2 to be as painless as possible. I doubt most of the people who loved Planescape and backed this game really care that much about combat complexity/difficulty. The combat wasn't what made Planescape such a cult classic after all. But imagine if EVERY gameplay element was really well done. Why not have good writing and visuals alongside good [other mechanics]?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Drifter posted:But imagine if EVERY gameplay element was really well done. Why not have good writing and visuals alongside good [other mechanics]? RTwP doesn't exclude combat from being good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
John McCain posted:Have you ever played an IE game? Because there aren't any you can beat just by "watch[ing] your little men flail away on autopilot and occasionally click[ing] to drink a healing potion" (except, perhaps, ironically, PS:T). Yeah, I've played them all.  Honestly if you have your party and stuff set up right I felt like an awful lot of the (non-boss/high level wizard) encounters were exactly as I just said. At least, the Baldur's Gate games. Of course some of the later Bioware stuff was even worse. I'd wander off to go get some water while combat was running in Knights of the Old Republic and just let my guys lightsaber everything to death with no input whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 22:58
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:Yeah, I've played them all. The situation you're describing (relatively non-challenging trash fights) is exactly the situation in which RTwP is much BETTER than TBC since RTwP reduces interaction time and player effort to beat an encounter that arguably shouldn't exist! Forcing extended interaction (which is what TBC does, for good or ill, for EVERY COMBAT) with non-challenging encounters is a terrible thing, not an advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Torment 2 is supposed to do away with trash fights entirely and only focus on a handful of hand-crafted encounters. And in that case, I believe turn-based is preferable, since it can make the combat more tactical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
CrookedB posted:Torment 2 is supposed to do away with trash fights entirely and only focus on a handful of hand-crafted encounters. I voted for TB, because that's what the devs said they were most in favour of, but I'll believe that when I see it. Doesn't every RPG developer ever say that they're doing away with trash fights and that every encounter will ~matter~. I mean, I certainly hope it's true, and if they're limiting combat to crises, there's certainly a chance it will be, but I'm skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
CrookedB posted:Torment 2 is supposed to do away with trash fights entirely and only focus on a handful of hand-crafted encounters. I've never really understood how TB is "more tactical" than RTwP. What do you think makes TB "more tactical"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:24
|
|
|
RTwP is a really interesting idea, but I never felt it was the strongest part of any game that used it. One thing it does is encourage more trash encounters because of the faster pace; implementing turn-based combat, if done right, would necessitate that combat is less frequent, but the encounters are more important. And because you have more time to think and act tactically, and the monsters have the same advantage, this also means that any given encounter tends to be more memorable, whereas I often find myself taking the quickest, easiest route in a RTwP game since I know there's another pack of trash around the corner. I feel that this was definitely the case in the Infinity Engine games, as much as I like them. I'd still take XCOM and ToEE's combat systems over IE/KotOR's any day of the week. Edit: Well, other people said it better than me 
Hakkesshu fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
It won't let me vote for some reason. "Your email address does not have access to this forum". It's the same email address I used on Kickstarter!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:It won't let me vote for some reason. "Your email address does not have access to this forum". It's the same email address I used on Kickstarter! don't you have to register separately? Or maybe go into your settings/account and verify something or other?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 01:10
|
|