Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Guys, I've been enlightened! RTwP is not that good.

Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
3D path followers are not grainy like tiles, they are smooth. Sso creatures can push past each other. Kind of hard to place things in exact formations, due to creatures buffeting other creatures, creatures of different radius and other terrain. Tiles make it all so easy. A tile is either occupied or it isn't.

I thought of a way they could do it. Assign a group of warriors to protect an archer. While those warriors protect the archer, you make a rule that the AI won't try to attack the archer using melee. Would look okay in most situations, but in some it might look weird.
 
Last edited:

RandomAccount

Guest
The IE games didn't have tiles (did they?) but you could still block in doorways and choke-points and the enemy wasn't archer-focused.

I think you might be over-thinking the issue when you move away too much from 'attack nearest', if no route 'attack next nearest'. The player's advantage should be the tactical choices in RtwP, that's what makes even and harder battles winnable and enjoyable.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Are you saying you'd prefer it if the AI attacked archers in RtwP?
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,394
I hated RTwP on Infinite Engine games because of the sheer lack of consideration to basic things like if a orc is at melee range, engaged to you, you can't just ignore that 2m long axe movingat deadly speed around you and go attack the wizard like a champ. Melee characters felt so useless most of the times on Infinite Engine games, they failed at the basic of stopping the Ai of going after your squishy characters. Because of that, you were forced to move your wizard around in circles on the hope of avoid that big skeleon of doom that can't be stopped by your idiot fighter. Because there are no ways from enemies and you to restrict movement, everything got crazy and fast.
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
Just when you think you know it all... 'Worming Problem'? Wat's that?

I gather you haven't played Icewind Dale 2? To me it was a problem in IWD 2 that some melee enemies went straight for my mages and just squeezed past what I thought was a shield wall.

It should be easy to program melee enemies to generally attack nearest enemy, and for enemy spell casters and archers to be more selective in their targets and go for your spell casters first.
 
Self-Ejected

Davaris

Self-Ejected
Developer
Joined
Mar 7, 2005
Messages
6,547
Location
Idiocracy
The IE games didn't have tiles (did they?) but you could still block in doorways and choke-points and the enemy wasn't archer-focused.

I think you might be over-thinking the issue when you move away too much from 'attack nearest', if no route 'attack next nearest'. The player's advantage should be the tactical choices in RtwP, that's what makes even and harder battles winnable and enjoyable.

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. Are you saying you'd prefer it if the AI attacked archers in RtwP?


I'm pretty sure they used tiles. But the creatures didn't follow the tiles exactly when they moved about, they used path smoothing. And they didn't have to stop dead center in the middle of a tile.


"Are you saying you'd prefer it if the AI attacked archers in RtwP?"

Thats what I usually do when I'm playing. Kill the wizards and archers! So the AI should do whatever it takes to win.
 

RandomAccount

Guest
I hated RTwP on Infinite Engine games because of the sheer lack of consideration to basic things like if a orc is at melee range, engaged to you, you can't just ignore that 2m long axe movingat deadly speed around you and go attack the wizard like a champ. Melee characters felt so useless most of the times on Infinite Engine games, they failed at the basic of stopping the Ai of going after your squishy characters. Because of that, you were forced to move your wizard around in circles on the hope of avoid that big skeleon of doom that can't be stopped by your idiot fighter. Because there are no ways from enemies and you to restrict movement, everything got crazy and fast.

Huh? I don't remember anything stopping me if I wanted to prioritise a target? I don't remember squishy targeting either. Melee was massively over-powered as far as I recall and only really weak to mind-spells and death-spells. Weird. Maybe you played different versions to me?

octavius said:
I gather you haven't played Icewind Dale 2? To me it was a problem in IWD 2 that some melee enemies went straight for my mages and just squeezed past what I thought was a shield wall.

It should be easy to program melee enemies to generally attack nearest enemy, and for enemy spell casters and archers to be more selective in their targets and go for your spell casters first.

Yes, I've played IWD2 a number of times. I did not experience that, I experienced the latter mainly. I could be wrong I suppose, I could have just adapted to it somehow without it becoming so noticeable to my memory, but once engaged I found they tended to stick to their targets.

Davaris said:
Thats what I usually do when I'm playing. Kill the wizards and archers! So the AI should do whatever it takes to win.

It's a lot more boring than it sounds... so ideally, you want Kasparov versus Kasparov for every battle? Why would Goblins play like Kasparov? Wouldn't Kasparov versus Kasparov for every battle make the game more of a tactical exercise than a vaguely representative fantasy?
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,394
I hated RTwP on Infinite Engine games because of the sheer lack of consideration to basic things like if a orc is at melee range, engaged to you, you can't just ignore that 2m long axe movingat deadly speed around you and go attack the wizard like a champ. Melee characters felt so useless most of the times on Infinite Engine games, they failed at the basic of stopping the Ai of going after your squishy characters. Because of that, you were forced to move your wizard around in circles on the hope of avoid that big skeleon of doom that can't be stopped by your idiot fighter. Because there are no ways from enemies and you to restrict movement, everything got crazy and fast.

Huh? I don't remember anything stopping me if I wanted to prioritise a target? I don't remember squishy targeting either. Melee was massively over-powered as far as I recall and only really weak to mind-spells and death-spells. Weird. Maybe you played different versions to me?
Hmmm... I said that if an enemy targeted your mage, you couldn't use your fighter to stop him and you were forced to babysit your mage. I replayed Icewind Dale 1 and 2 recently and remember very well having to babysit my mages, clerics and thieves or they die horribly because the fighters are stupid cunts that couldn't even block a door/corridor. No, melee is not overpowered, you can't call something overpowered when enemies hit you like a ton of bricks and take your health in two hits unless you muchkin every point of AC and abuse resting.
 

RandomAccount

Guest
Hmmm... I said that if an enemy targeted your mage, you couldn't use your fighter to stop him and you were forced to babysit your mage. I replayed Icewind Dale 1 and 2 recently and remember very well having to babysit my mages, clerics and thieves or they die horribly because the fighters are stupid cunts that couldn't even block a door/straight corridor. No, melee is not overpowered, you can't call something overpowered when enemies hit you like a ton of bricks and take your health in two hits unless you muchkin every point of AC and abuse resting.

Yes, early on in RPGs you tend to keep your mage well back, until they have good spells. But no, I certainly don't remember babysitting my mages that much. Even at the early stages, having a mage with the 'Sleep' spell makes the first load of encounters a cake-walk.

I've never had a problem blocking doors. If you played 'Heart of Winter' then that version has the 'Call to Arms' AI mod which makes battles more 'mob-like', that might be the problem you had. I never play that version, I always play 2nd Vanilla IWD1.

If you use the Stealth skill with the thief then they are usually ignored at the start of battle and can avoid the initial targeting. Clerics should be fine in melee as they can wear excellent AC armour, they're just very slow at attacking.

Why would you not munchkin AC? Why would you not rest regularly? If you're being hit by a ton of bricks, doesn't that kind of hint that you would be better off having more AC? Sounds to me like a failure of common sense...?

IWD2 is the weakest of the lot so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm remembering that game wrong, but I've never really had the issues your exaggerating so there must be some element of player failure.
 

DefJam101

Arcane
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
8,047
Location
Cybernegro HQ
So, my history with RPGs is that IMO the IE games are among the greatest RPGs ever made. All of them. I just love them. They are not perfect, but I immensely enjoy even IWD 2, or BG1, although they are considered the worse among the IE games. I even enjoyed NWN 1 and 2 more or less.

I always thought, that I like the RTwP mechanic in them, I had fun with the games afterall. Regarding TB games, I never was a huge TB fan. I liked them, but a game being TB didn't do anything for me. There are a few big exceptions: JA2 is one of the greatest game ever, just like Heroes 2-3 (and Disciples 2). Before the kickstarter boom, I haven't played a proper TB game for years (Eador is the exception, it is great). So when Pillars of Eternity was announced, I was happy that it will be a RTwP game.

Now, recently some high profile KS games were released, and I obviously had to play them. Expeditions: Conquistador, Shadowrun, Blackguards, Divinity OS and now Wasteland 2. And I realised, that i love the TB system, where I don't have to pause constantly, and I can take my time. And now as I think back, it striked me, I didn't like the IE games because of RTwP, but because of everything else. The artstyle, the music, the story, the characters, the D&D ruleset, I loved those, the RTwP mechanic was just something I beared with. And it was not that bad, I don't hate it now, but I understand that everything would have been better with Turn based.

I also understand now, that in the IE games, thanks to the D&D ruleset, there wasn't as much need for micromanaging your party, as in PoE. There were a few abilities, some spells which you could only cast once, and that's it. So I didn't need to pause that much, maybe that's why I didn't cared about being RTwP.

But as Dragon Age showed me, and the route PoE is going, if you have MMO like mechanics with cooldowns and lots of abilities which are constantly used, pausing all the time is not that fun. And it provides a lot of problems for the developers themselves (helloooo, Josh). I can deal with it, if other parts of the game are good, but I won't love it ever again.

So, I just like to take back everything, what I said the RTwP being better than TB. And I'm happy that Torment Numenera will be TB.
yes
 

DeepOcean

Arcane
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
7,394
Hmmm... I said that if an enemy targeted your mage, you couldn't use your fighter to stop him and you were forced to babysit your mage. I replayed Icewind Dale 1 and 2 recently and remember very well having to babysit my mages, clerics and thieves or they die horribly because the fighters are stupid cunts that couldn't even block a door/straight corridor. No, melee is not overpowered, you can't call something overpowered when enemies hit you like a ton of bricks and take your health in two hits unless you muchkin every point of AC and abuse resting.

Yes, early on in RPGs you tend to keep your mage well back, until they have good spells. But no, I certainly don't remember babysitting my mages that much. Even at the early stages, having a mage with the 'Sleep' spell makes the first load of encounters a cake-walk.

I've never had a problem blocking doors. If you played 'Heart of Winter' then that version has the 'Call to Arms' AI mod which makes battles more 'mob-like', that might be the problem you had. I never play that version, I always play 2nd Vanilla IWD1.

If you use the Stealth skill with the thief then they are usually ignored at the start of battle and can avoid the initial targeting. Clerics should be fine in melee as they can wear excellent AC armour, they're just very slow at attacking.

Why would you not munchkin AC? Why would you not rest regularly? If you're being hit by a ton of bricks, doesn't that kind of hint that you would be better off having more AC? Sounds to me like a failure of common sense...?

IWD2 is the weakest of the lot so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm remembering that game wrong, but I've never really had the issues your exaggerating so there must be some element of player failure.
How to miss a point and don't read what I just wrote...:roll: Are you just talking with yourself? My point was fighters are tanks but they can't hold enemy agression and they can't affect enemy movement besides being bait for the dumb AI to attack the closest enemy. You can make a a decent fighter on Infinite engine games but he will just a hitbar you left there for the AI to attack and hope the enemy AI will select him instead of your mage or rogue. There aren't mechanics similar to AoOs, cover or flanking to make movement more tactical and you can't make a solid barrier with fighters, enemies can easily push them aside and squeeze through them on the Infinite Engine games, if it wasn't for the absolutely basic AI, the fights would be impossible.
 

RandomAccount

Guest
Yes, the fighters provide a hitbar that the enemies attack while your ranged stays back a bit, that's exactly what I was saying, only I alluded to the fact that this was a 'good' thing, else, as you agree, the fights would be impossible, as I have said in previous posts on this thread.

No there's no Attacks of Opportunity in Icewind Dale 2, there's no cover or flanking either, but I don't believe many people have 'issues' with this, aside from the AoOs and if you came to the game without playing p&p D&D you wouldn't even know that they were supposed to be there. In fact, AoOs were a pretty new thing at the time:

1E AD&D DMG (reprint) p70.

Breaking off from Melee

At such time as any creature decides, it can break off the engagement and flee the melee, TO do so, however, allows the opponent a free attack or attack routine. This is calculated as if it were a rear attack upon a stunned opponent. When this attack is completed, the retiring/fleeing party may move away at a full movement rate, and unless the opponent pursues and is able to move at a higher rate of speed, the melee is ended and the situation becomes one of encounter avoidance.

(There are also slightly different rules for attacking spellcasters casting spells than normal people in melee).

So you got an attack of opportunity in AD&D when someone tried to leave the melee - if they didn't it was pretty static. So Opportunity Attacks were there - but they certainly weren't like the fiddly 3.X AoO rules with something like seventeen different possible triggers.

And most of the IE games don't even use 3rd ed. They use the one quoted.

So are you only talking about IWD2?

I quickly looked up one of the set-piece battles of IWD2 on Youtube and I watched this video (first I found) and here the mage is fine, the battle goes like most that I encounter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C6Ed20lhLA&index=42&list=PLgBa4TZl4FeMFFzzNKCukfWuN481REsYB - skip to 15:30 for the start of the battle. There were plenty of opportunities for the boss with the big sword to run after the mage, but they don't, they stick to the character who's fighting them. It's not a great example as the enemy Tanglefoots everyone anyway (but not the boss), but could you show me some actual footage of a mage being attacked by troops running through all your other players...
 

octavius

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
19,182
Location
Bjørgvin
Not all enemies run after the mages. In my case it was the Ogors that started to be a problem with this behabiour.

Also, Attacks of Opportunity were implemented in the Gold Box games, so you don't need any p&p experience to be familiar with the concept.
 

RandomAccount

Guest
Sorry to be a convo pooper, but I need some kind of visual evidence now. I've said it doesn't tend to happen, others have said it does, it doesn't matter what we say on the subject now as the base divisions have already been stated quite clearly, if we can move onto video evidence that would be taking the convo somewhere more interesting than yes it does/no it doesn't.

And yes, attacks of opportunity probably do work better with TB than they do RtwP. AoOs are all about entering/exiting 'tiles'. If the game doesn't provide tiles how could you expect anyone to accurately judge AoO reach and, also, in TB you don't get to react if someone shoots past you in a single turn, but with RtwP you can react as soon the opposition moves - if it looks like your weak player is being targeted, you have time to zap them with invisibility or whatever.
 

Cowboy Moment

Arcane
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
4,407
I also think that people who actually like IE games for the combat mechanics (as opposed to enemy and encounter design, huge variety of spells, and so on) simply dislike thinking ahead and being punished for making mistakes. In Total War games, if you send a unit fuck knows where with the intention of flanking the enemy, and realize halfway through that it's a bad idea, you can't just instantly turn it around, shit takes time just like it would in reality, and you suffer the consequences of making a bad decision. And if the unit you want to pull back has already engaged the enemy, you're fucked. This is something that doesn't really exist in IE games, if your dude is in a bad spot, you order him to GTFO and he does so promptly. During the Torment combat vote, you could read all sorts of pro-RTwP arguments about how it let's you "adjust your tactics whenever you want to" - which I translate to "I don't want to think about what I'm doing and suffer any consequences of my mistakes".
Movement isn't free in the IE games in a strict sense - time elapses while you move your characters during which the enemy can do stuff. If your character is near death, it doesn't matter that you can move him away if in the meanwile he's struck by an arrow, a spell or a fast-moving melee enemy. In a game like BG2 a bevy of status ailments (Held, Stunned, Webbed, etc.) also places limits to your ability to move around.

Besides, the problem you describe isn't really unique to RTwP games. In the Fallouts, you can attack a melee critter with a melee weapon, move back with the remaining AP and on its turn the enemy will only have sufficient AP to get within melee range without attacking, meaning you can repeat the tactic of attack + move back with impunity until it's dead without taking any damage and wasting any ammo.

This is, of course, a sliding scale rather than a Manichean divide - IE games do punish you for bad positioning and poor tactical choices, just not as much as, say, ToEE does. Most flavors of TB combat get this kind of effect for free - you can't do anything during the enemy's turn, so if you set yourself up for rape, the rape will commence no matter what.

Your Fallout example isn't the same thing though, that's just your character being so superior that he wins without taking damage, it has nothing to do with tactical mistakes - insofar as you can even make any in TB combat with a single character. But let's say you use the last of your AP to walk around a corner, where three dudes with SMGs are waiting for you. Their turns start, and you get shredded without being able to do anything. In RTwP, you quickly move back around the corner and are mostly ok (unless the game has a mechanic implemented specifically to address these kinds of situations).

Note that the latter is actually a result of the abstracted nature of combat mechanics - you can run around the corner because a single bullet isn't lethal, as it should be. In my experience, RTwP tends to to better in more "simulationist" games, which can actually take advantage of the simultaneity of events it allows for - again, Total War is a good example. Meanwhile, TB tends to work better with more "gamist" mechanics.
 

Invictus

Arcane
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
2,789
Location
Mexico
Divinity: Original Sin 2
I have always thought I was a fan of both styles equaly, perhaps with RTWP beign my favored system, given that Darklands is one of my favorite games...but lately I am begining to see that I enjoy TB games more.
The argument that RTWP need more micromamaging is spot on, but if the AI is even servicable then the combat works and you tend to adapt to its problems and just deal with it. Darklands had a good system which needed some babying, but overall it wasnt that annoying.
Mind you it wasnt bad but I wouldnt call it enjoyable
But with some of the current TB games like D OS, Wasteland 2 and even lighter offerings like Banners Saga and SRR they are actualy quite enjoyable and make combat simply fun.
The combat planning and the combat decisions are more enjoyable and seem to encapusle everything that I like about RPGs
For RTWP to work you need very well programed AI or simple AI which can do what it is supposed to do on its own; the main issue I have with PoE right now is that by adding "awesome button" abilities and cooldowns which have to be supervise for your characters to be effective, you woukd either need a very clear gambit system like in FFXII or even DA O with a lot of set rules like having your healer automaticaly heal any character under 25% health or autocast cure poison when needed.
The chances of Sawyer and hislackeys pulling this off is frankly unlikely at this point so after they fuck that up I think TB will be the best option for the foreseable future...which is fine by me, maybe my current enjoyment of PC centric RPGS is exactly because of TB.
Consider me converted as well
 

Invictus

Arcane
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
2,789
Location
Mexico
Divinity: Original Sin 2
And yeah I agree, Freedom Force would be the finest example of RTwP in recent years, and that game is a dozen years old
Thinking about it some more that is a system that implemente special abilities and cooldown really well by adding a default attack action and special orders for powers, but the AI would addapt to the default system when no orders where issued. It required pausing too but it was more for strategic decisions rather that babying the AI
Of course since some héroes were better than others Sawyer and his lackeys would argue about balance and degeneracy, but since some characters were better for certain scenarios better than others there is the balanced gameplay he will NEVER achieve in his PoS
For all the hate Ken Levine gets he is miles better than Sawyer
Heck I would Kickstart any Levine lead RTwP game in a heartbeat, and half of that for another Freedom Force
 

Gozma

Arcane
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
2,951
What was good about Freedom Force? I know that I've played it, but I don't actually remember anything about it except the Captain America analog was a guy named Minuteman with a tricorn hat and musket.
 
Self-Ejected

Ulminati

Kamelåså!
Patron
Joined
Jun 18, 2010
Messages
20,317
Location
DiNMRK
Well...I was expecting something like: halleluya, another soul saved!

1425560-resizedscreenshot607.jpg


Another soul turned from the path of darkness! Praise Jebuz!
 

buzz

Arcane
Joined
Apr 1, 2012
Messages
4,234
What was good about Freedom Force? I know that I've played it, but I don't actually remember anything about it except the Captain America analog was a guy named Minuteman with a tricorn hat and musket.
Fun, silver/bronze age style comic book stories, characters, music, voice acting, animations and so on.
Destructible buildings, leveling up entire maps Syndicate Wars style. Also characters could pick up debris and use it in combat.
Also RTwP that works, like the others have said.
 

Siveon

Bot
Joined
Jul 13, 2013
Messages
4,509
Shadorwun: Hong Kong
What was good about Freedom Force? I know that I've played it, but I don't actually remember anything about it except the Captain America analog was a guy named Minuteman with a tricorn hat and musket.

From what I remember:

- Godly Super Hero customization.
- Decent battles that require thinking*
- A somewhat entertaining main story, typical Golden Age cheese, but good cheese.
- A pretty nice modding community. Pretty much dead now, but you can still find a couple of mods with a quick google search.

*(I'm not the best player, but I thought out more battles in FF than in say, Baldur's Gate 1)

I could be wrong, but I loved it all the same. I'm definitely going back to that game.
 

Johannes

Arcane
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
Messages
10,487
Location
casting coach
I also think that people who actually like IE games for the combat mechanics (as opposed to enemy and encounter design, huge variety of spells, and so on) simply dislike thinking ahead and being punished for making mistakes. In Total War games, if you send a unit fuck knows where with the intention of flanking the enemy, and realize halfway through that it's a bad idea, you can't just instantly turn it around, shit takes time just like it would in reality, and you suffer the consequences of making a bad decision. And if the unit you want to pull back has already engaged the enemy, you're fucked. This is something that doesn't really exist in IE games, if your dude is in a bad spot, you order him to GTFO and he does so promptly. During the Torment combat vote, you could read all sorts of pro-RTwP arguments about how it let's you "adjust your tactics whenever you want to" - which I translate to "I don't want to think about what I'm doing and suffer any consequences of my mistakes".
Movement isn't free in the IE games in a strict sense - time elapses while you move your characters during which the enemy can do stuff. If your character is near death, it doesn't matter that you can move him away if in the meanwile he's struck by an arrow, a spell or a fast-moving melee enemy. In a game like BG2 a bevy of status ailments (Held, Stunned, Webbed, etc.) also places limits to your ability to move around.

Besides, the problem you describe isn't really unique to RTwP games. In the Fallouts, you can attack a melee critter with a melee weapon, move back with the remaining AP and on its turn the enemy will only have sufficient AP to get within melee range without attacking, meaning you can repeat the tactic of attack + move back with impunity until it's dead without taking any damage and wasting any ammo.

This is, of course, a sliding scale rather than a Manichean divide - IE games do punish you for bad positioning and poor tactical choices, just not as much as, say, ToEE does. Most flavors of TB combat get this kind of effect for free - you can't do anything during the enemy's turn, so if you set yourself up for rape, the rape will commence no matter what.

Your Fallout example isn't the same thing though, that's just your character being so superior that he wins without taking damage, it has nothing to do with tactical mistakes - insofar as you can even make any in TB combat with a single character. But let's say you use the last of your AP to walk around a corner, where three dudes with SMGs are waiting for you. Their turns start, and you get shredded without being able to do anything. In RTwP, you quickly move back around the corner and are mostly ok (unless the game has a mechanic implemented specifically to address these kinds of situations).

Note that the latter is actually a result of the abstracted nature of combat mechanics - you can run around the corner because a single bullet isn't lethal, as it should be. In my experience, RTwP tends to to better in more "simulationist" games, which can actually take advantage of the simultaneity of events it allows for - again, Total War is a good example. Meanwhile, TB tends to work better with more "gamist" mechanics.
Positioning just isn't the main meat in IE combat, it's the different spells, resistances, hard counters that make it tick most of all. The movement was always a bit iffy in that you could to an extent abuse the AI, but it kinda had enough difficulty to compensate for that. Of course, I'm talking BG2 mostly here - a ton of fights in BG and IWD could be easily reduced to just kiting around with bows.

Though I've gotta say that sometimes shepherding the enemies around desperately as part of a tough fight could be pretty fun in the end, too.
 

Lord Andre

Arcane
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
3,716
Location
Gypsystan
I lean towards TB myself, but there is one thing RTwP does better and that is 2 or more characters acting at the same time to enact a combo like tactic. Unfortunately very few games take advantage of the possibilities unlocked by synchronised movement. Most of them stop at "concentrate fire".

A rudimentary example comes from IW2, pretty early on there is a narrow bridge and on the other side bugbears. There is a lever on their side of the bridge that functions as an alarm. The alarm aggros every bugbear on the map and the fight becomes way harder. A soon as the nearby bugbears see you they all make for the alarm. I didn't have access to fireball yet so I had my mage throw a sleep spell and my druid throw an entangling roots while my archers killed the last "free/active" bugbear 1 meter away from the alarm. This happened in perfect sync and gave me a lot of satisfaction at the time. The whole scene would be way harder to implement in TB and it certainly wouldn't feel as "free-form".

I think there is potential in RTwP but it needs a lot more work to get right.
 
Joined
Sep 18, 2013
Messages
1,258
RTwP design needs more PASSIVE contextual abilities that the player can watch and enjoy instead of being spammed with a shopping-list of micro-management abilities to choose every other second. The fundamental combat system needs to expand beyond "I attack you, you attack me" with branching attack-counterattack trees that take into account the combatant's abilities and progress PASSIVELY through a branching series of attacks that require minimal player intervention.

Here is a rudimentary break-down of what happens in a standard RTwP melee:
(Double-square brackets with a "+" signify a single, self-contained action as ordered by player or AI)

+ [[ A/B attacks B/A. Calculations are made to determine hit and damage ]]
+ [[ Calculation modifiers via player/AI-activated abilities ]]
- apply modifiers from previous actions
- repeat until: A/B = DEAD!

Calculations can be as simple or complex and involve as few or many things as could be and there could be a hundred micromanagement options / abilities as a layer of tactics but ultimately, they are merely damage-bottlenecks to attacks which are self-contained one-time actions. Not very interesting at all and a fucking mess when done with a console mindset, as POE has shown us.

How it could be:

+ [[ A/B attacks B/A. Calculations are made to determine Combat State;
Combat State dictates A/B <action#> B/A. Calculations are made to determine Combat State
repeat until: Standoff / DEAD ]]
+ [[ Calculation modifiers via abilities player-activated abilities ]]
- apply modifiers from previous actions
- repeat until: A/B = DEAD!

Where <action#> is an automated series of branching actions that involve all the things that you would select as perks or abilities and would otherwise have to micromanage the shit out of. A simple attack, a counter attack, half-swording, pommel-hitting, pulling a leg, dodging, evading, hitting and being hit and more can all be parts of an action and the outcome can be dealing or receiving damage or a trigger for another action within the same action loop, until one of a few special conditions are met to result in a "standoff" or DEATH. It's not a damage-bottleneck, though a condition for a standoff could be a certain amount of damage.

I just want to make interesting ability choices at character creation and level-ups and then sit back and watch my choices unfold in a smoothly flowing exchange of moves and counter-moves for a few seconds where a lot of interesting moves can happen without needing me to babysit and result in a certain outcome beyond just how much health, stamina or ability calls I have left, until I can or need to call the shots again to change parameters in the situation.

But something like this would obviously be way beyond Obsidian, considering "grappling animations too hard" for them.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom