Why the dislike for RTWP combat?

[JarlFrank]

What I want to say is that speed control is merely a feature of the game, and not of the system itself. The system only covers the combat rules. Everything else is just gimmicks, or a matter of implementation. All turn based D&D games, for example, use a similar or the same system, but got differencies in the implementation.

 

[dagorkan]

Still don't understand your point. It's as much of a feature as RTwP. It would be a way to make RT combat actually workable.

 

[Limorkil]

RTWP does not work for me because it is neither one thing nor the other.

I either want to play tactically or not, but not a bit of both. If I am playing tactically then I want to control everything, which means I will be pausing a lot, which means the real-time element is kind of pointless.

A lot depends on the style of the game. In Baldur's Gate / IWD I did not mind the RTWP because you could see everything on the screen. It still gets annoying from time to time, such as in dungeons with traps because the RT aspect means that you know some AI controlled character is going to pathfind through a trap. That does not happen in true TB because you even control where they walk.

In 1st/3rd person games like Kotor, RTWP is basically a pain in the ass. As soon as one of your characters moves out of your eye range, you just know they are going to do something dumb and you would pause it, except you cannot see them. Knowing where your people are in relation to each other can be a pain, as can targeting a particular enemy. Luckily, Kotor was are so tactics-lite that you can pretty much play RT almost all the time. And for NWN I just had my own character and no-one else to worry about: I could not stomach using companions because of the aforementioned control issues.

Part of it is playstyle too. In a TB game, nothing happens until you click "move". This allows you to relax more, since you know everyone is going to do what you said and then you get to assess the situation all over. In RTWP you have to constantly watch everything with your finger on the pause. Sometimes, not being ready to pause can mean death, so you cannot let your attention waver.

 

[suibhne]

Edit: whatever, smartass. I give up already
You people will never learn.

A resounding rejoinder to my brief discussion of IE combat shortcomings! I congratulate you, good sir.

 

[suibhne]

What I want to say is that speed control is merely a feature of the game, and not of the system itself. The system only covers the combat rules. Everything else is just gimmicks, or a matter of implementation. All turn based D&D games, for example, use a similar or the same system, but got differencies in the implementation.

This is probably just a translation issue, but I don't understand your point either. In any case, it's not like there's a Platonic form of "TEH REAL-TIME COMBAT" floating out there somehwere; the game's implementation is the combat system, and the system is different for each implementation.

As for TB D&D games...ToEE is the only one that's been released in quite awhile. I can't recall - wasn't the last TB D&D game prior to that in the Gold Box series? (D&D Tactics will be out in May or so.)

 

[Volourn]

No. POR2 was. And, unlike TOEE, it didn't even get the combat system right.

 

[jefklak]

A resounding rejoinder to my brief discussion of IE combat shortcomings! I congratulate you, good sir.

Ha.



Or no, wait, even better -


Edit: Freedom force is great. I love it.
Does anybody else feel a little disappointed on Freedom Force 2? I don't know...
Tthe way the new characters introduce themselves also isn't as great as the first part.
It's just "hi I'm here to help point the way", instead of the comic introduction.

 

[almondblight]

What did you guys not like about Freedom Force?

Also, comments on Combat Mission's system?

 

[suibhne]

Ha.



Or no, wait, even better -

Just not sure what you want, jeffyk. You complain about people being uneducable smartasses, then act like a knee-jerk smacktard with your endorsement of IE combat; when someone responds respectfully, with some specific criticisms of the combat system, you refuse to engage in non-smacktardish discourse. GG?

Re. Combat Mission...it's been a helluva long time since I played it (the first title in the series), but I thought I remembered it being turn-based?

 

[Shannow]

Everybody who thinks RT is badly implemented in infinity engine games needs a smack in teh face

comparing it to ToEE i felt it was definately inferior. even before i played a game with d&d combat as it should be, i felt that IE-combat was mediocre at best.
the radius of your aoe spells didn't show. the consequence being that my fighters got friendly fire or i didn't hit any enemies. of course this can be worked around and the engine can be exploited, but i like it better, when it is simply done right.
in the games with RTwP that i've played up to now either the action was laking because i could pause any time or the game wasn't challenging enough to require tactics, thus making RTwP possible without constant pausing.

to me RTwP is the retarded child of incest between TB and RT.

 

[almondblight]

Re. Combat Mission...it's been a helluva long time since I played it (the first title in the series), but I thought I remembered it being turn-based?

It was neither. You gave your units commands, and then the game would play for 60 seconds, then you would give them more commands. Eliminated all twitch from pausing or slowdown, but your units and the enemy going at it at the same time eliminated TB's "first you shoot and I wait, then I shoot and you wait". I think something similar might work well for some gun combat systems.

 

[Jed]

I thought Freedom Force's implementation of RTwP was much more playable than the IE's. A tactics-lite engine for a stat- & skill-lite character system. As it's been said by others, when I played any IE game, I paused after everyone one of my characters' to set the next action according to changing conditions (and due to the fact I never used the AI scripts), so I never understood why it was even "RT" to begin with. Again, the pause is a crutch for poor design. Just because mouthbreathing ADD children love it doesn't make it a good system for anything other than the most shallow cRPG games ...

 

[DemonKing]

I think both turn-based and RTwP can work or be crap - it really varies from game to game.

I don't think too many of even the hardest core turn-based fans would say that PORII had better combat than the IE games, for example.

For me the IE games worked because of the fixed camera and top down view. Once the same combat model was applied to 3D games like NWN and KOTOR it ran into trouble.

There was a terrible bit at the end of KOTOR filled with respawning bad guys where you really had to baby-sit your party through it by pausing every few seconds as otherwise your team members would run off to engage the nearest enemy rather than move through the level - awful design. I also dislike the NWN2 engine (to a lesser degree) as the asstacular camera makes it very difficult to target things at the edge of your vision.

You wouldn't see these problems in a turn-based game, although, as in PORII, it is probably easier for a player to be bored and discouraged by a badly designed TB engine than it is with a badly designed RTwP engine.

 

[Crichton]

the radius of your aoe spells didn't show. the consequence being that my fighters got friendly fire or i didn't hit any enemies. of course this can be worked around and the engine can be exploited, but i like it better, when it is simply done right.

Because it's much better when you can spam AoE damage not only regardless of LoS but actually throwing fireballs into melees without damaging your own people? Just what fantasy needs, inert fighters staring each other down in place while wizards on both sides throw fireballs over their heads.

The fact that you largely had to avoid melees when throwing AoE magic is probably the best argument in favor of the IE games. The 2nd best is uncertainty of whether or not your arrow will be in time to stop an enemy spellcaster's spell, the 3rd edition concentration checks are a very poor substitute.

 

[suibhne]

The fact that you largely had to avoid melees when throwing AoE magic is probably the best argument in favor of the IE games.

Well, except that you didn't. At a given resolution, the game's scale was constant; for anyone with a knack for spatiality, it was trivially easy to exploit the AOE for Fireball. One of my defining memories of BG2 and the IWDs was the tactic of sending my fighters to engage in melee, then shooting a fireball over their heads targeted so the AOE's outer edge just barely enveloped the front line of the enemies. Never got old.

All ToEE did was level the playing field so all paying customers could do that, not just those with at least average intelligence. It was no more exploitable than the IE.

 

[jefklak]

Just not sure what you want, jeffyk. You complain about people being uneducable smartasses, then act like a knee-jerk smacktard with your endorsement of IE combat

Do I? Good, someone has to do it.
I didn't want to represent myself as a jerk who thinks only his opinion is the right one, sorry if the whole thing was misunderstood. I know IE combat gets too much negative critique and wanted to point out it's essentially still turn based. But yes, you are of course right again, enemies can act while a party member does, or multiple party members can act at the same time. But under the hood, it's not. I discussed it with JarlFrank yesterday, he calls it simultaneous turn based. That's a not so bad description. It's not rally RTwP as discussed in this thread, but yes, it's not really TB either as stack implementations obviously do not count...

Sorry for the too late reply though.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I know IE combat gets too much negative critique and wanted to point out it's essentially still turn based.

Unfortunately, it's not. I hope you understand what "turn" means.

But under the hood, it's not.

Proof?

I discussed it with JarlFrank yesterday, he calls it simultaneous turn based. That's a not so bad description.

Simultaneous turns? What's the point of having TURNS if they are simultaneous? The purpose and advantages of having a TURN-based system are thrown out when turns become "simultaneous". You do realize it, don't you?

 

[Man-Fred]

So my question is still, why the hate for RTWP?

Name me one RPG where it was done in a good way.

Darklands

 

[jefklak]

Unfortunately, it's not. I hope you understand what "turn" means.

Of course I do. I know what you are all trying to say. char x does action a, char y does action b, ... one by one, yes and no, IE's combat is not like that. But that does not mean it's real time. It's not a black & white world, either RT or TB, there are some mechanics in between.

Proof?

check mod source codes. not going to bother with it.

Simultaneous turns? What's the point of having TURNS if they are simultaneous? The purpose and advantages of having a TURN-based system are thrown out when turns become "simultaneous". You do realize it, don't you?

Aha, completely true. I'm trying to say there's a difference between real time combat (which is essentially chaotic, just attack and see) and this system since it's still structured and there are still turns and rounds present. Try hitting spacebar, assigning a mage to cast a spell and unpause. They still have to wait for their turn to actually initiate the cast process, right?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Of course I do. I know what you are all trying to say. char x does action a, char y does action b, ... one by one, yes and no, IE's combat is not like that. But that does not mean it's real time. It's not a black & white world, either RT or TB, there are some mechanics in between.

Do the actions happen in real time? Would your enemies continue to attack you if you do nothing and give no command? There you go, it's real time without any traces of turns or phases.

check mod source codes. not going to bother with it.

I understand. Not enough time and all that.

Aha, completely true. I'm trying to say there's a difference between real time combat (which is essentially chaotic, just attack and see) and this system since it's still structured and there are still turns and rounds present. Try hitting spacebar, assigning a mage to cast a spell and unpause. They still have to wait for their turn to actually initiate the cast process, right?

So? All it proves is that there are certain time sequences to measure attack speed and frequency, not that there are turns.

 

[Zomg]

The tactical element of combat in Darklands is fucking terrible. It's a huge pain to position units properly, use ranged weapons intelligently, hold terrain, and so on. Pathing maintenance is a constant burden on the player in every stinking figh. It's not a good example at all; in fact, it's an active detriment to the game. Now, given how early Darklands tried it, it was no sin at the time, but it's nothing you'd emulate with the benefit of hindsight.

 

[jefklak]

Do the actions happen in real time? Would your enemies continue to attack you if you do nothing and give no command? There you go, it's real time without any traces of turns or phases.

Ahha, so that's your interpretation of real time. Okay, then I rest my case and you are correct. I misinterpreted the term then. I was thinking about real time stratey games or 3D action RPGs and the way they handle combat. Enemies continue to attack even if you give no command - true. BUT they do so in structured fasion, not in a chaotic way like other action RPGs. You have a number of attacks per round and you have a number of turns per round to act. If you do not issue commands, enemies will keep attacking you - but they still have to wait for their own proper turn to do so!
Really easy to check, create a low level character and attack a mob of goblins. They'll melee you and once they're in range, most of them stand there doing nothing for 1/2th seconds, until they are *allowed* to act, and in that case they'll roll to attack you and eventually hit or miss and wait again. See?

 

[suibhne]

I know IE combat gets too much negative critique and wanted to point out it's essentially still turn based. But yes, you are of course right again, enemies can act while a party member does, or multiple party members can act at the same time. But under the hood, it's not. I discussed it with JarlFrank yesterday, he calls it simultaneous turn based. That's a not so bad description. It's not rally RTwP as discussed in this thread, but yes, it's not really TB either as stack implementations obviously do not count...

Sorry for the too late reply though.

No worries - I wasn't actually the one discussing the IE's "true nature", anyway. On some level this semantic argument probably doesn't matter too much, as long as you acknowledge the fundamental difference in combat design, but I still think you're looking at it askew: just because a RT combat system implements time durations for character actions doesn't make it turn-based. Think about it this way: sure, BG divides actions into 6-second periods, and some actions take more than one 6-second period (and some less, e.g. higher-level characters who can make multiple attacks during that 6-second period), but name a single RT game where all character actions are instantaneous and aren't balanced by time. Just because an RT game assigns duration to character actions doesn't make it turn-based; I suspect the confusion in this case simply arises because the IE is tied so closely to AD&D, which heavily used the word "turn" in its own mechanics.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I discussed it with JarlFrank yesterday, he calls it simultaneous turn based. That's a not so bad description.

It is a bad description, since it's an oxymoron. Turn based is not simultaneous, phase based is. You remove the sequential nature of turn based, it becomes something else that already has a name also. The only point to renaming phase based as simultaneous turn based is to do some marketting bullshit like they did with Fallout Tactics to appeal to the dumber of the hardcore fans who might actually be confused by the mislabelling of what the combat system is.

I suspect the confusion in this case simply arises because the IE is tied so closely to AD&D, which heavily used the word "turn" in its own mechanics.

It also uses the term incorrectly and has since it was first written. A turn is the period when one character does his actions. A round(or phase when all actions are done in one unit turn) is when all the turns are concluded. It's been that way since wargames, and later RPGs, were first invented. You have attack phase, which each player does their attack turns, then movement phase when all players move their units during their turn, and so on. When all phases are done, then the round is over and a new round begins.

In most modern games, phases and rounds are the same thing since movements and attacks are handled during the same turn. You can move or attack during your turn, and if you have time, you can move and attack during your turn. So, when all the turns are over, a new round begins.

 

[Human Shield]

IE mite have been phase-based if there wasn't free movement that let you move in mid-action.

Phase-based and TB have the advantage of identifying when player input is needed so parts between input can be accelerated indefinitely, this makes them faster then RT and avoids watching the character stand and swing or dance around like NWN or KOTOR.