Big battles show the necessity of real time with pause combat

[Tavernking]

The party aids in the defense of the great city against the dark lord, a hundred allies prepare for the breach of the gates.

In real time with pause: you see the chaos and control your party, allies handle themselves. You are manually selecting area of effect spells for your wizard to use while your ranger and fighter automatically auto select nearby enemies with you occasionally intervening to let them use their special abilities. When you need to - you pause the game for a brief moment to organize your party then continue the action. The game can auto-pause when one of your companions is low on health for example.

In turn based: the battle goes on for 5 hours and you tediously watch each ally make his move. slowly walking up to an enemy while hundreds freeze in time just for him. oh it's a miss, now the next ally needs to walk up to an enemy. You die of boredom or cardiac arrest

Turn based combat can not be used in epic large-scale battle events. If a turn-based combat game wanted to cover the invasion of the city, the developers would have you trying to escort the princess through the sewers or some equally lame shit, and 'oh it's just a coincidence that you happened to miss the big battle!'

 

[Darth Canoli]

You chose your name well, that's what happens when you post while you're drunk, Tavernking

Have you played ToEE, for once, you can fight 20 to 30 enemies at once and they move by groups.

By the way, i've never witnessed more hit & miss shit than in RTwP games ...

But i guess it's yet another "trigger the codex with a statement" thread ...

 

[Sranchammer]

Bruh you should play some Field of Glory 2 and you'll change your tune

 

[ProphetSword]

RTwP is a crutch for people who can't handle real tactics.

 

[JarlFrank]

In turn based: the battle goes on for 5 hours and you tediously watch each ally make his move. slowly walking up to an enemy while hundreds freeze in time just for him. oh it's a miss, now the next ally needs to walk up to an enemy. You die of boredom or cardiac arrest

Or the game implements a "groups can show their movement actions simultaneously" solution like ToEE did.

Boom, problem no longer exists.

Wow so easy

 

[JarlFrank]

Also, the only game where I ever felt like dying of boredom because of how slooooow and tedious the combat was is Neverwinter Nights, which is RtwP.

 

[Apostle Hand]

turn based is not realistic
in reality you dont get your turn

otoh rtwp is more realistic
you can pause the game to think of another move

 

[cosmicray]

To be seamless RTwP requires proper tactic instructions for companions. I wouldn't mind a game where you could program the whole set of instructions in advance and then just watch it unfold.

 

[JarlFrank]

turn based is not realistic
in reality you dont get your turn

otoh rtwp is more realistic
you can pause the game to think of another move

You can't pause IRL nigger

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

I bet the OP just didn't bother to find the speed slider in the settings of whatever TB game he's talking about.

 

[Butter]

I recall the cargo hold monsters in Fallout 2 taking something like 20 minutes to beat. Would've enjoyed a speed slider right about then.

 

[Baron Dupek]

FO1 fight with Regulators in the city is no better than tanker fight.

also why the fuck people use stupid "reality" argument? We're talking about videogames.
Are they talking about stealing breads when it comes to discussion about piracy?

 

[what am i doing]

All RPGs should be fully real-time and impossible to pause even by opening the menu. Regardless of party size. This way, the slow and the infirm will be weeded out.

 

[Tigranes]

I like RTwP, I'm an IE games whore, I micromanage every single fight - and this is bullshit.

TB games just need player options for faster/skipped animations, and good design decisions that suit the encounter design of that particular game.

When you're alt-tabbing for 10 minutes to let 30 zombies slowly shuffle 1 tile per turn towards you, TB isn't the problem, shit ass design is the problem.

 

[Atrachasis]

I have yet to play an RPG that even matches the situation described by the OP. Even so, there would be plenty of options available to mitigate the problem:

1. Limit the number of NPCs visible on screen at any given time, and don't animate what isn't. Even setting the animation issue aside, I cannot imagine a tactical RPG battle being rewarding in any way if the designer really attempts to cram hundreds of NPCs onto the screen simultaneously.
2. As others have pointed out, it is perfectly possible to run several animations concurrently even in a turn-based system. Only certain animations - such as NPC A firing an arrow at NPC B on its own turn, and NPC B subsequently moving - actually do need to be shown consecutively. Groups of NPCs moving together is an example for this, but the principle applies more generally to any interaction between two NPCs where one interaction does not chance a state variable (such as the position of the NPC) that the other interaction is dependent on.
3. And, yes, of course, use shorter/faster animation sequences.

 

[J1M]

RTwP leads to sloppy game design and sloppy game balance.

If you want me to control 6-8 units in an RTS style, fine. That can be interesting. But don't add a cheat button (pause) when one of your focus group members is bad at the game. That can be solved on the game over screen with two buttons: "try again" and "lower difficulty and try again".

PS: People failing challenges in games is something that should happen, especially if the game doesn't have any concept of partial failure.

 

[Circuit the Short]

turn based is not realistic
in reality you dont get your turn

otoh rtwp is more realistic
you can pause the game to think of another move

Time is quantized, reality is turn-based.

 

[Cross]

Turn based combat can not be used in epic large-scale battle events. If a turn-based combat game wanted to cover the invasion of the city, the developers would have you trying to escort the princess through the sewers or some equally lame shit, and 'oh it's just a coincidence that you happened to miss the big battle!'

The Heroes of Might and Magic series is all about waging large-scale battles and its turn-based battles are significantly faster than RTwP fights. Granted, it uses stacks to represent potentially thousands of creatures, but you still control more units on average than you do in most RPGs.

RTwP leads to sloppy game design and sloppy game balance.

If you want me to control 6-8 units in an RTS style, fine. That can be interesting. But don't add a cheat button (pause) when one of your focus group members is bad at the game. That can be solved on the game over screen with two buttons: "try again" and "lower difficulty and try again".

How is pausing inherently a cheat button? That would only be the case if it violates the action enemy, e.g. if you could pause the game and immediately consume 10 potions. Pausing in say, Baldur's Gate to drink a potion still requires your character to spend the next round consuming it.

 

[zwanzig_zwoelf]

turn based is not realistic
in reality you dont get your turn

otoh rtwp is more realistic
you can pause the game to think of another move

Time is quantized, reality is turn-based.

I'm waiting for some idiot to finish his turn so I can go take a shit, but apparently he died before he ran out of action points.

Not Recommended, 297840 hours on record.

 

[Neanderthal]

Big battles are for strategy games, combat in rpgs should be short, sharp and limited in scope.

 

[J1M]

RTwP leads to sloppy game design and sloppy game balance.

If you want me to control 6-8 units in an RTS style, fine. That can be interesting. But don't add a cheat button (pause) when one of your focus group members is bad at the game. That can be solved on the game over screen with two buttons: "try again" and "lower difficulty and try again".

How is pausing inherently a cheat button? That would only be the case if it violates the action enemy, e.g. if you could pause the game and immediately consume 10 potions. Pausing in say, Baldur's Gate to drink a potion still requires your character to spend the next round consuming it.

I think the term you are looking for is 'action economy'. I did not bring up this element, and I'm not aware of any game that grants you extra action points for pausing, so that response is a bit of a straw man.

Why does the player pause? Certainly to improve the outcome. Even though there are diminishing returns, more pausing leads to an even better outcome. That means how well you do in combat is largely driven by how often you choose to use the pause button. Unless pausing is tied to some form of limited resource, patience becomes the primary activity of the game. Cheats work in the same way, selectively removing elements of challenge, leaving the player's progress up to how much more of the game they have patience for.

TLDR: Pausing is a cheat button because it has the same effect on the player experience.

 

[normie]

the party aids in the defense of the great city against the bright lord, a hundred allies prepare for the breach of the gates

...and there are no casinos where your minions can chill after battle and have "Disco Inferno" play when someone hits jackpot? wtf

 

[Elhoim]

 

[Melcar]

Concurrent turns.

 

[grom]

https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/give-me-turn-based-rpgs-or-give-me-death.122666/

You are a confused individual.

EDIT: okay after looking through all your other threads it appears to me you are actually just a very competent troll