RPG Combat System...

[Vault Dweller]

Somebody made this example in another thread: try to play chess in real time. 'nuff said.

Hmm, no. You seem to be missing the point. Chess is unplayable in real time due to the nature of the game, not because of turn-based or real time conventions around it. If a game presents the player with a set of elements which work in both RT or TB, then they can both be used in both systems. Why is it that moving towards an enemy and slicing him, then running away is possible in TB and not in RT? Why is that throwing a grenade into a group of enemies, then running behing a wall would work in TB and not in RT? ...

Huh? TB is not about running toward an enemy, slicing him, and running away. TB is about planning the actions, planning them several steps ahead, developing different tactics, etc. The only tactic that exists in RT due to its nature is to draw some retarded enemies out of a large pack and deal with them few at a time. That's it. Going back to the chess example, technically chess is playable in RT, why not, but the tactical element is gone the moment you and your opponent start moving all the pieces as fast as you can. Like I said try it for fun and see if that reminds you of BG2 chaotic battles.

You could point out that TB lets you decide how to carefully play, while RT is too hectic to allow to come up with the same strategy

I most certainly would point that out

i am saying that the fact that its running in RT does not make it impossible to use the same tactics you'd use if it were TB; merely that it works the same way, despite you'd probably have to adapt to its " increased speed".

Have you played Lionheart? Go ahead, tell me how would you tweak the gameplay to make it tactical. Or look at Diablo 2, the most successful action RPG out there, there is no tactics, there are ways to kill casually, ways to mass kill, and ways to handle the bosses. That's it.

 

[Ausir]

Real life battles are real-time and some tactics is still possible there .

Although, now that I think about it, battles indeed are mostly chaotic.

And, even though it's not an RPG, Commandos was pretty tactical .

 

[mr. lamat]

i'd like to see tb with a general order system. not pre-defined battle behaviours, like the scripts in bg2 and fo2 but being able to take on the role of group leader. not control the npcs, but be able to direct general movement and tactics. using a radial menu as a template, when clicked an npc is clicked on there are different commands based on the characters combat skill. for the less skilled, only general orders would pop up on the wheel, like 'suppressing fire', 'attack target X' and 'hold the line', where more combat oriented characters would be able to take on tasks like 'manouver and flank', 'grenade and assault' or 'draw enemy from cover'... these are rather generic, the more imaginative the better.

the ai will definately have to take into account the environment as well as the enemy.

for example, myron would simply blast away kneeling behind a rock. he's kinda cowardly and not all that combat oriented. whereas a character like cassidy would use cover, hide from the enemies line of sight and set up a deadly crossfire... or stealth them completely, creep up behind them and blow their medula oblongata out of their mouths. or maybe even disarm them... yea... gotta have an option in for disarming opponents. every crpg has three outcomes for battles that don't come with scripted endings... you win, you die or you run away... i'd like to disarm some raiders then go sell'em to metzger. or miss kitty... or turn them over to authorities for a bounty.

no plan of attack survives the moment of encounter. any combat system should reflect that.

 

[Yan]

As Deathy already mentioned, both turn-based and real-time combat fail to make the character's skills be the only determining factor. Both ways depend to a certain degree on the player's skill (which isn't inherently bad; after all how boring would combat be if you had absolutely no control over your actions).

When controlling a party of characters I really prefer turn based combat. Having to keep track of multiple characters at the same time is more annoying than exciting, in my opinion. Turn based combat gives you enough time to consider your moves and avoid making stupid mistakes.

For single character games both turn based and real time are viable ways of implementing combat. While I still prefer turn based, in the end the choice comes down to a matter of preference, in my opinion.

I really dislike 'real-time' combat which is based on timed turns, however (i.e. Infinity Engine combat, KotOR, etc.). If combat plays out in real time I want to have full control of my character. I want to decide when to strike and when I retreat. I want my character to respond immediatly to my decisions. This does not mean that it shouldn't be influenced by stats however. Stats could affect things like movement speed, attack speed and possibly hit rate.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Huh? TB is not about running toward an enemy, slicing him, and running away.

You misunderstood the example i gave. I didn't said anything of the sort. What i did say was, that in a battle, doing those actions - running up to an enemy, attacking him, then running away - were as possible to do in RT as in TB. Unless you're adding various layers of combat possibilties which cannot be implemented in RT, then RT can present much of what TB can, if not the same to a degree. Specially in such a simple case like that one.

TB is about planning the actions, planning them several steps ahead, developing different tactics, etc.

Correct. Yet, in RT, the only difference is the "planning ahead" part, because developing different tactics is still quite possible. Try playing Arcanum, and save before going into battle. Now do the battle in TB, then load and play it again in RT, using the same tactics you used. What's the difference? The tactics you used against a certain kind of enemy are repeated, wheter in TB or RT. The difference is the speed of the execution phase, because you still have time to decide what to do. Yes, you don't have all the time in the world, but you have time.

The only tactic that exists in RT due to its nature is to draw some retarded enemies out of a large pack and deal with them few at a time. That's it.

Thats a very narrow-minded generalization, but then again, i don't blame you, because most RT CRPGs make it like that. Still, its quite possible to develop different tactics if enough elements are implemented.

Going back to the chess example, technically chess is playable in RT, why not, but the tactical element is gone the moment you and your opponent start moving all the pieces as fast as you can.

You see, the problem is that chess isn't exactly neither TB or RT, as its always carried out in real time, and the "turns" are rules-dependant. I can't remove the "turn" aspect, because then it wouldn't be chess, it would be something else.

Have you played Lionheart? Go ahead, tell me how would you tweak the gameplay to make it tactical.

Well, for one, combat could be more dynamic. Introduce weapon combos. Make it so characters move according to the weight they have, making it so the player has to decide between protection and mobility. In fact, have those two work together - the heavier the gear you carry, the less combos you can make. Introduce block. Make it so environments are possible of being used to your own advantage. I don't remember now if there was a possibility to cast spells and attack at the same time, but this could also add to it. Being able to use a one-handed weapon on one hand, and cast low to mid-level spells simultaneously (restricted to single targets) with the other hand would be interesting. (higher level spells would be overkill, so they shouldn't be allowed to be cast). Have enemies be knocked down. And give those enemies some more moves and better AI.

Or look at Diablo 2, the most successful action RPG out there, there is no tactics, there are ways to kill casually, ways to mass kill, and ways to handle the bosses. That's it.

Amplify Damage + Weaken. Use distraction-type spells to avoid most combat against low-level critters. Summon something to keep enemies busy while you heal or retreat. An Amazon's Guided Shot + Strafe. Use mana or life stealing bows/crossbows in conjunction with higher levels of Multiple Shot (not forgetting that MP has three different shot types: a spread shot, the regular one, and a more narrow one, and they're used to handle different amount and positioning of enemies). Have a Paladin use Conviction with Vengeance to increase damage and lower resistance. Have a Sorceress cast off Blizzard before launching off a Meteor - that way the enemies will be slowed down and the 3-second delay of Meteor is countered by Blizzard. Or hit mobs with Blizzard - to slow them down - followed by Chain Lightning - to hit them in sequence, jumping from one target to the next, and so on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

As Deathy already mentioned, both turn-based and real-time combat fail to make the character's skills be the only determining factor. Both ways depend to a certain degree on the player's skill (which isn't inherently bad; after all how boring would combat be if you had absolutely no control over your actions).

This completely rules out the player having direct control over the combat. In a tactical turn based system, performance in combat is based on the players tactical ability, and in real time combat, performance in combat is based on the players reflexes. Neither system is optimal in a true roleplaying sense

I disagree. I was going to write a long response when I recalled that a similar discussion "who is responsible for tactical decisions in an RPG" already took place. Some quotes:

Wolves, on a scale, are quite stupid. However, they can be capable of coming up with strategies that include driving the stragglers of a caribou herd off of a cliff to save them from having to chase.

Combat experience and ability is hardly relative to intelligent thinking. Trust me, I know, I've been around plenty of marines and football players, and they need to utilize strategy and interperet their orders given to their situation

Besides, they aren't in command of a large army, they are deciding which enemy to slice apart. HUGE difference, there, so you should see that even the simplest dullard is often quite able to defend themselves and come up with some strategy. Mind you, this arises from the "strategy" of being able to walk, attack, use an item, or possibly cast a spell if they were wise enough or had some other provision in the ruleset that differed from book study. All of which are the general combat options in a CRPG, and I would have difficulty imaginging someone so mentally devoid that they could not figure out how to do such.

Tactical thinking is required in a CRPG, that's for sure. However, we're not talking about rocket science or even something on par with checkers or chess. There is no requirement for a long term plan for successful combat. Even ToEE with all the combat options it offers still really boils down to fighters up front, thumping, and ranged/casters in back, flinging.

Most tactics you do have that consequence in that turn as well, or the turn after. Tripping, for example, either lasts one turn or two, depending on the initiative roll of who is tripped. Some spells might have effects that last a few turns, such as blinding or stunning, but they don't really require any thinking beyond wanting those units out of commission for a while. There's not much in the way of a multi-facetted plan which requires multiple, unique steps as part of that plan.

In other words, thinking is required, but we're talking anything that advanced, really. Certainly nothing on par with the reflexes that a lot of the action CRPGs require like Gothic, Harbinger, and even Morrowind if you're using the full combat control.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Both ways depend to a certain degree on the player's skill (which isn't inherently bad; after all how boring would combat be if you had absolutely no control over your actions).

Play Dungeon Seige and your question will be answered.

And, Ausir, real-life battles may be in real-time, but they don't consist of waves of enemies coming at you with no thought for tactics. Until AI can simulate real-life, there really can be no comparison between the two. Even then though, I will always prefer TB. If nothing else, simply because I am a 'take my time' kind of guy. I've got FPS' for the times when I wanna blow off steam.

And further more, to answer the other part of Feargus' question, I like party based combat either way but prefer control over everyone. This is NOT a deciding factor on me playing the game though unless the game is RT.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

And, Ausir, real-life battles may be in real-time, but they don't consist of waves of enemies coming at you with no thought for tactics. Until AI can simulate real-life, there really can be no comparison between the two.

I think its possible to at least create a modicum of simulation regarding enemy AI. You cant have current AI implement the human capacity to improvise in a battle situation in real life, but it can do something, which is to assign behaviour patters to enemies given certain situations. You can create create certain conditions that make enemies react in certain ways. For instance, the use of block when their health reaches 50% of its total, and activate evasion when it reaches 20% of its total. The attribution of a simulated choice of weapon according to the distance they have towards players is also possible(at long ranges they can use ranged weapons, and can switch to melee weapons at close distances). In fact, it's also quite possible to have them use abilities we also possess - things like trip attacks, or feign death, or backstabs, or targetted shots, etc. 'Twould be interesting to fight in real time an enemy, or various ones, that have the same abilities you have.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You misunderstood the example i gave. I didn't said anything of the sort. What i did say was, that in a battle, doing those actions - running up to an enemy, attacking him, then running away - were as possible to do in RT as in TB. Unless you're adding various layers of combat possibilties which cannot be implemented in RT, then RT can present much of what TB can, if not the same to a degree. Specially in such a simple case like that one.

Of course, such an action is possible in both RT and TB, but it doesn't describe neither of these system and thus irrelevant. The difference between TB and RT are not some moves that couldn't be implemented/executed but the approach, i.e thinking, planning, carrying out plans not separate actions. Example, in FO2, in the beginning I was often attacked by 3 thugs, and I was able to position myself so that I could kill one at a time. Similar course of actions was impossible in Lionheart, for example, unless you do the hit and run thing which is not the same as it abuses the retarded AI.

Yet, in RT, the only difference is the "planning ahead" part, because developing different tactics is still quite possible. Try playing Arcanum, and save before going into battle. Now do the battle in TB, then load and play it again in RT, using the same tactics you used. What's the difference? The tactics you used against a certain kind of enemy are repeated, wheter in TB or RT. The difference is the speed of the execution phase, because you still have time to decide what to do. Yes, you don't have all the time in the world, but you have time.

Bad example. Arcanum TB was screwed up by APs, but still, some battles, especially the tough ones, the ones that required some tactical approach were quite different. Example: fighting Lukan and his gang. There was also a moment in FOT when you protect the ghouls and a bunch of deathclaws and some tribals rush in. Tell me there was no difference.

The only tactic that exists in RT due to its nature is to draw some retarded enemies out of a large pack and deal with them few at a time. That's it.

Thats a very narrow-minded generalization, but then again, i don't blame you, because most RT CRPGs make it like that. Still, its quite possible to develop different tactics if enough elements are implemented.

May be, give me a hypothetical example. I don't want to be narrow-minded, I want to learn stuff

Going back to the chess example, technically chess is playable in RT, why not, but the tactical element is gone the moment you and your opponent start moving all the pieces as fast as you can.

You see, the problem is that chess isn't exactly neither TB or RT, as its always carried out in real time, and the "turns" are rules-dependant. I can't remove the "turn" aspect, because then it wouldn't be chess, it would be something else.

Huh? Chess isn't TB? You mean that while I'm considering my move, my opponent can move too? Damn, that's why I suck at it! Please, Role-Player, stay focused I don't want to win by default :D

Have you played Lionheart? Go ahead, tell me how would you tweak the gameplay to make it tactical.

Well, for one, combat could be more dynamic. Introduce weapon combos. Make it so characters move according to the weight they have, making it so the player has to decide between protection and mobility. In fact, have those two work together - the heavier the gear you carry, the less combos you can make. Introduce block. Make it so environments are possible of being used to your own advantage. I don't remember now if there was a possibility to cast spells and attack at the same time, but this could also add to it. Being able to use a one-handed weapon on one hand, and cast low to mid-level spells simultaneously (restricted to single targets) with the other hand would be interesting. (higher level spells would be overkill, so they shouldn't be allowed to be cast). Have enemies be knocked down. And give those enemies some more moves and better AI.

Well, some of it would have definitely made LH a less-painful game, but I don't see the tactical elements, I see an action RPG with combos, attacking and casting at the same time (which is rather silly), blocking, and weight reqs. So, just like in D2 I choose a type of char I want to play, let's say agile lightly armored fighter who fights and casts spells at the same time and does all kinda crazy-ass combos. Then what? After I've chosen him, I play in exactly the same fashion from start to finish. The point is there is no successful or even decent tactical RT RPG, and that got to tell you something, and I don't think it's because of bad AI either. That's the nature of RT games, there is nothing tactical about rushing into the middle of a mini-army all by yourself and killing it in 2 minutes, and if they ever design a RT game where you have to deal with 2-3 enemies at a time, it would be fucking boring for 90% of the target audience.

Or look at Diablo 2, the most successful action RPG out there, there is no tactics, there are ways to kill casually, ways to mass kill, and ways to handle the bosses. That's it.

Amplify Damage + Weaken. Use distraction-type spells to avoid most combat against low-level critters. Summon something to keep enemies busy while you heal or retreat. An Amazon's Guided Shot + Strafe. Use mana or life stealing bows/crossbows in conjunction with higher levels of Multiple Shot (not forgetting that MP has three different shot types: a spread shot, the regular one, and a more narrow one, and they're used to handle different amount and positioning of enemies). Have a Paladin use Conviction with Vengeance to increase damage and lower resistance. Have a Sorceress cast off Blizzard before launching off a Meteor - that way the enemies will be slowed down and the 3-second delay of Meteor is countered by Blizzard. Or hit mobs with Blizzard - to slow them down - followed by Chain Lightning - to hit them in sequence, jumping from one target to the next, and so on.

Doing one thing over and over again isn't tactics, every char above lvl 30 has 2 or 3 things he uses all the time like Frozen Orb or WW or some combos like you described, but you don't use more then 2 because that's how the game is designed, jack of all trades sucks in D2 and without diversity of options there is no tactics.

 

[Elwro]

[

Have you played Lionheart? Go ahead, tell me how would you tweak the gameplay to make it tactical.

Make it so characters move according to the weight they have, making it so the player has to decide between protection and mobility.

Well, in Lionheart heavy armor gives you a penalty to speed.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Of course, such an action is possible in both RT and TB, but it doesn't describe neither of these system and thus irrelevant.

It's not meant to describe the systems, but rather to point out that there are events which can work on both of them despite the difference in systems.

The difference between TB and RT are not some moves that couldn't be implemented/executed but the approach, i.e thinking, planning, carrying out plans not separate actions.

Actually, one of the differences between both is exactly that, some functions or elements can't be implemented in RT, so as not to make players too interface-dependant.

And again, in my opinion, the "thinking, planning, and carrying out plans" is still possible, only not in the same way. As an abstraction of combat, in TB you can take your time, and act out as you see fit. In RT most of the time you have to develop strategies on the fly. But that by no means makes it so you can't think, plan and carry out plans in RT games (or that it isn't possible).

Example, in FO2, in the beginning I was often attacked by 3 thugs, and I was able to position myself so that I could kill one at a time.

Try doing the same in a RT game by using a quick appraisal of the situation and acting according to it. More than likely, you'll get the same result.

Similar course of actions was impossible in Lionheart, for example, unless you do the hit and run thing which is not the same as it abuses the retarded AI.

That's true, the AI was bad. That is one of the reasons why it didn't worked better.

Bad example. Arcanum TB was screwed up by APs, but still, some battles, especially the tough ones, the ones that required some tactical approach were quite different. Example: fighting Lukan and his gang. There was also a moment in FOT when you protect the ghouls and a bunch of deathclaws and some tribals rush in. Tell me there was no difference.

The difference is that the execution is being dealt with in a different way. Don't forget that what TB does is to represent your applied tactics in a step by step fashion. Hiding behind a wall, jumping out, opening fire against a group of enemies, then running behind the wall is the same regardless of what system it's happening in, except that in TB, you have individual movements, in RT everything goes off in the same time. You can develop tactics in both systems, but TB, because it waits for player input, allows you to calmly analyze the situation before you make any move. This obviously doesn't happen in RT, because its faster - but faster doesn't mean its impossible. The one thing i can see increase RT's difficulty in terms of control and of not being able to use tactics is to have it work with an entire party which required player control. That would be chaos But like i was pointing out back there, it can be done with single player RT games (that was my main point, though). If you want to do it with party management, it gets very tricky. The alternative would be having the possibility to assign scripts for characters, but still be able to control them if there was a need. But in my mind that's way too chaotic to even work.

May be, give me a hypothetical example. I don't want to be narrow-minded, I want to learn stuff

Well, i said that because you were taking an example from a common thing that's used to eliminate enemies by exploiting bad AI. Remember ocasions in Arcanum - like the cemitery in Ashbury - where you could just draw one enemy while the others were still around, oblivious to your presence? That's a common example of what you said. That happens in RT because usually, RT pseudo-CRPGs are only based on things like Diablo, and they use very simplified AI that just swarms against you and humps on your avatar. I called it narrow-minded because your opinion of RT is formed on a flaw of the game's design, not on the possibilities an RT system can present.

As for the example, well, you could have a system like the one i pointed out to Otaku_Hanzo up there. Are you looking for a drawn out example? Well, look to the combat of Morrowind, where you can move and attack at the same time, take cover from enemy fire by using your surroundings, use terrain to your advantage, and sneak upon enemies (by running away and taking the enemy by surprise by circling around them). You don't have the ability to block by your means (as its automatic, unfortunately), but all else is a step in the right direction, specially moving and attacking simultaneously. The only grave problem with combat is the lack of more specialized options, and unfortunately, it revolves around constant clicking in melee

Huh? Chess isn't TB? You mean that while I'm considering my move, my opponent can move too? Damn, that's why I suck at it! Please, Role-Player, stay focused :D I don't want to win by default :D

That didn't come out how i wanted to say it My mistake, my apology. What i meant was this. Usually when you're labelling something as TB, you're implying that something is following turn-based, as in, the combat system and its rules. Chess doesn't follow them on some things. Initiative doesn't exist for one, given its always the white pieces to go first. As it stands, the sequence derived from initiative is also gone, and it becomes an automatic "my turn, your turn" to play. In chess the oponent isn't limited to waiting for your turn and will oftentimes devise possible strategies before you make your move; meanwhile a TB system usually has everything halted until you plan out your movement and execute it; it's basically a cause and effect. Yes, chess has the basic element of turns, as per the definition of each player taking their turn. Then again, in an RT environement, everyone's having their turn simultaneously, yet that doesn't make it turn-based. At best, it needs turns to be played.

Well, some of it would have definitely made LH a less-painful game, but I don't see the tactical elements, I see an action RPG with combos, attacking and casting at the same time (which is rather silly), blocking, and weight reqs. So, just like in D2 I choose a type of char I want to play, let's say agile lightly armored fighter who fights and casts spells at the same time and does all kinda crazy-ass combos. Then what? After I've chosen him, I play in exactly the same fashion from start to finish. The point is there is no successful or even decent tactical RT RPG, and that got to tell you something, and I don't think it's because of bad AI either. That's the nature of RT games, there is nothing tactical about rushing into the middle of a mini-army all by yourself and killing it in 2 minutes, and if they ever design a RT game where you have to deal with 2-3 enemies at a time, it would be fucking boring for 90% of the target audience.

You're telling me diverse elements cannot help towards a game presenting tactics? So, does that mean all them nifty combat options ToEE had were actually not helping the tactical aspect of it? More combat options help coming up with better strategies for combat.

As for the spells, i don't see a problem. It's not like you'd try out a full ritual while fighting, it was about being able to use minor cantrips, mostly, or like i said, single-target spells. I don't see a problem with casting something like a blinding cantrip or minor fire sphere against a target while fighting. I did include restrictions into the thought so it wouldn't be overpowered.

Doing one thing over and over again isn't tactics, every char above lvl 30 has 2 or 3 things he uses all the time like Frozen Orb or WW or some combos like you described, but you don't use more then 2 because that's how the game is designed, jack of all trades sucks in D2 and without diversity of options there is no tactics.

There are several options; just because there is a tendency to go for the most effective ones doesn't mean there isn't another way. A mage in Arcanum can focus on about five spells - one of them being Harm - for the remainder of the game and will succeed in combat. Likewise a character in Morrowind that focuses on Long Blade/Blunt Weapon, Heavy Armor, Sneak, Security, Athletics and Acrobatics has it quite easy for the rest of the game. But that doesn't mean there aren't other possibilites for combat doesn't it?

Well, in Lionheart heavy armor gives you a penalty to speed.

I was thinking of actual movement speed, not just the statistic. Or did it affect actual movement?

 

[Dhruin]

I can enjoy RT and TB but TB is my preference. There's a dozens of reasons already in this thread so I'll just make a couple of comments.

Most RT systems break down to the same predictable mechanic: left click for primary attack, right click for pre-selected combo/spell. Red health ball on the left of the UI, blue mana ball on the right. It can be fun but it's been done a thousand times before, it's hard to be different and with all those RT games out there, do any of them ever outdo Diablo?

TB is superior in so many areas like strategy but it also gives a game a better chance to develop it's own system rather than just being another clone. TB can also be more exciting than RT: when your puny sorceror (to use a typical fantasy example) accidentally ends up standing next to the Hill Giant when combat starts and the Hill Giant's initiative puts him higher in queue, you start sweating bullets and thinking furiously about how you're going to get out of the situation.

Take a lesson from ToEE, though. The biggest complaint you hear about TB is how long the turns take.

I don't really have a set view on party systems...just don't do a full party RT. The player's only task in Dungeon Siege is to manage the health potions.

 

[Megatron]

About chess in RT: It could be in real-time. It'd probably have too be automated or something though. Otherwise a RT chess game will just have either side doing nothing and the other side charging and getting slaughtered by the first row of pawns. The whole idea of chess in RT is dumb though, it'd be like soccer in TB. It's possible, but when you swap the time-frame it just becomes a sport or board-game mabye. You'd have to alter the scale of things though.

Nothing else too add. On a totally unrelated note I think RTS suck because they all basically are building masses of soldiers and collecting shit then mashing together when you reach the population limit. How about mixing squad-based strategy with building and collecting resources while being able to have other options like diplomacy? I think the RTS genre would be better if you took the RT out of it though.

 

[EEVIAC]

If it could be conceded for a moment that a viable real-time system could be made, avoiding the traditional weaknesses of said system with a brand new design, the question remains, why waste the development time?

It seems to me that a developer would need to revolutionize beyond anything that has been done before, to have some unique idea. Transplanting a system from an action game (say Max Payne) isn't going to work. You might make the combat fun but its going to be worthless in the context of the game as a whole. On the other hand there are a lot of references within RPG cannon on how to do turn-based combat well.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Of course, such an action is possible in both RT and TB, but it doesn't describe neither of these system and thus irrelevant.

It's not meant to describe the systems, but rather to point out that there are events which can work on both of them despite the difference in systems.

Since these events can't exist outside of either of the systems, I see no reason to consider them. We discuss the systems that consist of many events which are basically identical, it's the system that defines the events and modifies their pros and cons. So, your point that certain actions are possible in both proves nothing, imo.

And again, in my opinion, the "thinking, planning, and carrying out plans" is still possible, only not in the same way. As an abstraction of combat, in TB you can take your time, and act out as you see fit. In RT most of the time you have to develop strategies on the fly. But that by no means makes it so you can't think, plan and carry out plans in RT games (or that it isn't possible).

Yes, you can, but there is a difference when you have 2-3 seconds to act and when you can take a 2-3 minutes. Let's say that you walk into a room and suddenly find yourself attacked. If a game is any good, it should support several different options and scenarios. You need time to consider them, no matter how fast you think, it takes time to think about each options, plan them a couple of steps ahead, and pick one. It couldn't be done in RT.

Example, in FO2, in the beginning I was often attacked by 3 thugs, and I was able to position myself so that I could kill one at a time.

Try doing the same in a RT game by using a quick appraisal of the situation and acting according to it. More than likely, you'll get the same result.

I tried that in LH and in WC3. Imo, you can't. The other 2 would get close in a about a sec, you'd have time for 1 hit, the success would depend on your manual dex, you have to run, click on one of the enemy, select a special attack if any, hope that you'd not miss, hope that you'd get close faster then 2 other attackers, and so on. Suddenly, instead of a tactical battle in TB you have arcade clickfest in RT. No, thanks. If you still have LH try it with 3 goblins and tell me what you think.

You can develop tactics in both systems, but TB, because it waits for player input, allows you to calmly analyze the situation before you make any move. This obviously doesn't happen in RT, because its faster - but faster doesn't mean its impossible.

Like I said before, I don't see how it is possible in a few seconds. Diablo and other action RPGs are not being called twitch games for nothing. You play on reflexes, you can use only what's hot keyed, you see, you act without thinking, because a delayed action means missed chance of delivering damage and thus suirviving an encounter.

I called it narrow-minded because your opinion of RT is formed on a flaw of the game's design, not on the possibilities an RT system can present.

Possibilities should be based on something other then wishful thinking. If somebody were to design a RT game that plays like a TB game, then why the hell design a RT game in the first place? So far we have 2 opposite ways of handling combat, chess-like for those who like tactical approach and fast action arcade where thinking isn't necessary. Both are good, and there is a reason and a target audience for each.

Are you looking for a drawn out example? Well, look to the combat of Morrowind, where you can move and attack at the same time, take cover from enemy fire by using your surroundings, use terrain to your advantage, and sneak upon enemies (by running away and taking the enemy by surprise by circling around them). You don't have the ability to block by your means (as its automatic, unfortunately), but all else is a step in the right direction, specially moving and attacking simultaneously. The only grave problem with combat is the lack of more specialized options, and unfortunately, it revolves around constant clicking in melee

And it sucked. Big time. Killed the game for me, so it's hard to accept it as a good combat, or a step in the right direction, or think what would have happened if it was done differently.

Usually when you're labelling something as TB, you're implying that something is following turn-based, as in, the combat system and its rules. Chess doesn't follow them on some things. Initiative doesn't exist for one, given its always the white pieces to go first. As it stands, the sequence derived from initiative is also gone, and it becomes an automatic "my turn, your turn" to play. In chess the oponent isn't limited to waiting for your turn and will oftentimes devise possible strategies before you make your move; meanwhile a TB system usually has everything halted until you plan out your movement and execute it; it's basically a cause and effect. Yes, chess has the basic element of turns, as per the definition of each player taking their turn. Then again, in an RT environement, everyone's having their turn simultaneously, yet that doesn't make it turn-based. At best, it needs turns to be played.

The lack of initiative and sequence in chess doesn't make a RT game. The fact that your opponent can keep on planning while you are planning your move is irrelevant as once you made your move, it changes all the plans he'd made. So, let's just agree that chess is absolutely, positively a TB game. :wink:

You're telling me diverse elements cannot help towards a game presenting tactics? So, does that mean all them nifty combat options ToEE had were actually not helping the tactical aspect of it? More combat options help coming up with better strategies for combat.

Diverse elements help when you are free to choose from any of them. Take LH for example, you had to specialize in 2-3 skills tops if you wanted to be any good, that;s not much to choose from.

There are several options; just because there is a tendency to go for the most effective ones doesn't mean there isn't another way. A mage in Arcanum can focus on about five spells - one of them being Harm - for the remainder of the game and will succeed in combat. Likewise a character in Morrowind that focuses on Long Blade/Blunt Weapon, Heavy Armor, Sneak, Security, Athletics and Acrobatics has it quite easy for the rest of the game. But that doesn't mean there aren't other possibilites for combat doesn't it?

Same as before, it doesn't matter how many options there are, as long as you have to pick one or two at the beginning of a game and stick with them. Such options may ensure replayability (D2 offers 7 classes x 3 subclasses for each = 21 unique combinations, not bad) but they have nothing to do with tactics.

 

[Sol Invictus]

And, Ausir, real-life battles may be in real-time, but they don't consist of waves of enemies coming at you with no thought for tactics. Until AI can simulate real-life, there really can be no comparison between the two.

Like Role-Player, I disagree with your assertion that the AI has to have to have a degree of intellect comparable to human intelligence to simulate combat situations. Also like Role-Player I think that it's possible to simulate this experience by programming a variety of responses into the AI to react depending on the situation. This level of AI is clearly evident in Unreal Tournament 2003 where enemies working in a team know how to flank the player together while dodging bullets on their own while managing to stay on firm ground and not fall off cliffs as they pull off their maneuvers. They also know how to support and defend their flag carriers in CTF or Domination rounds where two or more of them might defend a certain location pivotal to winning the map while another might go hunting for stragglers and your own team's flag carriers.

Although Half Life was a heavily scripted game, it too featured such AI, especially in those situations with the marines. They weren't all that clever but they knew how to flank you and use the crates for cover. Yes, I realize they were scripted to use the crates, but that, I think, is the basis of a more advanced, adaptive AI. All the programmer would have to do is make it so that each map contains specific markers attached to crates that should an AI happen to come upon he will use for cover against the enemy and the programmer could also set up individual AI behaviours to portray a team Medic who heals injured teammates, or a heavy support defender who provides only cover fire for the other AI units.

We're a long way from developing a sentient AI who understands why it has to protect its team, and understands the need to survive in the game the same way a human player does, but until then we can always use scripts. It's all a matter of putting a bit of time and effort into programming them and testing them.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Most RT systems break down to the same predictable mechanic: left click for primary attack, right click for pre-selected combo/spell. Red health ball on the left of the UI, blue mana ball on the right. It can be fun but it's been done a thousand times before, it's hard to be different and with all those RT games out there, do any of them ever outdo Diablo?

Certainly. More than anything, games like Half Life, Jedi Academy, Call of Duty, Freedom Fighters, and any number of arcade games outdo Diablo. Simply because there are a staggering amount of games that revolve around the Real-Time Strategy concept of "click to move your units in a group" a la Baldur's Gate doesn't make real time combat a failure in general, it only means those games which use that simplistic method are a failure in combat mechanics due to their sheer simplicity and lack of player-interaction.

I honestly see no reason why an RPG cannot choose adopt the concept of heavy player interaction (read: real time, reflex-based combat). It isn't as if we are all a bunch of retarded, parapalegic gimps incapable of adequate hand-eye coordination. It just takes a little skill and practice, and you can't tell me that turn-based strategy or tactical games don't take skill and practice, because they do. It takes time to learn the strategy of the AI (or your opponent, as it were) and devise the proper tactics to counter its actions.

To say that an RPG should be 'stat based' rather than 'reflex based' would be hypocrisy at its finest, considering that most 'stat based' games require a certain amount of tactical thinking to make up for their lack of reflex dependency in order to ensure player interaction. In my opinion, neither reflexes nor tactical thinking is difficult for the average person to grasp so I don't understand why anyone would oppose the implementation of either with the argument that their counterpart 'gimps' the player.

I don't see why games can't choose to implement both reflex-based actions as well as ones that require tactical thought for different situations. It isn't as if real life is solely based on a single one of these aspects.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Well, I was referring to CRPGs as far as the AI thing is concerned. I have yet to see an RT CRPG that employs tactics instead of mindless attacking. It would have been cool say, like in Diablo 2, if certain creatures actually supported some of the other creatures instead of mindlessly attacking the PC. I do realize that the level of AI in FPS's these days is phenomenal compared to those of two or three years ago, but, as I said, I was strictly referring to CRPGs. Sorry. Should have clarified that. My bad.

 

[Elwro]

]Well, in Lionheart heavy armor gives you a penalty to speed.

I was thinking of actual movement speed, not just the statistic. Or did it affect actual movement?

It did.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

So, the question is - in all of your minds does combat have to be TB to be game that you all like?

Considering I play games like Diablo, Morrowind etc... I'd have to say... Yes? Uhh wait, I mean no! Plus, I even like The Sims, so that must mean I like pause 'n play!

I've been thinking a lot about game that we are going to make

Woah! Stop right there! Don't go ANY further.

and maybe some small games that we'll make and publish ourselves

On 3.5 inch disks?

and I'm trying to figure out what makes the most sense from a combat perspective.

Combat that is fun to play. That always makes the most sense. Is the combat fun? Yes. Then combat is good. Is the combat fun? No. Then combat is bad.

It's easy-peasy!

is there a form of real-time combat you guys are fine with

So you're not really asking us about combat, you're just trying to see if we'll say YES to real-time so you're marketing goons can get some bling-bling?

what are your opinions of single player w/followers/henchmen vs a fully controlled party?

I play games that have both, so obviously, I like both?

I know that someone depends on the game itself, but I'm curious.

... about what exactly? I mean, what are you *really* asking here? Do you want to know what kind of real-time combat system we like, or do you want to know what makes combat fun, be it turn-based or real-time?

With that said, I'll now say this: Make a fucking decision about it yourself. With that I mean don't try and make a TB and RT system in the same game and let the user decide, it won't work. Also don't try and make a full-control / no-control option. Make a decision and stick to it. Develop with that in mind. Don't half-ass it, don't fuck around with it. Make a decision, make one decision and stick to that decision.

I would link you to a post I made about TB & RT combat on the IPLY forums, but I keep getting a connection refused error.

 

[Araanor]

So, the question is - in all of your minds does combat have to be TB to be game that you all like?

No, but the rest of the game would have to make up for it. Baldur's Gate had just about enough adventuring to keep me from putting it down, until the end, where I had to force myself to finish it. If a combat-focused game like BG has poor combat then it really reflects back badly on it. When I played Torment, I hardly minded the combat. This tells us two things: I was immersed by other elements in the game, and the combat was dull.

Diablo 2 was okay, but there's not much tactics to it. The game mostly revolves around some planning on the skill tree and then item-hunting. I'm not going to spend as much time as I did on a game like it again.

There two follow up questions to that, which are is there a form of real-time combat you guys are fine with and what are your opinions of single player w/followers/henchmen vs a fully controlled party? I know that someone depends on the game itself, but I'm curious.

Single player with henchmen versus fully controllable party, role-playing verus tactics. Take your pick. If we're talking RPGs, and I get to make the pick, I'd go for the former. I prefer role-playing one character at a time, thank you. Seeing how the combat works in most real-time CRPGs, I realise a fully controllable party may be needed to keep some leash on the meat puppets. Could be improved much by AI, of course.

 

[dunduks]

If the game has only the player to control, it can be done RT (for example I really enjoyed Gothic I/II RT combat), but if the player has to control more then 1 character RT becomes real hectic unless developers can provide a really good AI (one example of such AI can be seen in Starship Troopers game, where AI was taking cover and using flanking, crossfire etc), but overall I think that TB still provides more options for combat, especially if you need to control a lot of characters.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Since these events can't exist outside of either of the systems, I see no reason to consider them.

Eh? So what do you propose as examples that can be handled in both systems - something exists outside of these systems? :shock: They have to exist and work within the systems so they can be considered. Why would we be considering examples which would not fit the systems?

We discuss the systems that consist of many events which are basically identical, it's the system that defines the events and modifies their pros and cons.

I think the event isn't defined by the system, but by your actions. What is defined by the system, however, is how the event plays out.

So, your point that certain actions are possible in both proves nothing, imo.

Well, the fact is most, if not all, possible events, happen the same way in both systems. The only difference is how you act on them. The idea that some scenarios cannot be played in RT, or that they're played better in TB, are sometimes an illusion.

Yes, you can, but there is a difference when you have 2-3 seconds to act and when you can take a 2-3 minutes.

Usually there really aren't 2-3 minutes to decide, you usually have all the time in the world.

Let's say that you walk into a room and suddenly find yourself attacked. If a game is any good, it should support several different options and scenarios. You need time to consider them, no matter how fast you think, it takes time to think about each options, plan them a couple of steps ahead, and pick one. It couldn't be done in RT.

I don't see why not. Wheter TB or RT, the same situations would exist. Does RT do a bad job because you can't think about every single option existant in that scenario? No. Its a different system, so obviously it'll have to be played diffferently. If you have certain options, you act on them. If they're the best ones or not, that can be analyzed in another time. All that matters is according to the options you have. Could it be made in a different way? Could you have made it near flawlessly? Perhaps. But just because you didn't, doesn't make the system automatically bad. More likely, not to your taste.

I tried that in LH and in WC3. Imo, you can't. The other 2 would get close in a about a sec, you'd have time for 1 hit, the success would depend on your manual dex, you have to run, click on one of the enemy, select a special attack if any, hope that you'd not miss, hope that you'd get close faster then 2 other attackers, and so on.

And in TB this would more than likely happen the same way, except instead of being dependant of player's Dexterity, you'd be dependant of the character's Dexterity - and the character could still fail despite it not being dependant on your twitch skills.

If you still have LH try it with 3 goblins and tell me what you think.

Too late But as far as i can remeber, i don't remember a great difference, except the obvious turns and pauses.

Like I said before, I don't see how it is possible in a few seconds. Diablo and other action RPGs are not being called twitch games for nothing. You play on reflexes, you can use only what's hot keyed, you see, you act without thinking, because a delayed action means missed chance of delivering damage and thus suirviving an encounter.

And in the same way, a badly carried out plan or course of action can also jeopardize your character, despite it being made in TB. A delayed action in RT means missed chance of delivering damage and thus surviving an encounter, as much as an action on TB might present the same result because you're prone to fail regardless of having made a good or bad decision. I can be quite tactical in the first levels of ToEE, but more often than not my characters find themselves failing despite the time i took planning out their actions.

As for only being able to use what is hotkeyed, that can be fixed. I mean, again, you can look to something like Morrowind. Two different buttons change what you have hotkeyed - both in weapons and spells - on the fly.

And no, you don't "act without thinking", that's another sterotype. At best, at some point you act on instict, but some people actually think.

Possibilities should be based on something other then wishful thinking. If somebody were to design a RT game that plays like a TB game, then why the hell design a RT game in the first place?

Yes, well, the goal isn't to design an RT system that acts like a TB system. The goal is to design an RT system which works better than those presented until now, and that presents better tactics. Just because someone would try to make an RT system use more tactics doesn't mean it's intention is to be a TB system.

So far we have 2 opposite ways of handling combat, chess-like for those who like tactical approach and fast action arcade where thinking isn't necessary. Both are good, and there is a reason and a target audience for each.

Try playing D2, or Arcanum in RT, without even thinking what's happening in the game. Tell me how it goes, i'll be waiting.

And it sucked. Big time. Killed the game for me, so it's hard to accept it as a good combat, or a step in the right direction, or think what would have happened if it was done differently.

Yes, well, those elements improve combat regardless. The very fact you can move and attack simultaneously is a thing done right for a CRPG combat system. Other elements used have also been seen in other TB games. Fact remains its an RT system which has some good possibilties even if the execution isn't the best. Hey, it happened the same with ToEE's vignettes.

The lack of initiative and sequence in chess doesn't make a RT game.

The lack of initiative and sequence make it a TB game?

The fact that your opponent can keep on planning while you are planning your move is irrelevant as once you made your move, it changes all the plans he'd made. So, let's just agree that chess is absolutely, positively a TB game. :wink:

You can keep calling it TB if you want :wink:

Diverse elements help when you are free to choose from any of them. Take LH for example, you had to specialize in 2-3 skills tops if you wanted to be any good, that;s not much to choose from.

Wait. Now we're getting somewhere. Back there i think you mentioned these elements weren't helping, now they help but they're few. I can agree with that. More possibilties are always welcome.

Same as before, it doesn't matter how many options there are, as long as you have to pick one or two at the beginning of a game and stick with them. Such options may ensure replayability (D2 offers 7 classes x 3 subclasses for each = 21 unique combinations, not bad) but they have nothing to do with tactics.

So what do you call taking advantage of your character's skills depending on a situation?

It did.

Dang. Just goes to show i should've payed more attention to the game. Then again i don't see myself in the mood to play attention to LH

And good work, Exitium, you also pointed out what i meant in a better way

 

[Vault Dweller]

Since these events can't exist outside of either of the systems, I see no reason to consider them.

Eh? So what do you propose as examples that can be handled in both systems - something exists outside of these systems? :shock: They have to exist and work within the systems so they can be considered. Why would we be considering examples which would not fit the systems?

What I'm saying or trying to say is that these events are integrated parts of the system, if we consider such an event (like attacking somebody) as a stand alone event without considering how the system handles it, that would be pointless. Saying that you can run, attack, any perform any other actions in both RT and TB serves no purpose as these actions are heavily modified by the systems. For example, attacking somebody in TB depends on your chance to hit, and your opponent's chance to avoid being hit (dodge and counteracts), the same action in RT could be very different, your opponent is free to hit you while you are attempting to hit, and if he is successful, you may not be able to do anything at all, (remember the Butcher from D1?) it's also a factor of you being able to click on your enemy when he's charging you, and so on. If there is more then 1 enemy, then it gets even more different, calling for totally different approaches. FO's made Finesse perk very valuable despite some damage loss, FOT made Finesse useless replacing it with Fast Shot perk, proving that RT is about delivering max amount of damage in a min amount of time leaving no room for silly things like tactics.

We discuss the systems that consist of many events which are basically identical, it's the system that defines the events and modifies their pros and cons.

I think the event isn't defined by the system, but by your actions. What is defined by the system, however, is how the event plays out.

See above.

Well, the fact is most, if not all, possible events, happen the same way in both systems. The only difference is how you act on them. The idea that some scenarios cannot be played in RT, or that they're played better in TB, are sometimes an illusion.

Is it really? I think the illusion is to think that despite all the evidence (truckload of all kind of RT reflex games) RT could be as good as TB tactics-wise. To say that is to seriously misunderstand the nature of RT gameplay.

I don't see why not. Wheter TB or RT, the same situations would exist. Does RT do a bad job because you can't think about every single option existant in that scenario? No. Its a different system, so obviously it'll have to be played diffferently.

Precisely, it will have to be played differently. You would have to use your reflexes and do the first thing that comes into your mind. I wouldn't call this gameplay tactical. And btw, I never said RT games were bad, so let's not go there.

And in TB this would more than likely happen the same way, except instead of being dependant of player's Dexterity, you'd be dependant of the character's Dexterity - and the character could still fail despite it not being dependant on your twitch skills.

We are still talking about role-playing games, aren't we? You know as in using your characters skills instead of your own?

I can be quite tactical in the first levels of ToEE, but more often than not my characters find themselves failing despite the time i took planning out their actions.

Keep practicing

As for only being able to use what is hotkeyed, that can be fixed. I mean, again, you can look to something like Morrowind. Two different buttons change what you have hotkeyed - both in weapons and spells - on the fly.

The key word wasn't "only", it was "hotkeyed" as in actions that take a split second to execute.

And no, you don't "act without thinking", that's another sterotype. At best, at some point you act on instict, but some people actually think.

The RT gameplay is repetetive, monsters are thrown at you, you see them, you click a few times, they die, see monster - click a button, monster - button, monster - button, etc.

Try playing D2, or Arcanum in RT, without even thinking what's happening in the game. Tell me how it goes, i'll be waiting.

That's easy. I play D2 exactly as I told you above, monster-button thing. The combat is boring, especially on higher levels (and I play solo), the only reason I play is item hunting (as stupid as it sounds ) Arcanum's combat was similar, as fas as I recall. I'm not sure why you asked.

Yes, well, those elements improve combat regardless. The very fact you can move and attack simultaneously is a thing done right for a CRPG combat system. Other elements used have also been seen in other TB games. Fact remains its an RT system which has some good possibilties even if the execution isn't the best.

May be you should think about the reasons why it failed, instead of just saying "oh well, the execution wasn't the best, I hope they get it right next time" No, they won't, there is a reason for that. Things don't happen just because, they happen for a reason.

The lack of initiative and sequence in chess doesn't make a RT game.

The lack of initiative and sequence make it a TB game?

If there are turns, then it's turn-based. Period. They don't call it initiative-based, do they?

Diverse elements help when you are free to choose from any of them. Take LH for example, you had to specialize in 2-3 skills tops if you wanted to be any good, that;s not much to choose from.

Wait. Now we're getting somewhere. Back there i think you mentioned these elements weren't helping, now they help but they're few. I can agree with that. More possibilties are always welcome.

What I meant is they are not helping when they are designed to increase the number of characters you can play not the variety of ways to act with any given characters. It's like choices in Bio games, choices are always good, but in Bio games choices are meaningless.

So what do you call taking advantage of your character's skills depending on a situation?

Take a sorc for example, you have one main skill to handle anything that gets in your way, you have 2 supplementary skills to handle immune monsters, and some misc skills like warmth, static, mana shield, etc. You use 1 main skills sometimes augmented by a secondary skill 90% of the time, that's boring. Same with any other class. Same was with LH.

It did.

Dang. Just goes to show i should've payed more attention to the game. Then again i don't see myself in the mood to play attention to LH

Well, pay attention next time instead of daydreaming about uber RT RPGs

And good work, Exitium, you also pointed out what i meant in a better way

Exitium was obviously mistaken when he said "To say that an RPG should be 'stat based' rather than 'reflex based' would be hypocrisy at its finest, considering that most 'stat based' games require a certain amount of tactical thinking to make up for their lack of reflex dependency in order to ensure player interaction". I'd not be so quick to side with him on that :wink:

 

[Dhruin]

Certainly. More than anything, games like Half Life, Jedi Academy, Call of Duty, Freedom Fighters, and any number of arcade games outdo Diablo.

I was thinking only of RPGs but point taken.

I honestly see no reason why an RPG cannot choose adopt the concept of heavy player interaction (read: real time, reflex-based combat). It isn't as if we are all a bunch of retarded, parapalegic gimps incapable of adequate hand-eye coordination.

As in shooter/RPG hybrids (or whatever you want to call them)? It's a genre that will grow rapidly but I'll always prefer "true" stat-based RPGs.