RPG Combat System...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

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.

I was giving examples besides standard actions like running or attacking. Taking advantage of taking cover behind a wall, leaving it, open fire on enemies, than taking cover again is a standard example of actions which are handled differently; though in this case, they can be handled the same way in RT, with player reflexes and quick thinking as the main difference.

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.

I didn't say otherwise. I'm aware that RT is dependant of a player's physical skill. But you should remember that while it's true that your oponent is free to hit you in RT this also happens in TB, the difference being he does it in his own turn. An enemy that swipes you three times while you can only swing at it once in RT is no different than the enemy that has 3 attacks per turn when you only have one in TB.

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.

Again, generalization. The point behind any combat situation is the quick resolve of that situation, which envolves the quick elimination of targets that are hostile to you, and this happens wheter it's in TB or RT. For that, you can use various tactics, though the main aspect is that you should deal with threats in the shortest time as possible. Dishing out a maximum amount of damage in a minimum amount of time is necessary for the same situation in both systems. If you want to stay alive, that is :wink:

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.

Well like i said before, the point isn't making RT become TB, its to make RT more tactical. Nothing prevents an RT system letting you develop tactics as varied as those you'd find in a TB system, except perhaps developer laziness and lack of implementation of better AI.

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.

Yes, and in a combat situation, what is the first thing to come to your mind? Defend yourself. Or attack. Or use some other tactic for a given result, like keeping the enemy busy. You'd have to act according to the situation. Isn't that thinking? In fact, doesn't the very same thing happen in TB, plus the added turns? Yes. Or do you need to think for half an hour to realize that that leather-clad punk with the Jackhammer locked on you is a threat? Don't you try to kill it as fast as possible before his burst mode opens 219 new breathing holes in you? I think so. There isn't a difference in that department, though there's a difference in how ypu execute it.

I wouldn't call this gameplay tactical. And btw, I never said RT games were bad, so let's not go there.

You didn't said they were bad, you implied the system was bad because you couldn't take your sweet time planning your move.

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

I was already expecting this one to drop in. Yes, we are supposed to use a character's skill instead of our own. But then again, its not a perfect world. How many times have you been able to solve a puzzle while controlling a dimwit? How many times have you gathered all the clues and realized what was happening despite the fact your virtual character is utterly clueless? How many times have you had your insight helping you realize something in the game before your character knew? In fact, aren't you handling the strategy and tactics for your characters in TB CRPGs? They aren't using their skills there, are they?

Its true that there has to be a limit at which we are in control of something that should be in control of a character, and vice-versa. But stating that combat in RT isn't viable for a CRPG because combat should be determined by character's skills is weird, because other situations are not dependant of character skills at all and are handled by players.

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.

In TB, that translates to: see monster, look at options, click on one, and watch combat play out. If there's an option that works better than others in most cases, then its see monster - click on option - see combat play out. Oh baby, baby, it's a clicking world.

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.

True, D2 becomes like that at higher levels. But i asked because you confuse needing little to no strategy or tactics at higher levels with not needing them at all, when this doesn't happen.

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.

Yes, the execution was flawed. But you're trying to make it seem that just because something is flawed, then it's beyond hope of ever rising above its so-called inherent problems. The fact remains that while Morrorind's combat is lacking, it also has elements that help it. An example would be that you have a modicum of stats controlling your attributes for combat but you also control combat yourself with your personal skills. And you don't even have to be a twitch gamer to succeed. And - oh noez!!! - it's teh real time. And it manages to combine both aspects. Flawed? Perhaps. But better to criticize those that try and fail (or only get halfway), than those that fail to try. In this case they tried, and while combat isn't overly satisfying, it managed to group those two elements which supposedly cannot be combined. Another loose example would be Deus Ex where you also can use your twitch skills, but also have a measure of stats/skills that govern your combat.

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

According to Bioware, Baldur's Gate doesn't have Initiative and Sequence in the same way as TB does. Is it still TB?

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.

That's a bad comparison. One thing are personal dialogue choices that are always set in stone and that always lead to the same, the other is a combat situation where you have several ways to handle it; as such you should compare with the combat in Bioware games, namely Baldur's Gate. While not exactly what i'd call great, or good (or acceptable ), you have several elements that allow for a better tactical component to battles in them, unlike in LH.

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.

And why not use different skills instead of relying on just two? One of the main aspects of combat tactics is to take advantage of your knwoledge and your abilities. Mixing and combining your abilities for diverse, yet still succesful, combat outcomes, is one of the benefits of tactics. As such you can use them; though i guess using the more overkill abilities is easier, specially because that's the type of game D2 becomes at higher levels.

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

I disliked LH, so i didn't saw a point in continuing with it. I might, at a later time. Then again, i might not

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:

He may be wrong. Rosh and Saint are quite vocal in that aspect, but i'm standing my ground for now, and agree with Exitium, mainly because like him, i can't see the reason behind some people's... i wouldn't call it hipocrisy, but rather, one sided view, of the element of combat needing to be regulated by character stats only, since its we that control most of the rest, not the character.



>Somewhere, Feargus is grinning and saying "Dance, puppets, dance!!!".

 

[Sol Invictus]

Statistics have a tendency to replace proper role-playing with power gaming. This is completely evident in every role-playing game Bioware has ever made and is precisely what epitomizes the whole concept of munchkinism in Pen and Paper play. Statistics exist to make combat in Pen and Paper play possible because it isn't as if PNP offers the same degree of interaction as a computer would.

I think that the transition from PNP to CRPGs in computers doesn't go very well unless you wish to retain the lack of interaction in dice rolling (without the tactical phase). Bioware does precisely that, and you have to ask yourself if you find it in any way enjoyable. In my opinion it does nothing more than detract from the role-playing experience.

Troika's TOEE brought to the computer the 'full' D&D experience, including the tactical phase evident in the PNP game. It's foolish, however, to think that most, or even a quarter of D&D games played on paper have the same experience because they do not. Most DMs don't even bother to draw out a Hex combat chart much less delve into the full tactical experience.

In any case, even if they do, most players tend to screw that up with their munchkin characters and that makes the entire point of tactics rather moot.

My suggestion is to fully utilize the degree of interactivity offered by computers rather than remain gelled to a system designed for a completely different medium. Playing D&D on the PC in real time and without tactics is comparable to making clapping noises on a piano to produce a song.

Don't get me wrong, statistics are indeed EXTREMELY important in turn-based games so it definitely has a place to belong. But converting statistics into a real-time environment can only compromise the player's level of interaction in favor of more automatedness. Morrowind is a good example of this, and suffice to say, it doesn't please me in the least.

One thing to note about turn-based RPGs is the fact that the player is the one who handles the strategy and tactics of the character he's controlling despite what ever 'intelligence' statistic the character may have. This, in fact, means that most, if not all turn-based games are not statistics dependant and it is this level of heightened interaction (compared to statistic-based real time games) which makes them so appealing to us.

When developers switch the game's mode into real-time, they tend to get rid of the strategy/tactics portion of the game without giving the player anything in return to compensate for the loss of grand planning. I think that if they took the time to develop better AI and better environment interactivity, it would certainly bring the tactics back into the game. Another thing which would have to be done would be to give the player more control over his character's reflexes, pathing and movement while in real time and offer a level of interactivity comparable to that of action titles. This wouldn't entirely negate the character's own statistics as dexterity could still be used to determine the swiftness of the attack and strength would still be used to determine how much damage is done.

One thing to note is that dexterity should never, not in any circumstances, be used to determine the 'chance-to-hit' of a character in real time because this would make the entire reflex-based concept pointless to the player and the game would be yet another failure like Morrowind. If properly done, this dexterity could be used to determine an NPC's chance to hit, but certainly not your own. If you score a critical hit to a monster's bodypart (say a giant eyeball) it should be because you aimed correctly, not because a die was rolled to determine that. It just wouldn't translate very well into the player's experience of an immersive world.

Bottom line: Too many die rolls simply would not translate well into an immersive experience in real time combat.

 

[taks]

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.

this is not entirely true... keep in mind that the IE games still had coordinated rounds based on initiative. they were 6 seconds long as in PnP (well, in real TB mode, the amount of time a round takes doesn't mean anything except for how much time passed during combat). this led to a lot of confusion where players were commanding their PCs to perform certain actions and they seemingly "stood there" without following up. as well, the critters could only attack during their alloted time so the above scenario isn't really valid.

the biggest difference is that AI actually needs to be toned down in RT w/ pause simply because the computer will NEVER miss a round whereas your PC is directed by the speed in which you can actually enter commands (sync'd up to the rounds, of course). this of course, unless you decided to do the "pause after each round" thing in which case combat became extremely easy AND, painful to deal with (as bad as PoR2, IMO).

mark

 

[Shadowstrider]

Personally, I'de like to see a game with multiple combat types.
Real time(with a pause. If someone does not want to pause, they do not have too)
Turn-based(pure).
Possibly a semi-turn based version:

Initiative Check.
Input action(s) for turn.
Actions insue, all at once. I.E. all combatants and non-combatants alike initiate their actions at once.
Turn ends.
Intiative check(if you intend to have multiple initiatives in a battle).
Input action(s).
Actions insue.

Rinse, repeat.

With this system, I would see something like the AP system in SPECIAL. The players could use all their actions at once during the input action phase, OR save some(or all), for instantaneous changes, at an increased cost. Like say the original plan was to charge at foe X. While unbeknowst to the player, several foes were going to rush him. He could use any leftover(or perhaps you allot some points for use during the action phase?) to change from rushing, to taking a defensive stance, retreating, or even taking out his ranged weapon and firing(if he had enough AP).

Well, thats just my idea.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Personally, I'de like to see a game with multiple combat types.
Real time(with a pause. If someone does not want to pause, they do not have too)
Turn-based(pure).
Possibly a semi-turn based version:

Initiative Check.
Input action(s) for turn.
Actions insue, all at once. I.E. all combatants and non-combatants alike initiate their actions at once.
Turn ends.
Intiative check(if you intend to have multiple initiatives in a battle).
Input action(s).
Actions insue.

Rinse, repeat.

I think having all actions going off at once removes the aspect of the turn-based simulation of a step-by-step battle, which is usually important to TB systems. We need the individual turn aspect to see if our strategy will work out or not.

 

[Shadowstrider]

Personally, I'de like to see a game with multiple combat types.
Real time(with a pause. If someone does not want to pause, they do not have too)
Turn-based(pure).
Possibly a semi-turn based version:

Initiative Check.
Input action(s) for turn.
Actions insue, all at once. I.E. all combatants and non-combatants alike initiate their actions at once.
Turn ends.
Intiative check(if you intend to have multiple initiatives in a battle).
Input action(s).
Actions insue.

Rinse, repeat.

I think having all actions going off at once removes the aspect of the turn-based simulation of a step-by-step battle, which is usually important to TB systems. We need the individual turn aspect to see if our strategy will work out or not.

Good point. Change semi turn based to semi real time.

 

[Limorkil]

I don't think I am able to fully explain what makes some combat systems good and other ones bad, but I can describe the systems that really stood out as enjoyable in some games that I have played:

1. Back in the days of Sega Genesis there was a CRPG game called Shining Force that for some reason I found amazingly addictive. You controlled a party and the fights tended to involve multiple opponents of different types, typically with one or two more powerful 'boss' enemies. The combat was turn based. Dexterity (or whatever the equivalent was) determined the order in which everyone on the field acted. Speed determined how many squares each combatant could move in a round. The combat was your basic choice of Attack, Defend, Cast Spell, Use Item. Despite the simplicity, I totally loved this system. I liked how you had to think ahead and anticipate when each enemy would move and where they were likely to move to. I particularly liked how some characters (classes) were more able to handle certain types of enemy, so you had to position your forces carefully (which you had a chance to do at the start of each fight). I also loved how some enemies were just plain bastards that you had to either kill quickly (enemy healers) or totally avoid until you could focus several characters on them at once. But the best feature was that when someone attacked someone else, you had this really big depiction of both attacker and defender on the screen, which allowed you to see what your characters and your enemies looked like close up.

2. Jedi Outcast. Not an RPG, but I really liked the light saber combat. I particularly liked how you could use different combat moves and acrobatics with force powers. Of course, this is not something that really works unless you have direct control of the character in real time, so it is no good for a party based RPG.

3. Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers. Also not an RPG, but I did like how experience points were used to buy combat moves which the player could then use in battle. The complexity of some of the moves was a bit too much for me, being more akin to something from a fighting game, but I liked how each combat move was more or less effective depending on the type of opponents and its actions. For those unfamiliar with the game, here is an example: You spend 4000xp to buy a combat move called Saruman's Bane, which is effective against attacking Uruk-hai. In a fight, you can use this move when an uruk attacks you. First you have to press a key to parry the uruk, and the you have to time two more key strokes to deliver a counterstrike and a killing blow (note: this is an example and may not be part of the actual game). Of course, you have a whole set of different moves to use depending on the opponent and the circumstance. Finally, the amount of experience you get for the kill is directly related to how well you execute the combat moves, so you get penalised for mashing the same sword move over and over. The combat moves in LotR-tTT are a bit too complex for a CRPG in that they require you to remember too many key combinations, but I love the concept as a way of solving the boredom that is melee combat in most games.

4. Pirates of the Caribbean. Don't laugh, I actually love this game. Despite many flaws it is a very addictive game and a somewhat open-ended CRPG. I quite like the combat system, although it is simple. You have one key to parry, one to attack and one to dodge (jump backwards). Combat, which is almost totally swordfighting, involves using the parry key until you get an opening and then using an attack. Your character's chances to hit and damage are still controlled by his skills and equipment, but you have to stay focused and develop some player skill to be able to fight effectively. Simple though it is, I find this combat very addictive. I particularly like how the weapons do a lot of damage, so you try to avoid being hit even once. Most CRPGs follow the unrealistic D&D model where higher level characters can take more damage because they have more hit points and better protection; this leads to combat being a slugfest, or a war of attrition. It is refreshing to play a game where one wrong move can mean death, even at high levels, and I think this makes the combat far more tense and enjoyable.

After considering the above games, I can give you a partial answer to what I would prefer to see for a combat system.

In a party-based game I prefer pure turn-based combat with a lot of combat options. I have experienced many games that are part turn-based, part real-time and games that have both options. Generally, I find RT annoying because my party always acts dumb in one way or another and I end up reloading because someone died because they did something unrealistic and stupid, or I accidentally clicked on the wrong action. Games that are RT but with the ability to pause (like Baldur's Gate) are little better because the characters still manage to act dumb once you start the RT clock. Give me pure turn-based any day. Incidentally, if anyone knows a recent CRPG game for PC or Xbox with a fantasy (not sci-fi) setting and good turn-based (only) combat then I would love to hear of it.

In a game where you directly control a single protagonist, I prefer real-time action where both the character and the player need some skill. The combat outcome is primarily driven by the character's skills and abilities, but at the same time the player has to exercise skill to issue the appropriate command at the correct time. I do not like button-mashing or twitch play (not sure if that is the right expression - I mean having to have super sharp reflexes and the ability to remember lots of key combinations). However, I also do not like unrealistic pauses in the combat that allow the player to carefully consider what to do next or to re-arrange inventory, even though that is acceptable in a party-based game. Generally, I think the less "automatic" combat is, the more enjoyable because it forces you to pay attention.

No discussion of combat would be complete without mentioning what happens when you lose the fight. One of my pet hates with almost all games is the ability to save and reload when things do not go exactly as planned. Obviously, a game where you cannot save/load or a game where you can only save/load every so often would be somewhat frustrating, if not unplayable. Personally, I think there should be an alternative to reloading, or at least some penalty to it. Even though I dislike MMORPGs, one thing I do like is the fact that you cannot reload. If your character dies, he/she typically reappears in a safe location and you are penalized in some way, such as by a loss of experience and/or gold/items. Maybe I am a masochist, but I just love that idea, even for a single player game. I like it because it forces you to live with your mistakes and it makes defeat less acceptable, which makes you focus and think more. I wish CRPGs gave you the option to play in 'continuous' mode, where you can only save the game in certain locations and death is handled like in a MMORPG. (I tried to create a mod for Morrowind that did this, but unfortunately it is not as easy as it seems.) An alternative to fixed save locations would be to 'charge' the player a certain amount of experience for each save, with the cost being related to how often you save.

 

[Human Shield]

Real-time could pull off some tactics (although there is a huge interface problem and no one has done something great with real-time, which says something). But real-time can't do much strategy.

In turn-based you enter a room without proper planning and 3 enemies can get intrupts on you and finish you off (a successful ambush).

In real-time as soon as you see the enemy you run out of the room and wait for them to charge you.

In turn-based you have to antipate enemy moves, and be smart about moves that you make.

In real-time you can react as soon as the enemy acts. The enemy makes a good move, doesn't matter just run away. Set up an attack from behind? All you get is one free shot.

Turn based is a better abstraction of a real batte because bad moves actually cost you and good planning makes a bigger differene.

If you want it to be realistic then a few hits will kill something, with turn based a good turn is all you need to kill an enemy with proper placement. In real time the enemy is getting hit and running around fine.

Turn-based is a better simulation of a fast-paced battle, maybe it is hard to explain but it works out.

Turn-based makes decisions matter, as in a real battle one mistake can kill you.
In real-time you can instantly recover from bad actions as soon as you see any negative signs, making the experience less realistic.

Real battle: Step out of cover and one well placed arrow mite kill you.
Turn-based: Step out of cover and the enemy can hit you and few times with arrows which mite kill you
Real-time: Step out of cover, get hit with one arrow (lose 10 hp), run back to cover.

I'm not trying to focus on realism but more on concieved conclusions. You want a good plan in which you hit the enemy with flashbangs and lay down machinegun fire, while knifing their snipers to have an effect. If you fall into a trap it is because you didn't plan enough, instead of taking away all impact of a trap. Maybe this can be done in a real-time system without hitpoints and logical behavior but well done turn-based provides a forgiving, challenging, and proven fun gameplay system.

A real-time system which took these ideas would be less forgiving and more frustrating. First-person-shooters are arcade-like for a reason. Games like Rainbow-six are getting their but still keep arcade-action elements because they would probably get uncontrolable.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Statistics have a tendency to replace proper role-playing with power gaming. This is completely evident in every role-playing game Bioware has ever made and is precisely what epitomizes the whole concept of munchkinism in Pen and Paper play. Statistics exist to make combat in Pen and Paper play possible because it isn't as if PNP offers the same degree of interaction as a computer would.

Dice rolling tends to encourage this. A good, balanced system where you start with a number of character points and go from there doesn't.

Statistics exist to make the character DIFFERENT from you. They exist to model a person who you'll be playing, with options to allow more and more people to play differently from one another as well.

I think that the transition from PNP to CRPGs in computers doesn't go very well unless you wish to retain the lack of interaction in dice rolling (without the tactical phase). Bioware does precisely that, and you have to ask yourself if you find it in any way enjoyable. In my opinion it does nothing more than detract from the role-playing experience.

The problem with BioWare's games is that they're real time with pause. They use a combat scheme taken directly from the RTS genre, and as such, there's a layer of abstraction from the player with his characters. You basically use the interface to tell your meat puppet what to do if they need to be told something, otherwise you just sit back and watch because they're automated. The same thing happens in an RTS. You queue up a few orders and otherwise watch or do something else like worry about building your base. That's why BioWare's combat is uninteresting.

Troika's TOEE brought to the computer the 'full' D&D experience, including the tactical phase evident in the PNP game. It's foolish, however, to think that most, or even a quarter of D&D games played on paper have the same experience because they do not. Most DMs don't even bother to draw out a Hex combat chart much less delve into the full tactical experience.

Hex combat chart? D&D?

Don't get me wrong, statistics are indeed EXTREMELY important in turn-based games so it definitely has a place to belong. But converting statistics into a real-time environment can only compromise the player's level of interaction in favor of more automatedness. Morrowind is a good example of this, and suffice to say, it doesn't please me in the least.

... DOOM: THE PERFECT CRPG! NO STATS!

Bottom line: Too many die rolls simply would not translate well into an immersive experience in real time combat.

No dice rolls at all translate in to it not being a CRPG period.

 

[Anonymous]

Heh, I never played with Dms that didnt use battle-grids or I made one and showed them how they are used (if they are new or something).

3.5 is pretty heavy on using grids and minitures (but I use dice since i'm too poor to buy the figures), so I think DMs that dont use them with 3.5 D&D are pretty damn stupid.

 

[triCritical]

One thing to note is that dexterity should never, not in any circumstances, be used to determine the 'chance-to-hit' of a character in real time because this would make the entire reflex-based concept pointless to the player and the game would be yet another failure like Morrowind. If properly done, this dexterity could be used to determine an NPC's chance to hit, but certainly not your own. If you score a critical hit to a monster's bodypart (say a giant eyeball) it should be because you aimed correctly, not because a die was rolled to determine that. It just wouldn't translate very well into the player's experience of an immersive world.

Bottom line: Too many die rolls simply would not translate well into an immersive experience in real time combat.

I think talking about a particular interface would strengthen your case. For instance, if the game at hand was a First Person Shooter, such as Deus Ex, then I would agree with you. However, I have to disagree with you on a theoretical perfectly designed Morrowind combat system. For one thing an interface can be designed in such a way that the mouse pointer becomes an abstraction for what you are trying to do. In this case aiming in the context you are referring to becomes irrelevant. The reason is because there is no aim just a command, which causes you to hit the target in question.

If I designed Morrowind this is what I would have done, I would have created an interface in such a way that targets a particular character and executes an attach with a left click. However, there would be no pointer just a large circular targeting cursor that allows for you to easily choose which target you want to commit an action on. Now left clicking is not good enough, in my system you would be allowed to choose a particular key, or specific type of action, which determined what kind of attack you were doing, such as a critical, or slash.

The point is that there is NO aim for the player. Just a command for character to attack and an interface to choose the attacker. Furthermore, unlike that piece of shit infinity engine that Feargus loves so much, the player could choose a specific kind of attack that would give more control to the player. More control then any IE game, or Morrowind gave. Bottomline, no aiming, just roleplaying how your character should act in combat.

Its kind of funny since I work with a team of four making a software application that is pretty damn easy to use for a few people, software wise, but game programmers makes some of the most cumbersome interfaces known to man for their customers.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Turn-based is a better simulation of a fast-paced battle, maybe it is hard to explain but it works out.

I think it works better in showing the player how the battle goes, in a step by step fashion. But RT is definetely superior in simulating fast-paced combat. The fact its real time is actually what makes it better in that simulation.

Turn-based makes decisions matter, as in a real battle one mistake can kill you.

I'm afraid i might be a little dense, but the above just doesn't make sense. Your decisions are equally valid in either a TB or RT combat system. One mistake in TB can kill you also, despite the fact you have plenty o'time to plan out your action.

In real-time you can instantly recover from bad actions as soon as you see any negative signs, making the experience less realistic.

What would you call "negative signs"? Are you refering to danger signs, such as being able to understand when you are about to be hit, or nearly killed? If that is what you are refering to it's actually more realistic to realize you're about to suffer an attack (and act accordingly) than it is to wait for 20 other people to play out their turns and realize you're in danger after having suffered an attack, or even being killed.

... DOOM: THE PERFECT CRPG! NO STATS!

*clears throat*

I am not supporting an abandonment of stats (and apparently Exitium is not doing it either). Implying Doom fits what i or Exitium are trying to say seems a bit dismissive as well, given its quite different than what we're aiming at. What i am saying however, is that i think it's perhaps too narrow minded to dismiss any attempt at mixing both character statistics with a player's personal skill, when puzzle-solving, for instance, is solved because of our own personal skill of reasoning, not of the character's skill. You do make a good point, quote:

Statistics exist to make the character DIFFERENT from you. They exist to model a person who you'll be playing, with options to allow more and more people to play differently from one another as well.

But statistics only work in making a character different from us to a certain point. The afformentioned puzzle-solving is one example where no matter how different a character is from another, statistical-wise, he'll always be guided by our intelligence, and rarely, if ever, by theirs; another example is, regardless of statistics, the characters will always be dependant of our reasoning and planning for combat. Like i said before, i may be dense, but i can't, for the life of me, understand the tolerance towards having a character being supported by our intelligence (and not theirs), and the rejection of the concept of a character being played by our reflexes (and not theirs). True, there has to be a middle ground that supports player interaction; otherwise we'd just roll a character's stats and he'd play it himself. We have to be given control in some aspects so as to decide how the character will be played out. The question is, if i can play on behalf of my character in some cognitive aspects, and in battle situations where their planning doesn't even exist (instead being left to us), why not be able to control their actions in combat itself? How is that rejected as a concept? Understand that, again, i am not talking of a situation which presents a total abandonment of character skills; but rather, a combination of both character stats and player skill. Why is it viable to equip, aim, and use Burst Mode with a Pancor Jackhammer automatically in TB and not in RT [EDIT]if it's still skill-based in both[/EDIT] ?

Bottomline, no aiming, just roleplaying how your character should act in combat.

While in understand, and approve, of that concept of deciding how to attack, there has to be aiming regardless. What if you want to target bodyparts? Soldier of Fortune allowed to shoot enemy weapons off their hands, and the GHOUL system made it so every body part is targetable (even someone's balls, i once saved a picture of it :twisted: ).

[EDIT] Not to tri's answer, but to the overall point i tried to made. One other reason i can't understand why the rejection of a system which involved both concepts - character skills and player skill - is that in combat, this work much better than the usual statistical handling. My point is that, in a combat environment which used both types of skills, there would be a skill dependance on both parts. An example would be Deus Ex. You could fire weapons, but their accuracy was dependant of the skill points invested into it, but it wasn't necessary to invest in them, as weapon usage was still possible. Same with Morrowind: you are dependant of your skill to use a weapon, but the skill in the background is determining part of its success as well. There is a synergy of sorts.

Meanwhile the same doesn't happen between things like character intelligence and player intelligence. A character's possibility to solve a puzzle, or to understand what surrounds him is rarely at stake, and is replaced instead by personal skill. In fact, there isn't even any type of synergy between them.

 

[triCritical]

But statistics only work in making a character different from us to a certain point. The afformentioned puzzle-solving is one example where no matter how different a character is from another, statistical-wise, he'll always be guided by our intelligence, and rarely, if ever, by theirs; another example is, regardless of statistics, the characters will always be dependant of our reasoning and planning for combat.

Let us not fault the system for something that is the fault of the developer. There should be no stupid puzzles that rely on our intelligence in a CRPG! That is the fault of the CRPG creator. Now if it is a homebrew game where you are playing a game, and you need to do some qualitative investigation to figure something out thats fine. But any DM or developer that isn't a flaming moron would probably give hints based on intelligence. Such as you realized that green coating is indicative of this particular redOx reaction using X chemical.

And I have never liked the argument of the combatent having our reasoning before going into battle. The character has our reasoning for going into anything, after all we are playing that character. However, if you would so desire, you can make more battle stats such as courage, and morale that can affect how your character acts in battle. You can have other stats that influence tactics. War games are nothing new to people, just check out RAND. Anyhow, I don't see how modern CRPG systems violate this law of tactics don't equal players stats. I have yet to see how players stats are violated in a good CRPG system and battle?

Like i said before, i may be dense, but i can't, for the life of me, understand the tolerance towards having a character being supported by our intelligence (and not theirs), and the rejection of the concept of a character being played by our reflexes (and not theirs).

It all depends on what intelligence governs. If intelligence governs things like quantitative reasoning in a pseudo universe, then it should have nothing to do with you CRPG decision making. Decisions based off little information are neither smart or dumb, one can make bad decisions, but that doesn't make one stupid. On the same note some people can make good decisions that does not mean they are smart. You can have good tactical skills, and be good in combat, that does not make you smart or dumb. Intelligence is there to measure a very specific thing, not the decisions and the specific actions your character tries to do.

True, there has to be a middle ground that supports player interaction; otherwise we'd just roll a character's stats and he'd play it himself.

This is what the NPC's do. However, how often is an NPC's decisions ever based on intelligence?

We have to be given control in some aspects so as to decide how the character will be played out. The question is, if i can play on behalf of my character in some cognitive aspects, and in battle situations where their planning doesn't even exist (instead being left to us), why not be able to control their actions in combat itself?

Who says you should not control the character in combat? How does having stats for everything not give you supreme control of your character? Stats don't measure intent or thought, they measure ability and chance of success. Obviously if you don't know how to trip you will not be able to do it, likewise if you are not very good at it you won't succeed very often. The point is that a computer interface is very limited and awkward. The point behind stats is to give different characters different potentials, and allow them to explore it with a simple mechanism.

I guess the hypocrasy you are trying to point out is lost on me because I don't think that there is a dichotomy between cognitive skills and combat related skills. I think Fallout showed this. No matter how smart you really are, you will not be able to repair that power armor without having the necessary skill in repair. Furthermore, a lot of people argue that in battle you know to do things that a dumb character would not know. I think this is a BS, and say what people do in battle falls under common sense. And common sense by definition is a characteristic that is common to all, dumb and smart.

Understand that, again, i am not talking of a situation which presents a total abandonment of character skills; but rather, a combination of both character stats and player skill. Why is it viable to equip, aim, and use Burst Mode with a Pancor Jackhammer automatically in TB and not in RT [EDIT]if it's still skill-based in both[/EDIT] ?

Because RT is a flawed interface for simulating tactical combat. It should be noted that I am of the opinion that one can map time into an action-point/interrupt/initiative manifold that can more accurately reflect tactical combat.

 

[triCritical]

While in understand, and approve, of that concept of deciding how to attack, there has to be aiming regardless. What if you want to target bodyparts? Soldier of Fortune allowed to shoot enemy weapons off their hands, and the GHOUL system made it so every body part is targetable (even someone's balls, i once saved a picture of it ).

For the record, you can target body parts in my system. For instance, holding down the number one and then left clicking would target the head. Perhaps, putting caps lock on, holding down 1 would slash at head. Holding down the 3 and left clicking would target the arms. Now if you include strafing, which is based on your characters dexterity, such as speed and potential implicity dodges these controls might get cumbersome. However, I still can invision a system in which you initiate targeting and every left click from that point on targets that body part until turned off or switched.

BTW, I wasn't knocking your system.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Taking advantage of taking cover behind a wall, leaving it, open fire on enemies, than taking cover again is a standard example of actions which are handled differently; though in this case, they can be handled the same way in RT, with player reflexes and quick thinking as the main difference.

I think that player reflexes belong in FPS, not RPG, imo. As for quick thinking, it 's an antonym of "planning" which is basically what tactics is all about.

I'm aware that RT is dependant of a player's physical skill. But you should remember that while it's true that your oponent is free to hit you in RT this also happens in TB, the difference being he does it in his own turn. An enemy that swipes you three times while you can only swing at it once in RT is no different than the enemy that has 3 attacks per turn when you only have one in TB.

In TB 3 attacks per turn is a result of character skills and abilities. In RT 3 attacks per one of yours more often then not mean that you misclicked, or clicked one sec later then your opponent (the Butcher example) thus loosing your attack.

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.

Again, generalization. The point behind any combat situation is the quick resolve of that situation, which envolves the quick elimination of targets that are hostile to you, and this happens wheter it's in TB or RT.

Did you manage to miss finesse vs fast shot example and the point it made completely?

Well like i said before, the point isn't making RT become TB, its to make RT more tactical. Nothing prevents an RT system letting you develop tactics as varied as those you'd find in a TB system, except perhaps developer laziness and lack of implementation of better AI.

The nature of RT which is fast action, "quick thinking", trigger happy gameplay is what prevents RT system from becoming more tactical. Once again, stop and think for a second, think about every RT game you've ever played, think about games like XCom, UFO: Aftermath and FOT that shifted from TB to RT gameplay. Complete lack of tactics is obvious despite any efforts to achieve it.

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.

Yes, and in a combat situation, what is the first thing to come to your mind? Defend yourself. Or attack....You'd have to act according to the situation. Isn't that thinking? In fact, doesn't the very same thing happen in TB, plus the added turns? Yes. Or do you need to think for half an hour to realize that that leather-clad punk with the Jackhammer locked on you is a threat?

I don't need time to figure out who's a thread, but I need time to figure out how to deal with it. Example, in ToEE, you enter the guard tower and suddenly a number of guards, crossbowmen, and spellcasters attack you. If it were in RT you;d be dead within 10 sec, especially if you are lvl 3-4, TB lets you to use tactical approach and win despite the odds. Like I said in another thread, this battle on low level is a trubute to TB combat.

You didn't said they were bad, you implied the system was bad because you couldn't take your sweet time planning your move.

I implied that the system was unsuitable for tactical approaches because "I couldn't take your sweet time planning my move", it doesn't mean it's bad.

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

I was already expecting this one to drop in. Yes, we are supposed to use a character's skill instead of our own. But then again, its not a perfect world. How many times have you been able to solve a puzzle while controlling a dimwit? How many times have you gathered all the clues and realized what was happening despite the fact your virtual character is utterly clueless? How many times have you had your insight helping you realize something in the game before your character knew? In fact, aren't you handling the strategy and tactics for your characters in TB CRPGs? They aren't using their skills there, are they?

You know, since you were expecting this one to drop in, you really should have come up with better arguments :wink: There are plenty of games that wouldn't allow a dumbass to figure out as much as a smart character can. As for the tactical thinking in battles, I already posted in this thread some quotes and a link to a good discussion.

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.

Yes, the execution was flawed. But you're trying to make it seem that just because something is flawed, then it's beyond hope of ever rising above its so-called inherent problems.

I'm pointing at the reasons of it being flawed. If the reasons are consistent and couldn't be changed without changing the nature and the purpose of RT combat, then it's beyond hope. Simple as that.

The fact remains that while Morrorind's combat is lacking, it also has elements that help it. An example would be that you have a modicum of stats controlling your attributes for combat but you also control combat yourself with your personal skills. And you don't even have to be a twitch gamer to succeed. And - oh noez!!! - it's teh real time.

MW combat sucked ass. We can look at the areas where it sucked less or not as much, but what would be the point? It's like looking at the perpetuum mobile and saying hey look this thingy almost worked.

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

According to Bioware, Baldur's Gate doesn't have Initiative and Sequence in the same way as TB does. Is it still TB?

What are you talking about? The nature of TB combat are turns, not initiative, not sequence, not anything else. If I have to explain THAT to you ... :shock:

And why not use different skills instead of relying on just two?

I'm sure you know the answer to that one, but just in case: you have to rely on 2-3 skills, because you have to specialize in 2-3 skills in order to have a chance on higher levels.

 

[Human Shield]

Turn-based is a better simulation of a fast-paced battle, maybe it is hard to explain but it works out.

I think it works better in showing the player how the battle goes, in a step by step fashion. But RT is definetely superior in simulating fast-paced combat. The fact its real time is actually what makes it better in that simulation.

Only if you are talking about games like rainbow six, which even they keep arcade elements because no one has made a completely realistic game that was still playable.

Turn based simulates (abstractly) a fast-paced battle because things can change rapidly (one turn). In real-time, it is which bar drops first while they are falling at a constant rate.

Turn-based makes decisions matter, as in a real battle one mistake can kill you.

I'm afraid i might be a little dense, but the above just doesn't make sense. Your decisions are equally valid in either a TB or RT combat system. One mistake in TB can kill you also, despite the fact you have plenty o'time to plan out your action.

Except if there is a lame instant-death jumping puzzle in a real-time game, RT combat happens with less consequences. You should have followed my example:

Real battle: Step out of cover and one well placed arrow mite kill you.
Turn-based: Step out of cover and the enemy can hit you and few times with arrows which mite kill you
Real-time: Step out of cover, get hit with one arrow (lose 10 hp), run back to cover.

Unless you have a one-hit-kill system (which is less forgiving), any traps or mistakes can be corrected quickly.

In real-time you can instantly recover from bad actions as soon as you see any negative signs, making the experience less realistic.

What would you call "negative signs"? Are you refering to danger signs, such as being able to understand when you are about to be hit, or nearly killed? If that is what you are refering to it's actually more realistic to realize you're about to suffer an attack (and act accordingly) than it is to wait for 20 other people to play out their turns and realize you're in danger after having suffered an attack, or even being killed.

In turn-based you enter a room without proper planning and 3 enemies can get intrupts on you and finish you off (a successful ambush).
In real-time as soon as you see the enemy fire one shot you run out of the room.

Now three enemies shooting on at once usually kills you, realistically.

Turn-based is an abstraction of real combat (the 5 arrows could represent one). Real-time is arcade action (get hit with 10 arrows while running around).

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

*wipes brow*

Let us not fault the system for something that is the fault of the developer. There should be no stupid puzzles that rely on our intelligence in a CRPG! That is the fault of the CRPG creator. Now if it is a homebrew game where you are playing a game, and you need to do some qualitative investigation to figure something out thats fine. But any DM or developer that isn't a flaming moron would probably give hints based on intelligence. Such as you realized that green coating is indicative of this particular redOx reaction using X chemical.

Well the point remains that most of what i've seen regarding puzzle solving requires only our input. Character-specific stats like Intelligence or Wisdom don't come into play regarding their handling. As far as i can remember, even most of the times, the hints you mention are usually useful to figure something out; yet, there isn't exactly an indication of awareness from our character. Usually, what you do get is a "Journal Updated" commented, or even a "Yay, so this was how it worked!" comment based on what you did. Flicking a switch isn't that hard to do; understanding what it does, or why do we need to flick it, is a different matter.

And I have never liked the argument of the combatent having our reasoning before going into battle. The character has our reasoning for going into anything, after all we are playing that character.

Well, do you think someone who said "Elder say me have brain-of-child. Me have two brains. Me smart." would actually be able to plan some form of tactical maneuver? Sure he can understand the concept of a threat, of an enemy who wants to harm him; but tactics? It is true that a character has our reasoning when he goes into anything; i just feel it shouldn't be our reasoning handling it all instead of a character, otherwise any stat that might come into play in these kinds of situations is rendered almost useless. For instance do you think a character such as the one above would manage to pass trough, let alone understand the electrified floor puzzle in FO2 (fuck, would he even reach the Enclave, specially with Hanukkin's speech :shock? Would he, say, understand the concept of barricating somewhere and relying on ranged weapon support, or use smoke grenades to create a diversion; or even understanding the concept of using an aimed shot to cause a critical hit?

However, if you would so desire, you can make more battle stats such as courage, and morale that can affect how your character acts in battle. You can have other stats that influence tactics. War games are nothing new to people, just check out RAND. Anyhow, I don't see how modern CRPG systems violate this law of tactics don't equal players stats. I have yet to see how players stats are violated in a good CRPG system and battle?

The implementation of those stats isn't a bad idea; however i can't help but feel its another layer of abstraction which removes more control from my character. Suppose a character fails twenty times in a row in a combat situation, and his Morale plummets, making him suck even more at combat. What if i, via controlling his actions in combat, did not fail that much (if anything at all), and actually managed to raise his Morale due to my actions helping out his combat success probabilities?

Who says you should not control the character in combat?

Where did i say this? We already control them; i was talking of controlling all their actions, not just plan them and hope they strike success.

How does having stats for everything not give you supreme control of your character? Stats don't measure intent or thought, they measure ability and chance of success. Obviously if you don't know how to trip you will not be able to do it, likewise if you are not very good at it you won't succeed very often. The point is that a computer interface is very limited and awkward. The point behind stats is to give different characters different potentials, and allow them to explore it with a simple mechanism.

I understand and agree with the concept of stats measuring ability and chance of success; however my point is that basically stats shouldn't be the only thing dictating combat success. Lets say someone has a high IQ, is exceptionally strong, or has great insight into everything. Those values measure ability and chance of success, but not the drive behind them. You pointed out that people can be not overly smart yet make good decisions, and be very smart yet make bad calls on certain situations; as such this can also represent characters which are statistically-driven. Though, those factors - those of stats being mere indicators of ability and success - can also exist regardless of wheter there is a CPU or a player controlling the character. True, in a combat situation, statistics determine possible outcomes and higher chances of success. Now the point is, you have two systems. One is based on stat-based characters who are dependant of a player's planning skill, and the stat-based characters are prone to succeeding or failing due of their stats and our planning. The other is also based on stat-based characters, but these are dependant of a player's reflexive skill, and the stat-based characters are prone to succeeding or failing due of their stats and our actions guiding them. In one, success is achieved by both character stats and player planning; in the other, success is achieved by both character stats and active player input. Aren't they both viable? At their core, your action over the system is what propells the characters to win, with their statistics supporting them.

I guess the hypocrasy you are trying to point out is lost on me because I don't think that there is a dichotomy between cognitive skills and combat related skills. I think Fallout showed this. No matter how smart you really are, you will not be able to repair that power armor without having the necessary skill in repair. Furthermore, a lot of people argue that in battle you know to do things that a dumb character would not know. I think this is a BS, and say what people do in battle falls under common sense. And common sense by definition is a characteristic that is common to all, dumb and smart.

My point is that usually, cognitive-related skills (more precisely, intuition abilites for things like puzzle-solving) aren't dependant of character stats that could influence that aspect. That's not to say they can't work like that, but they often don't. And people don't put many objections to that. However they put objections to the example i gave of having both a character's skills and a player's skills help in combat. My point is that combat played out by a conjunction of player and character skill presents a concept of synergy which usually you can't find in the cognitive aspects.

Because RT is a flawed interface for simulating tactical combat. It should be noted that I am of the opinion that one can map time into an action-point/interrupt/initiative manifold that can more accurately reflect tactical combat.

Its true that RT isn't the best way to flesh out tactical combat; but the truth remains that in the example i gave the outcome would still be the same. In TB you'd equip the weapon, aim it at an opponent, and dictate that the character should fire; in RT, you'd equip the weapon, aim it at an opponent, and dictate that the character should fire as well. Tactically i'm sure you could have more options in this situation, but in this example the more proeminent differences would be the absence of turns, and the fact that you aimed and fired yourself. Stats could still help both cases.

For the record, you can target body parts in my system. For instance, holding down the number one and then left clicking would target the head. Perhaps, putting caps lock on, holding down 1 would slash at head. Holding down the 3 and left clicking would target the arms. Now if you include strafing, which is based on your characters dexterity, such as speed and potential implicity dodges these controls might get cumbersome. However, I still can invision a system in which you initiate targeting and every left click from that point on targets that body part until turned off or switched.

True, true. However, are we talking of 2D or 3D? 3D has some benefits over 2D in regards to implementing this kind of control. I'll pimp out Morrowind again, where dodging some spells and ammo-based weapons like bows was possible because you could strafe, and also had the possibility of increasing Speed to move faster, thus increasins strafe speed.

BTW, I wasn't knocking your system.

Good to know that! :wink:

I think that player reflexes belong in FPS, not RPG, imo. As for quick thinking, it 's an antonym of "planning" which is basically what tactics is all about.

Tactics, aside being about disposing and maneuvering forces in combat, are also about employing available means to accomplish an end. Notice how in RT you also employ available means to accomplish an end, like you do in TB.

In TB 3 attacks per turn is a result of character skills and abilities. In RT 3 attacks per one of yours more often then not mean that you misclicked, or clicked one sec later then your opponent (the Butcher example) thus loosing your attack.

Yes i am aware that that kind of situation is quite likely to happen. Though my point still remains that having a character lose his attack because the player did not clicked on time is as possible for combat as it is having a character succeed in combat due to a player's planning and hoping it goes for the best.

Did you manage to miss finesse vs fast shot example and the point it made completely?

Nope. Did you miss the point that your generalization of RT applies to the main aspect of dealing with hostiles in both systems? :D

The nature of RT which is fast action, "quick thinking", trigger happy gameplay is what prevents RT system from becoming more tactical. Once again, stop and think for a second, think about every RT game you've ever played, think about games like XCom, UFO: Aftermath and FOT that shifted from TB to RT gameplay. Complete lack of tactics is obvious despite any efforts to achieve it.

Yes its true RT CRPGs haven't shown a great deal of tactics in their engines, though some RTS games have. And it's possible to include elements of those types of games in RT CRPGs.

I don't need time to figure out who's a thread, but I need time to figure out how to deal with it. Example, in ToEE, you enter the guard tower and suddenly a number of guards, crossbowmen, and spellcasters attack you. If it were in RT you;d be dead within 10 sec, especially if you are lvl 3-4, TB lets you to use tactical approach and win despite the odds. Like I said in another thread, this battle on low level is a trubute to TB combat.

If you were playing in TB, were level 3 or 4, and had 10 enemies to contend with, you'd be dead the same despite the combat system. Consider that situation in a TB environment, and consider... something familiar. Consider your are level 3 or 4 in Fallout, and just entered an area with 10 enemies. Describe to me the proceedure by which you could win that battle in TB but would not win it in RT. Feel free to go to great lenghts in describing the surroundings if you want to, for something like taking cover to engage in combat. Don't forget, however, that you will have 1 turn against 10 targets, while the CPU will have 10 turns against you.

You know, since you were expecting this one to drop in, you really should have come up with better arguments :wink: There are plenty of games that wouldn't allow a dumbass to figure out as much as a smart character can.

Give me examples. There's a difference between being given information, and being able to use it. An example would be failure to operate machinery because your character is a dimwit, despite he's been clued on its operation.

I'm pointing at the reasons of it being flawed. If the reasons are consistent and couldn't be changed without changing the nature and the purpose of RT combat, then it's beyond hope. Simple as that.

The nature and purpose of RT combat is to deal with combat in a faster way, not necessarily a less accurate or tactical way.

MW combat sucked ass. We can look at the areas where it sucked less or not as much, but what would be the point? It's like looking at the perpetuum mobile and saying hey look this thingy almost worked.

Very true. By that logic, however, you can't commend ToEE's vignettes. I mean, they almost worked, but since they didn't fully worked, there's no point in pointing out where they suceeded because they were obviously bigger failures than successes.

What are you talking about? The nature of TB combat are turns, not initiative, not sequence, not anything else. If I have to explain THAT to you ... :shock:

The nature of turn-based combat is initiative, sequence and turns. Removing the primary reasons as to why there are turns invalidates the whole purpose of taking turns, and makes the system become simplistic. Initiative and sequence justify turns themselves.

I'm sure you know the answer to that one, but just in case: you have to rely on 2-3 skills, because you have to specialize in 2-3 skills in order to have a chance on higher levels.

That wasn't the question. The question was why use the same when you could use other elements to survive in combat.

Turn based simulates (abstractly) a fast-paced battle because things can change rapidly (one turn). In real-time, it is which bar drops first while they are falling at a constant rate.

Well that is the whole purpose of fast-paced. Would Max Payne be fast paced if you could play out the combat in accurate turn-based? Or would it be less fast-paced, but more strategic?

Except if there is a lame instant-death jumping puzzle in a real-time game, RT combat happens with less consequences. You should have followed my example:

Real battle: Step out of cover and one well placed arrow mite kill you.
Turn-based: Step out of cover and the enemy can hit you and few times with arrows which mite kill you
Real-time: Step out of cover, get hit with one arrow (lose 10 hp), run back to cover.

Unless you have a one-hit-kill system (which is less forgiving), any traps or mistakes can be corrected quickly.

First i think it would be fairer to use the same combat situation for all systems. Why would you might be able to be hit with several arrows in TB and only one in RT? After all, RT eliminates turns, so all those turns in TB where you have several enemies firing one arrow at you at a time would translate to the same effect in RT (being hit or targetted by multiple arrows).

Second, i understand you concept of it (RT) supposedly allowing for a quicker correction of mistakes. But does it really? In the case i pointed out above, lets suppose you step out of a corner in a real battle. You're seen by twenty different enemies, and they react to you by firing a string of arrows against you. Therefore, you step out of your hiding place and are targetted by 20 arrows. In TB, you'd walk out of the hiding place and would be targetted by the same 20 arrows. In RT, you'd also be targetted by 20 arrows.

Though, why is RT more forgiving? Because you can return quicker to the hiding place? How does that invalidate the fact that 20 arrows have been fired at you? The ability to hide again in a real time situation would be dealt with in TB by the use of sequence and initiative. You would have the same chance to return to your hiding place in both systems. In TB this would mean that during a round, you could, if possessing higher initiative, to return quicker to the hiding place and could avoid having enemies with lower initiative values fire arrows at you in the first place. In RT however, you're subject to having them all fired at you, and your chance of escaping is actually dependant on what you do. Quite frankly, in this scenario, TB seems more forgiving than RT.

The trick here is trying to balance out a given event, or set of events, so that their outcome is the same in both systems.

In turn-based you enter a room without proper planning and 3 enemies can get intrupts on you and finish you off (a successful ambush).
In real-time as soon as you see the enemy fire one shot you run out of the room.

Now three enemies shooting on at once usually kills you, realistically.

Wouldn't the same happen in TB? Consider similar damage outputs and damage resistances for both systems. 3 enemies firing at you in TB, no matter how much of an abstraction the system is, would kill you just the same had it been going on in RT.

Turn-based is an abstraction of real combat (the 5 arrows could represent one). Real-time is arcade action (get hit with 10 arrows while running around).

Is it that much of an abstraction? What are you comparing it with? If i'm pumped full of lead in TB am i supposed to believe that, it being an abstraction, the 5 point blank shots i got were meant to be 1? This in my opinion is highly dependant of the system. Real time is as much of an abstraction in damage thresholds as TB. Why would 5 arrows in TB be considered one while in RT five (or ten, as per your example) would be 10 regardless?

*calmly waits for people to bring this all down in under three minutes without breaking a sweat*

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

*calmly waits for people to bring this all down in under three minutes without breaking a sweat*

TB rules!

RT drools!

There. And in less than three minutes, I might add. :D

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

*calmly waits for people to bring this all down in under three minutes without breaking a sweat*

TB rules!

RT drools!

There. And in less than three minutes, I might add. :D

Oh noez, i have been teh pwnzed!!! :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

*calmly waits for people to bring this all down in under three minutes without breaking a sweat*

TB rules!

RT drools!

There. And in less than three minutes, I might add. :D

Shit, I was scrolling down and I was thinking 'Post TB roolz, RT droolz'

YOU HAVE FOILED ME.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Just seemed appropriate.

But seriously, RT does have it's advantages, but I will never feel it is better than TB for the sheer fact that you just cannot recreate the realism of real life combat with RT games, and I could care less what anyone says about this. Like VD mentioned with the ToEE example, RT you'd be dead, but with TB you at least have a chance to deploy tactics and possibly come out on top with even low level characters. Okay, so it's an ambush situation. That's what initiative is there for. Give the bad guys first shot at kicking your ass. But, maybe you have a character in your party who's skills allowed them to spot the ambush just as it was happening and therefore would allow them to react before the shit hit the fan. In an RT situation, that's really all dependent on the reaction skills of the player and NOT the character. Screw that. I'm not playing ME, I'm playing the character I created. Simple as that.

 

[triCritical]

Well the point remains that most of what i've seen regarding puzzle solving requires only our input. Character-specific stats like Intelligence or Wisdom don't come into play regarding their handling. As far as i can remember, even most of the times, the hints you mention are usually useful to figure something out; yet, there isn't exactly an indication of awareness from our character. Usually, what you do get is a "Journal Updated" commented, or even a "Yay, so this was how it worked!" comment based on what you did. Flicking a switch isn't that hard to do; understanding what it does, or why do we need to flick it, is a different matter.

Again this to me sounds like bad design. Why should puzzles be in CRPG's anyway? I think the best puzzle I found in a CRPG was the shields in the military base in Fallout 1. The reason is because they were somewhat plausable and that if you were smart enough you could use a radio phone as a remote control for the shields. If you weren't... well then you had to lose some hitpoints. This is how puzzles should be, smart characters should be allowed to figure out things that the dumb ones can't, and it should be totally irrelevant to what the player knows.

Well, do you think someone who said "Elder say me have brain-of-child. Me have two brains. Me smart." would actually be able to plan some form of tactical maneuver? Sure he can understand the concept of a threat, of an enemy who wants to harm him; but tactics? It is true that a character has our reasoning when he goes into anything; i just feel it shouldn't be our reasoning handling it all instead of a character, otherwise any stat that might come into play in these kinds of situations is rendered almost useless. For instance do you think a character such as the one above would manage to pass trough, let alone understand the electrified floor puzzle in FO2 (fuck, would he even reach the Enclave, specially with Hanukkin's speech )? Would he, say, understand the concept of barricating somewhere and relying on ranged weapon support, or use smoke grenades to create a diversion; or even understanding the concept of using an aimed shot to cause a critical hit?

Well it depends on what level of tactics. Lions in the African wilderness use surprise tactics on gazelles, and likewise gazelles use tactics defense tactics against lions. Anyhow a good system should somehow reward you tactically for being smarter, and good systems do, like SPECIAL. Let say you are Gromnir the big ugly half-orc in SPECIAL, and you aren't very smart and you concentrate in unarmed. Well then with each level you progress you will get less points put into your respective skills like unarmed. You may never learn how to do the most l33t unarmed attacks like haymaker and drop kick.

As for other tactics, I think it is obvious from historical combat and animals, that some tactics are innate or instinct. Obviously, seeing a lion go for the throat kind of give you the idea that the lion knows that it is a very sensitive part of the animal.

The rest of the tactics you refer to are what I call advanced tactics. And games, which use advanced tactics such as supressive fire and cover are often times squad based games. And in those games its easy enough to say that they were either trained or they have a mission leader that knows about advanced combat tactics. For instance, take FOT, I could have a party of 6 dumb asses, but they all went through basic training by the IPLY's best the BoS! (sarcasm) Suffice it to say that tactics and intelligence, as it is often described in CRPG, are indeed mutually exclusive.

The implementation of those stats isn't a bad idea; however i can't help but feel its another layer of abstraction which removes more control from my character. Suppose a character fails twenty times in a row in a combat situation, and his Morale plummets, making him suck even more at combat. What if i, via controlling his actions in combat, did not fail that much (if anything at all), and actually managed to raise his Morale due to my actions helping out his combat success probabilities?

If implemented correctly you would lose no control. I don't think morale should keep someone from committing suicide in a fight they can't win. I don't know how much use a morale score would be for a character you control, since I think morale would kind of go hand in hand with the thoughts of the players, intelligence aside. But I agree, I did not like it when BG force my characters to run like scared chickens when they got close to dying. Morale is a stat that is better used with AI.

Where did i say this? We already control them; i was talking of controlling all their actions, not just plan them and hope they strike success.

And a good non-action CRPG can do this. I can tell a character to move to a place exactly, I can tell them to punch there opponent in the face and then run. As a matter a fact I would say a game like Fallout and JA2has more control over the character then an action game like Halfl Life. Its just that the interface in which we issue orders is different. Now I am not going to sit here and say that the PoS IE gave you much control because it didn't, but a good CRPG non-RT system usually gives you unprecedented control.

So where is the major difference? Well its whether or not you succeed. In action games you succeed based on your skills and CRPG's it based on your character's skills. Rarely is it your brain that determines the outcome of the battle in a CRPG. Hence, why I don't call BG2 a good CRPG. Instead it is you characters stats, hence if you roleplay a character properly it should not be that hard completing a CRPG. Kind of like Fallout! I guess I like Fallout. But still you can create an interface and a TB system completely unaction-like that gives you far more control then the latest action game. Hell one of my biggest complaints about action games is that they give you very little control, and the only added control you get in FPS's is aiming. Given how much more actually goes into combat it seems like a bad compromise.

Now the point is, you have two systems. One is based on stat-based characters who are dependant of a player's planning skill, and the stat-based characters are prone to succeeding or failing due of their stats and our planning. The other is also based on stat-based characters, but these are dependant of a player's reflexive skill, and the stat-based characters are prone to succeeding or failing due of their stats and our actions guiding them. In one, success is achieved by both character stats and player planning; in the other, success is achieved by both character stats and active player input. Aren't they both viable? At their core, your action over the system is what propells the characters to win, with their statistics supporting them.

Maybe in LARP? HAHAHAHAHAHA!

The end result may be the same but how you got there is indeed different. Its all a matter of preference, but I think for it to be a game in which you play a role, the former is more closer to the truth. The reason is that success would be based on the characters role, whereas in the latter it seems that the role was only partially what brought about success.

Morrowind is a perfect example, I could have a character good with sword fighting and a character bad with sword fighting. If a MW was a perfect CRPG, then I should probably not be able to win a tough fight with a sword, the problem is that I can each time, it just take more effort with running way and strafing and all the other tricks I can learn by using the current interface to my advantage. The point is that if you were to put yourself in that characters shoes without the help of taking advantage of the interface, you probably wouldn't have one.

Yes, your character who wins primarily because of stats technically wins because of you knew how to make a kick ass character. But this is not the point, and is irrelevant to the fact that you kick ass character one through a specific role.

My point is that usually, cognitive-related skills (more precisely, intuition abilites for things like puzzle-solving) aren't dependant of character stats that could influence that aspect. That's not to say they can't work like that, but they often don't. And people don't put many objections to that. However they put objections to the example i gave of having both a character's skills and a player's skills help in combat. My point is that combat played out by a conjunction of player and character skill presents a concept of synergy which usually you can't find in the cognitive aspects.

I think the reason is that combat is ubiquitous in CRPG's, hence that should be the main driving force of the stats. Whereas there are only a handful of intellectual things that need to be done in a CRPG. Naturally combat will be the driving force for the stats. When combat because less important in CRPG's, like in Fallout where it is possible to win without needing victory in combat, more emphasis is going to be placed on non-combat skills becoming more relevant.

In other words,

Bioware games -> stupid puzzles for the player to solve, and tons of relentless combat mostly decided by your stats. I was even told that diplomacy was possible even if you had a really low diplomacy character.

Fallout -> stuff regarding dialogue, non-combat related cognitive activities and combat are all primarily dictated by stats.

The major difference between these games is that one game forces tons of combat down your throat and the other does not.

Well that is my explanation for you percieved dichotomy.

Its true that RT isn't the best way to flesh out tactical combat; but the truth remains that in the example i gave the outcome would still be the same. In TB you'd equip the weapon, aim it at an opponent, and dictate that the character should fire; in RT, you'd equip the weapon, aim it at an opponent, and dictate that the character should fire as well. Tactically i'm sure you could have more options in this situation, but in this example the more proeminent differences would be the absence of turns, and the fact that you aimed and fired yourself. Stats could still help both cases.

And its an absolute shame when a TB system does not have more tactical options then a RT game, a real shame.

True, true. However, are we talking of 2D or 3D? 3D has some benefits over 2D in regards to implementing this kind of control. I'll pimp out Morrowind again, where dodging some spells and ammo-based weapons like bows was possible because you could strafe, and also had the possibility of increasing Speed to move faster, thus increasins strafe speed.

Well I don't think it really matters since its all 2D anyway. However, the special case you not is more of a result of the stupidy of using bows and arrows in fantasy combat. Legolas != really good way of fighting orc's. If the physics engine accurately described speed of arrows and other projectiles, all the strafing in the world would not help.

Good to know that!

I won't knock a system just because its not the one I would like to play. A game like Deus Ex seems to be what you like, and plenty of people seem to like it, although its not really what I like in a CRPG.

 

[Rayt]

Well, my opinion, which has probably been said before ( I've only read the first page). If the combat engine is complex enough, or rather has enough possibilites, you almost can't afford to not go TB. The problem with RT combat in games, as far as I can tell, is that it usually comes down ot the fact you don't really have to use any tactics, but have to remember a couple of simple rules (like BG2 you had to cast Breach and/or Dispel Magic on enemy mages before attacking them) and then watch your characters wade through the enemies. Or it ends up being a click fest à la Diablo 2, which is a fun game, but I don't really need a crpg which is a frantic and fast action game but has a massive story, non-linearity and multiple solutions. The D2 action ruins the epic-ness and the appreciation of what happens around you. You just click your way though the game.
Turnbased combat adds a crapload of tactics, thinking and especially, you can choose your way to kill enemies. For example, in D&D terms: a sorcerer who only uses fire based spells, a cleric that calls upon his god to give him strength and buffs and then mauls his enemies with a mace. A rogue who trips enemies in order for his friend the fighter to finish them off with a glaive from a distance, etc. You can do this in RT as well, maybe, but it's too hard. It's too fast, initiative doesn't come in, you can't really react to sudden changes, like the death or injuring of a party member.

Anyway, I thinkl that the tactics that come into play with TB combat really help to roleplay a character.

About your party. It depends on the story. If it's a story like Fallout, Bg/BG2 or Planescape Torment, with a lone hero, it would be neat if you can't control your party members, but instead they do whatever they want. That way, you really get the impression your party members really are other people. With a game like IWD or TOEE I'd prefer you can control your party, since you put the party together. They're your people.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Well the point remains that most of what i've seen regarding puzzle solving requires only our input. Character-specific stats like Intelligence or Wisdom don't come into play regarding their handling.

PST had many stat-dependant situations including Int and Wis. The Circle of Zerthimon is the most famous example. Then when your car is missing in FO2, you can notice and follow the tracks only if you perceptive enough. In Prelude there are many examples, etc.

As far as i can remember, even most of the times, the hints you mention are usually useful to figure something out; yet, there isn't exactly an indication of awareness from our character.

In FO2 when you learn about Jet, your character can talk like a scientist showing understanding of the process if he's smart enough.

Well, do you think someone who said "Elder say me have brain-of-child. Me have two brains. Me smart." would actually be able to plan some form of tactical maneuver? Sure he can understand the concept of a threat, of an enemy who wants to harm him; but tactics?

Prehistoric people who hunted mammoths were hardly smart yet they developed a number of tactics that would probably be much more sophisticated then anything city dwellers like us could come up with. Sure we have computahs and shit, but they had gut survival instinct. I'd bet on the latter. In 9 AD a Roman army - one of the most famous and well-designed military systems - was defeated and annihilated by German barbarians who used tactics that the Romans weren't prepared to. You do realize how much military experience the Romans had by 9 AD? So, trust me, you are not helping, you are holding them back :wink:

Now the point is, you have two systems. One is based on stat-based characters who are dependant of a player's planning skill, and the stat-based characters are prone to succeeding or failing due of their stats and our planning. The other is also based on stat-based characters, but these are dependant of a player's reflexive skill, and the stat-based characters are prone to succeeding or failing due of their stats and our actions guiding them. In one, success is achieved by both character stats and player planning; in the other, success is achieved by both character stats and active player input. Aren't they both viable?

No, they aren't. Player's planning gives him a chance to use the skills and abilities of the characters with max efficiency. That's what the characters would have done if they could think for themselves (see example above). Surely you don't think that choosing who attacks whom and when to cast which spell is some tactical genius? Reflex-based actions, on the other hand, undermine abilities of the characters creating new abilities instead. For example, block is less useful because you can click and step away, early sequence is pointless because you can click faster, etc

My point is that usually, cognitive-related skills (more precisely, intuition abilites for things like puzzle-solving) aren't dependant of character stats that could influence that aspect. That's not to say they can't work like that, but they often don't. And people don't put many objections to that.

They do, haven't you heard the complains about KOTOR puzzles?

Yes i am aware that that kind of situation is quite likely to happen. Though my point still remains that having a character lose his attack because the player did not clicked on time is as possible for combat as it is having a character succeed in combat due to a player's planning and hoping it goes for the best.

I prefer to depend on my character then on my mad clicking skillz.

Did you manage to miss finesse vs fast shot example and the point it made completely?

Nope. Did you miss the point that your generalization of RT applies to the main aspect of dealing with hostiles in both systems? :D

So, I guess you did miss my point. Ok, one more time: while to kill an opponent is a goal of any crpg combat, TB can allow you and even encourage different tactics like tripping, targeted shots, feinting, etc to gain tactical advantage, that's why targeted shots were popular in FO, FOT changed that making fast shot a better one, because at the time it takes to make a targeted shot, you can make 2 fast ones. The moral of that story was: in RT shooting faster is better then shooting smarter.

If you were playing in TB, were level 3 or 4, and had 10 enemies to contend with, you'd be dead the same despite the combat system.

If I were playing in TB? Didn't you read what I wrote? It's one of the ToEE bigger battles, my party was lvl 3-4 (1 lvl3 char, 4 lvl 4 char), if I recall correctly I was fighting against leader, lieutenant, 1 wizard, 2 witches, 3 archers, 3 xbowmen, and 4-5 footmen, and I survived! (although 3 party members were down). So I decline your request to make something up because we have an actual situation in a game that we both can play currently.

Give me examples. There's a difference between being given information, and being able to use it. An example would be failure to operate machinery because your character is a dimwit, despite he's been clued on its operation.

I mentioned some examples above. The Circle fits your requirement I believe. In FO2 when you get the brain for the Skynet, you know the procedure, but you can't get the proper brain without scientific skills to calibrate the machine. Close enough?

Very true. By that logic, however, you can't commend ToEE's vignettes. I mean, they almost worked, but since they didn't fully worked, there's no point in pointing out where they suceeded because they were obviously bigger failures than successes.

Says who? People complained that the vignettes were too short not that they sucked. The vignettes were supposed to provide unique starting locations based on alignments. As fas I know, they succeeded in that. There is a difference between being bored and wanting more. I'd say it's quite the opposite.

The nature of turn-based combat is initiative, sequence and turns. Removing the primary reasons as to why there are turns invalidates the whole purpose of taking turns, and makes the system become simplistic. Initiative and sequence justify turns themselves.

Are you making up definitions and rules as we go? Turn-based means that people take turns. How and when is less important and sometimes irrelevant. Some games have them, some not. Currently we discuss two opposite systems: TB and RT, whereas one being based on turns, another on simultaneous moves. That's the difference.

I'm sure you know the answer to that one, but just in case: you have to rely on 2-3 skills, because you have to specialize in 2-3 skills in order to have a chance on higher levels.

That wasn't the question. The question was why use the same when you could use other elements to survive in combat.

You can use different ones when you are playing a different character. You have to pick 2-3 in order to survive. That was the case in D2 and that was the case in LH.

 

[Human Shield]

Just a note, tactical thinking in combat would come more from experience (those numbers you get from killing monsters), not an intelligence or wisdom stat (thou some systems give wisdom bonus to XP). That means your character isn't that good when he is fighting rats, but he will get more skilled and aware in combat with experience.

Turn based simulates (abstractly) a fast-paced battle because things can change rapidly (one turn). In real-time, it is which bar drops first while they are falling at a constant rate.

Well that is the whole purpose of fast-paced. Would Max Payne be fast paced if you could play out the combat in accurate turn-based? Or would it be less fast-paced, but more strategic?

What is the whole purpose of fast-paced? That things change quickly?

Real-time systems do not have this, you watch your life-bar drop in real time not an abstraction of time.

I said it simulated a fast-paced battle, turn-based itself isn't fast-paced.

First i think it would be fairer to use the same combat situation for all systems. Why would you might be able to be hit with several arrows in TB and only one in RT? After all, RT eliminates turns, so all those turns in TB where you have several enemies firing one arrow at you at a time would translate to the same effect in RT (being hit or targetted by multiple arrows).

In turn-based the enemy has multiple shots on a stationary target. In real-time the target is always moving and each shot must be reloaded, the player would run to cover after the first shot (not the 4th on turn-based).

Second, i understand you concept of it (RT) supposedly allowing for a quicker correction of mistakes. But does it really? In the case i pointed out above, lets suppose you step out of a corner in a real battle. You're seen by twenty different enemies, and they react to you by firing a string of arrows against you. Therefore, you step out of your hiding place and are targetted by 20 arrows. In TB, you'd walk out of the hiding place and would be targetted by the same 20 arrows. In RT, you'd also be targetted by 20 arrows.

I am talking about a surprise attack. A single enemy can hit you in the back with several arrows on his turn (using any bonus modifiers for each shot).

Though, why is RT more forgiving? Because you can return quicker to the hiding place? How does that invalidate the fact that 20 arrows have been fired at you? The ability to hide again in a real time situation would be dealt with in TB by the use of sequence and initiative. You would have the same chance to return to your hiding place in both systems. In TB this would mean that during a round, you could, if possessing higher initiative, to return quicker to the hiding place and could avoid having enemies with lower initiative values fire arrows at you in the first place. In RT however, you're subject to having them all fired at you, and your chance of escaping is actually dependant on what you do. Quite frankly, in this scenario, TB seems more forgiving than RT.

I stated that TB is more forgiving in general and that RT is a poor simulation. A lot of my post seems to have passed by.

This is a surprise attack and that each enemy can fire more then once on a turn.

The trick here is trying to balance out a given event, or set of events, so that their outcome is the same in both systems.

Not possible. Unless you put a realistic damage system on real-time mode which makes it less forgiving then Turn-based, and most likely harder to control.

In turn-based you enter a room without proper planning and 3 enemies can get intrupts on you and finish you off (a successful ambush).
In real-time as soon as you see the enemy fire one shot you run out of the room.

Now three enemies shooting on at once usually kills you, realistically.

Wouldn't the same happen in TB? Consider similar damage outputs and damage resistances for both systems. 3 enemies firing at you in TB, no matter how much of an abstraction the system is, would kill you just the same had it been going on in RT.

Are you switching your letters around?

In turn-based you will get hit with 12 arrows (with possible back-attack modifier), in real-time maybe 4 will land. The way that ignorant game designers have used rule sets, the arrow damage is the same.

That is the problem, you can't port a TB rule set into real-time. And making a new real-time system with the same effects would require more realistic damage, causing other problems.

Real time is as much of an abstraction in damage thresholds as TB. Why would 5 arrows in TB be considered one while in RT five (or ten, as per your example) would be 10 regardless?

Maybe because in TB the 2 minutes of animations showing arrows hitting you is subposed to be 10 or so seconds of "actual time". And in TB the world is frozen (giving a hint that time is different). While in real-time you are hit with arrows for 2 minutes (actual time) in real-time while you run around freely.