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

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

Development Info Josh Sawyer's Pillars of Eternity II Postmortem at Digital Dragons 2019

Agame

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
1,702
Location
I cum from a land down under
Insert Title Here
The problem with the original was that it created no strong feeling, one way or the other.

'meh', was the most common reaction to it.

I don't think that most people who got it developed any feeling toward it, good or bad, except eventual fatigue.

This is a very good point that is rather overlooked on the Codex, buried under the hysterical screeching from both pro-POE and against-POE camps. As much as I love dumping on POE like a true edgy Codexer and calling it a steaming pile of poop, the truth is (more so with 2) its an ok game. Compared to most triple AYY competition (eg. Bethedsduh's special brand of retardation) its a competent game that competently hits all the right nostalgia points for an updated 'modern' IE game. But yes its biggest fault is just being a boring tedious slog through "not-D&D land", desperately clinging to nostalgia while cramming in as much Sawyer 'balance' as possible.
 

Glop_dweller

Prophet
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
1,167
So what you're saying is... (?)
PoE.jpg
 

Mr. Hiver

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck
Joined
May 8, 2018
Messages
705
Let's consider that the PC is surrounded about 10' apart on all sides.
Unpausing the RTwP combat starts all of the NPCs moving to close in or choosing to shoot the PC—or both at the same time. The PC runs to one side. By the time of their second action, the circle has shrunk, and moved toward the PC. The enemy he ran towards is actively striking at him... all others shoot him.
In the case of turn based mechanics, the PC moves adjacent to one of the enemies—now some of the enemies are double the distance from the PC... or farther if the PC moved past the closest enemy. If the other's shoot, they do so at significant range penalty—or they elect to get closer... and lack the APs to shoot in that round.
This is just the first action, and they already play out radically different. What if that encounter took place next to a man-hole (like in the Necropolis), the PC escapes combat in the first round—with no injuries. That wouldn't happen with RTwP mechanics.
All other things being equal that sequence doesnt play any differently in TB or RT - based on rules and mechanics - despite looking differently.
If the number of moves is equal - per second - per turn, enemy Ai being the same, stats (hidden or not), equipment and weapons being the same - it plays out the same.
Just in different time frame representation.

In your example you present two slightly different scenarios, in first the enemies shoot or move closer to the PC, then the PC moves. In TB the PC moves first, - but that would also waste PC AP points, while enemies could do the same thing as in RT once their turn comes about. The one you moved closer to would strike, the others would move closer or shoot. The only real difference is that in RT it would be a mess requiring extremely fast reaction times (more or less impossible for a regular human if it would happen in realistic speed) to handle and so the outcome would be dependent on how well and how fast the player reacts - which would skew the outcome depending on player skills more then on character stats.

So, if you get what i mean... it would ultimately "play out differently" but for different reasons. Not because moves and actions are different but because in Rt it would be a mess happening too fast and depending on player skill in moving and shooting.

My point was that encounters can be tuned for Turn Based or for Real Time combat, but not that well for both options at once; not to mention for use with optional mode switching during combat..
That is true. But the biggest difference would be that the player skills and reaction times would be more important then character stats. While in TB the player can take time to think about every move of every enemy and decide what to do tactically - while the outcome would be more dependent on character stats.
 

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
Let's consider that the PC is surrounded about 10' apart on all sides.

Unpausing the RTwP combat starts all of the NPCs moving to close in or choosing to shoot the PC—or both at the same time. The PC runs to one side. By the time of their second action, the circle has shrunk, and moved toward the PC. The enemy he ran towards is actively striking at him... all others shoot him.

In the case of turn based mechanics, the PC moves adjacent to one of the enemies—now some of the enemies are double the distance from the PC... or farther if the PC moved past the closest enemy. If the other's shoot, they do so at significant range penalty—or they elect to get closer... and lack the APs to shoot in that round.

This is just the first action, and they already play out radically different. What if that encounter took place next to a man-hole (like in the Necropolis), the PC escapes combat in the first round—with no injuries. That wouldn't happen with RTwP mechanics.

My point was that encounters can be tuned for Turn Based or for Real Time combat, but not that well for both options at once; not to mention for use with optional mode switching during combat..
finally someone fucking gets the dinstinction between simultaneous turns and sequential ones. I am so tired of dis shit on steam forums and even codex that tb mode and rtwp are all same and there is no differences whatsoever because "they use same rpg mechanics".

i applaud u sir.
 
Joined
Sep 7, 2013
Messages
6,174
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Serpent in the Staglands Bubbles In Memoria A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Turn based is fucking slow.Fight me faggots.

Excessive animations are a real problem in turn-based games IF they don't also have a combat speed up option. In all of the "old school" turn-based games, movement was instantaneous and animations were far less detailed, so the game play was naturally better paced.

Curiously, this is something some of these early turn-based arrivals revival games overlooked, but I think developers are finally getting it.
 

Xeon

Augur
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
1,858
Yeah, its kinda cool to see the animations for attacks the first few times but after that, you stop giving a shit and want things to move quicker. An option should be no brainer but for some reason but a lot of times its not added.

Even games that cite new XCOM as having good TB, they don't copy the option XCOM added for the quick animations or whatever.
 

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