As opposed to real-time where the suicide commando machine-gunner deftly dodges your three shots as he's running up to you.Armacalypse said:Why can that enemy with the machine gun run up to my character, and shoot 30 bullets point blank in his face, just because my character took 3 burst shots that missed because he was too far away?
That's why they have reaction and interrupts. If your character is skilled enough to see the running machine-gunner, figure out what's going on and has enough time saved to make an action, he takes the shot. He may not hit anyway but he'd take the shot if he won the roll.Armacalypse said:Shouldn't the third burst logically be fired when the enemy who in reality would be called a total fucking suicidal retard is two meters in front of him in and who hasn't even stopped much less raised his weapon yet?
... because once again your character didn't notice him running around the corner (probably too busy pondering deep and meaningful questions instead of watching the battlefield) and by the time he did, it was too late to react.Armacalypse said:And why can the enemy, who runs into my character around a corner, reload his machine gun and then fire without my character even reacting just because the enemy won the interrupt roll?
It's a surprise attack. It happens. Commando's bursting through the door instantly, all units running through simultaneously in a well-trained action before your guys can even figure out what's going on or have time to shit themselves.Armacalypse said:And what about intercepting? The enemy can for example put his whole army in your castle just because you weren't standing right at the back door,
Again, turn-based is showing you how one unit can move quickly and signal to his comrades that there are enemies here with a quick hand signal - allowing them to move in Commando style as above - before he's fired upon by the lazy, probably resting, army behind the door.Armacalypse said:and because an infinite number of people can go through a tiny doorway at the same time because their turns are separate and the collision that would happen is non-existant. And what about moving one unit to see if there are any enemies, and then move the rest if there aren't any? How can you move all your units at the same time, based on information gathered by moving only one unit?
Said the man who thinks gunners would always react quickly if they saw someone charging towards them, failing to take into account that maybe they didn't see the guy coming for them until it was too late, maybe they thought he was one of their own for a second (why would a bad guy try and get that close) and assuming their guys could open fire and hit simply because the guy is closer. Besides taht, what happens in real-time when you're looking at another part of the battlefield and aren't around to even notice some guy running towards another area? Then look back only to go "Oh shi..." like I have done in Starcraft on many occassion. Gosh that almost sounds like a worse outcome than the opportunity turn-based would've provided to keep the entire battlefield in mind.Armacalypse said:I admit that making RTwP or even RT with autopause work without making situations like the charging machine gunner require you to manually pause when he is in optimal range for your shotgun is probably as hard as doing away with retarded chance based interrupt systems in turn based games, but turn based games can only come so far, and can never truly utilize all the logical tactics that would work in a world with remotely realistic laws of time and space.
Vault Dweller said:Uh... yeah, that's exactly what I meant. It's clear that playing deep tactical TB games like Jagged Alliance 2, which something tells me you haven't played, and arcade fighting games and shooters, no matter how "tactical", is exactly the same thing. Thank you for proving my point, btw. If these games are the best tactical examples (that don't rely on one's manual dexterity at all)...
Entertaining? Sure. God of War and Heavenly Sword are loads of fun.Melcar said:Well done RT can be just as engaging and entertaining as well done TB. Can't we just agree on that?
The concept is better. Execution, of course, varies.I mean, its not like there aren't any examples of shitty TB out there, so saying that it's simply better is stupid.
Very convincing.Ardanis said:Same can always be done by the party, in fact. Chain contingency, a normal one, Spell trigger - voila, seven spells in the instant.BG2 had a lot of what was essentially cheating by the npcs, where they would have several contingency spells fire when they detected your party
Point is, RT(wP) can require as much of tactical planning as TB. It's only a matter of effort and creativity, not a game system.
It's not an agitation to convert AoD into RT, sure, keep it the way it is. Just providing a proof that 'RT sucks by default and can't be cured' notion is a joke.
Since people don't seem to get it:Ardanis said:I've been playing a mod fight in BG2 about two months ago. The picture - six guys stand against six mine. Every active effect I have on gets dispelled before the fight. Among them there is an assassin 'one hit - one kill'; a sorceress who throws off a Chaos spell at the first round and then stuns characters low on hp; FMT who goes invisible and backstabs everyone, dispelling some of protection if he sees them on; archer with poison and dispelling arrows coming in two packs; a killing barbarian machine; nasty priest.
One mistake, protections (hastily raised up in the first few seconds) go off or a char gets confused - dead char. Design is determined by author, all is strictly by the game's rules, no cheesing at all. The game is RTwP.
Darthie, dear, you are trying to sit on two chairs here. You are arguing that generic monsters are as deadly in the above mentioned games as they are in RoA, JA, and XCOM. Well, the next question (hopefully for the last time) is - Is BG2 on tactical par with Jagged Alliance 2, Realms of Arkania, and XCOM? Because if everything else is pretty much equal...Darth Roxor said:Vault Dweller said:Well, my original point, later reinforced by Dark Underlord, was that generic enemies in TB games such as XCOM, Jagged Alliance 2, and Realms of Arkania are very dangerous due to complexities of TB combat. In fact, DU specifically mentioned that 4 weak Aquaturds killed 12 of his marines. He wasn't talking about a "shitloads of greenskins and shamen", as you so eloquently said.
Have you even played any of the stuff I posted? Or maybe you're suffering from amnesia? During that fight in BG2, you're fighting against a party of what, 6 people? I remember a dwarf fighter, a human barbarian, a thief, a mage, the mage's familiar, and... either I forgot someone or that's it. And hey, that's a location in the very first city you visit when you leave Irenicus' dungeon.
IWD1? At the start you rarely face more than 5-6 goblins/orcs and they're still enough to beat you up.
By 'shitloads' in IWD2, I meant that you face a mob around every corner, not 4758678945 mobs at the same time.
Darthie, dear, you are trying to sit on two chairs here. You are arguing that generic monsters are as deadly in the above mentioned games as they are in RoA, JA, and XCOM. Well, the next question (hopefully for the last time) is - Is BG2 on tactical par with Jagged Alliance 2, Realms of Arkania, and XCOM? Because if everything else is pretty much equal...
RK47 said:Well, the pace of close combat allows combat to flow somewhat 'slow enough' for people not to rely solely on reflexes to gain the upper hand. I've yet to see RPG that handle combat as slow as that when the combat revolve around 'swinging and missing'.
GarfunkeL said:Close Combats were not "quick" at all. Not like our beloved rpg's with RTwP.
skyway said:Whoever came up with the idea of doing party-based RPGs and tactical games in real time should be shot.
Let's review:Naked Ninja said:Darthie, dear, you are trying to sit on two chairs here. You are arguing that generic monsters are as deadly in the above mentioned games as they are in RoA, JA, and XCOM. Well, the next question (hopefully for the last time) is - Is BG2 on tactical par with Jagged Alliance 2, Realms of Arkania, and XCOM? Because if everything else is pretty much equal...
Wait, did you just say "all else being equal"? I think you need to revise your understanding of that phrase my friend. You're comparing two completely different game systems and saying "all else being equal"? All else isn't equal. Mod the JA ruleset into a RTwP engine and we can compare. Quite frankly, you can add in as many calculations into the system as you want, when you're paused in RTwP it is as easy to analyze them as it is in TB.
Let's review:
- I make a claim that RT can't beat TB tactics and complexity.
- The RT crowd starts teh riots, eventually challenging my claim that generic enemies are much more dangerous in TB due to the tactics required to beat them.
- If that's indeed the case and both TB and RT are equal in this aspect, then the inevitable conclusion is that the Infinity Engine games (which is where the majority of the examples came from) are as tactical as Jagged Alliance 2, XCOM, and Realms of Arkania.
So, are they or are they not? If they are, please provide official statements for new signature material. If they are not, do elaborate. Let's not dance around it. Everyone's posting examples of the tactical awesomeness of BG2, but nobody's willing to actually say that it's as tactical as the best TB RPGs.
Thank you.Naked Ninja said:
Mine? I wasn't the one who spammed this thread with "I see your RoA example and raise you three Infinity Engine examples" posts.So your "compare XCOM to Infinity Engine games" thing doesn't work.
almondblight said:skyway said:Whoever came up with the idea of doing party-based RPGs and tactical games in real time should be shot.
Close Combat and Myth SUCKED!
I don't think that's possible with a weasel.Naked Ninja said:But feel free to refute one of the core principles of scientific testing fellow
skyway said:I've played it in coop
so it either leads to "fuck tactics, chaarge" or constant twitching of pause key (if it is RTwP)
Didn't say that. Neither did DU with his several aquatoids vs 12 marines example.almondblight said:You say TB is better, because generic enemies are stronger...
Didn't say that.You say, if you believe that than you think that every RT game with generic enemies has combat as tactical as TB games.
Nice try.Logic check failed.
Vault Dweller said:Didn't say that. Neither did DU with his several aquatoids vs 12 marines example.almondblight said:You say TB is better, because generic enemies are stronger...
Vault Dweller said:Well, my original point, later reinforced by Dark Underlord, was that generic enemies in TB games such as XCOM, Jagged Alliance 2, and Realms of Arkania are very dangerous due to complexities of TB combat.
Vault Dweller said:Didn't say that.You say, if you believe that than you think that every RT game with generic enemies has combat as tactical as TB games.
Vault Dweller said:- If that's indeed the case and both TB and RT are equal in this aspect, then the inevitable conclusion is that the Infinity Engine games (which is where the majority of the examples came from) are as tactical as Jagged Alliance 2, XCOM, and Realms of Arkania.
skyway said:I was talking about real tactics there - it had nothing to do with Myth.
...
and then you command your units just like in any RTS using them strictly in a way that depends on their role. And there everything tactical about the game ends without even really starting.