Fucking RTwP in Project Eternity? HOW DOES IT WORK? TB vs RTwP

[Regvard]

FTL would have been better, even with it's low complexity, with a turn-based system.

 

[J1M]

FTL is the savior of RTwP?

If that's true, why are the biggest complaints about it that the combat can be boring to watch and using abilities like cloak requires pause-twitching?

 

[Emily]

FTL is NOT a RTwP RPG!
It is different category, it works as a space simulator, and space battles traditionally have things like shield recovery, weapon systems charging etc, which would NOT work in turn based style. It would just be too awkward to play such a game turn based.
That said it has nothing to do with this discussion, namely because you just control one ship(and at that much of the stuff is automated, crews have just few uses, there are no SPECIAL ABILITIES,there are no modifiers etc) , and the controls are simplistic yet deep in a way that you need to pause from time to time, and especially when firing.
It is the best example of how RTwP is done right. Rather then BG2(lets not even mention NW2...) , which just turns to clusterfuck and is unplayable to all but nostalgia fags.

 

[kris]

RTwP is real time that sucks. The pause is an honest admission that fast-paced, party vs party, real-time combat is too chaotic to be controlled on the fly and that AI is too retarded to be relied on, and thus you have to pause this interactive movie to issue some basic orders and show AI how it's done.
.

This is just way off and this is not the reason for either this system or why it is bad. If anything a good RTwP is a tactical simultaneously movement/combat. Pause is there so the player can change orders as old ones expire and as the PCs can do new actions (next spell). When you talk about retarded AI I assume you talk about the AI for the player group, but those shouldn't need any AI at all, since it should be up to the player to give the commands (apart from them hitting back on whats hitting them). an Interactive movie is what it becomes when the PC group is controlled by the AI and the game is easy.

The reason RTwP hasn't worked well is because several basic things from turnbased has not been used, either due to technical reasons or retarded designers. I am talking about things like attacks of opportunity, flanking and general area control. There are more things of course, like movement (shoot and run) and lack of attacks on body parts (shot in his leg).

I also believe that RTwp really would need a parry system and more advanced defense system. So characters actually battle.

Real time can't exist in a group based roleplaying game, since a human can only control one character at the same time. that seems to be were you are coming from, that the player controls one character and the rest of the group is controlled by AI, because of that they added pause so you could make the group more effective. Maybe that is what they even thought when this was "invented", but your statement is incorrect.

I'll give another one:

RTwP is real time with a group. The pause was needed because players want to control the whole group. Fast-paced, party vs party real time combat is obviously close to impossible for a player to control unless the AI covers for him. If anything the game will become a real-time strategy game were you don't want to lose any units at all.

 

[Mangoose]

RTwP is real time with a group. The pause was needed because players want to control the whole group. But turn based would have been a more optimal solution.

IMO RTwP isn't bsb, it's just suboptimal. It can be designed to decent effect, to the point where it can be better than a shitty turn based system. So in the end I prefer TB over RTwP but it's not enough to stop me from playing a game.

 

[Infinitron]

kris Good post. One of the problems with characterizing (and defending) RTwP systems is that it's damn hard to pin down just what type of gameplay such systems are trying to enable. It seems that every person has their own personal interpretation of them.

I'd love to see Josh Sawyer or some other CRPG authority give us their official definition(tm).

 

[kris]

A well made real-time system (not using RTwP acronym here) really is the most realistic option. VD just puts in the "fast paced" to reinforce the player problem. That a player can't make decisions like that quickly enough on a scale like that. Even controlling just one character takes training to be able to play it tactical. More than one and it is lost. Therefore the pause. People in this forum don't like the system, not because it sucks by default, but because it is designed poorly in most about every case.

So why should RTwP be used?
Because it is the most realistic deciption of grouped combat.

Why should turn based be used?
Because we have the best working systems for it at this present time.

 

[Gozma]

IMO RTwP isn't bsb, it's just suboptimal. It can be designed to decent effect, to the point where it can be better than a shitty turn based system. So in the end I prefer TB over RTwP but it's not enough to stop me from playing a game.

Yeah, it's just extremely disheartening for me to see a Kickstarter game doing it but the above is apt

 

[Mangoose]

So why should RTwP be used?
Because it caters to simulationists.

Why should turn based be used?
Because it caters to gamists.

Fixed.

 

[kris]

So why should RTwP be used?
Because it caters to casual gamers.

Why should turn based be used?
Because it caters to thinkers.

Fixed.

You can make many versions.

 

[sigma1932]

I only read the first 8 pages, and got sick of the same stuff over and over, so this might have already been said, but...

Maybe people should just admit that RTwP isn't actually "real-time" but more like non-stop turn-based (at least as it's implemented in BG, IWD, NWN, KOTOR, etc.)-- sort of like playing PnP D&D, but using a timer for the "declration of actions" portion of each combat round (i.e. enemies are engaging you in combat... you get X seconds to figure out what you're gonna do... if you don't know by then, you lose your turn), while the "turn-based" they're thinking of (i.e. ToEE, Fallout 1&2) is actually, I dunno, phase-based? frame-based? move-based?...whatever, pick a word that describes that style of combat, you all get the idea.

In all reality, "RTwP" isn't really real-time since actions are still limited by turn-based intervals of time-- specifically a 6-second "round" (i.e. you get X attacks "per round", can only cast one spell per round, the pause between drinking multiple potions is the round ending because you can only drink one potion per round, etc.)... it's this "turn-based" aspect, along with gear setup and character building mechanics, etc. that creates the strategy/tactics involved more than anything... not the pausing itself. The pausing is really just an equalizer because, 99.9999999% of the time, the computer will blow you away because it's faster at making decisions and putting them into action and more accurate at acquiring moving-targets than a human player using an interface device (i.e. M&KB, controller, etc.)... the vast majority of the time, really, pause only needs to be used for this purpose... The only thing that remotely makes it "real-time" is the fact that you can move around and kite after you've completed your action for that turn rather than being stuck in place at the mercy of the enemy.

Turn-based as people are calling it in this thread, is actually a much tighter scope than that mirco-management-wise... every entity in combat gets their own exclusive turn where only they act, yes, but then time stops on every action each entity takes no top of that, with various methods of actions being possible depending on how the system is developed.

A "real-time" RPG would be more like Diablo-- where interaction in combat revolves completely around some version of "one-click-one-attack" mechanics. FO3/NV without VATS fits into this category as well (or at least would if the combat mechanics/RPG elements weren't designed/under-utilized so badly-- as they are they're both virtually full FPS's combat-wise).

How "strategic" or "tactical" a game is depends as much on how the game is designed statistics/formula-wise (i.e. to-hit rolls vs. just damage/soak, reticled target vs. crosshair, how well mezzes/magic works, etc.), how deep the character building system is (i.e. are builds specialized vs. do everything, is it party-based or individual), and the general challenge of combat itself (i.e. how good is the AI for both friendlies and hostiles, how stat-bloated are enemies, etc.), and so on as it does the pacing/timing interval/method of combat itself, so the latter isn't inherently good nor bad overall, or one way better than another overall.

 

[Johannes]

while the "turn-based" they're thinking of (i.e. ToEE, Fallout 1&2) is actually, I dunno, phase-based? frame-based? move-based?...whatever, pick a word that describes that style of combat, you all get the idea.

No, those examples are exactly turn-based.

In all reality, "RTwP" isn't really real-time since actions are still limited by turn-based intervals of time-- specifically a 6-second "round" (i.e. you get X attacks "per round", can only cast one spell per round, the pause between drinking multiple potions is the round ending because you can only drink one potion per round, etc.)...

Not every RTwP game uses IE mechanics

 

[CrustyBot]

Darklands with non-retarded character movement would've made for pretty good RTwP combat IMO.

 

[Gozma]

Darklands combat is so bad and broken I don't even know how you could begin to fix it.

I say that as a big fan of Darklands.

Wait, I do know where you could begin to fix it - make it so you can't use potions instantly in inventory. That is step 1 of 10000 in unfucking Darklands combat.

 

[Mrowak]

FTL is NOT a RTwP RPG!
It is different category, it works as a space simulator, and space battles traditionally have things like shield recovery, weapon systems charging etc, which would NOT work in turn based style. It would just be too awkward to play such a game turn based.

My point exactly. The entire game and all of its mechanics are built ariound RTwP. You just cannot transplant TB into it and call it a day.

That said it has nothing to do with this discussion, namely because you just control one ship(and at that much of the stuff is automated, crews have just few uses, there are no SPECIAL ABILITIES,there are no modifiers etc) , and the controls are simplistic yet deep in a way that you need to pause from time to time, and especially when firing.

On the contrary, it does. It is RTwP all the way and yet it remains engaging, memorable and quite (not that much, admittedly) complex. A good implementation of RTwP in a roguelike RPG. So what exactly prevents tailroring RTwP in Project Eternity to achieve the memorable and engaging effect? Sure you cannot copy-paste FTL, but if you remove artificial TB mechanics, perhaps you can create something different - as captivating as in FTL.

It is the best example of how RTwP is done right. Rather then BG2(lets not even mention NW2...) , which just turns to clusterfuck and is unplayable to all but nostalgia fags.

The question is: Why does it become a clusterfuck? Is it because of RTwP? Or maybe dumb AI, too few combat abilities and poor encounter design?

 

[CrustyBot]

Darklands combat is so bad and broken I don't even know how you could begin to fix it.

I say that as a big fan of Darklands.

Wait, I do know where you could begin to fix it - make it so you can't use potions instantly in inventory. That is step 1 of 10000 in unfucking Darklands combat.

Oh fair enough, there's a lot about Darklands combat that could be better but the speed at which characters waddle around annoy me the most. Besides, I brought it up because I wanted to redirect the focus of the topic as there aren't many RTwP styles around and as a result, most people seem to be judging it through the prism of the rounds based BG games and derivatives.

Point being, people keep calling RTwP shit when their main frame of reference is a game which should've been turn based to begin with.

 

[octavius]

Darklands combat is so bad and broken I don't even know how you could begin to fix it.

I say that as a big fan of Darklands.

Wait, I do know where you could begin to fix it - make it so you can't use potions instantly in inventory. That is step 1 of 10000 in unfucking Darklands combat.

Darklands combat wasn't so bad once you got used to it. It could have uses terrain better (or at all) and more varied encounters, though.
And I was able to complete it using no stat or item boosting potions (except the flameproof potion), and no healing potions in combat.

 

[Gozma]

I'm sure they're not gonna use rounds like BG; I'd assume they're gonna go with a DA-like MMORPG hotbar-of-cooldowns with pausing. The only thing that I've heard that could make me imagine anything different is Sawyer going on about formations which might be pointing to something weirder and more abstract, which can only be good.

Darklands combat wasn't so bad once you got used to it. It could have uses terrain better (or at all) and more varied encounters, though. And I was able to complete it using no stat or item boosting potions (except the flameproof potion), and no healing potions in combat.

It is hard for me to imagine getting any more used to darklands combat. It is a testament to the anesthetic effect of Rtw/P that the game is finishable by a human being

 

[octavius]

Darklands combat wasn't so bad once you got used to it. It could have uses terrain better (or at all) and more varied encounters, though. And I was able to complete it using no stat or item boosting potions (except the flameproof potion), and no healing potions in combat.

It is hard for me to imagine getting any more used to darklands combat. It is a testament to the anesthetic effect of Rtw/P that the game is finishable by a human being

I don't understand this hatred of the Darklands combat. Sure, it was not the best, but I still think it was better than slow and boring turn based systems like Ultima IV, for example. And the combat was not as fast and frentic as it could be in the IE games, so it never became a clusterfuck. But it was fast enough that it trash mobs didn't become too much of a chore. Once your guys got plate armour you didn't have to babysit them while fighting trash mobs.

 

[Gozma]

It is completely mindless, takes ages even if you laboriously go through fight shortening bad-mouse-UI clicks like missile combat and walking, and all but a tiny % of the fights are tactically identical while the rest are pretty close. It is also rife with broken options like inventory potions and sunbursts that can trivialize any fight at any power level. I'll take your word for it that Ultima IV is as bad but I only ever barely got started on it

 

[betamin]

Probably has been said but you can't say RtwP is inherently easy since there's stuff like Improved Anvil.

 

[Juggie]

While reading this thread I found this:

You're confusing reacting with preparing. Let's say my troops run toward a building, the enemy opens the door, I hit pause, target the enemy, unpause, my troops start firing (or hacking and slashing), the enemy dies, I pat myself on the back and open another beer. Same scenario in TB. My troops run toward a building, my turn ends, the enemy opens the door and start firing.

I played TB XCOM games and I played RTwP XCOM knock-offs. While you can say that the knock-off sucked on account of being, well, knock-offs, the RTwP made combat feel significantly less tactical and challenging.

My point is in RT, especially with pause, you can react instantly - dodge a fireball, flying towards you, drink a potion, cast a spell, aid a comrade, etc. In TB, once your turn ends, you are a sitting duck and if you didn't prepare, if you didn't ensure that you take less damage, you will lose one turn at a time (unless a game is too easy).

I found it funny how this is supposed to support TB, because that's exactly the reason why I consider it inferior to RT. Actual combat is about reactions not planning 3 steps ahead. Sure planning should be important, but you should be able to adapt to the situation and not just sit there and watch the enemy play. If you want superior planning then chess is your game. When you try to simulate realistic combat you should aim for more reactive system. Is dodging a fireball or grenade unrealistic or bad? Of course not, actually TB systems try to emulate real time. They use all those small mechanics like interrupts in JA2, reaction shots in X-COMs, rogue's evasion feat in D&D to emulate reactions.
Also this argument is mostly about implementations of TB and RT(wP). Saying a game uses TB or RT system doesn't say much about it. It's about how well the system is implemented and unfortunately the only decent RTwP games are strategies, while there are tons of great TB games. When making a good tactical game devs usually choose TB so we don't get many good tactical RTwP games.

P.S. I played both the first two X-COMS and the czech UFO: aftershit games and I prefer the latter - I found them more tactical.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I found it funny how this is supposed to support TB, because that's exactly the reason why I consider it inferior to RT. Actual combat is about reactions not planning 3 steps ahead.

Decent combat is about tactics & strategies. Both require planning.

Is dodging a fireball or grenade unrealistic or bad?

Yes. Both unrealistic and bad.

P.S. I played both the first two X-COMS and the czech UFO: aftershit games and I prefer the latter - I found them more tactical.

Good for you.

 

[J_C]

Is dodging a fireball or grenade unrealistic or bad?

Yes. Both unrealistic and bad.
.

Why? I think if a granade lands next to me, I would ran away. I don't think that is unrealistic. Same with a fireball that is coming in my direction.

 

[Infinitron]

You wanna see unrealistic?