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

[Volrath]

Are you really that much of a control nut that you have to know everything what's happening at every possible moment?

 

[Infinitron]

Livonya Nothing you said contradicts me. I didn't say people find RTwP "hard". I said they find it problematic and frustrating.

Per my theory, your inability to enjoy RTwP mechanics is a consequence of your not deriving enjoyment from the combination of the two "games". Other people, such as myself, do enjoy that combination. For us, it doesn't diminish those things that it diminishes for you. It just doesn't.


FYI, Project Eternity will have you controlling an entire party.

 

[Volrath]

Are you really that much of a control nut that you have to know everything what's happening at every possible moment?

V I D E O G A M E

Your point?

 

[Lord Andre]

Wait, so you larper fags are saying RTwP sucks because you don't get to see every paperdoll swing a sword separately. You need to see each and every animation, one at a time, to feel satisfied.

 

[Lord Andre]

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Turn Based is way better than RTwP for those who enjoy drinking coffee and smoking a joint as they play. But then, Phased Based, à la Wizardry 8 beats both for this kind of enjoyment. Take a puff, a gulp, think hard, program characters' actions, click "End turn", take a puff, a gulp and watch the show.

 

[Cynic]

^ brofisted for smoking a joint and playing RPGs. One of the greatest pass times known.

 

[I_am_Ian]

^^^ I can't do that because my job has random drug tests, I can only play drunk or on Vicodin :-(

 

[DalekFlay]

I prefer turn-based.

I still like real-time with pausing.

Fuck, I still like real-time period.

Yay for being flexible.

 

[DwarvenFood]

^^^ I can't do that because my job has random drug tests, I can only play drunk or on Vicodin :-(

I was going to make a Lance Armstrong joke but fuck it.

 

[MetalCraze]

Dragon Age Origins is the only Bioware game Bioware Jr. has not cloned yet.

Real time combat with MMO cooldowns? Now is the time.

 

[Juggie]

Wait, so you larper fags are saying RTwP sucks because you don't get to see every paperdoll swing a sword separately. You need to see each and every animation, one at a time, to feel satisfied.

No. Just the animation that is involved with your party especially when it kills enemies.

Srsly? I would take quality tactical game over immersive larp fest anytime. BTW DA:O and DA2 used some fancy kill animations for certain monsters and they used (shitty) RTwP, the animations were also utter crap.

Also in party based game with pure RT with no pause or ability to slow down the game speed it's hard to do any tactical thinking or planning and it usually ends up being hack and slash with AI controlled companions. The pause is there to lower the gap between how fast you can think, decide and issue orders compared to the computer.

I'm currently playing Empire: Total War and I must say that the argument brought up earlier about RTwP's weakness when you have to control two or more groups of units in different areas is quite valid. I was trying to maneuver through enemy units and attack cannon batteries with my cavalry at two sides of a fort and both of those cavalry units required precise control making it hard to do this simultaneously, while in TB this wouldn't be a problem.

On the other hand TB is not very suitable for large scale battles where mobility is an important factor. TB would certainly not improve tactical battles in Total War games and pure RT would make it another Starcraft where you have to click like 10 times a second to be good.

 

[Johannes]

On the other hand TB is not very suitable for large scale battles where mobility is an important factor. TB would certainly not improve tactical battles in Total War games and pure RT would make it another Starcraft where you have to click like 10 times a second to be good.

Not really, Total War is pretty slow paced, it's totally manageable without pause. Even for people who suck at real RTS.

 

[Juggie]

Not really, Total War is pretty slow paced, it's totally manageable without pause. Even for people who suck at real RTS.

Compared to SC it sure is slow paced, but it puts more emphasis on precise control of your units which are not well manageable in RT. You have to consider unit's facing, precise position, line and rank, gaps between units, etc. These things are quite irrelevant in an average RTS. I'm not saying SC-like strategies are worse, I play those too, but there are other important aspects and you usually don't focus so much on these details, because the game mechanics don't revolve around them. On the other hand for TW games these are one of the key elements of the tactical battles. When playing these games PvP it's quite OK, because the opponent's speed is usually similar to yours, but when playing against the AI, which can adjust their orders several times a second for practically unlimited number of units at different places you certainly have a disadvantage in RT with no pause. It can be played without pause, but when you want to get the best results you need to pause or at least slow down the game speed to precisely position your units or issue precise orders at distant places on the battlefield.

Look.

I am talking about having fun ehile playing games. Sometimes that just involves winning an encounter. There is no reason to believe that it will not be augmented when you actually see the results of your tactics on micro scale. Don't confuse this with kill-animations. I am not asking for over-glorified stuff, but just for the least possible time when you can actually see what is going on the battlefield and not just the end result.

e.g. You face a particularly nasty party of enemies which has one really tough boss who gets killed when you are not looking. There is nothing wrong in that. But I would be happier if I could actually enjoy that moment.

I don't know about you, but I never played an RTwP RPG where you fight battles on such large scales that you're unable to see all your party members on your screen at the same time. (Dragon Ages and NWN2 don't count, because that was due to shitty zoomed in camera) So I don't understand how you're unable to see the results of your tactics in RTwP. As I said before RTwP isn't the best system to use when you have several simultaneous fights going on at different locations, but in RPGs which usually have up to 6 man parties this is usually not the case and the problem is probably caused by poorly chosen camera view.

 

[Juggie]

To get my opinion of RTwP read this:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-it-work-tb-vs-rtwp.76280/page-6#post-2278904

I am not against RTwP. I am against putting it where a lot of options are available per player per action. I believe (can't prove it; neither can you) that the optimum is 4 max for RTwP. Even then DnD is not a good system for it unless it uses longer rounds like in Drakensang. DA:O managed because you had comparatively fewer options and solver animations. Fix the round time and you can still make some systems work.

I'm not saying that RTwP is the best thing since sliced bread, just that it has its bright sides and that its quality depends on the implementation. I agree that it's not suitable if you control several units with several tactical options (abilities/spells/actions), but I wouldn't say there is a breakpoint like 4 units when it starts to be unmanagable. In total war the units rarely have any abilities so they don't require as much attention as characters in an average RPG so it's playable even when commanding about 20 units.

Btw I don't consider RT adaptation of D&D to be very good. Lot of stuff that D&D uses to emulate simultaneous actions is kinda awkward in RT (attacks of opportunity, dodge, etc).

 

[tuluse]

It really means what you mean by complexity.

One could argue that Total War is more complex than DnD 3E. You have to worry about facing, in Shogun 2 each unit has at least one ability, you often have to manage 10-15 units, units get weaker as they take damage, terrain is important, etc and so forth.

On the other side DnD has a bunch of abilities that need to be managed.

I think the key here is the interface. It needs to be clear how long an ability will take to perform, when they'll be available to do another ability, and how long it will take to move into position. This is something that no RTwP RPG has done.

Also, I think positioning needs to be emphasized more than IE games did, and don't worry so much about fighter abilities. I don't really have much faith in Obsidian solving these problems, but I think they are solvable.


As a side note, I think the main difference between RTwP and TB, is how quickly the player can react to information. RTwP, especially with good auto-pause options so "twitch" doesn't become a factor, you can react immediately to anything the AI does (and vice-versa). In TB each side gets to do a set amount of stuff before their opponents can react.

 

[tuluse]

Just thinking out loud in text here, another problem with RTwP in IE games, was that every creature moved at the same speed.

Usually one of the more interesting things about a RT game is that different types of units move at different speeds, so coordinating to get things to happen at the right time is more interesting.

In an RPG setting, this would mean things like targeting the fast enemies because they can get through to your mages easier, or targeting the slow more powerful enemies because they'll fuck all your shit up.

 

[tuluse]

Yes, i know it can be represented in TB.

I'm just saying it's a flaw in IE that I'd like to see fixed.

 

[Goat Pervertor]

I have been thinking lately sbout how combat is done in movies. I see it as the director feeding you some info and the question is how to convey it.
And ussualy when people fight in movies its done in cuts. Basicaly you are fed action in turns. I guess because it conveys the action better. But then i realised that some of the best action scenes are taken in one shot. Hmmm... But actualy this only strengtens the TB position. Let me explain

TB=many shots
RT=one continuus shot

EXAMPLE 1


Here we see this one guy storming the building in one shot (RT). The main thing is that you are focusing on just ONE guy. Imagine if he brought 5 buddies with him. How would the director show us this? Would he use the same techique? No! He would be forced to represent the action in many shots (turns).

EXAMpLE 2


Not a fan of this movie but this scene is OK. Again if this guy had backup and the shot was uninterupted it would be a mess because of TOO MUCH FOCUS POINTS. You will notice that it is also 2D. If it was 3D they would just swarm this asshole and that would be the end. So the director cuts an entire dimension to give this guy a fighting chance and the audience something watchable.

EXAMPLE 3


Probably the best action scene EVER. But here we have two guys on which the audience have to focus. Oh no. My theory fails. Except that you will notice that these guys almost never fire simultainiesly. Instead they are >khm< taking TURNS! They even slow down time to let you catch it all up

I actually cant think of any movie where there are a bunch of guys(like 5 or 6) who fight simultaniously in one shot. I remember in Saving Private Ryan the camera moves across the battlefield with the squad frequently uninterupted but not very long.

Then there is this old ww2 movie


See how when they are doing somthing simple like just running the shot is continuos. But when they reach the MG nest it turns to individual shots to give us some semblance of wats going on.


But the closest thin i could find is this

Here we have 5 chars altough just sitting in a car. But look at this scene. Its meant to take you by surprise and confuse you. Listen them yell and scream and panicking. I bet they wish they had a pause button. There is another scene with a tank but there its just one guy again...

I think this one shot thing is usefull in war movies when you wanna show the CONFUSION and HORROR of war. So maybe thats what bioware wanted to show us. The confusion and clusterfuck of fantasy combat if it was shown real time. Well they sure succeded.

But in party based games you want to convey tactics and team work and not this. So like i said RT is a wrong tool for the thing.


LAST POINT

And then i realised.
That the only place where you can see RTWP in movie form aer the Power Rangers. You see every PR fight scene is always the same - inthe first couple of seconds they just cramm them all in one shot and let them duke it out for a while. Then they revert back to multiple shots because they know taht litle kids will be watching this that need to know wtf is going on.

An example (i cant show more than 5 vids so copy the link... ) - but skip the first half PLEASE(except you Rougey... you will watch)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP023He6z6s

Here also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfo-54kC0PY

etc, etc.

But they always go back to showing the Rangers ONE AT A TIME doing their thing. And then its kinda ok. But at the beggining its FUCKING LAME


So there you have it folks! RT in multi char combat is ever used only by Bio/Obs and the lame people who make Power Rangers. And that is reason enough to drop it


Goat Pervertor out

 

[Whalenought_Joe]

I have been thinking lately sbout how combat is done in movies. I see it as the director feeding you some info and the question is how to convey it.
And ussualy when people fight in movies its done in cuts. Basicaly you are fed action in turns. I guess because it conveys the action better. But then i realised that some of the best action scenes are taken in one shot. Hmmm... But actualy this only strengtens the TB position. Let me explain

TB=many shots
RT=one continuus shot

With a game that's designed for it, realtime allows for gloriously seamless combat, interaction, and adventuring, uninterrupted by initiating a combat area or turn. Those cuts for one-on-one fights aren't necessary if the game is designed for group engagements with skills that synergize with one another. One must EMBRACE THE CHAOS. Tactically.

 

[Loriac]

Seeing as this thread's been necro'd, and I missed it first time round, thought I'd chip in on the machine gun vs. two fighters with handguns / knives whatever. The argument seemed to be that representing this in TB is problematic because you can't adequately represent the machine gunner's zone of control using suppressive fire.

Which makes me wonder: what stops a turn based system incorporating suppressive fire or similar environmental effects? As a generalisation, what you're doing with suppressive fire is changing a designated part of the environment to make it more hostile to other combatants that are either performing actions in that area or moving through the area. Which sounds almost exactly like e.g. the environmental effects in something like D:OS.

In the machine gun example, the machine gunner could elect to set up a suppressive fire zone as soon as his turn came up; he would designate say a 45 degree arc of fire (to represent minimal need for barrel movement) which he was actively suppressing. The suppressive fire zone would require expenditure of a certain number of bullets per round as 'general' suppression, and would allow automatic, unlimited, reactive fire at anyone who at any point during their turns popped their heads 'over the parapet'. Rather than using a reaction roll or other mechanic that bypassed the turn based system, you could simply set up the deadliness of the suppressed zone based on the machine gunner's skill (e.g. skill/2 = chance that anyone entering the zone is hit or some such). You'd also set it so that the damage from the suppressed zone would be resolved before a combatant's other actions for the turn.

This concept would generalise to any ongoing battlefield control mechanic that you want to represent in your TB set up of course.

 

[tuluse]

No! RTWP just plain sucks and i cannot understand why people bother making these types of games using this THING. I have yet to find someone who can show me a SINGLE advantage that it has over TB.

Simultaneous resolution and the ability to instantly react to new information.

Also, calling cuts in a movie turn based is one of the more retarded things I have every read. Congratulations.

 

[hoverdog]

 

[Goat Pervertor]

No! RTWP just plain sucks and i cannot understand why people bother making these types of games using this THING. I have yet to find someone who can show me a SINGLE advantage that it has over TB.

Simultaneous resolution and the ability to instantly react to new information.

Also, calling cuts in a movie turn based is one of the more retarded things I have every read. Congratulations.

Maybe i didnt explain it well. Im not good with words so ill try again


Like i said the director basicaly feeds you some info. The question is how to represent it, what to emphasise and what not. And they cut shots because they have to measure it against a human viewer who has to follow it. It should thell you something that whenever they do one shot its always one guy - one focus point. And when there are more they usualy wanna emphasise lack of control and assault your senses.

In RPG combat you have the same info feeding and the same question. Only its interactive so doing it RT with a lot of PCs makes even less sense. Its more realistic i guess and thats the only "advantage" that it has that i can see. But its not a question of realism but of representation.

It all boils down to those first couple of seconds in PR vs the rest of the fight when they show them fighting individualy. RT vs TB

The first is shit the other is not

 

[Volourn]

"was that every creature moved at the same speed."


HAHAHAHAHA!

But, no.