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

[Harg Harfardarssen]

You could always use the roguelike approach to turns - all movements/actions for all entities tracked by the game in each turn are taken substantially simultaneously (Still a determination of initiative, but it essentially determines whose attacks are calculated first). Which is actually my favorite system, but I just don't think I've seen it too many proper RPGs.

While I like that system a lot it's not quite the same as RT simulation. The roguelike model is based around discrete tiles, and discrete moves that happen instantaneously when it's your turn, just the cooldown for when your next turn will come up is determined by how long an action you just did. It's still turn-based but with a more freeform turn order.
It simply can't do things like physics simulation for game mechanics that RT(wP) can.

Very true. Although, I probably should clarify; the point I was trying to make is that if you want actions by both sides to be taken simultaneously, I think it can be done with a turn-based system, assuming we have the same view of what simultaneously means; I'm assuming that "simultaneously" isn't being used to mean literally at the exact same moment and is, instead, used to mean the actions of all combatants are taking place in parallel rather than in a pure sequence. After all, very few things happen literally simultaneously, its just the difference in time is small enough that we don't notice.

Basically a turn is an artificial representation of time, with the amount of in-game time it represents usually being chosen to represent enough to do quite a bit - move, swing a sword, cast a spell. So you could look at RTwP as a TB game where every second is a turn and, if no actions are chosen, the computer will choose them for you (or a TB game as a RTwP game where you have to give permission for time to pass). So if you break turns into small enough units of time that they encompass the smallest significant component of each combatant's action (so steps, but not heartbeats), you can have a turn based system which can, for the purposes of gameplay, approximate simultaneity, or at least something that approaches it very closely.

As an example, take a game like Fallout and replace each individual action point with a turn (yes, I know this would break many aspects of the game, just humor me). You take a step, everyone gets to take a step. You use a three action point move, everyone can take two more steps before you complete it, meaning that although things are happening in sequence, the series of actions which add up to a significant maneuver will be happening in parallel.

If you tweak things by removing the need for initiative (so two actions completed in any given turn both register in the same turn, even of one action would kill the character taking the other action), then you can have actual simultaneity with a TB system.

Of course I don't have a problem with RTwP, I prefer TB, but tastes vary and, as many others have pointed out, both require different skills and mindsets. I just think that simultaneity is possible in a TB system, its just a question of what subset of the combat you want to have happening in parallel and how much action you want to represent in each turn.

EDIT: I should also add that I'm not entirely clear on what physics simulations can be done in RT but not TB. I'm assuming you were talking about RT's advantages in simulation, rather than purely simultaneity. But either way, I'd be interested in an elaboration on what these are.

 

[octavius]

I wonder...from a design POV isn't a turn based system much easier to implement than a RTwP one?
Maybe Anthony Davis can shed some light on this?

 

[Surf Solar]

Pausing every micro-second in a RTwP game, in a vain attempt to simulate turn-based gameplay, is OCD craziness. It's in the same category as save-scumming and resting after every battle.

This goes right up the same alley as "no I won't wear this armor set, it makes me too strong, so I have to impose some artificial challenge upon myself, its not the designers fault!1" or "Wow this spell is nice, unfortunately it makes all the encounters trivial due to oneshotting enemies, won't use it". It's retarded - if the game offers you possibility XY, why the fuck should you not use it?

Also, did you just seriously compare playing the game with pausing how I like and when I like to fucking savescumming?

 

[Johannes]

It does make the game much worse, because balance is now completely impossible (I haven't played Myth but some other RTS type game should work just as well). With perfect pause-every-100th-of-a-second micro you could win at ridiculous odds in any RTS I've ever played. So now they have to balance every encounter/design the AI to significantly oppose the player at that level of control or the game is now terrible... except no one has the patience to do that, so the whole design becomes a cargo cult trash fight smear you handle how you want.

Myth isn't really comparable to your usual basebuilding RTS in this regard. You control a small number of units per mission and there's no economy management at all, just pure tactics with what you have. The game's slowpaced enough that you can control the troops pretty well to your wishes, pause or not - though it'd obviously help and provide that leisurely spot to think the situation through like a TB game always has. Focus is on maneuvering your units around in a smart way.
Basically adding pause wouldn't change the game too much in this case - same kinds of tactics would still work but you'd be able to execute them slightly better and at your own pace.

And if we just take a generic RTS and add an active pause to it (many of them actually feature this already, if you're inclined to use it), I don't know still if the balance would be ruined - I'd wager that I'm still better at them without pause than the average player with it. RTS singleplayer campaigns are piss easy if you just understand the basic economics either way.
Now if you'd actually play against one of those AIs for SC:BW which specifically exploit the way they can issue endless amount of commands (doing a lot of stuff straight off impossible for a humanbeing with mouse and keyboard), in a skirmish match... Well, chances are it wouldn't be very fun due to the massive amount of units you'd have to babysit for optimal play.

If so it was because of the underlying turnbased mechanics like spell-per-round that can't be circumvented by pausing, but I have to take your word for it because I can't remember.

Sure, it was a crucial part of the games mechanics. The "round" concept was pretty badly done in the game though as far as I'm concerned, if you wanted to take full benefit of everything you can do in round (where you attack, move, and cast a spell/drink potion).
If IE had used a more typical RT model where there's a cooldown for your attack, and cooldown for spellcasting/other spell-llike abilities, it'd been a lot easier to convey this info to the player about what they can and cannot do at a given time.

Of course there must be some time limit on the pace at what you can do, goes for TB too of course - if you can cast as many spells as mana permits or use all the stimpaks you have in a single turn, it's not sensible design.

EDIT: I should also add that I'm not entirely clear on what physics simulations can be done in RT but not TB. I'm assuming you were talking about RT's advantages in simulation, rather than purely simultaneity. But either way, I'd be interested in an elaboration on what these are.

How projectiles move and can be dodged in Total Annihilation, for example. Or having to aim/dodge fireballs in IE games for a cruder example.

 

[Infinitron]

Pausing every micro-second in a RTwP game, in a vain attempt to simulate turn-based gameplay, is OCD craziness. It's in the same category as save-scumming and resting after every battle.

This goes right up the same alley as "no I won't wear this armor set, it makes me too strong, so I have to impose some artificial challenge upon myself, its not the designers fault!1" or "Wow this spell is nice, unfortunately it makes all the encounters trivial due to oneshotting enemies, won't use it". It's retarded - if the game offers you possibility XY, why the fuck should you not use it?

Also, did you just seriously compare playing the game with pausing how I like and when I like to fucking savescumming?

I think those two things aren't the same. Armor and magic are game content. Saving and pausing are game mechanics.

You can pause whenever like, but I'm pretty sure you don't really want to pause every second.

 

[tuluse]

Yes, it is possible to do simultaneous turns. However, that's leads to a far different game style. Simultaneous turns means you have to consider all the possible actions that the opponent will take for the entirety of the next turn, in RTwP, you can react whenever you choose to new information available to you. Imagine a game where more powerful spells take longer to cast. With simultaneous turn based, if you haven't accounted for the enemy mage casting Doom Balls of Destruction, you could be screwed. In RTwP, whenever you see him start to chant to himself. That's what makes RT and RTwP different from TB, you can react as soon as you have new information, while with TB, you have to wait and that new information can become old.

Now, I suppose some will claim this makes it "twichy", but I think this is easily solved by having appropriate auto-pause options or just setting game speed slow enough.

Also, there has never been a good implementation of RTwP in an RPG (at least that I'm aware of), so that could be coloring perceptions. IE was average, and it's been down hill since then. It could be done much better, and RTS games show this.

 

[Johannes]

At some point in a game you probably will want to pause every second, if there's clear benefit from altering the orders you will. But if you can get along just fine with less, why bother?

Same as in a TB game you could endlessly contemplate about your next move and make spreadsheets how to inflict maximum damage at a given situation (changing who attacks who and with what weapon), you won't actually do that unless you have to. Or if playing chess without time limit, most people won't contemplate a midgame move for an hour or more, even if this carelessness occasionally leads to silly mistakes.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It does make the game much worse, because balance is now completely impossible (I haven't played Myth but some other RTS type game should work just as well). With perfect pause-every-100th-of-a-second micro you could win at ridiculous odds in any RTS I've ever played. So now they have to balance every encounter/design the AI to significantly oppose the player at that level of control or the game is now terrible... except no one has the patience to do that, so the whole design becomes a cargo cult trash fight smear you handle how you want.

Myth isn't a RTS it's a skirmish game, not strategic.

 

[Raghar]

The simultaneous thing works best in RTS where you can be attacked by 2 or more groups/armies in different spots at once. In RPGs you often fight 2-3 enemies at a time. How important is it to the design and overall experience that they attack simultaneously rather than sequentially?

Try to implement that in a pure TB combat

 

[Vault Dweller]

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJc1lt50gQs

 

[Mangoose]

The simultaneous thing works best in RTS where you can be attacked by 2 or more groups/armies in different spots at once. In RPGs you often fight 2-3 enemies at a time. How important is it to the design and overall experience that they attack simultaneously rather than sequentially?

Try to implement that in a pure TB combat

http://www.infinitythegame.com/infi...new-quick-start-rules-available-for-download/

MAKING FACE TO FACE ROLLS

When two or more figures are contesting directly and their actions affect them mutually, then a Face to Face Roll must be made. In this situation, both players involved in the contest roll d20 and, as in a Normal Roll, need to get a result equal or less to their Attribute [modified if necessary]. However, in a Face to Face Roll the results of the players’ rolls are compared. The player that has a successful roll, (One with a result equal or less to his Attribute, modified if necessary) with the highest number is the winner.

In the case of a draw, the model with the highest Attribute, is declared the winner. However, if both models have the same Attribute value, then both are considered to have failed.

Pausing, or slowing down/speeding up like in Total War or Myth, are some of your battle management tools.

Both games which are designed and balanced for gameplay without pause or slowing down/speeding up (multiplayer).

 

[Telengard]

If you're copying the real time version, that's actually fairly easy. In the real-time version, you'd run over to the table and hit the "X" key and then watch the awesome animation happen. And there's no reason at all you can't do the same in turn-based: Maneuver her to the table with movement points, and then hit the contextual button for the animation to start.

Or it could also be done in gameplay, of course, if you wanted to be different.
Round 1: She takes off her shoes. 10 enemies fire over her head in rapid succession, all missing.
Round 2: She falls over on the floor for no reason, since they can't hit her no matter how many bullets they shoot at her. 10 enemies fire over her head in rapid succession, all missing.
Round 3: She loses a turn to a gasping whimper. 10 enemies fire over her head in rapid succession, all missing.
Round 4: Without aiming, she guns all 10 enemies down in one attack with a special move.
End of battle.

 

[zeitgeist]

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

In this system, why exactly does your character target the enemy and shoot instantly?

If they haven't been aiming right at the door, in a decent RTwP system there will be a reaction time until they can focus their aim at the newly discovered enemy, in which that enemy might have a chance to react first.
If they have been aiming right at the door, they're likely going to get an interrupt in a decent turn-based system too, and there's no problem with the enemy who opens the door being killed instantly if there was a squad aiming right at that spot on the other side, right?

 

[attackfighter]

It does make the game much worse, because balance is now completely impossible (I haven't played Myth but some other RTS type game should work just as well). With perfect pause-every-100th-of-a-second micro you could win at ridiculous odds in any RTS I've ever played. So now they have to balance every encounter/design the AI to significantly oppose the player at that level of control or the game is now terrible... except no one has the patience to do that, so the whole design becomes a cargo cult trash fight smear you handle how you want.

You can already win at ridiculous odds in any given RPG, due to AI always being retardo. As for having super micro from pausing all the time - well AI has perfect micro too you know. The fact that you can beat the AI at ridiculous odds isn't because your micro is better, it's because AI is always shit. And shitty AI applies for TB games too.

This goes right up the same alley as "no I won't wear this armor set, it makes me too strong, so I have to impose some artificial challenge upon myself, its not the designers fault!1" or "Wow this spell is nice, unfortunately it makes all the encounters trivial due to oneshotting enemies, won't use it". It's retarded - if the game offers you possibility XY, why the fuck should you not use it?

The motivations are different in either scenario. In the armour scenario your motivation for avoiding it is to challenge yourself. In the pausing constantly scenario your motivation for avoiding it is that it's too much of a hassle to bother with.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

I don't feel like pursuing the TB vs RTwP line of discussion does anyone any good, so I'll limit myself to some observations on how to make RTwP good in the context of small group tactical combat in a fantasy setting.

1. Rather than tons of customizable AI profiles, we need simple character AI and a variety of options to override its behaviour, just like RTS games do it. We don't need to be able to configure a Rogue's AI to go attack whoever is attacking the mage, most players will want to do that manually. Instead, we need simple restrictions like "hold position", "move without attacking", and so forth.

2. The combat needs to be relatively slow, or at the very least it needs to have a speed setting. Players shouldn't need to pause and issue new orders every two seconds, the whole point of the pause is to untwitch the ordeal. So Total War and Myth rather than Starcraft.

3. There needs to be a restriction on movement in combat. A grand majority of RPG implementations of RTwP fall apart when characters simply start running around randomly. 3E Attacks of Opportunity, like in NWN2, act as a measure against it, but the restriction should be even stronger. In a similar vein, characters need to have proper collision and zones of control - you should be able to put two big dudes in armor shoulder to shoulder in a narrow corridor, order them to hold position, and they should realistically hold the line until killed or otherwise broken.

4. Cooldowns are, for the most part, boring and tedious. I can stomach the really long ones that you only get to use once per battle, because they represent a real tactical decision. The rest either lead to tedious micromanagement or a "smart" AI making their use a non-issue for the player. Resource systems, either universal (Mana or Energy) or specific (Vancian spell casts), are much more interesting. Just don't copy them from WoW, please.

These are my thoughts and if they've already been voiced then fuck you, reading the entire thread is too hard, there should be a meme synopsis somewhere. The man who invents an algorithm to automatically produce meme synopses of forum threads will become more powerful than Larry Page.

 

[Raghar]

Or this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJc1lt50gQs

Actually that wasn't bad, especially considering you lost one energy bar when you used it. Some of them are looking even decent and are nicely animated. (With exception of these where he tries to force his opponents to look at him. That never happens in professional combat troops.)


So what about answering the question? How would you do the above in TB combat?

 

[Johannes]

4. Cooldowns are, for the most part, boring and tedious. I can stomach the really long ones that you only get to use once per battle, because they represent a real tactical decision. The rest either lead to tedious micromanagement or a "smart" AI making their use a non-issue for the player. Resource systems, either universal (Mana or Energy) or specific (Vancian spell casts), are much more interesting. Just don't copy them from WoW, please.

Cooldowns are totally sensible, as long as it's not the sole resource used, and when different spells can depend on same cooldown timer. If there are no cooldowns any fast-casting (ie hard to interrupt) spell will be possible to rapid-fire very quickly. Another way would be for each and every spell have a considerable length casting animation, but with having a cooldown on spell use you can have spells with a variety of casting lengths.

 

[Livonya]

This endless battle about RTwP vs TB is always awesome.

I like both Real Time Strategy games and Turn Based games, but Real Time With Pause is just ridiculous. It doesn't work unless the tactics and options are very limited.

RTwP exists because Real Time Strategy games were becoming all the rage, and game designers were forced to pander to ignorant investors/development houses with the claim that there game would be "fast paced" just like a real action game.

The Infinty Engine games were a cluster fuck due to RTwP. I spent most of my time with those games writing scripts in some horrible attempt to fix the horror of RTwP.

NWN and NWN2 were even worse. As someone intelligently pointed out they added a lot more skills and abilities to NWN/NWN2 which just made the stupidity of RTwP that much worse. I rarely finished any of these games because I just became so frustrated with the retardation of the RTwP game play. Why give me all these cool abilities and complex rules if you are going to make it impossible for me to actually see any of this in motion?

Project Infinity will most likely once again prove that RTwP doesn't work. I went ahead and donated to the Kickstarter, but I am sure the combat will be bad. At best it will be simplistic and a minor part of the game, and at worst it will be a horrible cluster fuck that ruins the game. That will depend on how complex the skills are and how many party members the player actually gets to control.

It would be infinitely better if all of these terrible RTwP games were instead both Real Time and Turn Based. Then people could choose for themselves.

I will never understand the fans of RTwP. I get that the Infinity Engine games were good games, but it wasn't because of RTwP. I get that NWN/NWN2 were good games, but again it wasn't because of RTwP. These games were good DESPITE their terrible combat systems.

Is there even one party based RPG where the strength of the game is the RTwP game play?

(Yes, I know I have nothing new to add to this ancient debate... not that anyone has anything new to add at this point)

 

[Roguey]

You don't have to pause all the time. That's doing it wrong. Why ruin the fun for yourself to play like a perfect immortal machine, when you can just play well enough?

If you can let it run on autopilot most of the time aren't you just letting it play itself then? That's pretty much been my experience with these things. Either I'm in microhell or watching a screensaver that requires occasional input.

 

[Infinitron]

(Yes, I know I have nothing new to add to this ancient debate... not that anyone has anything new to add at this point)

Yep.

Anti-RTwP: "The combat was terrible!"
Pro-RTwP: "Uh, no it wasn't. It worked fine for me."

ad infinitum

Like I said, it seems you either get the hang of it or you don't. It seems to heavily depend on one's prior experience with other types of RPGs and other types of games.

 

[quasimodo]

You don't have to pause all the time. That's doing it wrong. Why ruin the fun for yourself to play like a perfect immortal machine, when you can just play well enough?

If you can let it run on autopilot most of the time aren't you just letting it play itself then? That's pretty much been my experience with these things. Either I'm in microhell or watching a screensaver that requires occasional input.

Pretty much this. Either watch the game play itself badly, or pause every two seconds.

 

[Infinitron]

This is a good thread. I feel we've really gotten down to the roots of why some people feel so strongly about RTwP. This has value for game designers.

But now everybody is just repeating themselves. M:

Pretty much this. Either watch the game play itself badly, or pause every two seconds.

Knowing when to pause, and how to direct your party members in such a way that you will not have to pause too often, is actually part of the challenge of RTwP.

This is something that people who "get" RTwP mechanics understand intuitively, to the point that it's hard for them to understand people who don't.

 

[tuluse]

You don't have to pause all the time. That's doing it wrong. Why ruin the fun for yourself to play like a perfect immortal machine, when you can just play well enough?

If you can let it run on autopilot most of the time aren't you just letting it play itself then? That's pretty much been my experience with these things. Either I'm in microhell or watching a screensaver that requires occasional input.

Pretty much this. Either watch the game play itself badly, or pause every two seconds.

The point is to pause at critical times, and yes "let the game play itself" for mundane parts.

It's not a dichotomy like you're suggesting at all.

 

[quasimodo]

You don't have to pause all the time. That's doing it wrong. Why ruin the fun for yourself to play like a perfect immortal machine, when you can just play well enough?

If you can let it run on autopilot most of the time aren't you just letting it play itself then? That's pretty much been my experience with these things. Either I'm in microhell or watching a screensaver that requires occasional input.

Pretty much this. Either watch the game play itself badly, or pause every two seconds.

The point is to pause at critical times, and yes "let the game play itself" for mundane parts.

It's not a dichotomy like you're suggesting at all.

I do get what you are saying. I have played all of the IE games multiple times. I have tried the "hands off" approach.....and its just not fun at all. So the only real choice for me is turn off the AI and pause every round.......which is sometimes okay.

 

[[UD]liam]

the argument that rtwp destroys game balance by giving the player "perfect micromanagement" is totally bankrupt, specifically because of those round or cooldown-based underlying mechanics that all rtwp games have and gozma grudgingly admits might have actually made some of the IE encounters challenging and tactical. perfect micro is irrelevant and pausing five times a second to achieve it is not only ocd and not very fun, but not even beneficial to the player. here is a fun experiment you can do with your favorite (or least detested) IE game to illustrate this:

find a battle of reasonable complexity and challenge. in bg2 the athkatla party vs party fights like in the sewers or den of seven vales are a good bet, or the twisted rune for a higher level party. go to options and flip every auto-pause option on and complete the encounter without twitch pausing, let the AP do its thing. the auto pause has been maligned in this thread previously but it's actually pretty good for seeing how IE combat works "under the hood" and telling the player "hey, this might be a good time to think about doing something else". add a few pauses for reacting to events like an enemy mage starting to cast. this is a lotta fuckin pauses. it approximates the maximum number of times you should ever, ever have to pause and issue orders to win a battle completely unscathed. but you'll notice in this example most of them are superfluous, just chances to check and see that yeah, everything's still going ok and i can continue as planned. this will hold true for even the vanilla game's most difficult encounters. only in the most heinous modded-in fights (SCS2 ascension on insanity, some of the more extreme shit from tactics) is this amount of pausing remotely justified and it's still not as extreme as some posters have suggested.

so yes, anyone making this argument simply struggles with rtwp systems.