Pillars of Eternity Beta Discussion [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Grunker]

Simulationists truely are pitiful creatures.

 

[Infinitron]

Josh emptyquoted

turn based combat, if done right, is more tactical + cooler but most games don't do turn based right

"I'd rather be making something turn-based" would be a great tagline for PoE.

Sensuki http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/109659774286/recently-you-said-that-you-think-turn-based-combat

enverxis asked: Recently you said that you think turn-based combat is more tactical (and cooler) than real-time combat when done properly. I really enjoy turn-based combat, but the game with the most tactical depth that I have ever played is DotA, hands down. I find that most RTWP combat in RPGs is mucked up by devs not looking at RTS combat, but instead looking to action or turn-based for their influences. What makes you think that turn-based is inherently more tactical than real-time combat ?

I was actually emptyquoting someone else, but in the context of party-based RPGs I agree with the general sentiment and I’ll make a clarification at the end.

RTS and MOBA games can be extraordinarily tactical, but they also require a certain amount of physical speed and coordination for success. Not everyone needs to have high APMs to play them, but to excel at them, you have to be relatively fast. A great plan executed slowly in an RTS or MOBA will be dead in the water.

In the context of multi-character RPGs that feature RtwP, the resolution of concurrent action can make planning and coordinating things difficult. With multiple characters attempting to move through the same space, even the best pathing and AI will have a bit of slop/unexpected resolutions. A dedicated RTS game like Age of Empires II is built entirely around formation movement and combat so it has reasonably reliable pathing — but it also required ~20,000 lines of assembly code from Ensemble.

Turn-based combat allows players to isolate individual obstacles and options for consideration. The isolated actions also allow for cleaner separation of discrete tasks, so a variety of actions become less muddled than they would be in real-time. That separation can allow deep systems to thrive, e.g. the Link mechanics in the Front Mission series allow the player and AI to construct elaborately-sequenced chain reactions that are highly dependent on positioning at the precise moment that the Linking action is executed.

To clarify my opinion, while I don’t think that turn-based is inherently more tactical than real-time, real-time combat does allow other elements (e.g. player dexterity, the chaos of concurrent actions being resolved) to influence how they play out. A RtwP system can significantly reduce the importance of player dexterity, but concurrent action between multiple characters can still make things muddy. In a MOBA, being able to focus on/directly drive a single character mitigates a lot of these problems. In most turn-based games, there’s very little (if anything, it’s usually the RNG in RPGs) that’s muddy about how individual characters will execute/resolve their actions.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

So engagement is there basically to level the playing the playing field between people who enjoyed RTS aspects of IE games and those who need/desire turn based like order and control on the battlefield even in a RTWP game.

 

[Infinitron]

So engagement is there basically to level the playing the playing field between people who enjoyed RTS aspects of IE games and those who need/desire turn based like order and control on the battlefield even in a RTWP game.

Well, he didn't say anything about engagement.

I think what Sensuki may really have wanted Josh to reply to was this sentence: "I find that most RTWP combat in RPGs is mucked up by devs not looking at RTS combat, but instead looking to action or turn-based for their influences."

But he cleverly stuck to the question being asked. Except maybe for a vague implication in the second paragraph that going "full RTS" in a RTwP RPG would make things too demanding for most players.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

Well, he didn't say anything about engagement.

I think what Sensuki may really have wanted him to reply to was this sentence: "I find that most RTWP combat in RPGs is mucked up by devs not looking at RTS combat, but instead looking to action or turn-based for their influences."

But he cleverly stuck to the question being asked. Except maybe for a vague implication in the second paragraph that going full RTS in a RTwP game would make things too demanding for most players.

He didn't talk about it specifically here but I think what he says here is relevant to the reasons he implemented it in such a way. Engagement locks down participants in combat (there's not a lot of incentive to move around when you get slapped hard in the face everytime you do) and thus using the right ability/talent/weapon gets a precedent over physical speed and coordination.

 

[aeonsim]

Sensuki http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/109659774286/recently-you-said-that-you-think-turn-based-combat

enverxis asked: Recently you said that you think turn-based combat is more tactical (and cooler) than real-time combat when done properly. I really enjoy turn-based combat, but the game with the most tactical depth that I have ever played is DotA, hands down. I find that most RTWP combat in RPGs is mucked up by devs not looking at RTS combat, but instead looking to action or turn-based for their influences. What makes you think that turn-based is inherently more tactical than real-time combat ?
...
In the context of multi-character RPGs that feature RtwP, the resolution of concurrent action can make planning and coordinating things difficult. With multiple characters attempting to move through the same space, even the best pathing and AI will have a bit of slop/unexpected resolutions. A dedicated RTS game like Age of Empires II is built entirely around formation movement and combat so it has reasonably reliable pathing — but it also required ~20,000 lines of assembly code from Ensemble.
...

Damn if the bit about AoK's path finding code is correct it certainly explains why it worked so well and how many modern games have been pretty crap. ~20,000 lines of assembly code is insane, 20K lines of C would be impressive enough but for a pathfinding system (though being higher level you probably wouldn't need that much), but to do it in assembly code is crazy impressive. Which ever dev wrote that should be congratulated if people can find which asylum they've been locked into!

 

[coffeetable]

Damn if the bit about AoK's path finding code is correct it certainly explains why it worked so well and how many modern games have been pretty crap. ~20,000 lines of assembly code is insane, 20K lines of C would be impressive enough but for a pathfinding system (though being higher level you probably wouldn't need that much), but to do it in assembly code is crazy impressive.

aoe's pathfinding worked well because a) units were allowed to clip into eachother b) it was tile-based. 20k lines of assembly is a sign of the times, and probably the only way they could get pathfinding to work for hundreds of units on 1990s-era home pcs. an equivalent implementation in 2014 would probably be a few hundred lines, just because things like 'recalculate everyone's paths every time someone drops a building' are now perfectly reasonable

 

[Sensuki]

I think what Sensuki may really have wanted Josh to reply to was this sentence: "I find that most RTWP combat in RPGs is mucked up by devs not looking at RTS combat, but instead looking to action or turn-based for their influences."

Not really, even though PE and NWN2 are included in the 'games mucked up by' list as they both contain clear influences from TB. I was just interested in why he preferred it. It was a good answer - RTWP in an RPG is difficult to get 'right'. Pillars of Eternity is just another example of that tbh.

 

[Roguey]

I was actually emptyquoting someone else

Damnit, I got it right.

patching and modding has lowered the quality of games on release to the point of absurdity

absurdian entertanement

 

[ZagorTeNej]

IMO, for an RPG to have a RTWP system that feels right it has to in essence be a good RTS game onto which you then slap on pause function and RPG features (CC, leveling, controlling a small elite unit/party instead of an army etc.). Infinity engine being primarily designed for a strategy game is why RTWP combat in IE games is so much better than in other RTWP RPGs.

 

[Infinitron]

It's not that simple though. The "round-based" thing that the Infinity Engine did is very non-RTS-like. There are people - even on this forum - that think the IE games were unforgivably clunky and even prefer the feel of DA:O's RTwP for that reason alone.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

It's not that simple though. The "round-based" thing that the Infinity Engine did is very non-RTS-like. There are people - even on this forum - that think the IE games were unforgivably clunky and even prefer the feel of DA:O's RTwP for that reason alone.

Is round-based system that much different than units having different attack rates in RTS?

 

[Sensuki]

No, not really. It's actually really well implemented. The naysayers of it, including Josh and Anthony Davis have issues I think. The thing that makes it a bit funky is the fake attacks, which aren't much of a big deal anyway and can be removed by ToBEx.

 

[Infinitron]

Is round-based system that much different than units having different attack rates in RTS?

In RTSes, melee units generally have a "continuous" attack animation cycle. They might have different speeds/rates of attack, but they don't do the slash-stop-slash-stop thing that the Infinity Engine does. This is an important "feels" issue for many people.

 

[Sensuki]

Many RTS games use a similar attack system to the Infinity Engine games - Warcraft 3 has the most similar system.

 

[ZagorTeNej]

In RTSes, melee units generally have a "continuous" attack animation cycle. They might have different speeds/rates of attack, but they don't do the slash-stop-slash-stop thing that the Infinity Engine does. This is an important "feels" issue for many people.

I see your point but personally, as a fan of RTS games at the time (Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Rival Realms etc.) jump into BG was pretty comfortable for me, I felt it played very similarly and was easy to control/play (and I don't feel the same way for other RTWP games, not to the same degree atleast).

 

[polo]

Josh emptyquoted

turn based combat, if done right, is more tactical + cooler but most games don't do turn based right

"I'd rather be making something turn-based" would be a great tagline for PoE.

Sensuki http://jesawyer.tumblr.com/post/109659774286/recently-you-said-that-you-think-turn-based-combat

enverxis asked: Recently you said that you think turn-based combat is more tactical (and cooler) than real-time combat when done properly. I really enjoy turn-based combat, but the game with the most tactical depth that I have ever played is DotA, hands down. I find that most RTWP combat in RPGs is mucked up by devs not looking at RTS combat, but instead looking to action or turn-based for their influences. What makes you think that turn-based is inherently more tactical than real-time combat ?

I was actually emptyquoting someone else, but in the context of party-based RPGs I agree with the general sentiment and I’ll make a clarification at the end.

RTS and MOBA games can be extraordinarily tactical, but they also require a certain amount of physical speed and coordination for success. Not everyone needs to have high APMs to play them, but to excel at them, you have to be relatively fast. A great plan executed slowly in an RTS or MOBA will be dead in the water.

In the context of multi-character RPGs that feature RtwP, the resolution of concurrent action can make planning and coordinating things difficult. With multiple characters attempting to move through the same space, even the best pathing and AI will have a bit of slop/unexpected resolutions. A dedicated RTS game like Age of Empires II is built entirely around formation movement and combat so it has reasonably reliable pathing — but it also required ~20,000 lines of assembly code from Ensemble.

Turn-based combat allows players to isolate individual obstacles and options for consideration. The isolated actions also allow for cleaner separation of discrete tasks, so a variety of actions become less muddled than they would be in real-time. That separation can allow deep systems to thrive, e.g. the Link mechanics in the Front Mission series allow the player and AI to construct elaborately-sequenced chain reactions that are highly dependent on positioning at the precise moment that the Linking action is executed.

To clarify my opinion, while I don’t think that turn-based is inherently more tactical than real-time, real-time combat does allow other elements (e.g. player dexterity, the chaos of concurrent actions being resolved) to influence how they play out. A RtwP system can significantly reduce the importance of player dexterity, but concurrent action between multiple characters can still make things muddy. In a MOBA, being able to focus on/directly drive a single character mitigates a lot of these problems. In most turn-based games, there’s very little (if anything, it’s usually the RNG in RPGs) that’s muddy about how individual characters will execute/resolve their actions.

Having played AoE2 at a decent level, and DOTA2 at a mediocre level i must say he's right. You need a lot of speed for micromanagement, and quick reactions. First one specially for AoE, and 2nd for Dota, but both of them need speed and reactions.

 

[Sensuki]

For multiplayer, yes.

I see your point but personally, as a fan of RTS games at the time (Warcraft, Starcraft, Age of Empires, Rival Realms etc.) jump into BG was pretty comfortable for me, I felt it played very similarly and was easy to control/play (and I don't feel the same way for other RTWP games, not to the same degree atleast).

Same. I came straight from Warcraft 2 and Age of Empires 2 into Baldur's Gate. Couldn't have been a more natural transition.

 

[Athelas]

No, not really. It's actually really well implemented. The naysayers of it, including Josh and Anthony Davis have issues I think.

What kind of issues are we talking here?

Although, the bit about the fake attacks (presumably to make combat look less dull) is pretty amusing. Bioware - making RPG's more cinematic since 1998.

 

[Sensuki]

I don't think it was done for that reason specifically, but then again I'm not sure.

Well Anthony Davis said something like he enjoyed playing the Infinity Engine games until someone told him about the fake attacks and how they "were cheating him out of animation times" or something. Which is a load of bollocks. Not once have I had an occasion in a BG game where I've gone "OMG I SHOULD HAVE GOT A REAL ATTACK THEN", I mean wtf is that?

Besides, if you're playing BGT or BG2 or whatever - install TobEx and remove them - problem solved.

 

[Roguey]

You actually do lose attacks the rules say you should be getting because of animation issues. It was more exacerbated in NWN.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...-officially-canceled.33947/page-7#post-817575

#1. In NWN1 combat rounds lasted 6 seconds, just like the rules specify. Everything was animated, and the animations take time to play out. In NWN1 the animations took priority over the rules. In the early levels, this was not a big deal because 6 seconds is more than enough time to play attack, cast, hit, and reaction animations.

However, NWN1 had several bugs at higher levels, especially with AOO's, mutliple attacks based on level, and getting mobbed and surrounded by creatures. It was not uncommon for fighters to LOSE attacks because the animations would play and the 6 seconds would get used up. Also, it was possible for creatures and players to lose attacks and the opportunity to do things if they were getting hit and the 6 second window was used up.

Is this clear? It is kind of a tricky concept, but it is well documented on the NWN1 forums

In NWN2, we decided to follow the rules much more closely, so we made changes to the animations. Animations were no longer the limitation, a player got all of his attacks, AOO's and movements regardless if there was time for the animation to play.

So you end up with combat that looks like garbage whether you stick to the rules or not.

Plus "non-movement actions run on 6/7-second timers but movement actions can happen whenever" is ad hoc nonsense. A bandaid rule to make it feel less like garbage.

 

[Nihiliste]

I don't think it was done for that reason specifically, but then again I'm not sure.

Well Anthony Davis said something like he enjoyed playing the Infinity Engine games until someone told him about the fake attacks and how they "were cheating him out of animation times" or something. Which is a load of bollocks. Not once have I had an occasion in a BG game where I've gone "OMG I SHOULD HAVE GOT A REAL ATTACK THEN", I mean wtf is that?

Besides, if you're playing BGT or BG2 or whatever - install TobEx and remove them - problem solved.

It's actually kind of odd; many of the complaints raised about the BG series have been fixed over the last decade and a half with one mod or another. But instead of looking to the simple solutions created over the years, we have all kinds of dramatic but ultimately ineffective changes being implemented instead.

 

[Sensuki]

You actually do lose attacks the rules say you should be getting because of animation issues. It was more exacerbated in NWN.

If you set your attacks to 5 a round in Shadowkeeper, you get 5 attacks per round in game. I play the IE games at 40 FPS too.

Plus "non-movement actions run on 6/7-second timers but movement actions can happen whenever" is ad hoc nonsense. A bandaid rule to make it feel less like garbage.

Excuse me?

 

[Infinitron]

Ah yes, good point. The walking vs attacking timer thing isn't very RTSey either.

 

[Roguey]

If you set your attacks to 5 a round in Shadowkeeper, you get 5 attacks per round in game.

I'm going to choose to believe the guy who worked on Icewind Dale 1 and 2 over the BG fanboy.