Torment PST - "shit combat"? Why?

[Brancaleone]

The authoritative opinion on Torment: https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2018/0...ctive-on-the-Original-Incarnation-Part-I.html

PS:T combat encounter design is practically non-existent. It is regrettable — since preexistent Fallout did a better job of balancing dialogue, questing, exploration and combat — that dev-cycle emphasis on dialogue, lore and writing in general detracted from the effort that should have been put into the most important aspect of an A/D&D campaign.

Furthermore, what combat there is that manages to spark interest in fans of BG and IWD, is ruined by:

the abysmal pathing routine (worse than even pre-patch BG)
broken inventory mechanics (buff or heal as many times as we like per round; multiple quaffings stack)
clunky portable pop-up (below-pictured)
no combat feedback in the dialogue window
limited spell ranges / special abilities
lack of buff/negative status effect indicators on the portraits (we won't even know what's going on half of the time)
absurd Final Fantasy-style cutscenes that trigger scripted and pre-rendered FMVs every time we cast an epic spell
spell effects that obscure the on-screen action (can't see what is going on!)
stat-screen doesn't even show adjusted THAC0

...


PS:T combat is just completely uninspiring and yawn-inducing. Remembering that it was released several months after Tales of the Sword Coast, there are no notable mage duels à la Davaeorn...

... there are no interesting set-piece battles or boss encounters (Warders/Aec-Letic)...

... there are no rival adventuring parties to pit TNO's crew against...

... and there is almost no terrain to be employed by the player for tactical purposes. Instead, combat encounters are usually staged in wide open areas and largely consist of one benign trashmob (that might bleed into an adjacent, identical trashmob), one toughie and his crew, one super-toughie all alone, or just a full-blown horde such as the one in Curst prison: no fewer than 57 hostile Curst Guards.

Most of that is just autistic nit-picking, Planescape's combat has far bigger problems than 'stat-screen doesn't show adjusted THAC0' or 'lack of buff indicators'. The only substantial criticism is about encounter composition.

 

[jackofshadows]

Yeah this meme has to die. Or the same automatically applies to BG1 which for some reason not perceived well around here. PST combat does get boring due to all aforementioned reasons but it's not shit per se.

 

[Bester]

I've been thinking of doing that, actually. But since I don't really know anything about IE modding, I've just been poking around in NearInfinity. So far I managed to add effects like Stoneskin and Invisibility that were absent from PS:T and I made the Nameless One capable of ranged attacks by throwing daggers (using the animation of the Ice Knife spell).

I also restored some alternate quest solutions that were fully written, but never implemented in the game.

I think the best way would've been to port BG spells and abilities into PST and then enhance the mobs' AI to use them. Maybe using GemRB, because it already can read them all, despite their differences between engine versions. Though the difficulty involved is probably beyond a mere mortal's capabilities.

 

[Jvegi]

That's all there is to combat for it to be "fine" for someone: "pretty animations". You heard it not from me. How low Codex(ers) have fallen.
Don't get me wrong, I like(ed) enemies getting melted by plasma and so on in Fallouts but those didn't make combat "fine" - at best made it fun to watch, for a time.
I suppose it is a matter of different (and low) expectations.

First of all, go fuck yourself.

Second of all, pst combat is obviously not a high point of the game. It's also not the point of the game. The point is the story and presentation. In this context pretty animations are good enough. The combat never distracted me from the main gameplay loop, and if it did for some people, I'm not sure if making it more involved and strategic would fix that.

 

[Brancaleone]

I've been thinking of doing that, actually. But since I don't really know anything about IE modding, I've just been poking around in NearInfinity. So far I managed to add effects like Stoneskin and Invisibility that were absent from PS:T and I made the Nameless One capable of ranged attacks by throwing daggers (using the animation of the Ice Knife spell).

I also restored some alternate quest solutions that were fully written, but never implemented in the game.

I think the best way would've been to port BG spells and abilities into PST and then enhance the mobs' AI to use them. Maybe using GemRB, because it already can read them all, despite their differences between engine versions. Though the difficulty involved is probably beyond a mere mortal's capabilities.

It think it goes quite beyond that. Combat (and all things it entails, items, builds or lack of, ) is simply very poorly integrated into the game.
In Planescape, why do you fight?
- experience: no, you get most of it from quests and conversations
- loot: no, you get most of it from shops/containers/etc., plus conversation-only upgrades
- money: no, see above
- challenge: no, there is none
- builds: ha ha ha
- player tactics: no, there is no need for tactics, and having very few companions with pidgeonholed roles really throttles options
- enemy tactics: no, AI is almost non existent, and enemies have very few tools at their disposal
- variety: no, encounter design is abysmal

So you fight because at least sometimes you have to. And whithin a fight, there comes the Big Question:

- Is there any reason why I shouldn't auto-attack?

And the answer is, unfortunately, no, for all the reasons already mentioned in this thread. We could also go on about how it dovetails with loot being mechanically insignificant and done with a patina of weirdness for the sake of it or simply for shit'n'giggles, with how the game often attempts to overcome tropes by merely excising them, and so on.

So wouldn't it be better to get rid of combat altogether? The problem is, combat HAD to be in the game, first of all because otherwise it wouldn't perceived as a proper 'IE game'. But more importantly, getting rid of combat would mean getting rid of all the (mostly pointless) loot, of most of the leveling up mechanics, and of most of the conversation 'rewards'. And thus you'd be leaving the game with some really paper-thin gameplay: a rather clunky graphic adventure with only 'talkie' puzzles.

Mind you, with a great setting and a fantastic atmosphere, and some interesting dialogues (although mixed with a lot of cringe inducing moments when it tries to be 'philosophical'). Which in my opinion is more than enough to justify playing (and replaying) it. I mean, I'm a combatfag through and through, and my favourite game is Arcanum, which beats even Planescape for the honour of 'worst combat among RPG's that are worth playing'.

 

[Brennus]

Lack of challenge

 

[copebot]

Should also point out that the main character rapidly becomes overpowered because he can increase his base stats consistently, unlike most other 2E adaptations. However, the encounters are not adjusted for this. The companions are also pretty powerful in their own right, and you get a massive party of six. Then, there's the unlimited use consumables to further trivialize it. I played PS:T in my early teens, though, and I remember really enjoying it in my multiple playthroughs. I just loved casting cloudkill on those slugs in the undercity repeatedly, powerleveling. That kind of stuff doesn't really entertain me anymore, but it's not all that far off from cheating infinite money in Age of Empires and going to town or what have you.

PS:T has pretty strong combat presentation, it's just that it's not challenging and the encounters are not well designed. It has all the base elements, art assets, and systems that could produce great combat, but the pieces don't come together.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

How could this happen to the best RPG of all time?

cackles and flies away on broom

 

[d1r]

The authoritative opinion on Torment: https://lilura1.blogspot.com/2018/0...ctive-on-the-Original-Incarnation-Part-I.html

PS:T combat encounter design is practically non-existent. It is regrettable — since preexistent Fallout did a better job of balancing dialogue, questing, exploration and combat — that dev-cycle emphasis on dialogue, lore and writing in general detracted from the effort that should have been put into the most important aspect of an A/D&D campaign.

Furthermore, what combat there is that manages to spark interest in fans of BG and IWD, is ruined by:

the abysmal pathing routine (worse than even pre-patch BG)
broken inventory mechanics (buff or heal as many times as we like per round; multiple quaffings stack)
clunky portable pop-up (below-pictured)
no combat feedback in the dialogue window
limited spell ranges / special abilities
lack of buff/negative status effect indicators on the portraits (we won't even know what's going on half of the time)
absurd Final Fantasy-style cutscenes that trigger scripted and pre-rendered FMVs every time we cast an epic spell
spell effects that obscure the on-screen action (can't see what is going on!)
stat-screen doesn't even show adjusted THAC0

...


PS:T combat is just completely uninspiring and yawn-inducing. Remembering that it was released several months after Tales of the Sword Coast, there are no notable mage duels à la Davaeorn...

... there are no interesting set-piece battles or boss encounters (Warders/Aec-Letic)...

... there are no rival adventuring parties to pit TNO's crew against...

... and there is almost no terrain to be employed by the player for tactical purposes. Instead, combat encounters are usually staged in wide open areas and largely consist of one benign trashmob (that might bleed into an adjacent, identical trashmob), one toughie and his crew, one super-toughie all alone, or just a full-blown horde such as the one in Curst prison: no fewer than 57 hostile Curst Guards.

Most of that is just autistic nit-picking, Planescape's combat has far bigger problems than 'stat-screen doesn't show adjusted THAC0' or 'lack of buff indicators'. The only substantial criticism is about encounter composition.

Well, we're talking about Lilura here after all.

 

[AdolfSatan]

All IE games have bad combat, you just need to play a game with good mechanics to realize that.

 

[Imrahil]

...and you get a massive party of six.

 

[Camel]

All IE games have bad combat, you just need to play a game with good mechanics to realize that.

Such as?

 

[Peachcurl]

All IE games have bad combat, you just need to play a game with good mechanics to realize that.

Such as?

games with quick time events, or "I win" buttons

games without combat

yeah

 

[Butter]

All IE games have bad combat, you just need to play a game with good mechanics to realize that.

Such as?

Any Gold Box game. Knights of the Chalice. Temple of Elemental Evil. Dark Sun. Dungeon Rats.

 

[Darkozric]

"spell effects that obscure the on-screen action (can't see what is going on!)"

Well, too much fapping blinds your eyesight.

 

[Serus]

As to IE games having bad combat. I'd say it is mediocre instead not bad but perhaps that's just semantics. However there is mediocre IE combat and then there is PST combat. For reasons several people mentioned. This is why i never understand how can anyone claim that PST combat is equal to combat in other IE games. In those other games it can be fun and challenging, at least sometimes - despite all the limitations of the engine and the ruleset. In PST, it's just a chore. If the combat in BGs or IDs was as bad as PST then those game would be virtually unplayable considering that they lack the original story and setting of PST and combat is the main appeal.

 

[luj1]

PST is based on AD&D. BGs are based on AD&D. How does PST have "shit combat", while BG has okay combat? I've been reading this condox consensus for 10 years. Explain it to me.

I don't agree that PST has shit combat. It could do with more itemisation and spells that add tactical depth (i.e. protection layers, debuffs, dispells). And remove the anime effects from spells. Other than that, it's 90% there. How bad can AD&D combat really be?

cause 0 encounter design


BG I-II much better than PST in this regard

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

PST is based on AD&D. BGs are based on AD&D. How does PST have "shit combat", while BG has okay combat? I've been reading this condox consensus for 10 years. Explain it to me.

Both PST and BG utilize Bioware's execrable RTwP combat system and therefore both have terrible combat. Being based on AD&D 2nd edition, they should have had turn-based combat systems. It is also possible to have a good action-based real-time combat system, as demonstrated later by the Demon's/Dark Souls series and by Dragon's Dogma. Real-Time-with-Pause, however, combines the worst aspects of turn-based with real-time and should always be avoided in any CRPG.

It's just a pity that Bioware didn't stick to Gygaxian 1-minute combat rounds, which would neatly have prevented this sort of combat system from ever becoming popular.

 

[Harthwain]

Both PST and BG utilize Bioware's execrable RTwP combat system and therefore both have terrible combat. Being based on AD&D 2nd edition, they should have had turn-based combat systems.

You're trying too hard. The active pause makes real-time a non-issue, especially if you also use scripts to automate some of the actions to not have to micromanage literally everything.

 

[Darth Canoli]

I don't see what this has to do with combat itself. If the system is right, it's right throughout the entire game.

PST is based on AD&D. BGs are based on AD&D. How does PST have "shit combat", while BG has okay combat? I've been reading this condox consensus for 10 years. Explain it to me.

Well, it's simple, really.
BG combat is bad but some encounter design saves it.

PST just spawns grapes of enemies.
On top of this, PST adds unnecessary long spells animations.

 

[Brancaleone]

PST is based on AD&D. BGs are based on AD&D. How does PST have "shit combat", while BG has okay combat? I've been reading this condox consensus for 10 years. Explain it to me.

Because, as some developers refuse to learn, content always trumps system.

Arcanum has great systems, but its combat is even worse than Planescape's: encounter design is placeholder level, no effort at balance, AI is non-existent (literally, I checked). I mean, at least groups of cranium rats use spells, in Arcanum magic users try to punch your lights out.

 

[Roguey]

Being based on AD&D 2nd edition, they should have had turn-based combat systems.

I must honor my absent friend.

This would normally be when Fairfax pops up to explain that phase-based is not turn-based and RTwP captures the spirit of 2E’s phase-based combat better than a sequential turn-based system would.

 

[Cromwell]

Being based on AD&D 2nd edition, they should have had turn-based combat systems.

I must honor my absent friend.

This would normally be when Fairfax pops up to explain that phase-based is not turn-based and RTwP captures the spirit of 2E’s phase-based combat better than a sequential turn-based system would.

after capturing it it takes it into its basement and rapes that spirit while humming "you're so beautiful"

 

[jackofshadows]

in Arcanum magic users try to punch your lights out

You've played some broken-ass version. Not that magic users (including rats by the way) use spells there too often but they do.

 

[Brancaleone]

in Arcanum magic users try to punch your lights out

You've played some broken-ass version. Not that magic users (including rats by the way) use spells there too often but they do.

I've played almost every version there has been, including all UAP versions (I've never used any other mods). And I have dug into the AI 'code' (for lack of a better word), and posted it in into some Arcanum thread some time ago (spoiler: it's about one page long).