RT/phase-based combat with auto-pause

[Claw]

I'm probably throwing myself to the wolves here, but what gives.

We've had this kind of debate a couple of times already, and as far as I recall all attempts at making RT combat appeal to the "TB crowd" have failed. I've been thinking, however, that maybe it might be possible to decieve the RT advocates into thinking they are playing RT combat when they really aren't. I mean, BG already managed to decieve many into thinking they are playing TB.

The idea is basically a form of phase-based combat without distinct command phase where the following phase starts immediately, so the game visually plays in realtime unless paused. However, the underlying system would use something like action points to determine what actions a character can perform within a phase, movement speed and animations need to be adjusted so their duration correlates with the action points spent, which should work fairly well if the action points associated with an action are sensible; adjustments for feats like Fallout's Fast Shot shouldn't cause issues, in some extreme cases different animations might be used.
If all else fails, especially in the case of movement, there'll be delays. This may be somewhat unfortunate, but then even in a movie shootout there are pauses where the characters chat or look around. Maybe "combat idle" animations could make this look better.
This would need to be coupled with an auto-pause system. First of all, the game should pause after a phase if the player character doesn't have any orders - there should be a "wait" order to avoid this being a nuisance. Additionally, the game should pause whenever the player opens a menu of any form, such as a context or aimed shot menu, and naturally unpause immediately afterwards, so the game just pauses for the player to make a selection. I don't know any game that does this, and it really seems like the obvious solution to the problem of interface latency or whatever it's called.
For convenience, you may also want some other functions, such as distinct "single action" and "repeat action" options, or "remember targeted body part" so you can shoot people in the eye with one click. Options to "stop all actions" and "pause after phase" may also be helpful.
I believe this system could also be implemented more easily in combination with a proper TB system.

Now you can tell me why this is bullshit.

 

[Flux_Capacitor]

I'm unclear as to how this is really much different from Baldur's Gate now. Admittedly, I haven't played any of the Infinity Engine games for quite a while, but wasn't one of the auto-pause options 'pause after every round'? I know there were other options for pausing when certain conditions were met, like 'enemy spotted', but I don't recall of the available options. I also believe combat paused whenever you opened up a new window, such as a character's inventory. I suppose that may have been another auto-pause option.

You could also make the argument that Baldur's Gate's combat had an underlying 'action point' system, even though its not called that. Each round every character was basically allocated two different types of action points: movement and 'actions' (attack, cast a spell, use an item, etc.). As fighters gained levels, they gained additional 'actions' action points that could only be used for attacking, similar to the Fallout perk that granted extra action points that could only be used for movement.

You mentioned a few other possibilities for what would be considered expanding the current system, but these mostly seemed like niceties. Others would be dependent on the actual combat system.

 

[Human Shield]

Free movement is not phase-based
Free movement is not phase-based
Free movement is not phase-based

You have to pause between rounds in Bioware games because people move around in real-time. It is like playing starcraft but all the units shoot at the same time, that is it. It is real-time with added rules.

I would remove the standard "run around like crazy" point and click interface and use a relational movement system. That you define how you want to move in relation to the opponent, including setting circling speed to help dodge. So if you could maintain distance while you have a spear vs. a knife guy, you fight him off getting closer, and that is only options for movement you get that round.

Benefit of phase based and TB is to get detailed options. There is no point if you want to sit back and watch auto AI play the game the whole time, you can play dungeon siege for that.

You can either limit player planning phase to make it easier to manage all the options or interrupt the player every few seconds and expect him to be able to plan a timeline in terms of seconds. A detailed system will mean interruption, the player will actually have to play the thing (OMG!).

Why make the player just a supervisor? Why design a game to work without interaction? You make it boring enough that the player wants to fast forward but requires enough attention that he can't. TB games can have cool animation too with the added benefit that you can skip it.

 

[Llyranor]

Real-time (with pause or otherwise) combat can easily work very well in terms of being tactical and untwitchy without being dumbed down. Other genres such as wargames have been pretty successful with that. It's just RPG real-time that sucks.

 

[MisterStone]

Real-time (with pause or otherwise) combat can easily work very well in terms of being tactical and untwitchy without being dumbed down. Other genres such as wargames have been pretty successful with that. It's just RPG real-time that sucks.

Can you give a couple of examples?

(I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious about those games you mentioned. I don't play war/strategy games much.)

 

[Human Shield]

Strategy games are about a lot of units whose actions are undetailed and are mostly run by AI. Try this with a small party and you get Dungeon Siege.