Atchodas
Augur
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2015
- Messages
- 1,047
but round-based RtwP is literally TB in disguise.
this is very much incline
but round-based RtwP is literally TB in disguise.
Never seen such deep defense of RtwP, "Liking TB turns you on literally a cuck." Keep the butthurt flowing guise, pretty entertaining.
I can play fast paced games just fine but I prefer turn based combat. RTwP just feels bad compared to TB.RTwP is my favorite. Old people like TB because it's slow and they can't keep up with real time combat with pause. These people are known as boomers.
What emotional response? I and others gave clear examples of things TB cannot do or does poorly. The appeals to emotion are from people like you who compare RTwP to the literal incarnation of decline.I like how discussions of RTwP vs TB always bring the agents of decline out of their hiding places and the emotional response they have against TB in favor of RTwP.
What emotional response?
You do know that butthurt old failing people like you that constantly screech that X game doesn't cater to their TB fetish are turning people away from the whole TB thing. By this point i am so annoyed by losers like you pushing their garbage that i do hope the whole TB genre dies in flames and we never see another TB game,only to see you cry in the corner,broken and miserable!
Judging by the typical critique of RTwP most TB boomers don't know what autopause is.
The last one reads like a strong preference for RTwP with quite a few spicy and emotionally charged words in there. This is not only now, I've noticed it quite a lot. The button crusades don't help either.Also, most examples given of "depth", I hate. Who the hell came up with attacks of opportunity? What is the point of it, other than being some annoying mechanic nobody cares about, that brings absolutely nothing of value? TB combat murders players with its overhead in party based games.
[...] Would take RTwP over that crap anytime. ANYTIME!
This is a gross mischaracterization of RTwP. Yes, there are reactionary elements as the game does play out in real-time, but to pretend that RTwP doesn't also require good foresight and control of the battlefield is disingenuous.RTwP is reactionary, TB requires foresight and good control of the battlefield if it's that sort of game.
Regardless of AoO's and the boots of speed, try telling me that battlefield control and foresight aren't required in some of the more difficult fights in the IWD and BG series, especially with less than optimized parties.The lack of AoOs in the IE games (they aren't that much of an issue either way) and the existence of boots of speed makes battlefield control and foresight ...less than required and present, let me tell you.
WoahRTwP is the thing which fragments time because it's asynchronous, there are still turns but they are chaotically dispersed for each individual unit on the battlefield, effectively making them act outside of each other's time. Turn-based gives every unit the same amount of time which can be imagined to be taking place simultaneously, just abstracted for our benefit.
People greatly exaggerate the problems with RTwP. As a general rule, I prefer turn-based games over RTwP games any day of the week, but RTwP, as done by the IE games, is not a bad system
You can almost always reposition or run out of sight of a mage casting every spell which isn't instant (and you can sometimes juke that too if you can count 6 seconds after the previous spell), especially with Haste and boots of speed, so the only thing that is required is noticing someone is casting something. In TB, you have to take the brunt of everyone's turn and live with the consequences of previous turns, especially in terms of positioning. There is no "kiting" in TB either, in the IE games you could take a mage with boots of speed and zap around kiting mobs, stopping each 6 seconds to cast a spell and then continue with the kiting. I've used that to surprisingly good effect against SCS Sarevok in BG1. You effectively ignore the turns of the mobs which are kited.Regardless of AoO's and the boots of speed, try telling me that battlefield control and foresight aren't required in some of the more difficult fights in the IWD and BG series, especially with less than optimized parties.
Much as I am on the RTwP side, I do think this is true. In RTwP you can react the moment something goes wrong unless the game has a lot of stuns, roots, invisibility etc built into it. Which they should do, but generally don't. I 100% agree about running around endlessly in BG being a bad joke.RTwP is reactionary, TB requires foresight and good control of the battlefield if it's that sort of game.
What emotional response?You do know that butthurt old failing people like you that constantly screech that X game doesn't cater to their TB fetish are turning people away from the whole TB thing. By this point i am so annoyed by losers like you pushing their garbage that i do hope the whole TB genre dies in flames and we never see another TB game,only to see you cry in the corner,broken and miserable!Judging by the typical critique of RTwP most TB boomers don't know what autopause is.The last one reads like a strong preference for RTwP with quite a few spicy and emotionally charged words in there. This is not only now, I've noticed it quite a lot. The button crusades don't help either.Also, most examples given of "depth", I hate. Who the hell came up with attacks of opportunity? What is the point of it, other than being some annoying mechanic nobody cares about, that brings absolutely nothing of value? TB combat murders players with its overhead in party based games.
[...] Would take RTwP over that crap anytime. ANYTIME!
I think not being able to see how this doesn’t make sense is a symptom of experiencing this particular abstraction so frequently.Anyway, there is nothing "more challenging" in RTwP since you can pause every millisecond and react to whatever is happening. RTwP is reactionary, TB requires foresight and good control of the battlefield if it's that sort of game. The fragmentation of time is literally a non-issue and has never been an issue, I'd even argue that RTwP is the thing which fragments time because it's asynchronous, there are still turns but they are chaotically dispersed for each individual unit on the battlefield, effectively making them act outside of each other's time. Turn-based gives every unit the same amount of time which can be imagined to be taking place simultaneously, just abstracted for our benefit. When there are 3 units vs 1, the 1 unit can't react to all of them at once (which is one the criticism of turn-based combat, that units wait for each other to do their turn, which is not true) because the actions of the 3 happen at the same time if it wasn't abstracted. Nobody on the battlefield is "waiting" for anything.
The main concept (declaration phase->resolution phase) has examples like the Wizardry series, Dragon Quest up to IX, Frozen Synapse, Combat Mission, Laser Squad Nemesis, and The Last Remnant. However, AFAIK no digital game has implemented PB combat with individual initiative in resolution and tactical/free movement with a map. I suppose the closest thing is in The Last Remnant, but its combat has some unique mechanics and limited movement. You'd have to look into tabletop to see the type that was being discussed, like AD&D and oWoD.Are there any games that use a phase based system? It sounds pretty clunky but would have to see it in action.
While it's faster than 3E and 4E, 5E is still relatively slow.the point of 5e is being simple and immediate.
turn are faster.
5e is made for be turn based without being boring and slow.
All these people here larping like the BG series and IWD aren't top 10 RPGs can get the fuck out of my face and go back to playing hot garbage like Morrowind, FO:NV, Dark Souls, and TOW.
Resident Zoomer
Provided I'm understanding you correctly, Albion is one such game (though it's not good). Also Wasteland, technically speaking.However, AFAIK no digital game has implemented PB combat with individual initiative in resolution and tactical/free movement with a map.