TB Systems of combat

[ArcturusXIV]

Well since the Codex is known for favoring TB combat most of the times, what are people's preferences for TB systems? Do you like Action Point based systems more or those based on fixed time intervals? Do you like having tiles that you have to navigate or simply being able to move freely? How about determining who goes first in combat; is agility/dexterity the best way of choosing who goes first or base it on a random roll?

Oh and do people like dice rolling or not? It might make sense for a PnP game, but since computers can do calculations very easily is there a more intuitive method of adding variablity to success (or should there even be variablity to success)?

Anyway, those are enough questions for now... I might ask more later. :D

The turn-based system I like best is the one I have in my head. Maybe some day I'll get around to learning how to program an RPG and then make on with the sort of combat I desire, but until then, TBS games, tactical military games, and the original Fallout will have to fill that void.

 

[Balor]

Wow, you guesed correctly! Though it's not for prefering RT vs. TB. It's for two reasons, first if you don't like TB don't respond to the thread saying you like RT w/pause instead because you aren't contributing to the discussion, you're just throwing it off topic with your remarks.

Well, RTwP is ‘almost’ TB, in term of application, or, at least, MUCH closer to TB then to RT (in term of application, not realism, again). I can easily imagine JA2 being RTwP, while cannot imagine Diablo being TB. So, I guess, it’s perfectly fitting to discuss it as an alternative of TB.
And about the ‘trigger pushing’ and ‘crack smoking’:
Looks like I kinda got carried away with all the discussion about APs in Fallout (and I’ve not started it, btw)... hence the:
"After all, no matter how fast you may push the trigger, the gun mechanics will not fire faster then it physically can..."
That's, in particular, applies to Gauss rifle and pistol. And far as I understand (if I agree that I thread into the grounds of sci-fi) - gauss-type weapons require quite some time to be charged before each shot. Even with sci-fi elements in, you cannot shoot with such weapon 7 times in a turn, with some traits, perks and Jet (while 'usual' people can only fire one shot per round from normal rifle).
But heck, we don't love Fallout for this - after all, Bozar we all know (and even love, heh) is a rip-off from 12.7 mm Sniper Rifle (Barret) for God's sake! Same applies to P:T - I hate AD&D gameplay mechanics, but love it, cause combat plays really negligible part there - if you don’t want to get involved in it.
Btw, I'd say, if Fallout was FP and RT, but with all dialogues and the story intact - we will not love it any less. Just like I don't love P:T any less for being RT and AD&D. It’s just, like someone pointed out, RT games are mostly action-oriented, and vice-versa - for obvious reasons. So CRPG players developed ‘Pavlov’s dog’ reaction - TB - good, RT - bad. While you can have great, classic RPG with RT combat system, and absolute crap with TB system, I hope it doesn’t need explaining.

 

[Human Shield]

Real-time with pause is just more rules put into a real-time system.

JA2 in real-time would be crap, period. Have fun sneaking up on someone while they are walking away and your extra agility doesn't matter. Have fun running and shooting because it is not time effective to go prone, running at a group they can only shoot you a few times compared to TB where they can take cover and blow you away. Have fun not being able to shoot and move at the same time with your "realistic" real-time.

 

[Stark]

there hasn't been one RTwP game that plays out satisfactorily.

BG and IWD solved the dull combat somewhat by allowing us to control multiple protagonists.

full RT or full TB works out much better.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Yeah, TB/RT clones are the worst of both worlds. It's a Faustian bargain.

 

[Balor]

Real-time with pause is just more rules put into a real-time system.

Right. What's wrong with that? TB has even more rules, and, in effect, is meant to emulate RT anyway... and does it more poorly then RTwP, while RTwP is supposed to do the same as TB - give player more control over the situation. How good it is at it - depends on implementation.

there hasn't been one RTwP game that plays out satisfactorily.

- but it doesn't mean that it's impossible, right? In fact, like I already mentioned, in E5 the system works nearly perfect.

JA2 in real-time would be crap, period. Have fun sneaking up on someone while they are walking away and your extra agility doesn't matter.

Why so? If you have higher agility, you'll move faster and catch up with him eventually. BTW, gotta try and to that, just to prove your wrong .

Have fun running and shooting because it is not time effective to go prone, running at a group they can only shoot you a few times compared to TB where they can take cover and blow you away.

Now WHERE did you got THAT from? Scan this for logic and find none. It all depends on implementation.

Have fun not being able to shoot and move at the same time with your "realistic" real-time.

Hmm. Can you move and shoot in your 'unrealistic' TB? Cannot recall so. You have to stop, shoot, move again in every game - except for FPS, but accuracy should be piss-poor anyway.
Or you miss the - jump out past the corner - shoot - jump back? In E5, say, it's more then possible (not only you will miss that feature, heh). Of course, if an enemy will have that corner covered, you're a toast (unless he'll miss), since he'll only have to push trigger - and that's a fraction of a second. But same applies to interrupts (that's what they are for, hackish as they are).
Anyway, just you wait for E5 to come out. While I don't guarantee that everyone of you will be instantly converted and admit that TB suck and SPM rulez - but there, RTwP DOES work, and works very nice. Call me a fanboy - but I'd better be a fanboy of E5, then of Sims2, for instance . There are some problems right now - but it's AI and other SPM-unrelated bugs (one cannot expect a relatively early beta NOT to have bugs, right?) - but they system itself works great.
That's why I'm posting all this - I'd never 'advertise' RTwP based on my prior experience with it - since, I agree, in earlier implementations it sucked. I may be biased, but I'm not a liar.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Real-time with pause is just more rules put into a real-time system.

Right. What's wrong with that? TB has even more rules, and, in effect, is meant to emulate RT anyway... and does it more poorly then RTwP, while RTwP is supposed to do the same as TB - give player more control over the situation. How good it is at it - depends on implementation.

there hasn't been one RTwP game that plays out satisfactorily.

- but it doesn't mean that it's impossible, right? In fact, like I already mentioned, in E5 the system works nearly perfect.

JA2 in real-time would be crap, period. Have fun sneaking up on someone while they are walking away and your extra agility doesn't matter.

Why so? If you have higher agility, you'll move faster and catch up with him eventually. BTW, gotta try and to that, just to prove your wrong .

Have fun running and shooting because it is not time effective to go prone, running at a group they can only shoot you a few times compared to TB where they can take cover and blow you away.

Now WHERE did you got THAT from? Scan this for logic and find none. It all depends on implementation.

Have fun not being able to shoot and move at the same time with your "realistic" real-time.

Hmm. Can you move and shoot in your 'unrealistic' TB? Cannot recall so. You have to stop, shoot, move again in every game - except for FPS, but accuracy should be piss-poor anyway.
Or you miss the - jump out past the corner - shoot - jump back? In E5, say, it's more then possible (not only you will miss that feature, heh). Of course, if an enemy will have that corner covered, you're a toast (unless he'll miss), since he'll only have to push trigger - and that's a fraction of a second. But same applies to interrupts (that's what they are for, hackish as they are).
Anyway, just you wait for E5 to come out. While I don't guarantee that everyone of you will be instantly converted and admit that TB suck and SPM rulez - but there, RTwP DOES work, and works very nice. Call me a fanboy - but I'd better be a fanboy of E5, then of Sims2, for instance . There are some problems right now - but it's AI and other SPM-unrelated bugs (one cannot expect a relatively early beta NOT to have bugs, right?) - but they system itself works great.
That's why I'm posting all this - I'd never 'advertise' RTwP based on my prior experience with it - since, I agree, in earlier implementations it sucked. I may be biased, but I'm not a liar.

The above message was so poorly thought out I almost didn't waste the space responding. Where do I begin?

"TB has even more rules, and, in effect, is meant to emulate RT anyway... and does it more poorly then RTwP"

How so? Turn-based gives far more control over characters, allowing you better sequencing options, different phases to attacks, limited actions per turn, the ability to stack options, the ability to set commands before the attack phase, more interesting and tactical combat...I could go on forever here. RTwP is just a shallow excuse for turn-based, since in larger battles you have to pause anyway, and you still don't get as much control over characters as you would in a fully turn-based game.

Actually, everything I've said above really summarized why it is better to go either fully real-time, or fully turn-based, but not both. Either way, something is lost in the translation.

 

[Balor]

I see you all keep looking towards the negative side of the RTwP (and usual/lame implementation of it, to boot), and only on the positive of TB. Ok, since I cannot possibly beat that standpoint, I'm leaving this thread. I like TB for the above reasons too - but I think, RPwP, with PROPER implementation - is better. Well, I agree, in some cases TB would be better then RTwP anyway, and anything but RT, in case of games like Diablo, is completely worthless...
But if you refuse to look on the both sides of the coin, there is nothing I can do. And, like dojoteef kindly reminded me, it's just pushing the thread offtopic.
At least no one can say now that I've not tried, tho.
P.S. Oh, and I'm not offended or something - I can understand you. Some "hren s bugra" (me) comes and starts to proclaim that system you know for a long time as crap, comparing to TB (RTwP) rulez, and TB - suck (well, not that I've said that - but, strictly, TB is LESS realistic then RT or RTwP, physics-wise.) It does sounds... fishy. Especially that he uses a game that is not released yet as an example. Oh well, time will show. After all, I like that game, therefore I'm biased.
I just thought that this community is less... conservative, so to speak. I was wrong, I admit. I'm just a man, and I'm not impeccable. Balor out.

 

[RGE]

I too would probably prefer some kind of smart pause system that is configurable to the player's taste in details. Something close to this was the time system used for MechForce, but since that system didn't sport real time it felt turnbased even though the 'mechs moved and fired their weapons on a second by second basis. As soon as you were due for a move or shoot action you'd get to input your commands. You could also set a wait action for either a specific time or (I believe) the next action of an enemy 'mech.

I used to trick the AI by ordering a move action and then use the weapon action to wait a while before using it to abort and restart the move action. This would get the enemy 'mech to charge into the position I was headed to but make me arrive after that 'mech instead of before, which would cause me to tackle that 'mech instead of it tackling me. I really liked to go into melee, and tackling the opponent when running downhill could cause them to tumble a few hexes and take a lot of damage doing so. :twisted:

Didn't work so well when they moved twice as fast though, which could easily happen when they lost a lot of cumbersome stuff such as armour and limbs and weapons and such.

 

[Hajo]

Well since the Codex is known for favoring TB combat most of the times, what are people's preferences for TB systems?

I like discrete timing systems. Each action takes a while. Your next chance to act takes place a current_time plus action_delay

This gives a natural order of actions and can include different base speeds of PCs.

Depedning if the game pauses hard to get player input for the next action, or just polls upon each chance to act, this appears to be realtime or turn based on the user surface.

 

[ichpokhudezh]

TB has even more rules, and, in effect, is meant to emulate RT anyway...

Did you mistype by any chance and have meant RL instead of RT?

To quote Volourn, 'No'.

 

[dojoteef]

I like discrete timing systems. Each action takes a while. Your next chance to act takes place a current_time plus action_delay

This gives a natural order of actions and can include different base speeds of PCs.

Depedning if the game pauses hard to get player input for the next action, or just polls upon each chance to act, this appears to be realtime or turn based on the user surface.

Hajo, could I get some more clarification on the this discrete timing system? On the surface it seems like an interesting system, but with further scrutiny it really sounds like real time or real time with pause (with maybe customizable pause?). Why I say that is, in real time you have the same sort of thing. When you execute an action you can't execute the next action until the previous action is complete; the animations might seem to be acting contrary to this if you change the action midway through an animation but if you do that the effect for the first action is never applied (this keeps someone who can click faster from being able to do more damage).

So my question is, how exactly does that differ from RT? And if there is an auto pause how does it differ from RT w/P? I mean I could see a mechanism of doing that by slowing the game down once you enter combat, but it has many downsides. Depending on how slow you make the game time you might run into problems. If you slow it down less the person who can access the attacks, spells, etc the quickest has an advantage. If you slow it down more then some people might not want to watch waiting for the slow-motion animations to finish. That's why there is the option in TB combat to have all the enemies do their attacks at the same time.

Please inform me if I'm misunderstanding the system you mentioned.

 

[Human Shield]

Until better AI is invented and more advanced ways to control your character, TB will be a more realistic abstraction of combat then RT can ever be, PERIOD. You CAN move and shoot, you CAN cover a doorway to prevent entry, you CAN shoot down a guy with a knife before he gets to you without a stupid running match, you CAN shoot from cover. TB offers more control then RT will ever hope to, until advanced VR is created.

 

[Stark]

I just thought that this community is less... conservative, so to speak. I was wrong, I admit. I'm just a man, and I'm not impeccable. Balor out.

ArcturusXIV, I think you just broke someone's heart...

... but I think, RPwP, with PROPER implementation ....Especially that he uses a game that is not released yet as an example.

Balor, you'll need to go into specifics of the mechanics to convince people rather than vaguely claiming "with proper implementation", RTwP would be good. I can equally make claims that a rpg with no combat, with PROPER implementation, would be good too.

Further, you're using an as yet unreleased game as an example (good that you know it yourself). I personally have never heard of this game you're touting.

 

[RGE]

Depedning if the game pauses hard to get player input for the next action, or just polls upon each chance to act, this appears to be realtime or turn based on the user surface.

You mean that if the game pauses hard (like MechForce did) it appears to be turnbased, but if the game polls the user when a new action can be performed, it appears to be real time, right? In the latter case you would probably be able to queue the next action in order to not lose the time that passes between the end of the previous action and the command to perform a new action.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

I just thought that this community is less... conservative, so to speak. I was wrong, I admit. I'm just a man, and I'm not impeccable. Balor out.

ArcturusXIV, I think you just broke someone's heart...

... but I think, RPwP, with PROPER implementation ....Especially that he uses a game that is not released yet as an example.

Balor, you'll need to go into specifics of the mechanics to convince people rather than vaguely claiming "with proper implementation", RTwP would be good. I can equally make claims that a rpg with no combat, with PROPER implementation, would be good too.

Further, you're using an as yet unreleased game as an example (good that you know it yourself). I personally have never heard of this game you're touting.

It's not that I dislike real time, or favor turn-based over it. I just think that you lose the best parts of each when you combine them.

The advantage of real time is the amount of emergent scenarios and the on-your-toes action. This is aided by realistic physics, reflex-based action, and good AI.

The advantage of turn-based is the almost unlimited strategic control you have over everything that occurs, and the unlimited depth it can give to a combat system (a turn-based system can go as deep as the creator wants it to. As I said, I have several ideas for turn-based systems of combat that would be awesome.). The disadvantage is that you lose the intensity and BOO factor of someone coming up behind you, and the cinematic appeal diminishes, making it less appealing to the unwashed masses.

The only "cinematic" turn-based games right now are Japanese RPGs, and these have limited strategic potential for the most part. However, one can see where a good, complex, cinematic turn-based system could be commercially successful. It's just a matter of time until someone creates a system like this which appeals to the common gamer enough to garner a publisher's niche for turn-based combat.

Do I think turn-based will make a comeback? Yes, I do.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

The best RT/TB implementation, IMO, is the kind used in Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm. Beyond that, I just don't feel the two work well with one another when it comes to RTwP.

Only true TB can give you the complete realistic experience. RT just won't be able to accomplish that no matter how good the AI gets simply because it relies on player skill. As I mentioned before, unless the player has all the skills and battle experience his character is supposed to have, it just ain't happening.

Sure, the AI will eventually get good enough to do all those things, but at that point it's just a glorified Dungeon Siege where we're forced to sit back and watch the game play itself. And while it may sound like I just contradicted myself on the AI subject, I would like to point out that the previous paragraph was emphasizing player input over AI abilities. I'd rather play a game, not watch it. $7 for a movie ticket is alot better than $50 for one.

 

[Stark]

Do I think turn-based will make a comeback? Yes, I do.

we can only hope. Given the current attitude many gamers are exhibiting (LOL TB is so boring), I'm afraid it's very unlikely.

 

[DarkSign]

but if the game polls the user when a new action can be performed, it appears to be real time, right?

I think this is a great marriage of the two. Someone said above that its the lack of good AI that prevents real-time from being realistic. I can only meet you half way on that. Im wondering why he thinks that if he doesnt have time to go prone in RT games he would have time to go prone in REAL LIFE? Instant action is instant action!

I must admit that TB does add for more complexity...but in a way its artifical complexity. I guarantee you that alot of the fancy stuff you think soldiers do is just hogwash (thinking of JA2).

Yes its fun to have a complex game that requires you to think...and that gives you a lot of options for tactical combat, but to say "in TB I can do x,y,z fancy actions that I couldnt do in a RT game"...what makes you think you'd be able to do them in real life?

Full Spectrum Warrior is as realistic as RT gets from a military perspective. The military didnt go with TB when it wanted to train its troops.

Just separate your argument: Whats the most realistic isnt always the most fun to play.

 

[Stark]

but if the game polls the user when a new action can be performed, it appears to be real time, right?

I think this is a great marriage of the two. Someone said above that its the lack of good AI that prevents real-time from being realistic. I can only meet you half way on that. Im wondering why he thinks that if he doesnt have time to go prone in RT games he would have time to go prone in REAL LIFE? Instant action is instant action!

I must admit that TB does add for more complexity...but in a way its artifical complexity. I guarantee you that alot of the fancy stuff you think soldiers do is just hogwash (thinking of JA2).

Yes its fun to have a complex game that requires you to think...and that gives you a lot of options for tactical combat, but to say "in TB I can do x,y,z fancy actions that I couldnt do in a RT game"...what makes you think you'd be able to do them in real life?

Full Spectrum Warrior is as realistic as RT gets from a military perspective. The military didnt go with TB when it wanted to train its troops.

Just separate your argument: Whats the most realistic isnt always the most fun to play.

selective reading at its best. I think the problem of interface (emulating RL using keyboard strokes in RT combat) has been mentioned numerous times in this thread.

in RL i may elect to go prone. in RT combat i''ll need a keystroke for that. now think of all the possible actions u can do in RL and try to emulate that in a RT combat using a keyboard and mouse/joypad.

instead of bringing discussion backwards why don't you read the thread carefully before commenting.

 

[suibhne]

Depedning if the game pauses hard to get player input for the next action, or just polls upon each chance to act, this appears to be realtime or turn based on the user surface.

You mean that if the game pauses hard (like MechForce did) it appears to be turnbased, but if the game polls the user when a new action can be performed, it appears to be real time, right? In the latter case you would probably be able to queue the next action in order to not lose the time that passes between the end of the previous action and the command to perform a new action.

Which makes it no longer turn-based. If interface latency (the delay between your intention to perform an action and your ability to define that action for your on-screen character) forces you to queue actions ahead of time so your character can actually move once his "turn" comes around, then the system you're describing is similar to phase-based.

Even if the game enforces pauses upon each chance to act, it's still not necessarily turn-based - as illustrated by the example of the Infinity Engine, which featured the ability to pause at the end of each round yet ended up, at best, with the same sort of half-assed phase-based result described above. The pausing might help overcome interface latency, in other words, but you still end up moving simultaneously with your enemies rather than sequentially as in a true turn-based system (like ToEE or FO).

 

[Sarvis]

in RL i may elect to go prone. in RT combat i''ll need a keystroke for that. now think of all the possible actions u can do in RL and try to emulate that in a RT combat using a keyboard and mouse/joypad.

And THEN try to figure out how to do it for 4-8 characters, without making combat so frenetic that most players can't handle it.

 

[Loof]

Hmm look my type of discusion, should be good enough for a first post after all the lurking...

First about the comment that gun mechanics would limit fireing speed (post from teh beginning of the thread). This is in my opinion definetly not true, for instance the fastest gunsmanIi have heard of is a guy that managed to draw shoot three baloons and holster again in 0.04 sekonds with a revolver!!! (was at very close range so not much aiming was needed). Wheras a normal shot would take at least half a second to get a good aim on the target. (speaking from my own experience with target practise). So i would say that the human factor is alot larger then any limit the gun has...

On the topic of TB vs RT I dont realy have a absolute stand it depends alot on the type of game, but in general i prefer either too RTwP. And think any game where the player controlls more then one character should be TB, and any game where the player only controlls one character should have a leaning twoards RT unless it uses a topdown perspective (wich i have never seen done well in RT).
Unfortunatly I have also never seen a cRPG in FP RT that I thought was well implemented as they all seem to lack combat options and a good interface to controll said options. Instead they simply seem to try and mimic FPS's games which isn't realy what a FP RPG shoudl be doing in my opinion.

Lastly to tie back up to the original topic...
What I would like in a TB combatsystem:
I would want some kind of AP system preferably with many AP's instead of few (JA2 combat > FO combat). I would let AP be determined by a "Agility" stat representing physical speed and a "Wits" stat representing mental speed, I might also want a "Combat reflexes" skill to represent the benefit of experience or the method mentioned above where each action controlling skill modifyes AP cost for an action, action cost should also be modifyed by equipment (and terrain + stance in the case of movement). I would also add a random roll to a characters AP's for a turn and then combine AP's and initiatve so that whoever has the most AP's at any give time gets to act next untill he has spent enough of them so he no longer has the most and then switch to the new king of AP...

I generaly think that tiles are unnessesary in a computergame as the information they tell the player can be told in other more ellegant ways.

Initiative - se AP system

Random rolls would have to be included in some way or the system would just become a new chessgame. The sinterval of randomnes should in my opinion be less then half the skillvalues or the system becomes to random (D&D is in my opinion way to random especialy at low levels). Also the randomness should follow a bell curve instead of having equal probabilitys of high medium and low (in PnP im an advocate of 2D6 based systems).

Finaly (altho this is only loosely tied to combat) the system should be skillbased, classless, and levelless (and definetly not have HP per level if for some reason I was forced to use a level system).

 

[dojoteef]

Loof, good information. I never thought of having a an additional random number of APs help determine total APs, it might make the combat a bit more interesting.

I do have a question for everyone regarding randomness in cRPGs. Why is it that people are so fixated on dice rolling? I can understand that for a PnP RPG, rolling dice can help make things easier to get things done, but why use that for cRPGs? There are plenty of other ways of introducing an element of randomness that might actually be even more intuitive; one example is using percentage chance of success. It's very similar to having a stat with a die roll associated with it, but it is easier for a player to visualize what the likelihood of success is. You could maybe even use different statistical distribution functions for different skills. You might even let the player use XP to "buy" the ability to use a better distribution function for a skill. If a character was low on strength, maybe you could change the distribution function for strength to a unifrom ratio distribution which would set most characters on an equal footing excepting only those of the highest strengths.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why is it that people are so fixated on dice rolling? I can understand that for a PnP RPG, rolling dice can help make things easier to get things done, but why use that for cRPGs? There are plenty of other ways of introducing an element of randomness that might actually be even more intuitive; one example is using percentage chance of success.

Isn't that the same thing? Rolling 1/20 is 5%

Edit:

It's very similar to having a stat with a die roll associated with it, but it is easier for a player to visualize what the likelihood of success is.

The problem here is that your chance to succeed isn't the same for all goals, or at least it shouldn't be. You may have an attack skill 50 which would mean 80% chance of hitting a rat and 10% chance of hitting an orc. So, percentages could be misleading. Same applies to locks, traps, and anything else.