Interview The Fall Q&A at No Mutants Allowed

[Otaku_Hanzo]

There is no purpose to making RT combat and then putting it into TB. That is the statement of the completely uneducated. The AI routines, calls, etc. are so differently placed in RT and TB, it isn't even funny. TB takes best advantage of being able to AI crunch in steps, utilizing resources to do a good pathfinding algorithm to move the NPCs, a combat algorithm for their behavior, and more, all done in stages because TB can afford to do that. RT has to crunch all the shit constantly, therefore cannot take advantage of anywhere near the capabilities of a TB system because it has to do everything at the same time, for every involved actor, plus have to compete for framerate and other back-end concerns.

Good point, Rosh. Definitely explains it better than I could.

One of the things ToEE implemented better than any TB game to date was initiative. It adds alot more realism to TB combat and I have a few friends who are big fans of RT that played ToEE simply because of the initiative system. See, if you have two guys getting ready to draw down on each other, who's gonna win? The faster of the two? Not necessarily. Sure, he may get his gun out faster and therefore gets the chance to shoot first, but if he misses.... well now it's slowpoke's turn, buddy. Now, let's say slowpoke is the main character of our story and this is a classic turn based game like most console RPGs are. Well, since he's the hero, he's gonna get to go first which is totally unfair to the fast guy. Therefore initiative is important in maintaining realism as you can see.

How do you implement something like initiative realistically in an RT game?

And, yes Rosh, X:Com - Apoc sucked hardcore nuts. They should have made it TB only and it might have been a better game for it.

 

[simmschn]

Well, as Rosh said, the key word is 'sequence'. [I'm talking generally, not only D&D here] In the beginning each combatant makes an Initative roll. Suppose I'm fighting Orc 1 and Orc 2. My roll: 8. Orc 1's: 13. Orc 2's: 14.
In real time: Orc 2 decides he wants to kick my ass so he begins his attack. The moment Orc 1 is to make his decision his buddy is just beginning to lift his club. Orc 1 decides to attack me, too. So if Orc 2 kills me, Orc 1 would just waste his efforts.
In turn based: Orc 2 decides he wants to kick my ass, so he runs up to me and tries to hit me. He either 1) kills me or 2)doesn't kill me. When Orc 1 is to make his decision, he bases it on this outcome: if 2) - he attacks me, if 1) - only AI knows what he'll do.

Sorry Elwro, I wrote my last posting on topic without seeing your example.

If i understand it correctly you say that iin TB mode, orc1 bases his action on the result of the action of orc2. But in real-time you would see a similar behaviour, the orc which is nearer to you would approach you first. If you die, the combat is over. If you survive, the other orc would approach and attack. Both orcs would now fight against you. Right?

Now, think of a real-time system with pauses after each turn, in which all enemies make their decision at their turn time. (The time between two turns can be very small.) You now can describe this system as a turn-based system in which the initative values are not calculated by rolls and formulas, but by the space they have to walk to reach you. Okay, this would be a primitive system. But would a formula which is based on distances and speeds not be equivalent to formula which is based on rolls and rules???
After thinking about your example, this is the only difference I see between "turn-based" and "real-time with pause". And that difference is not a difference for me, it's only an other calculation???

 

[Elwro]

[
If that is true a real-time game would be a turn-based game with infinite turns.

Infinitely small turns with no pause after them.

Personally, I think the major difference is, that TB combat allows more strategies, because of the forced pause after each turn.

The pause isn't forced. It's how TB works.

But then there would be no difference between "turnbased" and "real time with pause after each turn".?????

Come on, we've covered this here, in this thread. There would be no difference if we had infinitely small turns - which would be interesting only for a CRPG philosopher.

edit: didn't see your last post, either

If i understand it correctly you say that iin TB mode, orc1 bases his action on the result of the action of orc2. But in real-time you would see a similar behaviour, the orc which is nearer to you would approach you first. If you die, the combat is over. If you survive, the other orc would approach and attack. Both orcs would now fight against you. Right?

No. Both of the orcs would approach (did you play NWN?). Orc 1 could, for example, be killed by someone's AoOs. That's a damn huge difference between fights played in RTw/p and TB.

Now, think of a real-time system with pauses after each turn, in which all enemies make their decision at their turn time. (The time between two turns can be very small.) You now can describe this system as a turn-based system in which the initative values are not calculated by rolls and formulas, but by the space they have to walk to reach you.

I don't think I get it. I could fight many opponents and each of them might be in a different distance from me. But letting closest act would be silly. Think about bows.

Okay, this would be a primitive system. But would a formula which is based on distances and speeds not be equivalent to formula which is based on rolls and rules???

As I stated above - it would (I think) be equivalent if the turns were infinitely small, which's impossible. And why make the turns very small and still make the game RTw/p, while you can make it TB?

 

[simmschn]

There is no purpose to making RT combat and then putting it into TB. That is the statement of the completely uneducated. The AI routines, calls, etc. are so differently placed in RT and TB, it isn't even funny. TB takes best advantage of being able to AI crunch in steps, utilizing resources to do a good pathfinding algorithm to move the NPCs, a combat algorithm for their behavior, and more, all done in stages because TB can afford to do that. RT has to crunch all the shit constantly, therefore cannot take advantage of anywhere near the capabilities of a TB system because it has to do everything at the same time, for every involved actor, plus have to compete for framerate and other back-end concerns.

If that's true, please explain to me why the AI in ToEE is so bad compared to the AI of Warcraft 3?
I will you give you an answer. Blizzard had more money and more time, they could tweak their system for years, ToEE had 18 months and no quality control.

What you should see is: The AI is so good or bad, because the developer was so good or bad. Of course implementing a good TB-AI is completely different than creating a smart RT-AI, you have other obstacles in your way. But the result in the end, depends only on the success of the developer.

 

[simmschn]

Come on, we've covered this here, in this thread. There would be no difference if we had infinitely small turns - which would be interesting only for a CRPG philosopher.

Oops. I read RPGCodex the last 11 months and I really got the impression that the only people around are CRPG-philosophers.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

If that's true, please explain to me why the AI in ToEE is so bad compared to the AI of Warcraft 3?

How is the AI in ToEE bad? And please don't go into the whole bugbear speil. That's been done and explained. And why are you comparing the AI from an RTS to that of a TB CRPG? Personally, I found the AI in WC3 to be horrid. They use standard RTS mob rules tactics. I never once got flanked by the enemy in WC3. I never once got routed by the enemy in WC3. They simply ran at me head on with all they had.

I found that the AI in JA2 was among some of the best I've seen in the industry, bar none. They actually used the tactics that you were given access to against you. I even had the enemy flank me in that game! It did have it's problems though with the occasional enemy running blindly into my field of view, but for the most part the enemy was intelligent and that's what made JA2 such the beautiful challenge that it was.

EDIT: The only time WC3's AI seemed to do something tactically brilliant, it was a scripted event. Go figure.

 

[lawfoster]

>>Oops. I read RPGCodex the last 11 months and I really got the impression that the only people around are CRPG-philosophers.>>

I don't post that much here, but that is a troll comment, pure and simple. I know people here can be touchy, but don't provoke them, please. It adds nothing.

Now, on TB vs RT. TB I tend to find more fun in that I can use tactical thought to win a battle I might get killed in to start. Often you can win fights that look way too tough at the start by using tactics. Sure you can do that in RT, but its dumber stuff like seeing one of the group of enemies, then drawing him off. I do remember back in Curse of the Azure Bonds that the only way I could beat one fight(because of the beholder behind all the minotaurs) was to run around the corner. Might seem simple, but it wouldn't work the same way in a RT game. RT games almost end up more like "phased" combat games-people declare their actions, they happen, then it pauses again. But most RT games lose the tactical approach of games like that by having you be able to switch at any time. If you play a good tactical combat game, it tends to offer much more interesting combat than RT. And RT is often something put into games because it is a buzzword now, and executives think it should be in everything.

So, from what I've seen, TB leads to more interesting combat. I played some of the new Pool of Radiance, and that was a mix of RT and TB. Tactical tends to give you more info on what's going on, so you can plan stuff out. I find that more interesting than clicking on an enemy and hoping my guy reaches him. You could say RT is more realistic in that respect, but I've said for a long time that realism dosen't always make for good games.

 

[simmschn]

>>Oops. I read RPGCodex the last 11 months and I really got the impression that the only people around are CRPG-philosophers.>>

I don't post that much here, but that is a troll comment, pure and simple. I know people here can be touchy, but don't provoke them, please. It adds nothing.

That was NO provocation, because
1) where I come from, being a philosopher is highly respected!
2) I post here too. So, I am also a CRPG-philosopher.

 

[simmschn]

How is the AI in ToEE bad? And please don't go into the whole bugbear speil. That's been done and explained. And why are you comparing the AI from an RTS to that of a TB CRPG? Personally, I found the AI in WC3 to be horrid. They use standard RTS mob rules tactics. I never once got flanked by the enemy in WC3. I never once got routed by the enemy in WC3. They simply ran at me head on with all they had.

I compared them, because Mr. Genius (Rosh) compared TB with RT. The best RT combat AI I know is implemented in Warcraft 3. It seemed a very natural thing to compare these two games. I only wanted to say, that RT is not automatically more stupid than TB combat, the skills of the developers are important too.
I have to admit I never experienced an AI in a computer game which can call itself proudly AI. They are all more or less AS - artifical stupidity. IMHO the stupidity in ToEE really was extreme, Jagged Alliance 2 had a far better AI for a TB game. 100% agreed.

EDIT: The only time WC3's AI seemed to do something tactically brilliant, it was a scripted event. Go figure.

You are right again. Then the problem with ToEE is that it has no scripted events!!

 

[Rosh]

@Rosh: I will not answer to your posting, because then I have to use certain phrases and I would get banned from the forums. I will not give you this pleasure!

Let me just tell you, I think you are primitive. I hope this statement is okay with the rules here.

Poor cop-out.

Shithead.

If that's true, please explain to me why the AI in ToEE is so bad compared to the AI of Warcraft 3?
I will you give you an answer. Blizzard had more money and more time, they could tweak their system for years, ToEE had 18 months and no quality control.

What you should see is: The AI is so good or bad, because the developer was so good or bad. Of course implementing a good TB-AI is completely different than creating a smart RT-AI, you have other obstacles in your way. But the result in the end, depends only on the success of the developer.

Please note I said "capability". That is an important thing to note and most people who knew what the fuck they are talking about in this field would have picked up on it.

You also failed to touch upon the subject of how TB and RT are developed. The subroutines are quite different for both. TB development also starts with several fundamental aspects like sequential calculations and NPC movement/combat resolution.

Uneducated twat.

Please note that swearing only has some impact when you show you have a good, firm grasp of the subject matter.

 

[Volourn]

The one weakness in Rosh's "why rt is not as capable as tb" argument is the fact that he says that things like AOO are impossible in a RT combat situation. However, according to NWN, it is very much possible to have AOO in a "rt combat" system and have it work pretty well. And, no combat feats in NWN? You must have forgotten a lot as NWN has lots of combat feats, and it is capable with some twinks to do some of the extra stuff that TOEE has as well as *hold attack until spell s cast from an opponent* if BIO wishes to go that route.

Of course, that said, there are fundamental differences betwene the three different combat systems. They all have their pros and cons. I can have fun with two of the combat methods; one I tend to can't. Oh well.

 

[Briosafreak]

Guys just read this on the diferences
http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=21

ToEE is nothing like the BG combat, and so forth, Just play the games really.

But just one clarification

I remember that they first implemented real-time combat (with your hexes), but of course they planned to make TB combat from the beginning. Real-time combat was just their first step to implement turn-based combat

He is right on this, while the game was beeing developed they added layers of complexety in the mechanics to a very simple real time mode,creating the Fallout TB mode, wich in the end is nothing like RT with pause and had nothing to do with the early Real Time mode, sequence matters in this things.

 

[Trash]

Rosh barks a lot, but hardly ever has a valid point.

Please note that swearing only has some impact when you show you have a good, firm grasp of the subject matter.

Actually I tend to believe it's a sign of frustration, of being powerless and of having no other viable means at your disposal. Guess how I spend my days, twat. :wink:

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh. I really would love to. :D
I have never been banned from a forum and I don't want to start. But if the admins of this website (Saint Proverbius??) give me an unlimited and completely unrestricted insult permission, I will use the new gained powers of the dark side. :twisted:

As an admin, I must state that you have as much freedom to be as profane as you want in conveying your arguments (no matter how misguided and stupid they may be, as evidenced by most, if not all of your posts in this thread) and I won't lift a finger to censor your right to freedom of speech. We're just not that kind of website. We here at the RPG Codex pride ourselves in being able to be as expressive as we please so there's no reason for you to be left out from all the fun that goes on here.

Just don't spam.

 

[DrattedTin]

Neverwinter Nights actually has attacks of opportunity's implemented, but its screwy.

For example, if you run away, and provoke an AoO, technically, it should happen right then and there. However, it often queues, and you get (seemingly) hit with an AoO once you're ten feet away. Even worse, sometimes it gets glitchy and starts looping, and you'll get repeatedly hit with AoO's while you run away, and even worse, the game will screw up and keep teleporting you back to the enemy you're running from, just to receive those AoO's.

But I guess that's more shitty implementation than not.

However.

The chief difference between Turn-Based and Real-Time, if both are done correctly, is simply Sequence.

Period.

 

[dunduks]

THe system simmschn is reffering to is not TB, but Phase (or also called WE GO) system which IMHO offers a lot more realictic and controled approach to combat.

 

[MetalWyrm]

ok, so I kinda skipped most of the thread
but shimsinshsisnsn
whatever the fuck your name is

you are quite the idiot
look at the greatest difference between TB and RT

in TB you always have some type of system that has Action Points, which determine just HOW MUCH you can do during in a turn

does RT have that? noooooo
in RT, how much you can do is determined on how fast your character moves
so if your character's gun animation is faster than the enemy's, he will shoot faster
so speed is based on animation, rather than actual speed like it is in a TB system

damn you're stupid
go download the stfu bible

edit:
and if you think Phase Based = Turn Based you are SERIOUSLY wrong

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

THe system simmschn is reffering to is not TB, but Phase (or also called WE GO) system which IMHO offers a lot more realictic and controled approach to combat.

Realistic? Eh? That's highly debatable, and been done to death.

Controlled? It's hardly more controlled since in a true phase based system, anything can happen while you're going through your round. It also requires a short round time just because of this. With a long round time, you can wind up with all kinds of nasty problems which are not suitable for a CRPG. RoboSport by Maxis and Laser Squad Nemesis are two phase based games that are long round phase based and show the problems with such a system in a CRPG. If the round is long, then you have the problem of being able to move around a corner and getting trounced by a bunch of waiting lesser enemies just because you weren't expecting that - but you're forced to sit there and watch your little meatpuppet get spanked anyway.

True phase based is hardly suitable for D&D simply because of things like above, where a Monk character can effectively move 50' in a single round. Hasted characters using their ful round for movement would also create a problem. You'd end up losing your little meat puppets if such a system were implimented in a D&D game. Of course, you'll also run in to the number of attack animations per round you can have simply because the attack animations require a length of time as well.

 

[Rosh]

He is right on this, while the game was beeing developed they added layers of complexety in the mechanics to a very simple real time mode,creating the Fallout TB mode, wich in the end is nothing like RT with pause and had nothing to do with the early Real Time mode, sequence matters in this things.

It wasn't RT at all to begin with. Just because there isn't player interaction put into it and it goes through the routines, that doesn't mean it is RT combat by any stretch of the imagination. Neither is performing AI or pathfinding checks or combat simulation. Putting in the layers is a step by step process, but the development process is VERY different.

Most likely someone used RT as a means to explain it to simple people with no idea of how the mechanics work. Naturally they would check to see how the game is in a free roam (being how it is the base means of movement) and how it transitions to and from combat subroutines.

Simply put, there is no way there was RT combat in any form in Fallout because TB mechanics were used and there was none of RT's mechanics involved. All there was involving RT in Fallout was the roam, which wasn't part of the combat, especially so when they put in the movement limiters for the combat subroutines.

For example, if you run away, and provoke an AoO, technically, it should happen right then and there. However, it often queues, and you get (seemingly) hit with an AoO once you're ten feet away. Even worse, sometimes it gets glitchy and starts looping, and you'll get repeatedly hit with AoO's while you run away, and even worse, the game will screw up and keep teleporting you back to the enemy you're running from, just to receive those AoO's.

I knew there was something very fishy about them from how others were describing it, though I did get that part wrong.

Actually I tend to believe it's a sign of frustration, of being powerless and of having no other viable means at your disposal. Guess how I spend my days, twat.

Let's see...dig up old threads and whine about them in brand new threads? Repeatedly?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Would someone please be kind enough to list off some games that use PB combat? I seem to recall playing a game that implemented this feature ages ago, but have no true recollection of it. I can't think of any others that I have played and would be interested to know some titles so I could check this system out for myself further.

 

[Rosh]

Phase-based is pretty much a misnomer if you look at the mechanics right. It's really just RT in a slightly different format that puts it into a little more orderly fashion.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Wizardry 8, for instance, uses phase based combat. At the beginning of the round, you give the orders to your party members, and just tell them to execute them - then it plays out in real time (as you watch it happen). Meaning, it uses the round and initiative aspects of TB, but the turns are played out automatically, oftentimes like RT.

 

[Rosh]

Actually, it's more like TB but it automatically puts in the commands via the AI. In all aspects of the combat, it is TB all the way, just on autopilot when set to Continuous Turn. The movement part is a little hokey and doesn't quite fit in, though. Mostly it's intended to just get through weak enemies with ease.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Wasteland is a good example of phase based, but try to imagine that game with as complex situations as Fallout had.

 

[Rosh]

Hrm...I don't believe so. Wasteland had a distinctive TB system, though it was through a start of round select for all members and was resolved by the initiative of the characters. It was quite similar to the Dragon Warrior series and the early Wizardry and M&M series. I suppose it could be called phase based if stretched, since the decisions are made at once, but it is quite different from the more RT phase based ones. This is most obvious when looking at how movement is handled between them.