Torment Torment: Tides of Numenera Pre-Release Thread [ALPHA RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[BigWeather]

The PB "problem" with casting an AoE and having the intended targets move out of the area during turn resolution is not a problem. If you don't want them moving then suppress them (through suppressing ranged attacks, threatened squares that provide AoO, etc.). PB is nice and tactical that way.

One problem I always have with PB is, however, what to do when enemies cross paths -- do you just assume that they are like two ships passing in the night or do you throw an interrupt and let them decide what to do on the spot? Probably one of the issues that made PB fall out of favor once it got away from the Wasteland type presentation of combat.

 

[Infinitron]

One problem I always have with PB is, however, what to do when enemies cross paths -- do you just assume that they are like two ships passing in the night or do you throw an interrupt and let them decide what to do on the spot?

I imagine that the default behavior would be for them to start slashing at each other, but you could direct them to avoid combat and just keep on moving (going around the other guy, if necessary)

 

[Excidium]

skuphundaku and Excidium

NB : I am talking of well designed encounters and mechanics since everything can be done terribly.

PB is really suboptimal because it brings with itself the obvious problems of TB combat: It is slow. TB is really made for those computer games that focus on tactical combat with strong enemies. It requires small mobs and better AI. So that you have to spend time deciding which move is better.

Not really.

The good thing about TB is that its result is immediate in the sense that every characters actions occur right after the orders. On the contrary In PB the actions occur MOSTLY out of your control (in a separate phase prolonging your game not because the enemy was smarter but rather because he does unexpected moves that may or may not be advantageous.

Just like actual combat. If you want to plan and wait for enemy actions you can always delay your action.

The example is always of casting AoE spells only to find that your enemy already moved.

Next time use a faster spell.

 

[General Maxson]

I'm all for TB. But, if the devs think PB will really fit their game and ideas better and be better for Torment in general, I won't complain if they make it either a bit tactical and/or strategic. Just NO fucking popamole.

I know TB will have my vote.

 

[Captain Shrek]

Not really.

Go ahead. Tell me how not really.

Just like actual combat. If you want to plan and wait for enemy actions you can always delay your action.

Is this a realism argument? If so, I will ignore it safely.

Next time use a faster spell.

 

[Alex]

that highly depends on the frequency of the phases.

I don't get you.

I think he means how much time a phase encompass. Like, some games have phases as tenths of seconds, while others can have a whole lot more time crammed in a single phase.

 

[Akarnir]

that highly depends on the frequency of the phases.

I don't get you.

I understand, I'm not being very clear.

If the action phase is very short (only a few action point per characters), then the combat is much more sequenced. It's a bit like a video and the number of frames per second.
The more frames per second, the more the video looks fluid.

Basically what Alex said.

The more phase there is, the more fluid the combat is.

Imagine If you can only walk one step per phase. In the extreme case. It would be like if you played RTwP with pause every 1

 

[Jaesun]

Brian Fargo ‏@BrianFargo
PayPal support is now live for #torment! Here is the handy link for those of you that couldn't donate otherwise. https://torment.inxile-entertainment.com/store

 

[Kirtai]

I wonder how high it'll surge now

 

[Jaesun]

I really wish KS could also show the PayPal numbers. (But I understand why).

Brother None will you guys set up a site with the totals?

 

[skuphundaku]

skuphundaku and Excidium

NB : I am talking of well designed encounters and mechanics since everything can be done terribly.

PB is really suboptimal because it brings with itself the obvious problems of TB combat: It is slow. TB is really made for those computer games that focus on tactical combat with strong enemies. It requires small mobs and better AI. So that you have to spend time deciding which move is better.

The good thing about TB is that its result is immediate in the sense that every characters actions occur right after the orders. On the contrary In PB the actions occur MOSTLY out of your control (in a separate phase prolonging your game not because the enemy was smarter but rather because he does unexpected moves that may or may not be advantageous. The example is always of casting AoE spells only to find that your enemy already moved.

This means that the RT aspect of PB does not in fact bring in the RTwP benefits (fast action based combat) but forgoes the benefits of TB in the process.

I see your point but in TB, because each individual action is 100% (I'm ignoring the RNG here) under your control, while in PB, as you already mentioned, once you're done with your plan, everything is out of your hands. What this means is that in TB, you have a clear motivation to be very careful about what you're doing because you have all the control and all the responsibility. In PB, no matter how much you think about it, you'll never be able to control everything because you'll never be able to perfectly anticipate what your opponent is going to do. This means that in PB it's easier to just say "fuck it" and roll the dice (metaphorically speaking) on what it's going to happen, instead of endlessly thinking about each move. All of this means that, unless you're really OCD-ridden, most of the time the combat will go faster (and be messier) in PB. I experienced this in FO:Tactics. The first quarter or so of the campaign I played in TB but, at a point, I got bored and discovered that, by assuming just a little increase in risk I could play much faster in RT... not to mention that instead of sniping, going in on full-auto in RT meant much more enjoyable dismembering of enemies:D. The only issue with that was that, later in the campaign, I had to do actual ammo management, instead of always having much more ammo than needed (which would have happened if I had stuck to TB).

Your AoE example can happen just as easily in RTwP, as in PB. IMHO, you can look at PB as RTwP where the pauses come automatically, at fixed intervals. If you look at it that way, RTwP would be better because it gives the player more freedom, but I think PB is looked upon more favorably by TB fundamentalists that reflexively bristle at the mere thought of RT(in RTwP).

 

[Mangoose]

Now, guys, there are "two kinds" of phase-based combat. There's the round/phase-based RTWP a la NWN, KOTOR, and then simultaneous-turn-based games (like Frozen Synapse) are also separately considered "phase-based."

 

[Brother None]

I really wish KS could also show the PayPal numbers. (But I understand why).

Brother None will you guys set up a site with the totals?

Not really a high priority. I don't even remember if we did with WL2, I don't think so tho.

 

[Jaesun]

OK thanks. Was just wondering. I'll assume Fargo may make tweets on the totals, similar to what Feargus did with PE.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't even remember if we did with WL2, I don't think so tho.

Wrong: http://ruinedkingdoms.com/wasteland2/paypal/

He got that data from somewhere.

 

[tuluse]

Thanks for explaining and you too Alex.

Yes. A PB system is indeed like RTwP if the number of action point in the preparatory phase are very low. But as I see it, that translates into abolition of the benefits of the TB, which is essentially deep tactics and plans.

A lot of people think that the benefit of TB is that you have time to think and that player reaction speed is not factored into gameplay. Which phase based still has.

On the other hand, in a game like Torment, deep tactics and plans might not be seen as a benefit.

 

[Excidium]

Not really.

Go ahead. Tell me how not really.

The method of resolution has less impact on the speed of combat than the actual systems, and in the case of video games animations play a large part too.

Next time use a faster spell.

What?

Just like actual combat. If you want to plan and wait for enemy actions you can always delay your action.

Is this a realism argument? If so, I will ignore it safely.

No? It's about simulating combat which is what we're discussing here.

 

[Brother None]

I don't even remember if we did with WL2, I don't think so tho.

Wrong: http://ruinedkingdoms.com/wasteland2/paypal/

He got that data from somewhere.

Alright. We're using the same system so it's not a problem to set it up. Just not a priority.

 

[skuphundaku]

Imagine If you can only walk one step per phase. In the extreme case. It would be like if you played RTwP with pause every 1

Thanks for explaining and you too Alex.

Yes. A PB system is indeed like RTwP if the number of action point in the preparatory phase are very low. But as I see it, that translates into abolition of the benefits of the TB, which is essentially deep tactics and plans.

Nobody keeps you from deep tactics and plans in RTwP. However, RT(wP) does inhibit you from efficiently micromanaging everything. I guess that people that are TB exclusivists have an overwhelming need to micromanage everything. I don't know about you, but for me Torment is not the type of game one plays for the thrill of combat micromanagement.

 

[General Maxson]

Now, guys, there are "two kinds" of phase-based combat. There's the round/phase-based RTWP a la NWN, KOTOR, and then simultaneous-turn-based games (like Frozen Synapse) are also separately considered "phase-based."

Man I hope we won't be "tricked" into voting for NWN or KOTOR systems... o_O

 

[Infinitron]

Now, guys, there are "two kinds" of phase-based combat. There's the round/phase-based RTWP a la NWN, KOTOR, and then simultaneous-turn-based games (like Frozen Synapse) are also separately considered "phase-based."

I've never heard of the former being called "phase-based". I once saw someone call EOB and Dungeon Master-type real time combat "phase-based", though. Which is also wrong.

 

[Excidium]

Now, guys, there are "two kinds" of phase-based combat. There's the round/phase-based RTWP a la NWN, KOTOR

What's phase-based about it? I never played NWN but KOTOR simply has an action queue.

 

[BigWeather]

One problem I always have with PB is, however, what to do when enemies cross paths -- do you just assume that they are like two ships passing in the night or do you throw an interrupt and let them decide what to do on the spot?

I imagine that the default behavior would be for them to start slashing at each other, but you could direct them to avoid combat and just keep on moving (going around the other guy, if necessary)

Yeah, that'd work nice. So a quick interrupt allowing the player to choose then carrying on with the phase resolution. Of course, doesn't that go against the basic idea that the orders can't be changed during resolution? If a choice like "do I enter combat or keep moving?" can be made then why not others? I guess it could be a choice of order up-front: "if I encounter somebody, enter combat" versus "if I encounter somebody, dodge them and keep moving" -- but then there'd be the tendency to want to tweak it even further -- "if I encounter somebody (weaker, not that ettin!!!), enter combat"...

PB is awesome, but sometimes it makes the head hurt.

 

[Infinitron]

One problem I always have with PB is, however, what to do when enemies cross paths -- do you just assume that they are like two ships passing in the night or do you throw an interrupt and let them decide what to do on the spot?

I imagine that the default behavior would be for them to start slashing at each other, but you could direct them to avoid combat and just keep on moving (going around the other guy, if necessary)

Yeah, that'd work nice. So a quick interrupt allowing the player to choose then carrying on with the phase resolution. Of course, doesn't that go against the basic idea that the orders can't be changed during resolution? If a choice like "do I enter combat or keep moving?" can be made then why not others? I guess it could be a choice of order up-front: "if I encounter somebody, enter combat" versus "if I encounter somebody, dodge them and keep moving" -- but then there'd be the tendency to want to tweak it even further -- "if I encounter somebody (weaker, not that ettin!!!), enter combat"...

PB is awesome, but sometimes it makes the head hurt.

You'd choose what to do before you started walking. Like a "walk while avoid combat" command. You wouldn't select it during resolution.

 

[Akarnir]

Imagine If you can only walk one step per phase. In the extreme case. It would be like if you played RTwP with pause every 1

Thanks for explaining and you too Alex.

Yes. A PB system is indeed like RTwP if the number of action point in the preparatory phase are very low. But as I see it, that translates into abolition of the benefits of the TB, which is essentially deep tactics and plans.

Nobody keeps you from deep tactics and plans in RTwP. However, RT(wP) does inhibit you from efficiently micromanaging everything. I guess that people that are TB exclusivists have an overwhelming need to micromanage everything. I don't know about you, but for me Torment is not the type of game one plays for the thrill of combat micromanagement.

And that would actually be the Point Of A phase Based Combat with frequent Phase. The Turn Pace allows you to micromanage everything properly, and you maintain some (not all) the dynamic dimension that TB lacks (the fact that everything evolves dynamically)