Divinity Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 24 1 2 3 4 23 24
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: kanisatha] #653068
18/06/19 03:57 AM
18/06/19 03:57 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
kasapnecmi Offline
stranger
kasapnecmi  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I disagree with the idea that we should accept whatever game Larian gives us and be happy with it. I have very strong feelings about any game that carries the "Baldur's Gate" name, and that means there are some red lines for me:

1) In translating tabletop rules to a video game, yes it will be necessary to make some modifications to make a game work. But beware of gutting entire systems of rules that are fundamental to D&D, for example the system of spell slots, spell memorization, and resting to renew spells. Replacing this system with cool-downs, for instance, would nullify the game as a true D&D game.

2) The game must stay true to D&D and Forgotten Realms lore. Period.

3) The game must be party-based.

4) The single-player side of the game cannot be secondary to the co-op side of the game. The game's systems and content must be built from the ground up equally for single-player as for co-op.


I agree with everything stated here %100

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #653083
18/06/19 12:25 PM
18/06/19 12:25 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
S
Sordak Online content
addict
Sordak  Online Content
addict
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD.

I dont expect it to be either of course, judging by what Sven said, i expect an action combat system.

But to entertain the point a bit more.
RTWP simply is a combat system that is very unrewarding and leads itself to lazy encounter design. In an RTWP system, the player never has to commit to any plan of action, instnatly beeing able to cancel any descision and change it for somehting else, it leads to a lot of frantic pausing.
It also invalidates the initiative system from DnD and will lead to a devaluation of one of the primary stats.

The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games. Temple of Elemental Evil is the most accurate implementation of any DnD system into a video game engine to date and it used turn based combat. of course it also was a broken mess and took years of modding to make it play properly, and thats why the system was never adopted.
Think of it that way. Did the Infinity engine games play like the gold Box games? no they didnt.
So why should future DnD games be held back by past glorioes, Larian isnt even using the same base ruleset as infinity engine games.

Furthermore, look at the companies that keep making these kinds of games. Beamdog has basically dug up the corpse of baldurs gate and implemented a bunch of thingst hat already existed as free mods, and to add insult to injury made it impossible to buy the original verison of the game anywhere.
and then theres PoE by Obsidian, a game series that since has also implemented Turn based combat because quite frankly its a better system.
You dont go around stealing ideas from failed competitors. They failed for a reason. Both of these companies wanted to make BG3, and WOTC shut them down because they couldnt move past their own nostalgia goggles.

The fear of creating new types of gameplay comes from a certain kind of game. Tripple A RPGs, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and the like are known to "dumb down" games. And this is correct. But does OS2 look dumbed down compared to any other CRPG?
The fear is unfounded.

And to put a Bandaid on all of that. IF, and i don think it will be that way, but IF we get a turn based System, im 90% sure well get an RTWP option.
OS2s engine already allows to attack and cast outside of combat. Turns already are associated with a number of seconds in the game engine.
If they use the same combat system, theyll sureley implement RTWP as an option to satiate the Nostalgic Boomer Fans.

Last edited by Sordak; 18/06/19 12:25 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #653089
18/06/19 03:27 PM
18/06/19 03:27 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Iuris Tantum Offline
stranger
Iuris Tantum  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Sordak
Temple of Elemental Evil is the most accurate implementation of any DnD system into a video game engine to date and it used turn based combat. of course it also was a broken mess and took years of modding to make it play properly, and thats why the system was never adopted

What do you mean by "the system was never adopted"? What system?
ToEE had a lot of development trouble and was developed in 1 year. That's why it was so buggy and is lacking in everything that isn't combat and character customization.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Furthermore, look at the companies that keep making these kinds of games. Beamdog has basically dug up the corpse of baldurs gate and implemented a bunch of thingst hat already existed as free mods, and to add insult to injury made it impossible to buy the original verison of the game anywhere.

I agree with the general sentiment on Beamdog, but you still get a key for the original games when you buy the EE on GoG.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #653090
18/06/19 03:54 PM
18/06/19 03:54 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 219
Salem, MA, USA
kanisatha Offline
enthusiast
kanisatha  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 219
Salem, MA, USA
Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD.

I dont expect it to be either of course, judging by what Sven said, i expect an action combat system.

But to entertain the point a bit more.
RTWP simply is a combat system that is very unrewarding and leads itself to lazy encounter design. In an RTWP system, the player never has to commit to any plan of action, instnatly beeing able to cancel any descision and change it for somehting else, it leads to a lot of frantic pausing.
It also invalidates the initiative system from DnD and will lead to a devaluation of one of the primary stats.

The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games. Temple of Elemental Evil is the most accurate implementation of any DnD system into a video game engine to date and it used turn based combat. of course it also was a broken mess and took years of modding to make it play properly, and thats why the system was never adopted.
Think of it that way. Did the Infinity engine games play like the gold Box games? no they didnt.
So why should future DnD games be held back by past glorioes, Larian isnt even using the same base ruleset as infinity engine games.

Furthermore, look at the companies that keep making these kinds of games. Beamdog has basically dug up the corpse of baldurs gate and implemented a bunch of thingst hat already existed as free mods, and to add insult to injury made it impossible to buy the original verison of the game anywhere.
and then theres PoE by Obsidian, a game series that since has also implemented Turn based combat because quite frankly its a better system.
You dont go around stealing ideas from failed competitors. They failed for a reason. Both of these companies wanted to make BG3, and WOTC shut them down because they couldnt move past their own nostalgia goggles.

The fear of creating new types of gameplay comes from a certain kind of game. Tripple A RPGs, Skyrim, Fallout 4 and the like are known to "dumb down" games. And this is correct. But does OS2 look dumbed down compared to any other CRPG?
The fear is unfounded.

And to put a Bandaid on all of that. IF, and i don think it will be that way, but IF we get a turn based System, im 90% sure well get an RTWP option.
OS2s engine already allows to attack and cast outside of combat. Turns already are associated with a number of seconds in the game engine.
If they use the same combat system, theyll sureley implement RTWP as an option to satiate the Nostalgic Boomer Fans.

Attacking and mocking people who have a different preference than you sure is going to win over people. Keep dreaming.

But two can play at that game. RTwP is superior to TB in every single way. TB is a shitty old system that is a leftover holdover from tabletop gaming and clings to the limitation of tabletop gaming that no longer applies when using a computer medium. TB is essentially for people who don't have the mental capacity to handle RTwP. It serves the lowest common denominator as a dumbed-down combat system, and so of course if you want your game to sell to the dumb masses who are incapable of appreciating a sophisticated game, then you go with TB (see for example D:OS2). See? Easy-peasy.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #653091
18/06/19 04:09 PM
18/06/19 04:09 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Quote
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time

What? In BG games, for example, you can make anywhere from 0 to 9 basic attacks per 6 seconds, while you can cast exactly one spell per 6 seconds unless you have the Improved Alacrity effect. So I have no idea what you mean by this.

If anything, you have "caster supremacy" because being a caster is generally more exciting and stimulating than being an auto-attack machine. Being a caster generally means you are capable of handling a lot of different kinds of situations. You can choose to spam spells or be an auto-attack machine, you can buff your summons and watch them wreck things, and in most cases, it takes a caster to counter a caster. Also, mages/sorcerers are OP as hell in BG2/NWN. At least, these are the reasons why I personally prefer being a caster over a typical fighter. Has nothing to do with what combat system the game uses. I prefer magic path in HOMM3 too.

Quote
The only reason people like RTWP is because of some conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games.

Yeah? I don't know... I'm sure there are plenty of players like me - I like RTWP well enough. It works. I enjoyed Divine Divinity. I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins. And I can enjoy TB at the same time. I enjoyed HOMM3. I enjoyed DOS games. So am I a "conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games"? Why don't you tell me? Cause you seem to know me better than I know myself. How do you know that every single person who can enjoy RTWP combat is a "conservative clinging to the Infinity engine games"?


Last edited by Try2Handing; 18/06/19 04:11 PM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #653092
18/06/19 07:03 PM
18/06/19 07:03 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 10
mhroczyn Offline
stranger
mhroczyn  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 10
I wouldn't mind if we would get sth in the shape of NWN2 combat system or even NWN.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: kanisatha] #653093
18/06/19 07:08 PM
18/06/19 07:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
S
Sordak Online content
addict
Sordak  Online Content
addict
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
Iuris Tantum ToEEs engine was never adopted in the same way that the infinity engine was, later DnD games used different systems, not that there were many good DnD games after that.
and yes you can get the old games, but only if you buy the overpriced enhanced edition that offers nothing that free mods dont offer, besides an expansion that was universally hated.



Originally Posted by kanisatha
[
Attacking and mocking people who have a different preference than you sure is going to win over people. Keep dreaming.

But two can play at that game. RTwP is superior to TB in every single way. TB is a shitty old system that is a leftover holdover from tabletop gaming and clings to the limitation of tabletop gaming that no longer applies when using a computer medium. TB is essentially for people who don't have the mental capacity to handle RTwP. It serves the lowest common denominator as a dumbed-down combat system, and so of course if you want your game to sell to the dumb masses who are incapable of appreciating a sophisticated game, then you go with TB (see for example D:OS2). See? Easy-peasy.


You can take my comments any way you want, that doesnt make it wrong.
Especialy considering you have to misrepresent my argument to "turn the tables" on me.
Your argument would work if you were arguing in favor of proper real time combat, which you are not. It is however true that turn based combat is a holdoer from tabletop games and boardgames, however it is also one that was expanded upon by computer gameplay by simplifying the math as it is done by the computer.

I also like that you used your played up outrage over my post to repeat the same tired old nonsense i heard from those that cling to RTWP.
So lets put this to rest: RTWP is not a more complicated system than turn based.
It is not harder, it does not require more attention, in fact the opposit is the case. You do not have to commit to an action in RTWP, you can go back on any descision you make.
RTWP is literaly, as you put it, a dumbed down system for the masses.
You chose the wording here not me, RTWP was a way to make DnD combat simpler for the PC gaming audience that didnt want to spend a lot of time on the filler encounters. Filler encounters that in modern game design, should not even exist anymore.



As for Try2Handing

I am refering to spells beeing able to start casting at any point. as such the system for casting and that for melee and ranged attacks works in a different way.
And yes as you see, Caster supremacy is a thing in DnD (save for 4e anyway), and as you rightuflly point out, this is moreso true in RTWP.
As far as i know, things like ToB that attempted to fix this in 3.5 were never implemented into any of the RTWP rulesets.
Meanwhile actions like trip or disarm generaly dont work very well in hectic RTWP combat, a Battlemaster fighter based on 5E rules would be much more capeable in a turn based setting.

And yes, i also enjoyed those games, i especialy enjoy Icewind Dale 2. Doesnt mean i want another game with that system.
As far as im concerned, were getting something different alltogether, and if we get turn based, well have RTWP as an option to placate the fans.
But if we end up getting stuck with a sub par combat system due to fan pressure, then the entire game is going to pay the price of this stubbornnes.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #653096
18/06/19 07:52 PM
18/06/19 07:52 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Iuris Tantum Offline
stranger
Iuris Tantum  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Sordak
Iuris Tantum ToEEs engine was never adopted in the same way that the infinity engine was, later DnD games used different systems, not that there were many good DnD games after that.
and yes you can get the old games, but only if you buy the overpriced enhanced edition that offers nothing that free mods dont offer, besides an expansion that was universally hated.

I get what you're saying now. I was just confused by what you meant by "systems". One of the other reasons for ToEE's engine being largely ignored though was the fact that the industry was moving away from isometric perspectives, in large part because of a collapsing PC market, so the demand for engines ready to do that was very low.

I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.

Last edited by Iuris Tantum; 18/06/19 07:56 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Iuris Tantum] #653104
18/06/19 11:22 PM
18/06/19 11:22 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Quote
I am refering to spells beeing able to start casting at any point.

Well, since the whole system is round-based, and that you can make multiple attacks per round, there has to be spacing in between attacks. This makes sure that you can always make exactly your maximum Attacks per Round per any 6s interval - no more, no less (unless you deliberately take long pauses in between attacks) - no matter when you start counting. I see nothing "bad" about this. On the other hand, you can only cast exactly one spell within any 6s interval, each spell has its own cast time, and some spells have cast time of exactly 6s. There is simply no "spacing" in between casts. If you cancel your spell casting, you have to wait until the next round to be able to start another casting, which is quite punishing. The "instant casting" is only true when you're looking at one single 6s interval in which you have not made any special action. This is getting more technical than it needs to, but my point is, I don't see how this particular technical detail would make the whole RTWP system "bad". To me, it takes time to basic attack, it takes time to cast a spell, and you can only make that many basic attacks and special actions within a round. Simple as that. You can start basic attacking at any point. It takes time to make one attack, just like it takes time to cast a single spell.

Now if what you're really trying to say is that, the RTWP sytem compromises the real D&D combat, then that is true, since the table-top D&D, the real thing, is TB. But after this point, it's just a matter of opinion. To you, this naturally makes RTWP a subpar system. Fair enough. To others, like me, we can enjoy RTWP just fine provided the whole combat system is done well.

Quote
[,...]as you rightuflly point out, this is moreso true in RTWP.

I did not point out any such thing. At this point I believe I need to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by "caster supremacy". If you mean "casters are OP", then how is it a result of the combat being RTWP? If they are "OP", then it's because their spells are OP and that they can do a wide range of things. If you change the whole BG games into TB, without changing how all the spells work, I bet mages/sorcerers will still be OP.

Last edited by Try2Handing; 18/06/19 11:43 PM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #653105
18/06/19 11:47 PM
18/06/19 11:47 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 22
loudent Offline
stranger
loudent  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD


This is just patently false. I'll admit that it's been a while since I played BG 1/2 so I can't say if that specific system allowed it, but I know in NWN1 and NWN2 at least you cannot just start casting whenever. You're action is put into a queue (just like any other) and you start it when a new "round" ticks over. So whether or not you can just start casting is a function of the system you build.

And, I believe an argument to the contrary *can* be made. RTWP (or RTWoP) supports Multi-play better. Also, TB makes caster's stronger because Area-affect spells are more effective since the enemies/friends aren't moving when you cast it. You can precisely target. RTWP forces you to be more tactical: Gauging where the enemies are going to go, keeping back your party members from the blast area.

Better, IMO

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: loudent] #653109
19/06/19 03:19 AM
19/06/19 03:19 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Iuris Tantum Offline
stranger
Iuris Tantum  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by loudent
Originally Posted by Sordak
Turn based combat is a better system and i dont think there is even an argument of the contrary to be made.
RTWP is a terrible system that leads to Basic attacks following a turn based models while spells are cast in real time, this leads to an even stronger case of caster supremacy, one of the prime problems with non 4E DnD


This is just patently false. I'll admit that it's been a while since I played BG 1/2 so I can't say if that specific system allowed it, but I know in NWN1 and NWN2 at least you cannot just start casting whenever. You're action is put into a queue (just like any other) and you start it when a new "round" ticks over. So whether or not you can just start casting is a function of the system you build.

And, I believe an argument to the contrary *can* be made. RTWP (or RTWoP) supports Multi-play better. Also, TB makes caster's stronger because Area-affect spells are more effective since the enemies/friends aren't moving when you cast it. You can precisely target. RTWP forces you to be more tactical: Gauging where the enemies are going to go, keeping back your party members from the blast area.

Better, IMO

Are you familiar with the concept of "Casting Time" at all?
Also I like how you conveniently ignore real time with pause innovations when it's convenient - like the most recent RTwP systems having re-target abilities for spells (pillars of eternity 2 and kingmaker) which completely nullifies that line of thought.
Furthermore, how would you even translate Reactions to a RTwP system? Reactions are EXTREMELY important in D&D 5E.

Last edited by Iuris Tantum; 19/06/19 03:48 AM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Iuris Tantum] #653110
19/06/19 04:55 AM
19/06/19 04:55 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
kasapnecmi Offline
stranger
kasapnecmi  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum


I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #653117
19/06/19 09:23 AM
19/06/19 09:23 AM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
S
Sordak Online content
addict
Sordak  Online Content
addict
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
Try2Handing

Casters are OP because in RTWP half of the Martials options dont even exist. Its a fundamental flaw with DnD. And the only edition that fixed this flaw, 4e, was universally hated by purists and thats why WOTC now locks any usefull maneuvers for martials behind the Battlemaster subclass for fighters.
RTWP makes the whole thing worse by making movement far too safe, thus making martial battlefield controll even harder to achieve.

Iodent
i talked about the way it works in icewind Dale because thats the last RTWP game i played.
NWN 2 has a very different engine with its own problems stacked on top.
I also dont think RTWP supports multiplayer better, id id play NWN2 Storm of Zehir in multiplayer quite a bit and the result is... having to pause a lot for both players.
Having your actions suddenly interrupted because the other player wanted to adjust one of his characters, which especialy in NWN2 can lead to a lot of dumb stuff like your character forgetting what he was supposed to do.

meanwhile OS2s multiplayer combat works extremley well.
And if you dont like waiting, several games have figure dout how to do simultanious turns which also does away with that problem.

You are also exactly wrong about casters. in Turn based, you mut commit to your movement as you rightfully point out. This means you must predict what your enemy is going to do on his turn.
In RTWP; you can change the direction of your move at any point and immediatly react. Thus its less tactical as there are less risks to be taken.

Iuris Tantum
Agreed on reactions, theres more than just that, i realy wanna see how RTWP pulls off stuff like grappling, but no system so far has even attmepted that.

kasapnecmi
why dont you explain what makes the combat system good.
Because in my opinion, you just stop paying attention to 5/6 fights. Oh look its goblins again, lets just autoattack them to death. or lets just cast fireball and thats that.
From what ive heard from people that enjoy RTWP, the parts about RTWP they actually like, as in, the planning ahead, the thinking what each character is going to do.
The identifying of enemy casters and what they are going to do.
All of that exists in turn based systems. But without the tedium of trash monsters.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #653128
19/06/19 01:16 PM
19/06/19 01:16 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Iuris Tantum Offline
stranger
Iuris Tantum  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting, + spaced out units and very good sound feedback that compensates for the lack of feedback on combat/messy combat log) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.

Last edited by Iuris Tantum; 19/06/19 02:27 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Iuris Tantum] #653129
19/06/19 01:25 PM
19/06/19 01:25 PM
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 215
Hawke Offline
enthusiast
Hawke  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 215
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.


They were until last year, but Pathfinder Kingmaker has done it better. The game's encounters aren't as good but the system itself is clearly better.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #653130
19/06/19 02:23 PM
19/06/19 02:23 PM
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
S
Sordak Online content
addict
Sordak  Online Content
addict
S

Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 515
you mean that game that people constantly complain about because of its crit based early game issues and the complete overpoweredness of summoned monsters?

Kingmaker certainly is the best implementation of RTWP and of the 3.PF system to date, hence why so many people complain about it.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Hawke] #653131
19/06/19 02:25 PM
19/06/19 02:25 PM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Iuris Tantum Offline
stranger
Iuris Tantum  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.


They were until last year, but Pathfinder Kingmaker has done it better. The game's encounters aren't as good but the system itself is clearly better.

I'm talking about the RTwP system not 2E AD&D vs Pathfinder/D&D 3.5.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Hawke] #653133
19/06/19 05:36 PM
19/06/19 05:36 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 219
Salem, MA, USA
kanisatha Offline
enthusiast
kanisatha  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 219
Salem, MA, USA
Originally Posted by Hawke
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
Originally Posted by kasapnecmi
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum
I agree with your overall sentiment though. As I already expressed and elaborated in the other RTwP v. TB thread, RTwP seems to be defended solely by people who don't care much for the combat and would rather get it over with asap. I don't get why they have such strong feelings on the combat system when they can just skip it by playing on lower difficulties.


Please don't generalise one person's sentiments to everyone. I care a lot about combat, and one of the best parts of Baldur's Gate series' was its combat system. After playing the same game 10 times, the story loses it's effectiveness, and you start only focusing on the combat. That's the main reason why many people still continue to enjoy Baldur's Gate after numerous times of playing it. And it being RTwP has a huge effect in this. I know a lot of people who feel similarly, so no need to generalise everyone you don't agree with just for the sake of trying to win the argument.

What do you enjoy about BG2 combat? I can perfectly see that BG1-2 are the best RTwP systems still 20 years later, in large part because they efficiently use its strengths to its full potential (by having you fight trash mobs a lot of the time and allowing spammable resting) but I can't really see anything that couldn't be done better in a turn-based system.


They were until last year, but Pathfinder Kingmaker has done it better. The game's encounters aren't as good but the system itself is clearly better.

It is also a really good system in the absolute, as is the PoE system. Both are superior to the D:OS system in every possible way including being more sophisticated, deep and tactical.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sordak] #653139
19/06/19 10:12 PM
19/06/19 10:12 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Try2Handing Offline
addict
Try2Handing  Offline
addict

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 556
Midway Through Infinity
Originally Posted by Sordak
Casters are OP because in RTWP half of the Martials options dont even exist. Its a fundamental flaw with DnD. And the only edition that fixed this flaw, 4e, was universally hated by purists and thats why WOTC now locks any usefull maneuvers for martials behind the Battlemaster subclass for fighters.
RTWP makes the whole thing worse by making movement far too safe, thus making martial battlefield controll even harder to achieve.

If it's a "fundamental flaw with DnD", then it has nothing to do with a system being RTWP and not TB.

If by "movement being too safe" you mean the kiting strategy is too good in the BG games, then that's true. But this has nothing to do with whether your character is a caster or not. You can hit and run with any character. In the case of casters, it is mostly because there are spells that make your character completely invulnerable to everything. In the case of archers, then it is because the BG games do not have an Attack of Opportunity mechanics (and maybe other PnP mechanics that I'm not aware of). I don't see why these mechanics can't be implemented, at least to some extend, in a RTWP game, however. In NWN you will take a lot of AOO's if you move about recklessly in combat. The first Pillars of Eternity game implements a ridiculously heavy AOO mechanics, with every single enemy and their dog being able to perform AOO, that cripples spellcasters and the whole combat experience in general.

So the bottom line is, this starts to sound like a "balancing" problem to me, which can be handled just fine without having to change the whole system from RTWP to TB or vice versa.

Originally Posted by Sordak
Because in my opinion, you just stop paying attention to 5/6 fights. Oh look its goblins again, lets just autoattack them to death. or lets just cast fireball and thats that.
From what ive heard from people that enjoy RTWP, the parts about RTWP they actually like, as in, the planning ahead, the thinking what each character is going to do.
The identifying of enemy casters and what they are going to do.
All of that exists in turn based systems. But without the tedium of trash monsters.

I don't see how this cannot happen in a TB game? You're speaking as if "the tedium of trash monsters" is something that only exists in a RTWP game. If I'm playing a TB game and see that "it's golins again", then yeah, you bet I'm just gonna autoattack them to death, or instant kill them with a fireball. If anything, having to do this in TB would make it even more tedious. I don't know - you've been trying to convince everyone that TB is a superior system, but most of the times you're citing reasons that have nothing to do with the system being RTWP or TB.

Originally Posted by Sordak
in Turn based, you mut commit to your movement as you rightfully point out. This means you must predict what your enemy is going to do on his turn.

If you say RTWP is "less tactical" because you generally don't have to commit as strongly in a plan of action, fair enough. That is your opinion. IMO, "commitment" is hardly the single factor that determines just how "tactical" a game's combat is. To me, how tactical it is depends on the depths of mechanics, the level of interaction between different abilities, interaction between characters and environment, cross-class combinations, the possibilities of unorthodox and creative strategies, timing your various attacks for better results, coordinating and positioning party members, and numerous other finer, obscure details which you probably won't find out unless you use an editor to open up the game's data or read them on a wiki.

Originally Posted by Sordak
In RTWP; you can change the direction of your move at any point and immediatly react. Thus its less tactical as there are less risks to be taken.

In TB, you can "predict", but you can play the "predict" game just fine in RTWP, if you like predicting. In RTWP, I can change my course of action and immediately react, but so does every single enemy. The real problem here is AI, which is a scripting problem. You want the AI to be able to react in a smart manner. To me, it is not "less" tactical or risky. It is simply a different kind of tactical and risky. In RTWP you can pause and think, but it doesn't change the fact that time is ticking, and sometimes, in the toughest fights, you have to time your moves perfectly. When there are 12 combatants on the battlefield, there's plenty of tactics and risks in keeping track of how long various effects last and timing your various offenses and defenses from all party members. In TB you can sit back and leisurely do whatever you want within your turn, and just sit back and watch enemies do whatever they want within their turn. This is one of the things that make RTWP *fun* - a faster pace and more frantic experience, without having to compromise the tactical aspect. Not to mention, RTWP simply reflects a real fight better. Period.

In the particular case of Baldur's Gate 2, all it needs is a few select mods that rebalance items and abilities and improve AI across the board. If you say BG2 + Item Revisions + Spell Revisions + SCS is not "tactical" and challenging, then I have no idea what is.

Last edited by Try2Handing; 19/06/19 10:21 PM.

"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Iuris Tantum] #653142
20/06/19 12:35 AM
20/06/19 12:35 AM
Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 22
loudent Offline
stranger
loudent  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2019
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Iuris Tantum

Are you familiar with the concept of "Casting Time" at all?


Yes, but I'm not sure how that tracks. Are you saying TB you start casting and other people take their moves? then your spell goes off. To be fair, I haven't played a game that supports that but yes, it does nullify that one point

Quote

Also I like how you conveniently ignore real time with pause innovations when it's convenient - like the most recent RTwP systems having re-target abilities for spells (pillars of eternity 2 and kingmaker) which completely nullifies that line of thought.


yes, I am unaware of those innovations

Quote

Furthermore, how would you even translate Reactions to a RTwP system? Reactions are EXTREMELY important in D&D 5E.


well, I am not a 5e D&D expert but so far reactions have things like counter spell or things like that. It's easy enough to flash a button when a reaction is available it's also fairly easy to select a "mode" (i.e. if I can, always counterspell my current target) with all kinds of options. Same way modern games implement contingency type spells.

Again, all of that aside the bottom line is that TB does not support MP as well as RTWP. In addition unless you're advocating it to be TB all the time (as opposed to just in combat) you have the transition problem (do we leave the 50 npcs to take their turn or do we transport to a battlefield without them). RTWP allows you to have engagements anywhere, anytime and you don't have to do a transition.

Page 2 of 24 1 2 3 4 23 24

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2