Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 53 of 53 1 2 51 52 53
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Dagless] #670595
13/07/20 06:42 PM
13/07/20 06:42 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 461
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Offline
addict
kanisatha  Offline
addict

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 461
Massachusetts, USA
Originally Posted by Dagless
But it just so happens that WOTC gave the BG license to Larian and they are making a turn based game. That’s not going to change.

Sure. And again, no one is arguing any differently on this point. But this is a forum. And the very purpose of a forum is to discuss, debate, and <gasp> air alternative points of view. So just because Larian has made this choice and that choice is not going to change, does not mean people can't comment on their feelings that it's a poor/wrong choice. If that discussion is not of any value to you, there's a very easy way to deal with it: ignore it and move on. But trying to shut people down or even worse, insult and attack people using despicable language (not necessarily you but certainly there have been those kinds of posts) is outrageous and wrong.

As for your idea of how a tabletop game can be made more "simultaneous," @dlux is correct that that is NOT real-time. It is correctly identified as phase-based, which is considered to be a type of turn-based system (so also sorry, you haven't invented something new). In fact, phase-based systems are quite common in large-scale strategic games like wargames and also Civilization, and everyone agrees those are TB games. However, as someone who dislikes the strictly sequential nature of traditional TB systems, I do agree that a phase-based system is a huge improvement over the traditional TB system.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Dagless] #670624
Yesterday at 10:07 AM
Yesterday at 10:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 231
Belfast
Wormerine Offline
enthusiast
Wormerine  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 231
Belfast
Originally Posted by Dagless
If I was making a game this way, I’d probably have an initiative system in reverse. There would be an advantage in declaring your intentions last as you know what everyone is doing. Maybe each attack has a speed factor that determines the order blows land. There’s lots of ways of doing it, but the crucial thing would be not knowing the outcome of the each character’s action before deciding what to do.

Are there no games like this? Shit, maybe I’m onto something here.

Josh Sawyer's table top Pillars of Eternity used that at some point (I don't know if it still does, it's changes as is gets developed) - characters roll initiative and commit to moves in reverse order. I actually like the idea a lot. The downside is that we would need to get rid of rolls - fine for computer game, less so for PnP. Having to double guess what players will do plus making plans based on uncertain outcome is absurd way for things to spiral into chaos. I do like how this system trabskates "reaction time" though.

Last edited by Wormerine; Yesterday at 12:11 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #670630
Yesterday at 02:15 PM
Yesterday at 02:15 PM
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 51
Dagless Online content
journeyman
Dagless  Online Content
journeyman

Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dagless
But it just so happens that WOTC gave the BG license to Larian and they are making a turn based game. That’s not going to change.

Sure. And again, no one is arguing any differently on this point. But this is a forum. And the very purpose of a forum is to discuss, debate, and <gasp> air alternative points of view. So just because Larian has made this choice and that choice is not going to change, does not mean people can't comment on their feelings that it's a poor/wrong choice. If that discussion is not of any value to you, there's a very easy way to deal with it: ignore it and move on. But trying to shut people down or even worse, insult and attack people using despicable language (not necessarily you but certainly there have been those kinds of posts) is outrageous and wrong.

As for your idea of how a tabletop game can be made more "simultaneous," @dlux is correct that that is NOT real-time. It is correctly identified as phase-based, which is considered to be a type of turn-based system (so also sorry, you haven't invented something new). In fact, phase-based systems are quite common in large-scale strategic games like wargames and also Civilization, and everyone agrees those are TB games. However, as someone who dislikes the strictly sequential nature of traditional TB systems, I do agree that a phase-based system is a huge improvement over the traditional TB system.


Yes, thank you. I’m happy to debate it. That’s why I’m here where this topic was banished to. My main reason for participating in this thread in the first place was to try to explain that turn based games can be fun and some things work better in them than real time. As I’ve said before, it’s just different, not fundamentally inferior.

Believe it or not, I don’t say this to try and shut you all up. I say it because I feel bad for all the old BG fans who are convinced the combat will just be shit. Maybe I can persuade a few that it might not actually be a terrible decision if they give it a chance, and it might even be enjoyable. I realise it won’t work with the most vocal critics.

That said, if I see an argument I believe is nonsense, I’m going to call it out as nonsense. Such as this:

Originally Posted by dlux
Originally Posted by etonbears
WoTC liked the TB/MP mechanics of their latest D:OS games for its similarity to PnP

Let's see:
>BG series has an adapted D&D system
>BG3 has an adapted D&D system
How so?

Also:
>BG series simulates real time combat
>D&D series simulates real time combat
>BG3 emulates D&D
Sounds to me like the original BG series actually implemented combat as was always intended by D&D.


Do you think that sounds reasonable?

As for the tabletop thing, I never claimed it was real time, or really thought no one had done it. My point was that if original BG was closer to what was “always intended by D&D”, it’s odd they didn’t make the rules closer to how how original BG works. I only went into a little more detail when you both said that was impossible and you specifically asked how it might work.

Bottom line is that D&D is not a simulation, it’s a game designed to be fun to play. BG games are also not simulations, they are games based to some extent on D&D and designed to be fun to play. So dlux’s argument is silly.

Which brings us back to if turn based combat can be suitable and fun for BG3?

Larian are creating complex 3D environments, lots of things to interact with on the battlefield, they want stealth to work well in combat, etc. They want people to experiment and find interesting ways to approach things inside and outside of combat. That’s what WOTC said they liked about them. Not that they make turn based games, but that they make systems that allow players to be creative.

So I don’t think the key question is which is better between turn based and real time. It’s about which is most suitable for the systems Larian are building and the kind of gameplay they want to make.

While you could argue that you can do all these things with real time and pause, I strongly suspect that the reality of trying to carefully position characters, use stealth, set traps and use the environmental would be a frustrating mess as you try to fight the AI. It can be enough hassle in original Baldurs Gate just stopping companions charging into AoE spells. BG3 will have far more complicated environments and options.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Wormerine] #670632
Yesterday at 02:40 PM
Yesterday at 02:40 PM
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 51
Dagless Online content
journeyman
Dagless  Online Content
journeyman

Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Dagless
If I was making a game this way, I’d probably have an initiative system in reverse. There would be an advantage in declaring your intentions last as you know what everyone is doing. Maybe each attack has a speed factor that determines the order blows land. There’s lots of ways of doing it, but the crucial thing would be not knowing the outcome of the each character’s action before deciding what to do.

Are there no games like this? Shit, maybe I’m onto something here.

Josh Sawyer's table top Pillars of Eternity used that at some point (I don't know if it still does, it's changes as is gets developed) - characters roll initiative and commit to moves in reverse order. I actually like the idea a lot. The downside is that we would need to get rid of rolls - fine for computer game, less so for PnP. Having to double guess what players will do plus making plans based on uncertain outcome is absurd way for things to spiral into chaos. I do like how this system trabskates "reaction time" though.


Interesting, thanks. What I said there was just something I threw together in a few minutes to answer a post. I haven’t actually thought about it much. Not sure why you’d need to get rid of rolls though. Couldn’t it all still be dice based?

I suppose trying to guess what’s going to happen would be the point. How much fun that would be to play is another question.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Dagless] #670633
Yesterday at 04:16 PM
Yesterday at 04:16 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 231
Belfast
Wormerine Offline
enthusiast
Wormerine  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 231
Belfast
Originally Posted by Dagless

Interesting, thanks. What I said there was just something I threw together in a few minutes to answer a post. I haven’t actually thought about it much. Not sure why you’d need to get rid of rolls though. Couldn’t it all still be dice based?

I suppose trying to guess what’s going to happen would be the point. How much fun that would be to play is another question.

Dice rolls were purely my thoughts. I don't remember how his systems worked. I have been doing theorycrafting around this idea. I am big fan of Frozen Synapse and I wondered if such planning phase followed by real time execution could be a valid way of make an RPG. The problem I see that could emerge is, that such planning phase revolves around "what will happen", and If you add a healthy dose of RNG, we start talking in "what could happen" not only in terms what enemy could do, but also if he or I will succeed. I just think that could be a bit too much. While if you have full-turn based you mainly focus on what kind of damage you can do, and what are you chances to do it.

Originally Posted by Dagless

Yes, thank you. I’m happy to debate it. That’s why I’m here where this topic was banished to. My main reason for participating in this thread in the first place was to try to explain that turn based games can be fun and some things work better in them than real time. As I’ve said before, it’s just different, not fundamentally inferior.

I think the problem we will run into here, is that different people played BG1&2 in different ways. Here or on another thread someone expressed an opinion that it will be detrimental to the game having to manually control all units. Custom AI scripts were praised in PoE2, and I know some people play those games rarely using the pause. There are players who try to solo runs from the get go, and don't bother with companions at all.

I would argue that those playstyles are a result of the game being badly balanced - to me those are negative side effects, not a feature. If one can beat a party based RPG with a solo character that means that either the content is too easy, or character builds way to unbalanced. If one can play with a party based RPG and not control what 5 out of 6 characters are doing then something is very wrong - it should be about party interactions after all. Still, that's my opinion, and one that many people who played BG1&2 seem not to share.

As a micromanaging player, I don't have a big problem with using turn-based system. I set up a generous auto-pause in my IE games and manually pause on top of that - analyse rolls, make sure everyone does what I want them to do. All AI scripts are off of course. Making the game turn-based doesn't slow the game to me that much, and makes it far easier to follow. On top of that, I believe that with that pace Larian can expect players to engage with systems more, and design a better balanced and challenging encounters. Still, players who enjoyed those games in other playstyles might not be served by BG3. Even if solo runs will be possible for BG3, I doubt they would be enjoyable.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Dagless] #670634
Yesterday at 04:41 PM
Yesterday at 04:41 PM
Joined: May 2019
Posts: 461
Massachusetts, USA
kanisatha Offline
addict
kanisatha  Offline
addict

Joined: May 2019
Posts: 461
Massachusetts, USA
Originally Posted by Dagless
Which brings us back to if turn based combat can be suitable and fun for BG3?

Larian are creating complex 3D environments, lots of things to interact with on the battlefield, they want stealth to work well in combat, etc. They want people to experiment and find interesting ways to approach things inside and outside of combat. That’s what WOTC said they liked about them. Not that they make turn based games, but that they make systems that allow players to be creative.

So I don’t think the key question is which is better between turn based and real time. It’s about which is most suitable for the systems Larian are building and the kind of gameplay they want to make.

While you could argue that you can do all these things with real time and pause, I strongly suspect that the reality of trying to carefully position characters, use stealth, set traps and use the environmental would be a frustrating mess as you try to fight the AI. It can be enough hassle in original Baldurs Gate just stopping companions charging into AoE spells. BG3 will have far more complicated environments and options.

Ok, good. So it seems like there is space for civil discourse between us, and that makes me happy.

I appreciate your attempts to convince me that BG3 combat could be fun despite the nature of the combat system. Speaking only for myself, I am actually still keeping myself open to that possibility. I do not believe it is likely, but it is possible. Larian can end up surprising me with what they ultimately produce. As I've said elsewhere, I think the only thing that can possibly make a TB combat system palatable to me is if the combat encounters are such that they can be concluded in a relatively short amount of time. In D:OS, for example, three rounds was my limit before I got too exasperated and annoyed with the combat. So what I did in that game was to always just drop the difficulty to the lowest setting just before combat, breeze through the combat in three rounds or less, and then bring the difficulty setting back up afterwards. Yes a pain to keep doing, but it made the game immensely more enjoyable for me. The point of all this is that encounter design I think is ultimately what will matter in BG3. If encounters are designed well, and especially with only a small number of opponents and opportunities to "remove" some of your opponents ahead of time (through dialogue, checks, or stealth), such that even on normal difficulty combat does not last for too long, then I can see myself being okay with the combat. I will still not consider it "good" by any stretch, and the combat system will remain a strike against the game for me meaning I could never give this game anything more than an 8/10 rating at best. But given that story, storytelling, characters, character development, writing, lore, branching dialogue, meaningful choices with meaningful consequences, interesting quests, etc. are MUCH more important to me than combat will ever be, if the game is very strong in those areas then those strengths can overcome what I see as a less than stellar combat system.

As for your last point about whether RTwP can do justice to all the "systems" in a Larian game, I strongly feel that that is ENTIRELY up to the quality of the developer (whoever they are). Yes, 5e D&D rules can be fully implemented in a RTwP game, as well as all of Larian's environmental interactions. It is purely a matter of the imagination and competence of the game's designers and programmers. Swen Vincke, in an interview some months before BG3 was announced, spoke at length about how he as a game developer can make only so many games in his lifetime, and therefore he wanted to be challenged by making as many different types of games as possible and not just making the same games again and again. So my challenge to Swen would be (post BG3 obviously): "Prove to me your reputation is well-deserved and that you are one of the greatest RPG designers of all time by making the greatest ever RTwP RPG. You've already made several TB RPGs that a lot of people love. If you truly believe in a challenge, demonstrate this to me by making an awesome RTwP RPG." smile

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: fireflame] #670639
Yesterday at 07:22 PM
Yesterday at 07:22 PM
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 307
Belgium
Maximuuus Online content
enthusiast
Maximuuus  Online Content
enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 307
Belgium
Having a new, modern RTWP game with Larian's gameplay mecanics would be that awwwesome.

That's all what I hoped when I learned they're doing Baldur's Gate 3.
Everyone on the BG's forums I read was something like "Larian ? DoS ? That sucks for a BG game" while I was saying "if they're doing something out of what they usually do, it's gonna be awesome".

Last edited by Maximuuus; Yesterday at 07:29 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Maximuuus] #670642
Yesterday at 08:31 PM
Yesterday at 08:31 PM
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 34
Sequenze Offline
apprentice
Sequenze  Offline
apprentice

Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Having a new, modern RTWP game with Larian's gameplay mecanics would be that awwwesome.

That's all what I hoped when I learned they're doing Baldur's Gate 3.
Everyone on the BG's forums I read was something like "Larian ? DoS ? That sucks for a BG game" while I was saying "if they're doing something out of what they usually do, it's gonna be awesome".


What about the whole "I'm not going to play this game..."?

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Sequenze] #670643
Yesterday at 08:53 PM
Yesterday at 08:53 PM
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 307
Belgium
Maximuuus Online content
enthusiast
Maximuuus  Online Content
enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 307
Belgium
Originally Posted by Sequenze
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Having a new, modern RTWP game with Larian's gameplay mecanics would be that awwwesome.

That's all what I hoped when I learned they're doing Baldur's Gate 3.
Everyone on the BG's forums I read was something like "Larian ? DoS ? That sucks for a BG game" while I was saying "if they're doing something out of what they usually do, it's gonna be awesome".


What about the whole "I'm not going to play this game..."?


You're life looks very sad and boring...

The annoucement of BG3 came months before we knew anything about the game wink

Last edited by Maximuuus; Yesterday at 08:53 PM.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Maximuuus] #670650
Yesterday at 10:15 PM
Yesterday at 10:15 PM
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 231
Belfast
Wormerine Offline
enthusiast
Wormerine  Offline
enthusiast

Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 231
Belfast
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Having a new, modern RTWP game with Larian's gameplay mecanics would be that awwwesome.

That's all what I hoped when I learned they're doing Baldur's Gate 3.

xD ha! No, that's is pretty much what I expected. It actually is looking much better then what I imagined.

Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: kanisatha] #670666
5 hours ago
5 hours ago
Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 21
Tarorn Offline
stranger
Tarorn  Offline
stranger

Joined: Jun 2020
Posts: 21
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Dagless
Which brings us back to if turn based combat can be suitable and fun for BG3?

Larian are creating complex 3D environments, lots of things to interact with on the battlefield, they want stealth to work well in combat, etc. They want people to experiment and find interesting ways to approach things inside and outside of combat. That’s what WOTC said they liked about them. Not that they make turn based games, but that they make systems that allow players to be creative.

So I don’t think the key question is which is better between turn based and real time. It’s about which is most suitable for the systems Larian are building and the kind of gameplay they want to make.

While you could argue that you can do all these things with real time and pause, I strongly suspect that the reality of trying to carefully position characters, use stealth, set traps and use the environmental would be a frustrating mess as you try to fight the AI. It can be enough hassle in original Baldurs Gate just stopping companions charging into AoE spells. BG3 will have far more complicated environments and options.

Ok, good. So it seems like there is space for civil discourse between us, and that makes me happy.

I appreciate your attempts to convince me that BG3 combat could be fun despite the nature of the combat system. Speaking only for myself, I am actually still keeping myself open to that possibility. I do not believe it is likely, but it is possible. Larian can end up surprising me with what they ultimately produce. As I've said elsewhere, I think the only thing that can possibly make a TB combat system palatable to me is if the combat encounters are such that they can be concluded in a relatively short amount of time. In D:OS, for example, three rounds was my limit before I got too exasperated and annoyed with the combat. So what I did in that game was to always just drop the difficulty to the lowest setting just before combat, breeze through the combat in three rounds or less, and then bring the difficulty setting back up afterwards. Yes a pain to keep doing, but it made the game immensely more enjoyable for me. The point of all this is that encounter design I think is ultimately what will matter in BG3. If encounters are designed well, and especially with only a small number of opponents and opportunities to "remove" some of your opponents ahead of time (through dialogue, checks, or stealth), such that even on normal difficulty combat does not last for too long, then I can see myself being okay with the combat. I will still not consider it "good" by any stretch, and the combat system will remain a strike against the game for me meaning I could never give this game anything more than an 8/10 rating at best. But given that story, storytelling, characters, character development, writing, lore, branching dialogue, meaningful choices with meaningful consequences, interesting quests, etc. are MUCH more important to me than combat will ever be, if the game is very strong in those areas then those strengths can overcome what I see as a less than stellar combat system.

As for your last point about whether RTwP can do justice to all the "systems" in a Larian game, I strongly feel that that is ENTIRELY up to the quality of the developer (whoever they are). Yes, 5e D&D rules can be fully implemented in a RTwP game, as well as all of Larian's environmental interactions. It is purely a matter of the imagination and competence of the game's designers and programmers. Swen Vincke, in an interview some months before BG3 was announced, spoke at length about how he as a game developer can make only so many games in his lifetime, and therefore he wanted to be challenged by making as many different types of games as possible and not just making the same games again and again. So my challenge to Swen would be (post BG3 obviously): "Prove to me your reputation is well-deserved and that you are one of the greatest RPG designers of all time by making the greatest ever RTwP RPG. You've already made several TB RPGs that a lot of people love. If you truly believe in a challenge, demonstrate this to me by making an awesome RTwP RPG." smile



You/re almost there Kanisatha ! embrace the TB !!! after this game you'll be loving it ! - i cant recall your feedback but I truly hope you're going with early access so the debate can continue & hopefully we all give some ongoing feedback to make this the D&D/BG game of a generation !!!

Last edited by Tarorn; 5 hours ago.
Re: ragin debate: active pause vs turn per turn [Re: Wormerine] #670673
1 hour ago
1 hour ago
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 307
Belgium
Maximuuus Online content
enthusiast
Maximuuus  Online Content
enthusiast

Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 307
Belgium
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
Having a new, modern RTWP game with Larian's gameplay mecanics would be that awwwesome.

That's all what I hoped when I learned they're doing Baldur's Gate 3.

xD ha! No, that's is pretty much what I expected. It actually is looking much better then what I imagined.


It looks better than other TB games but I'd really love a whole new RTWP that include such verticality and such interractions with environnement.

Maybe Larian's going to realize my dreams grin

Last edited by Maximuuus; 38 minutes ago.
Page 53 of 53 1 2 51 52 53

Moderated by  Freddo, vometia 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.2