Larian Studios Forums Divine Divinity (English) Suggestions Combat systems

Absolutely.

The only way you can make a single character RPG turn-based would be in the style of NetHack or Castle of the Winds or any of the others (too numerous to mention). In these games, everything is turn based. Every move you make (ie. Walk, fight, open a door, pick something up, etc.) takes time measaured in seconds (or milliseconds). Any creature (ruinning by the same rules as you) whose next turn lies between your, takes it as they see fit. This works surprisingly well. You have some time to think about what you are doing and still have access to all of your skills and spells. And movement speed still means something because it takes different creatures different time to move one square. You can outrun slow powerful creatures, but those bloody wolves will catch you no matter what.

I think turn based vs real time relates to the actual amount of independent battles you are going to fight. The amount of killing (every screen in fact) in DD reflects the fact that there is not a whole lot of strategy involved in the actual combat phase but more in what you do -before- the fight (weapons,eq,skills). Also even if there were strategy, the battles would have need to be reduced and "replaced" by stronger but less frequent mobs.

Wizardry 8 for example threw you into turn based combat -every- single battle.
Every battle did require alot of effort and thought and rarely it was a matter of hack and slash. You -had- to pull stunts like casting blindness and spelling yourself up before every encounter, things i only actually use on bosses in games like Baldur's gate, Diablo etc. Where Wizardry imho messed up was they gave you an encounter every screen almost, you would walk one step and you're in turn based combat, when you just want to run to the next town to get supplies. In the end it becomes a huge frustration.

Arcanum did an interesting move with the option of both turn based and real time. Problem was in real time it was actually just simply too fast, and basically they replaced the "pause" option with a turn based option, which in the end amounts to the exact same thing. I would press "space" and go into turn based, then click to do my specific spell, when i see i'm winning i would press space and let it continue in real time. Arcanum had alot of strategy involved mainly because every single battle you could possibly run out of stamina and fall uncounscious, even fighting a rat could cause it..falling uncounscious basically meant death if you didn't have other party members to revive you.

So it must be a balance between two big factors.
(1) Amount of encounters
(2) Amount of resources required during each encounter (This includes the party
vs solo grouped situation)

If it's mass destruction sprees where you can run around killing 100s of mobs without needing to heal, turn based will fail. If every battle is potentially a boss mob, which requires you to use even the smallest advantage, got then turn based will almost be required, although pause features is a nice midway.
So i'd say, as in Baldur's Gate where you had alot less encounters than in DD (imho) but still alot of encounters that were plain hack'n'slash would be perfect for the "pause" feature, turn based would be annoying there as there's not really enough "crunch" battles.

Only realtime RPG combat system i liked so far was in Blade of Darkness, although the game wasn't considered an RPG but more similar to Rune. Gothic
had a similar combat system going although not as complex, but was alot of fun.
(If you don't knwo what i'm talking about, in short, you went into combat mode just like DD, but then it became something like Mortal Kombat where you could make special moves, had to dodge attacks, shield blocking, ducking, and timing your attack) This requires 3D though, not sure how it can be applied on 2D without a Final Fantasy style of "switching" or "zooming" into battle. This obviously depends on amount of encounters too, less encounters but more life threatening encounteres are required.

Oh yea forgot too mention, DD has too many passive skills to make turn based combat worthwhile. What will you do if you're a warrior in turn based? All you can do is click to attack and do the odd potion drinking or freeze spell (which usually lasts the whole battle on most mobs anyway).

Although there is alot of spells on the mages side that is actually only good
in turn based and strong mobs. How many are casting blindness and curse on the one-hit-dead-orc ? I prolly should go check out these spells, but my first impression of them were that they're not really going to play a role on something that will die with 2-4 casts of another offensive spell anyway.
And as there's not really that many bosses or difficult encounters i don't know how often they can be used effectively. Most difficult encounters for me are those when i'm surrounded by hordes and hordes of mobs..and blind and withering curse etc won't help you diddly in that scenario....unless it affects an area. (not sure if it does, so correct me if i'm wrong :P)

Either way DD has a very addictive kind of way of play, which i enjoy immensely. Just very satisfying doing a warrior-spin move and killing 10 mobs around you in one shot :P

As much as I loved Septerra Core, the 30 to 50 turn based battles you had to go through just to get from Point A to Point B really started to become tiresome. It was the story that kept me going though that.

The action in Divine Divinity was mostly hack-and-slash because the skills and monsters were unbalanced. In Diablo II you did have to think stratagy sometimes. You couldn't afford to be surrounded, even as a Barbarian. As anything less, you had to make damn sure that you weren't going to get overwhelmed at any one time. You had to keep the monsters at bay and spend your mana wisely.

Try Castle of the Winds and see what you think of single-character, turn-based RPGing: http://vengeance.et.tudelft.nl/cow/
Note: This site offers both part 1 and 2 of the game. Part 1 is shareware. Part 2 is a comercial release, not shareware, so it is technically breach of licence to download this without purchasing it. But I'll leave your morals up to you.

I dislike turn-based combat with a passion. It's the reason that I couldn't stand playing Fallout and Arcanum for long. (Arcanum has real-time option, but my opinion of it is not repeatable in decent company.) My favourite approach is real-time, but can be paused at any time (ala the Infinity Engine games).

Seriously, if DD came as turn-based like Fallout, I'd have returned it to the store.

Real Time Combat is often too complex for me: Having 10.000 options (spells, for example), but in the heat of the battle only able to use 10 % or so, and mostly not the most effective ones ...

I like the chess-like approach : Have you ever played Chess "real time" ? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Generally speaking, any CRPG game with a huge complexity of combat options and multiple characters needs some kind of pause function to make it playable.

With a single character, I don't think there needs to be a pause key - especially when it is possible to set the F-keys to give you numerous different options if you so desire, as is the case in DD.

A fully turn based game is as undesirable in either case as a turn based RTS game, and for much the same reasons - the idea is to create, as far as is possible, a fully immersive experience that draws you into the world.

The idea of people taking turns in combat is so ridiculous that it only works for CRPGs where combat is NOT an important part of the game, but where the main emphasis is on strong characterisation and the development of the plot and the relationships between characters.

Any game such as DD, where there is a very strong emphasis on combat over characterisation, really requires a real-time combat system to work - the more so where there is only a single character to work with.

The only CRPG I have ever seen that gets the balance right between combat and characterisation is Planescape: Torment. Every other CRPG seems to strongly emphasise one over the other.

In games such as Final Fantasy 8 the combat exists only to give items and experience points to the characters. The main emphasis is on the developing story, and the way it affects the lives and relationships of the characters. The characters learn and grow as people, and their relationships with each other change and grow over time. Whole sections of the game are character-driven rather than plot driven.

In games such as Diablo 2, the plot only exists as an excuse for combat. As such, the combat system is far more fluid and sophisticated, and requires quicker reactions and a degree of tactical thinking alien to turn based games (Like: if I stand on this side of the river I can shoot them all without getting hit - as a very basic example)

Any game where the emphasis is primarily on combat over characterisation (As DD is, let's be honest) that is also turn based would be so tediously boring as to be unplayable.

With very few tactical options, no swift reactions required, and no characterisation, why would anyone want to play a CRPG at all?

i love to play chess "real time" over the internet... since i play as a guest and i can't save games, i can't play long games (people will just go away in the most interesting point and i've lost half an hour), so i play blitz, my favourite timing is 1 minute, 6 secs acceleration <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> well, that's "real time" chess - you can't think for long.

Talking about 10000 options to do - i hate that too, that's why i never played BG for long, but i played other RPGs with real time combat - i hate learning a gane's system for months just to play it a week, i like to master it in a day (max week) and enjoy for months. Good games don't get you confused, but still offer a lot of fun (probably much more than those that confuse you first - i hate hardcore RPGs where every detail is a must and where players hate their characters to remind them it's just a game), Divine Divinity isn't hard to master, but is very enjoyable - it's extraordinary game.

Real-time chess is where you play with one hand and you don't take turns. You just move and take pieces when you feel like it. It usually ends up with the table getting involved.

i don't really know most of the RPG games that all of u mentioned but what i can say is that glitch aside, DD now stands tall on its own. real-time: (diablo, nox, korean 'shadowflare') this combat system is nice for RPG-lite. a whole lot of action with not too much brainwork but enough to make it engaging. action's the main dish with RPG on the side. real-time with pause option: (dungeon siege, grom[they call it action adventure RPG], NWN) this is nice when things get too hairy. RPG elements have more emphasis but not to the extend of overshadowing action. turn-based: (fallout 1 & 2, odium, HOMM series) haven't tried turn-based but personally speaking, an argument with a colleague is more combative. want to take turns? how about chess? so it's just me & my lack of love for turn-based RPG. hybrid: (fallout tactics: BOS) my personal favourite. mainly because the experience system is totally different than the usual STR AGI INT CON. but we're talking about combat system. FOT:BOS is great as it has real-time(they call it continuous turn-based), squad-based, & true turn-based system. truthfully fallout purists don't like it but i do. i play it only in real-time. apart from combat system, another system that needs revamping is the experience system. dungeon siege has 'practise makes perfect' XP system, fallout uses S.P.E.C.I.A.L. (strength perception endurance constitution intelligence agility luck, i think). diablo was great when it first came out. now with too many clones, games that even look a tad like it will be looked down upon. in fact DD has been accused as a diablo clone upon first impression. let's not curse the poor idiots who judged at a glance but maybe the next DD can look more distinctive. whatever it is, none of us would want the next DD to be played like any other game that we've played before. that'll be a major rip-off. that's my half cents. yeah u can shoot me now.

nice.

Well, know I have a guess why Lar started this thread ... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

i really liked the combat system from severance:blade of darkness it is real-time but it needs more brain work and strategical decisions then baldur's gate and icewind dale put together...the enemies are VERY strong and that stops u from going around slaughtering everyone insted u had to learn from your foe u had to learn his tactics his reactions but in the same time u couldn't apply the same tactics every time because the enemy AI was so good that he always did something out of his usual pattern so most of the times the most important fighting decisions were taken like they should be taken---IN THE HEAT OF THE BATTLE.That was the most realistic and fun approach to a medieval fighting game i have ever seen,and this is not only my opinion,a lot of cool gaming sites out there say the same thing,and any gamer who played this great game can tell u that the battles are truly epic...so i think any future larian games should be real-time,with less monsters, but more powerful and smart...

a guess, eh, yeah...

Having never played Diablo but hearing some stuff about it, I can honestly say that Divine Divinity is probably a lot different from Diablo in many ways. Combat systems are mostly secondary for me. I like developing my characters or heroes, immersing in a storyline, reading funny dialogues, completing quests and looking out for details. Personally, Fallout just doesn't appeal to me despite its turn-based combat system. *shrug*

Diablo is mainly focused on combat and on collecting. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

mostly combat though

combat with a purpose will be great. a quest in itself. with war looming, one finds oneself fighting for whichever side, either by choice or just pure accident. if one really role-play, the purpose of combat can never be levelling up. it's character development. yeah that means character development has to be further refined. let blizzard do diablo, & have larian make DD more unique.

When it comes to spells, what do people think of a rock, paper, scissors approach where there is no one superior spell...where every spell, no matter how powerful it seems to be can be countered in one way or another? How about characters who are designed this way? Thief is weaker than fighter...fighter is weaker than wizard...wizard is weaker than thief....?

Absolutely. Although, that tends to work in multiplayer games. What you need in a single-player game are bosses and armies that require different tactics or spells to defeat. For example, have fire elementals and ice giants in the game. Wizards require both the fireball spell and the ice-bolt spell to kill them all. Warriors require ranged weapons for the elementals and heavy melee weapons for the giants. Thieves can't sneak past the fire elementals (because they emit light), so they have to find another way through, but they can sneak through the heavily guarded ice giant halls.

Thoughs?