Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 65 of 95 1 2 63 64 65 66 67 94 95
Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol

We don't really know how difficult it is to accommodate both. We can only speculate.


As is the nature of this thread going circles, this was already adressed some here. http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=658862#Post658862


Last edited by Sven_; 23/08/20 10:39 AM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
The word "turn" has ambiguous meaning that varies from game to game. So, if a "turn" is the period of time during which characters/units execute the orders they were given until a timer expires or until all of the actions are complete then the IWD and BG games ALREADY make it possible to functionally turn a RTwP game into a TB game.

If everyone is moving around at the same time during that interval between the automatic pauses, then no, it is not remotely the same thing as what goes on in TB combat like there is in DOS and BG3. And it is comments like these that have led (and still lead) me to wonder if you really do know the what everyone else means by 'turn-based'.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
In other words, pure hack and slash problem/puzzle solving that is fundamentally not much different from playing Risk or a small unit tactical wargame.

Combining two genres (hack/slash and problem/puzzle) and calling the combination "pure" is nonsensical. Even so, there is more to these games than that (exploration, story, character interaction, effects of choices).

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So yeah, end this farce and close out this thread because apparently any discussion about this issue is totally pointless.

I never really saw this thread as a debate over the matter as it applies to this game (since there was never a question about which it would be), but more a general debate on the matter. Once the BG3 forums open up to more than one subject ("General"), perhaps this thread can be moved elsewhere so as to avoid any confusion.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
That's why the chances of me playing BG3, the game I have been looking forward to some day getting to play more than any other game, are getting smaller by the day. The more I read here the more convinced I am that all Larian is doing is taking DoS and putting D&D/BG skins on it, and adding BG characters in it, just so they can call it BG3. At least I have enhanced BG and BG2 and can still play them. In fact, I'm very close to finishing up BG again and then starting BG2 again. Everything I read in here tells me Larian is going to ruin Baldur's Gate.

These sentiments have been made by others before you and have been debated elsewhere on these forums. Although, I believe that such arguments should handled specifically (i.e. issue by issue) instead of by blanket statements, so this is the place to discuss how you believe TB will "ruin Baldur's Gate."

Originally Posted by Sven_
Originally Posted by Emrikol

We don't really know how difficult it is to accommodate both. We can only speculate.

As is the nature of this thread going circles, this was already adressed some here. http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=658862#Post658862

Good find

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler

The more I read here the more convinced I am that all Larian is doing is taking DoS and putting D&D/BG skins on it, and adding BG characters in it, just so they can call it BG3.

Many people pointed it out for me but there is a lot of real estate between:

Faithful recreation of BG1&2 > DnD reskin of D:OS2.

As someone who played both D:OS1&2 BG is definitely not a reskin. It is however Larian RPG, not Bioware RPG. If you were hoping for fan-like continuation of BG IP, that was clear that won't be the case once it was clear who was making it... at least to those familiar with Larian sensibilities. I don't think it's a bad thing by any means, but that also means I might not enjoy it in singleplayer.

There is a reason why all RTwP vs TB has been contained to this thread. And yeah, there is no way there will be RTwP option - too much of Larian design revolves around TB system. In something like Deadfire or pathfinder it's just the matter of how combat plays out. In Larian RPG entire coop structure (and now even stealth and trap design) relies on game being turn based.


Nope, I most certainly am NOT hoping for a fan-like continuation of Baldur's Gate 1&2. I couldn't care less if we never hear from the original characters from the BG series. I couldn't care less if we see the same places. I'm hoping for an RPG with combat that has the same FEEL of of the IWD and BG games and for BG3 to be at least the same or better. I'm hoping for the same level of emersion, the same level of immediacy, the same level of urgency, the same level of intensity, the same level of excitement, the same level of risk, the same pace that is possible in RT and RTwP combat encounters. TB games just can't pull that off.

I don't believe for one second that the coop structure Larian wants and stealth functions and trap design are not possible in a RTwP game and are only possible in a TB game. Not if the players are capable of effective communication and teamwork. I've done enough coop with other players to know what is possible in RT combat. The biggest difference between the functional turns (i.e. when the player is making decisions and issuing orders to and changing orders for the rest of the party, or when each player in a party makes a decision) of TB and RTwP games is that the turns in a TB game are fixed length and the turns in RTwP are variable length.

There's a reason why I don't play RPGs that don't have a full party of six. Done it twice and didn't like it. There's a reason why I don't play RPGs that are TB instead of RT or RTwP. Done it twice and didn't like it. I don't play Larian games for these reasons. I don't play a LOT of RPGs for these reasons. I think TB combat in an RPG, especially if it is coop, defeats the whole point of a ROLE playing game.

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
The word "turn" has ambiguous meaning that varies from game to game. So, if a "turn" is the period of time during which characters/units execute the orders they were given until a timer expires or until all of the actions are complete then the IWD and BG games ALREADY make it possible to functionally turn a RTwP game into a TB game.

If everyone is moving around at the same time during that interval between the automatic pauses, then no, it is not remotely the same thing as what goes on in TB combat like there is in DOS and BG3. And it is comments like these that have led (and still lead) me to wonder if you really do know the what everyone else means by 'turn-based'.


I don't know how to explain it any better. TWICE I have explained a minimum of at least SIX different ways that turn based games do TB gaming. Clearly you want to define TB in only ONE way, the way that YOU prefer, and so all other possibilities are irrelevant to your narrow world view. Clearly you don't understand what turn based CAN mean.

Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
In other words, pure hack and slash problem/puzzle solving that is fundamentally not much different from playing Risk or a small unit tactical wargame.

Combining two genres (hack/slash and problem/puzzle) and calling the combination "pure" is nonsensical. Even so, there is more to these games than that (exploration, story, character interaction, effects of choices).


And now you dishonestly cherry pick a comment out of context to misrepresent what I mean. And you have the gall to accuse me of being nonsensical.

Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
That's why the chances of me playing BG3, the game I have been looking forward to some day getting to play more than any other game, are getting smaller by the day. The more I read here the more convinced I am that all Larian is doing is taking DoS and putting D&D/BG skins on it, and adding BG characters in it, just so they can call it BG3. At least I have enhanced BG and BG2 and can still play them. In fact, I'm very close to finishing up BG again and then starting BG2 again. Everything I read in here tells me Larian is going to ruin Baldur's Gate.

These sentiments have been made by others before you and have been debated elsewhere on these forums. Although, I believe that such arguments should handled specifically (i.e. issue by issue) instead of by blanket statements, so this is the place to discuss how you believe TB will "ruin Baldur's Gate."


Silly me, I thought the point of this thread was to get input and ideas from the players and not to merely give us the false illusion that input from us matters. Silly me, I thought Larian actually might be willing to listen.

Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Sven_
[quote=Emrikol]
We don't really know how difficult it is to accommodate both. We can only speculate.

As is the nature of this thread going circles, this was already adressed some here. http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=658862#Post658862


Actually, that is not a good find. I followed the link and all I see is lame rationalizing with a false dilemma. An RPG that uses RTwP combat does not HAVE TO have "a higher volume of trash encounters." Such a game can have zero "trash encounters" if the developers choose to not put any trash encounters in it. EVERY encounter in a RTwP RPG can be "meaningful encounters" if the developer makes every encounter meaningful. If this means no random encounters that are possible in D&D, assuming this hasn't changed, then sobeit. Don't have any random encounters. And I bet THIS is the reason RTwP D&D games had "trash encounters," because the damn rules of D&D called for rolling up random encounters and NOT because they were RTwP instead of TB. I bet other TB games that were NOT based on the D&D rule set didn't have as many "trash encounters" because the rules made up for those games didn't call for fandom encounters and so that they were TB didn't have anything to do with it. There is no immutable law of physics or game design that makes any encounters in a RTwP game trash encounters and makes every encounter in a TB game meaningful. Encounters in an RPG are as meaningful or not meaningful as the designer makes them.


Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 24/08/20 07:13 AM.
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler

There's a reason why I don't play RPGs that don't have a full party of six. Done it twice and didn't like it. There's a reason why I don't play RPGs that are TB instead of RT or RTwP. Done it twice and didn't like it. I don't play Larian games for these reasons. I don't play a LOT of RPGs for these reasons.

Then BG3 isn’t for you for you.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler

Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Sven_
[quote=Emrikol]
We don't really know how difficult it is to accommodate both. We can only speculate.

As is the nature of this thread going circles, this was already adressed some here. http://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=658862#Post658862

Actually, that is not a good find. I followed the link and all I see is lame rationalizing with a false dilemma. An RPG that uses RTwP combat does not HAVE TO have "a higher volume of trash encounters." (,,,,blablabla)

Try again...? The post that link leads to said nothing about trash encounters.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
The word "turn" has ambiguous meaning that varies from game to game. So, if a "turn" is the period of time during which characters/units execute the orders they were given until a timer expires or until all of the actions are complete then the IWD and BG games ALREADY make it possible to functionally turn a RTwP game into a TB game.

If everyone is moving around at the same time during that interval between the automatic pauses, then no, it is not remotely the same thing as what goes on in TB combat like there is in DOS and BG3. And it is comments like these that have led (and still lead) me to wonder if you really do know the what everyone else means by 'turn-based'.


I don't know how to explain it any better. TWICE I have explained a minimum of at least SIX different ways that turn based games do TB gaming. Clearly you want to define TB in only ONE way, the way that YOU prefer, and so all other possibilities are irrelevant to your narrow world view. Clearly you don't understand what turn based CAN mean.

Yes, I know you have given examples of other TB types. But the type of TB we've all been talking about it the kind that will be found in BG3. So, the examples you have given and the arguments you have made are not consonant with the gameplay in question.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
In other words, pure hack and slash problem/puzzle solving that is fundamentally not much different from playing Risk or a small unit tactical wargame.

Combining two genres (hack/slash and problem/puzzle) and calling the combination "pure" is nonsensical. Even so, there is more to these games than that (exploration, story, character interaction, effects of choices).


And now you dishonestly cherry pick a comment out of context to misrepresent what I mean. And you have the gall to accuse me of being nonsensical.

I quoted the entirety of your post. So it was not "cherry picked," and hence, neither dishonest, nor a misrepresentation.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
That's why the chances of me playing BG3, the game I have been looking forward to some day getting to play more than any other game, are getting smaller by the day. The more I read here the more convinced I am that all Larian is doing is taking DoS and putting D&D/BG skins on it, and adding BG characters in it, just so they can call it BG3. At least I have enhanced BG and BG2 and can still play them. In fact, I'm very close to finishing up BG again and then starting BG2 again. Everything I read in here tells me Larian is going to ruin Baldur's Gate.

These sentiments have been made by others before you and have been debated elsewhere on these forums. Although, I believe that such arguments should handled specifically (i.e. issue by issue) instead of by blanket statements, so this is the place to discuss how you believe TB will "ruin Baldur's Gate."


Silly me, I thought the point of this thread was to get input and ideas from the players and not to merely give us the false illusion that input from us matters. Silly me, I thought Larian actually might be willing to listen.

You seem to think I said something like "Don't bring this up again. These sentiments have been made by other before ..." I did not.


Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol

Yes, I know you have given examples of other TB types. But the type of TB we've all been talking about it the kind that will be found in BG3. So, the examples you have given and the arguments you have made are not consonant with the gameplay in question.


Seriously? EXACTLY how are the SIX types of TB methods I've described not consonant with BG3? I'm eager to see your rational explanation or cogent argument for this one.
EXACTLY what kind of TB game do you think BG3 is going to be, because you've never defined exactly what you mean by TB and you've never defined exactly what kind of TB BG3 is going to be.
Is BG3 going to be IGoUGo? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be IGoUGo with or without reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3
Is BG3 going to be phased IGoUGo with reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3
Is BG3 going to be WeGo? Well then what I've described is consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be WeGo with reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be phased WeGo with or without reaction? Well then the examples I've given are consonant with BG3.
Is BG3 going to be some 7th (or 9th depending upon how you count #3 & #6) kind of TB approach I've never heard of?

So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

Originally Posted by Emrikol

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
In other words, pure hack and slash problem/puzzle solving that is fundamentally not much different from playing Risk or a small unit tactical wargame.

Combining two genres (hack/slash and problem/puzzle) and calling the combination "pure" is nonsensical. Even so, there is more to these games than that (exploration, story, character interaction, effects of choices).


And now you dishonestly cherry pick a comment out of context to misrepresent what I mean. And you have the gall to accuse me of being nonsensical.

I quoted the entirety of your post. So it was not "cherry picked," and hence, neither dishonest, nor a misrepresentation.


Except you did cherry pick my comment out of context from the post to which I was responding and in which I was describing the nature of that specific example the other person gave. There is nothing nonsensical about my comment. A combination of two things can be pure if the combination involves only two different things. Salt water can be pure salt water, i.e. pure water and pure salt combined to make pure salt water. You dishonestly misrepresent my comment as if it is about the game in general rather than the specific example/situation to which I am referring. Cherry picking words out of context and then misrepresenting the original meaning is intellectually dishonest.

Last edited by Vlad the Impaler; 25/08/20 03:37 AM.
Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Try again...? The post that link leads to said nothing about trash encounters.


I already tried at least six times. I even selected the same link in two different posts (the original and a quote) and each time I was taken to exactly the same comment.

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

With the type of TB that will be in BG3, you can never find a "character [that] keeps executing the last order given, such as a thief in the rear of the party continuously firing arrows at the nearest target until ordered to do something different."

The type of TB that will be in BG3 will not be like an RTwP game where you "auto pause only for rounds and ... not manually [pause] at any other time."

The type of TB that will be in BG3 will not allow you to accomplish anything as "a passive observer while the turn runs," because nothing automatically happens on your character's turn.


Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
There is nothing nonsensical about my comment. A combination of two things can be pure if the combination involves only two different things. Salt water can be pure salt water, i.e. pure water and pure salt combined to make pure salt water.


Okay, so on this logic we can have, for example, games that are:

Pure Hack & Slash
Pure Puzzle Solving
Pure Role Playing
Pure Exploration
Pure Hack & Slash/Puzzle Solving
Pure Hack & Slash/Role Playing
Pure Hack & Slash/Exploration
Pure Puzzle Solving/Role Playing
Pure Puzzle Solving/Exploration
Pure Role Playing/Exploration
Pure Hack & Slash/Puzzle Solving/Role Playing
Pure Hack & Slash/Puzzle Solving/Exploration
Pure Hack & Slash/Role Playing/Exploration
Pure Puzzle Solving/Role Playing/Exploration
Pure Hack & Slash/Puzzle Solving/Role Playing/Exploration

Maybe I missed a few. But in any event, this kind of makes the whole "pure" thing pretty meaningless, no?

Joined: Jan 2018
W
old hand
Offline
old hand
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Sorry for being that guy but, some of y’all need to get laid. 😘


Yes, that was a solicitation.


Cash, bitcoin, or Steam gift card.

Last edited by Warlocke; 25/08/20 11:16 AM.
Joined: Aug 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Aug 2020
Each round 6 seconds, it makes sense for (Multiplayer) to allow the entire squad to take their turn at the same time to speed up and help communication. After playing several hours of DOS2 I noticed the hack and slash warrior class is done turn preparation much faster compared to a spell caster who is using intelligence and careful planning to ensure maximum use of their limited resources and survivability. I hope the developers take this into account and enhance the visual and audio of physical prowess during combat when making a weapon attack - especially the critical hits.

Some options could be to auto-zoom in for a weapon attack or show some unique combat maneuvering (pun intended). Enhance and tailor sound effects or adjust the music for the warrior classes. Alternatively you give soft music for the spell casters and healers and make it stop playing after 6 seconds and say something to hurry up (you must gather your party before venturing forth).

I just think there has to be some sort of compensation or balance to the pending wait time.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Sorry for being that but, some of y’all need to get laid. 😘

The last time I got laid was in BG2, so here I am back for more.

Last edited by Wormerine; 25/08/20 08:47 AM.
Joined: Jan 2018
W
old hand
Offline
old hand
W
Joined: Jan 2018
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Sorry for being that but, some of y’all need to get laid. 😘

The last time I got laid was in BG2, so here I am back for more.


Get some of that drow strange.

Joined: Aug 2020
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

With the type of TB that will be in BG3, you can never find a "character [that] keeps executing the last order given, such as a thief in the rear of the party continuously firing arrows at the nearest target until ordered to do something different."


That doesn't answer the question so your point is a pointless red herring. EXACTLY what kind of TB methodology is BG3 using? I'm guessing you don't directly answer the question because you don't know the answer, or maybe you don't even understand the question.
Also, not necessarily, so your claim is false. Simply being turn based doesn't necessarily mean a new turn cancels a previous order. So, a character can continue to execute the last order given from turn to turn unless all orders are automatically canceled at the end of each turn to thus require issuing orders, either repeating the same order or given a different order, every turn. So, is BG3 using a TB methodology that will cancel all orders at the end of each turn so that we will have to issue every character orders each and every turn even if we want them to do the same thing they did last turn? That could get tedious.

Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

The type of TB that will be in BG3 will not be like an RTwP game where you "auto pause only for rounds and ... not manually [pause] at any other time."


LOL That's another pointless point that says nothing meaningful because EVERY TB game is like that regardless of the which kind of TB method it uses. In TB games every turn ends when it ends (usually as a function of time). Or, to put it another way, the game pauses at the end of each turn and only at the end of each turn and the player cannot pause the game at any other time. So, EXACTLY what is the meaningful difference between a TB game that pauses at the end of each turn so the player can take new action or repeat the previous action, and can give new orders to NPCs or repeat previous orders, versus a RTwP game that is set to pause only at the end of each turn and the player doesn't pause at any other time? In BOTH cases the game is pausing at exactly the same time for exactly the same reason - i.e. because current turn ended.

Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?


The type of TB that will be in BG3 will not allow you to accomplish anything as "a passive observer while the turn runs," because nothing automatically happens on your character's turn.


Nice try with another lame dodge of a direct question because that response also doesn't directly answer the direct question. Are you even able to directly answer a direct question?

Anyway, your third claim is patently false and dishonestly misrepresents what I explain in the relevant comments and dishonestly ignores the very detailed example I give. What automatically happens during the current running turn in EVERY TB game - EVEN in BG3 - is the AI characters execute what the computer tells them to do and the player's characters execute the orders the player gave to the player's characters/units. In a straight up TB game without reaction the player becomes totally irrelevant once the turn begins running because unless the methodology is IGoUGo with reaction or WeGo without reaction the player does NOTHING but watch when the turn runs. The player cannot provide any input to change anything during the turn. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen regardless of whether the player watches the turn execute or not. Thus, the player is functionally nothing more than a passive observer. Unless, again, a game is TB with reaction.

Are you now claiming that BG3 is going to be TB with reaction so player input is possible if not necessary DURING the turn like in Steel Panthers and Starfleet Battles (both of which are TB games with reaction)?

Joined: Sep 2017
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2017
Play nice guys, please 😊

Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

With the type of TB that will be in BG3, you can never find a "character [that] keeps executing the last order given, such as a thief in the rear of the party continuously firing arrows at the nearest target until ordered to do something different."


That doesn't answer the question so your point is a pointless red herring. EXACTLY what kind of TB methodology is BG3 using? I'm guessing you don't directly answer the question because you don't know the answer, or maybe you don't even understand the question.
Also, not necessarily, so your claim is false. Simply being turn based doesn't necessarily mean a new turn cancels a previous order. So, a character can continue to execute the last order given from turn to turn unless all orders are automatically canceled at the end of each turn to thus require issuing orders, either repeating the same order or given a different order, every turn. So, is BG3 using a TB methodology that will cancel all orders at the end of each turn so that we will have to issue every character orders each and every turn even if we want them to do the same thing they did last turn? That could get tedious.

If you need it spelled out for you, we expected it to be pure IGoUGo, since that is what Larian's previous last two games are. Then they initially showed BG3 would be more WeGo. After some critical feedback, it went back to mostly IGoUGo, but with a little WeGo too (for players, and possibly enemies, whose initiatives are back to back). If you familiarized yourself at all with Larian's previous games, or even just watched some footage of BG, you would see how asinine it is to question if characters will continue to execute orders. Once again, everyone else seems to know what is meant by TB. We're not talking about all possible variations of it. You're the first person in 65 pages who hasn't caught on to this.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?

The type of TB that will be in BG3 will not be like an RTwP game where you "auto pause only for rounds and ... not manually [pause] at any other time."


LOL That's another pointless point that says nothing meaningful because EVERY TB game is like that regardless of the which kind of TB method it uses. In TB games every turn ends when it ends (usually as a function of time). Or, to put it another way, the game pauses at the end of each turn and only at the end of each turn and the player cannot pause the game at any other time. So, EXACTLY what is the meaningful difference between a TB game that pauses at the end of each turn so the player can take new action or repeat the previous action, and can give new orders to NPCs or repeat previous orders, versus a RTwP game that is set to pause only at the end of each turn and the player doesn't pause at any other time? In BOTH cases the game is pausing at exactly the same time for exactly the same reason - i.e. because current turn ended.

Maybe I am wrong, but in a RTwP game that pauses after every round or turn, wouldn't all the characters and enemies be acting simultaneously? For example, six seconds of mayhem wherein everyone on screen is either moving, attack, casting, etc? If I am right, then no, it would not be like TB at all. The full quote of yours is "Baldur's Gate and BG2, and if memory serves also in the "Icewind Dale" series and the "Temple of Elemental Evil," can play like a TB game by setting auto pause only for rounds and then not manually pausing at any other time." Maybe it could be true for some weird version of TB, but it is absolutely not the case for the kind of TB we have been talking about.

Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Vlad the Impaler
So please, explain exactly what kind of TB methodology BG3 is going to be and also explain why that doesn't fit into what I've described?


The type of TB that will be in BG3 will not allow you to accomplish anything as "a passive observer while the turn runs," because nothing automatically happens on your character's turn.


Nice try with another lame dodge of a direct question because that response also doesn't directly answer the direct question. Are you even able to directly answer a direct question?

Anyway, your third claim is patently false and dishonestly misrepresents what I explain in the relevant comments and dishonestly ignores the very detailed example I give. What automatically happens during the current running turn in EVERY TB game - EVEN in BG3 - is the AI characters execute what the computer tells them to do and the player's characters execute the orders the player gave to the player's characters/units. In a straight up TB game without reaction the player becomes totally irrelevant once the turn begins running because unless the methodology is IGoUGo with reaction or WeGo without reaction the player does NOTHING but watch when the turn runs. The player cannot provide any input to change anything during the turn. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen regardless of whether the player watches the turn execute or not. Thus, the player is functionally nothing more than a passive observer. Unless, again, a game is TB with reaction.

Are you now claiming that BG3 is going to be TB with reaction so player input is possible if not necessary DURING the turn like in Steel Panthers and Starfleet Battles (both of which are TB games with reaction)?

Orders are not given ahead of time and executed after hitting some kind of start command. Yes, AI does their thing without your input. But your characters need to be controlled (or should be to avoid any dumb pathing issues) during the turn. For shit's sake man, watch some game footage and you'll see how none of the examples you have given apply to what's going on here. In all fairness, this thread represents a general argument on RTwP vs TB, so it is possible that we should have separate threads for each kind of comparison. But, more reasonably, we can expect the type of TB we are talking about to me the kind Larian is known for; the kind that was in DOS and the kind that will be in BG3.

Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2020
Location: Belfast
Originally Posted by Emrikol

Maybe I am wrong, but in a RTwP game that pauses after every round or turn, wouldn't all the characters and enemies be acting simultaneously? For example, six seconds of mayhem wherein everyone on screen is either moving, attack, casting, etc? If I am right, then no, it would not be like TB at all.

Well, Frozen Synapse call itself simultaneous turn-based. I think "turn" refers to player being able to perform or set up certain amount of actions - whenever players can do their turns at the same time, and if the result of their actions will be performed in another phase isn't relevant to the game being considered turn-based. Still, BG2 system doesn't really allow to cue activities, and has other limitation at to what player can "program" - so playing it Frozen-Synapse-like doesn't allow for full interaction with the action economy. It also, unlike FS isn't designed around predicting enemy moves so it's not good system to use for this type of combat in the first place.

As to what a difference between 6sec RTwP and IgoUgo Turn-based - those are different rulesets - the difference should be self explanatory.

Last edited by Wormerine; 26/08/20 03:18 PM.
Joined: Mar 2019
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Mar 2019
Originally Posted by Wormerine
As to what a difference between 6sec RTwP and IgoUgo Turn-based - those are different rulesets - the difference should be self explanatory.

Yeah, I agree. His claim was that RTwP is the better choice because it can also be TB by only using an auto pauses after every 'round', which may be true with a certain kind of TB. However, doing so will not produce the kind of turn based combat Larian used in DOS and has shown to be in BG3, as really should be clear to anyone posting here.

Joined: Mar 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Mar 2020
Originally Posted by Emrikol
Originally Posted by Wormerine
As to what a difference between 6sec RTwP and IgoUgo Turn-based - those are different rulesets - the difference should be self explanatory.

Yeah, I agree. His claim was that RTwP is the better choice because it can also be TB by only using an auto pauses after every 'round', which may be true with a certain kind of TB. However, doing so will not produce the kind of turn based combat Larian used in DOS and has shown to be in BG3, as really should be clear to anyone posting here.

the kind of turn based Larian used in DOS isn't D&D. 6 second rounds is D&D. You can look it up in the PHB.

D&D combat is an abstraction of real time combat that uses rounds to facilitate multiple people sitting at a table, not a single player video game, which is one of the reasons WHY RTwP was chosen for BG.

Last edited by qhristoff; 27/08/20 05:12 AM.
Page 65 of 95 1 2 63 64 65 66 67 94 95

Moderated by  Nicou 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5