Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

Heh. Except, I have never said such thing. Go ahead and re-read all of my posts until this point, if you're inclined to. I have never once said that RTWP is more tactical than TB. The only one who's been comparing which is more tactical than which here is you. The only thing I've been doing until now is challenging your rationale behind why you think TB is more tactical than RTWP. This is what I said:


I said, "it's a different kind of tactical." Unlike you, I don't make generalized conclusions like one system is inherently more tactical than the other one simply because of one single vague factor which is "you can change directions any time". I would judge a game individually how tactical it is, based on my own criteria, no matter which combat system it is running.


As a matter of fact, I did not ignore that. In reply to you, I said:


How can you say something like "you can't manipulate turn order in an RTWP game" when THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TURN ORDER TO BEGIN WITH??? You realize how dumb this reasoning sounds, right?? This is literally like saying an orange is better than an apple because an apple is not an orange. As if an apple not being an orange is inherently a flaw of the apple. Of course, someone could argue that it is possible to implement a (semi) turn order and initiative system in an RTWP game, which is why I mentioned the case of Pathfinder: Kingmaker, which attempts to implement this element, in that same statement. Kingmaker might have not done it very well, but at least it proves that it may be possible.

As for your so-called "off-turn actions", you know why I didn't say anything about it? Because I wasn't sure what you really meant by that. In fact, I wasn't sure about a lot of things you said, because of the fact that you rarely clarify the things that you say. In most cases, however, I tried to guess what you really meant, to keep this discussion efficient. Now, I'm going to guess that by "off-turn actions" you mean "free actions" triggered by certain conditions which do not take place during the combatant's turn. If this is what you meant, then I don't see why such things cannot be implemented in RTWP. NWN does have Attack of Opportunity, at least. Other than this, you will have to list some specific "off-turn actions" which you believe are impossible to implement in a RTWP game.

See, a problem with your arguments is that you don't clarify what you say by specific details, leading to your arguments have little to no meaning most of the time. There may be a problem of "animation priority" when implementing free actions in real time, but I don't believe it is impossible to resolve.


You're literally just repeating yourself, yet still without any concrete example or a specific combat situation that demonstrates that "you have more options in RTWP than in TB", that it is indeed "harder to make a wrong decision", or "easier to go back on your mistake" in an RTWP game. You realize all these are just very generalized statements, right? They are not backed up by any reasoning or clarification whatsoever. "More options"... what options, exactly? Are these options only available to the player but not to the AI? As for "it is easier to go back on your mistakes", let's for the sake of argument assume that such a thing is true in an RTWP game. Then it would be true for both the player and the AI. This is also true for your so-called "you can change directions any time".

This is what led to my argument which is "this is an AI and encounter design problem". How punishing the game is can completely be adjusted by encounter design: how powerful the enemies are, what they are capable of doing, how deadly their attacks are, and so on. The problem here is to design the enemies so that they are powerful combatants, and script them so that they can take advantage of all the various mechanics available to them, in a way that makes the encounter challenging and punishing. Generally speaking, a "powerful enemy" naturally means you have fewer options to deal with it, and a "tough encounter" naturally means you have fewer options than an average encounter, and mistakes naturally tend to be costly. Otherwise, we wouldn't say the enemy is "strong" or the encounter is "tough" to begin with. This is my counterargument to your claim that one system is inherently more tactical than the other simply by virtue of their natural features.


Oh, I'm sorry for misunderstanding you. But I did say I was getting a bit lost, didn't I? I also said "if that's what you meant", and asked "or are you saying...?". However, seeing as you never clarified what you meant by "you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP.", my misunderstanding is quite justified, IMO. Here we are again. The situation in which you don't clarify your generalized statement or back it up with any sort of reasoning. This is getting old. You didn't say you can control your enemies; you only said "you have absolute controll over what happens in RTWP." Right. I can see how a misunderstanding would happen. You don't want people to misunderstand you? Tip: try to explain what you mean and clarify what you say.

I can vaguely guess what you may be trying to say, and you may have a point, but, as I said, your argument is mostly meaningless if you don't back it up or at least clarify it somehow.


Sigh. Not sure where I should begin here. Although, most people who read both my original post and this counterargument of yours will probably find this pretty lame. Suggestion: try quoting someone before you counter them, ok? Helps a lot. Requires a bit of extra work, but it helps other people follow the discussion better, and also helps you avoid confusing what someone did or did not say.

First, I didn't say "they are amazing", ok? I said they help do this and that, as in, they can be used as a tool for such purposes. They won't be "amazing" if they are set up badly.

"How do trash encounters build atmosphere exactly?" I also already said it. Simply by consisting of the right enemies, being placed at the right location, and having the right difficulty. This is my opinion. You can agree with it, or don't.

The rest of what you say here simply further proves what I said: you don't sound like a real RPG gamer, but more like a tactical combat nerd who can't see much beyond "how tough a fight is".

This feels like explaining 1 + 1 = 2, but here's a random, simple example:

Your party is on the outskirts of a peaceful village. Suddenly you run into a pack of one lich, two greater mummies, and three greater skeleton warriors. It is one hell of a fight. The enemies are much more powerful than your typical kobold, and have extraordinary synergy and coordination. You have to employ every single tactical trick you have up your sleeve, but you beat them fair and square, get amazing loot, and it feels amazingly good.

To you, this encounter would build atmosphere wonderfully solely because it is a "well coordinated ambush".

To me, this encounter would be fine if there is a very good reason why the hell those enemies show up there in the first place. It is given by the scenario that we beat them, so let's assume that this encounter already has reasonable difficulty.



"The first" is a very vague example you pulled out of nowhere without much context or background to it. 10 may be a bit much, but then this is just an exaggeration you came up with. Now if your forest is big and is known to have a lot of wolves, then I see no problem with being attacked by several packs of two or three by the time you make it through said forest. The question here is simply whether it makes sense or not, for your party to be attacked several times along the way like that. This has nothing to do with the fact that the wolves may be "trash" enemies.

The second example is just a way of setting up an encounter. Sure, it works. As long as it makes sense. I mean, if there is exactly one pack of wolves in the entire forest, and if the wolves are so smart that they can recognize when an entire party "least expect an attack from wolves".


That is right. This is exactly why I said "you sound more like someone whose only craving is to prove how good they are at tactical combat against a computer." You play games simply "for a challenge". You do realize "Story Mode" or "Casual Mode" exist for a reason, right? There are those of use who can appreciate other stuff a video game has to offer, aside from how "tactical" or how "punishing" every single encounter you run into is.


Good to know. You do you mate.


I'm getting deja vu. Are you? Yet one more time you claimed that I said something which I did not. Why don't you go ahead and quote the section in which I said "RTWP needs more advanced AI"? I also never said "real time AI is smarter than TB AI". As such, I can't tell what the point of this part of your argument is.


Ridiculous? My question is, can it be done, or not.


Except, that has never been my point. Again, I have never once claimed that RTWP is a better system than TB. I said, some players, myself included, can appreciate the unique feel of RTWP combat. I never said "I like the feel more". There's a difference there. Don't believe me? Go ahead and re-read my past posts.

I'm repeating myself here, but everything I've done up to this very point is challenging your rationale behind why you think TB is a better system, because, frankly, your reasoning is ridiculously bad. I did make a few comparisons between the two systems here and there, but throughout this entire discussion I have never once stated that I prefer one system over the other. I can understand if you get the impression that I've been "defending" the RTWP system, but no, that's not what I've been doing. Let me tell you then: personally, I'm one who can appreciate either system for what it is, and can enjoy both as long as the combat itself is good.

You're just not very good at this, are you? You're not sure what you yourself are talking about, and you don't have a very good grasp on what *I* have been saying, either.