What Combat System Works Best in Isometric RPGs?

[DArtagnan]

I may be missing the joke completely, chess completely explodes any RPGs when it comes to solicitation of the tactical and cognitive capabilities.
It's a game where if not for a timer, players could spend hours thinking their next move.

Mainly because of it's simplicity.

I think we're both missing the joke

To me, Chess is supremely boring. It's like sitting down and solving the same math puzzle over and over with slight variations of the numbers involved.

Playing against the computer in Chess means I couldn't even gloat about it.

Any competition against another human being at least has the flavor of psychology - but Chess is too slow for me to even enjoy that aspect.

I think you're focusing on the challenge of making the optimal Chess move - rather than the arsenal of interesting choices available.

That's what I was talking about when I talked about a satisfying tactical combat system.

I don't find any satisfaction in something as abstract and ultimately meaningless as a Chess game. I need something I can relate to and which feels relevant or real. A battle for survival is a good example, which is why combat systems can be fun.

Otherwise, as I said, it's like solving a math puzzle as some kind of mental masturbation - which isn't exciting to me.

 

[DorkUnderimbecile]

I get that, but without the whole mental masturbation thing your game isn't very tactical in the first place and it's a bit silly to discuss which combat has the most of it when they dont have much at all in the first place.

RPG's fight are very lite mind games for indulgent moods.

Therefore, without the whole ''TB is more tactical'' dimension, how do you justify it?

Do you think it encourages a larger array of abilities and build to be included in the design?

Seems to me like in the end, people don't like real time with pause because they don't enjoy real time and the confusion that comes with it in the first place.
Or they like that, but they still prefer the more relaxed aspect of TB when you don't have to be on the edge with your space bar finger in tension each time you unpause.

But it just turns out to be each other's preference in simple indulgence. I respect that.
I raised the point that an attentive gamer who looks for more challenge will enjoy the confusion and mess that comes with simultaneous action, that it does fit better from a believability, immersion flow perspective and that a pause button cancels the twitch/reflex aspect that comes with real time.

But it's true that it was rather idiotic of me to present this as objectively better. After seeing so much threads and posts doing the same exact thing the opposite way I start to radicalize myself.

 

[DArtagnan]

I get that, but without the whole mental masturbation thing your game isn't very tactical in the first place and it's a bit silly to discuss which combat has the most of it when they dont have much at all in the first place.

I don't agree they don't have much at all, just because they don't offer endless permutations on a handful of movement rules.

I find tangible tactical options, like hitting with a sword or getting into cover more satisfying than figuring out the puzzle of where to move my Pawn or Rook so as to position myself optimally.

Even though many turn-based games offer flexible movement systems, where I could position myself ideally if I moved one more square to the left or right, it's not the ONLY part of the tactical challenge.

What Chess does, is limit the tactical options to a tiny handful of available movement rules - and then it mirrors the positions of the pieces for both sides - so as to give an identical setup. Something like that would never happen in a real battle - and a real battle is chaotic and full of options. A real battle isn't gracefully mathematical and no battle has ever been fought with an ideally optimised set of movements.

Chess is dull as dishwater in comparison, frankly.

RPG's fight are very lite mind games for indulgent moods.

I wouldn't call them mind games, and I don't go looking for mind games when I play.

Again, I don't find math very interesting - and I see it as a tool. I've never enjoyed puzzles much, even though I'm not bad at them. They tend to be abstract, and I don't enjoy abstract gameplay much at all.

Therefore, without the whole ''TB is more tactical'' dimension, how do you justify it?

Please, let's not go in circles here. I've been very clear about why I think they're more satisfying in that way.

Do you think it encourages a larger array of abilities and build to be included in the design?

I don't know what you mean. There's nothing about turn-based combat that inherently encourages a large amount of abilities or builds. Well, in a way there is - but it's not always the case.

The thing about turn-based combat is that it's paced so you have time to think and reflect on choices, and since decisions aren't made in real-time by the AI - that leaves a lot more freedom for the developers to come up with creative solutions to tactical scenarios. In a real-time combat system, you can't bog down the game with endless permutations - which is why a Chess like combat system in real-time would have a very bad flow if the AI was to be efficient. Essentially, turn-based makes the AI MORE capable given a similar amount of tactical options. This is PRECISELY why you have computers beating human beings in Chess, because the options are extremely limited compared to a combat system like, say, ToEE. So, you're right that playing optimally for a computer in ToEE is impossible - but it's also a lot more interesting as a player, because the options aren't as narrow as they are in Chess.

This is why there CAN be more tactical options available to the AI in a turn-based combat system, but it's not necessarily so.

Seems to me like in the end, people don't like real time with pause because they don't enjoy real time and the confusion that comes with it in the first place.
Or they like that, but they still prefer the more relaxed aspect of TB when you don't have to be on the edge with your space bar finger in tension each time you unpause.

I don't know why you don't just listen to what we're saying, instead of ignoring it and coming up with your own theory.

I don't mind real-time combat - I like it fine. I PREFER turn-based combat, because games using it tend to have a more tactical layer for the reasons I've given several times by now.

RTwP has….. you know…. PAUSE. So it has nothing to do with needing to relax. It's about having a lot of interesting choices that the AI can respond to in an efficient way. In a real-time system (with or without pause) - the game has to flow and the AI has to respond immediately, which means it can't calculate a ton of options efficiently on the fly. That's one reason why most real-time games are simpler with less interesting tactical choices. Another reason is how to integrate a lot of interesting tactical choices in a real-time environment for the player, as that would require a very flexible interface - and the game needs to be playable even if the player doesn't take advantage of all the options, which - again - means the AI would need to take over the player characters to a certain extent.

This is what BG and Dragon Age have struggled with, as those games had to use scripts. BG had scripts that couldn't handle sophisticated classes like the Rogue or advanced spellcasting. Dragon Age chose to simply remove much of the tactical nuances of AD&D and go with a straight-up prioritized list for the scripts.

But it just turns out to be each other's preference in simple indulgence. I respect that.I raised the point that an attentive gamer who looks for more challenge will enjoy the confusion and mess that comes with simultaneous action, that it does fit better from a believability, immersion flow perspective and that a pause button cancels the twitch/reflex aspect that comes with real time.

I'm attentive and I enjoy a challenge, but real-time doesn't give me proper control - and it doesn't give me enough tactical options. That's my problem. If I had complete control over my characters and I didn't feel like I had to micromanage the smallest details to pull off simple combat maneuvers, it would be fine. That's not the case, though.

So, don't confuse a turn-based preference with a gamer that doesn't want a challenge and can't stay focused. That's a completely biased derogatory observation.

But it's true that it was rather idiotic of me to present this as objectively better. After seeing so much threads and posts doing the same exact thing the opposite way I start to radicalize myself.

It's certainly silly to be objective about something subjective, I agree.

 

[JDR13]

In a real-time system (with or without pause) - the game has to flow and the AI has to respond immediately, which means it can't calculate a ton of options efficiently on the fly. That's one reason why most real-time games are simpler with less interesting tactical choices.

AI can calculate a ton of options efficiently on the fly though. Modern CPUs are capable of Billions of calculations per second. If a real-time game isn't using enough of a veriety of options, then that lies squarely on the shoulders of the development team.

 

[HiddenX]

Jagged Alliance 2 V1.13 proves that turn based combat in isometric CRPGs is simply the best - /End of Thread/

 

[DArtagnan]

AI can calculate a ton of options efficiently on the fly though. Modern CPUs are capable of Billions of calculations per second. If a real-time game isn't using enough of a veriety of options, then that lies squarely on the shoulders of the development team.

The development team isn't necessarily responsible for the limitations of the platforms they need to develop for. There's a reason AI is one of the first things people criticise in turn-based strategy games, and it's not because it's trivial to implement one that's efficient.

It DOES take an extreme amount of calculations to develop an AI that can use a large arsenal of options available in a smart or challenging way. This gets clearer when you think about how long it took before we had a computer that could challenge a real Chess master. Chess has a relatively narrow amount of options compared to something like a sophisticated party-based tactical combat system.

Also, Chess computers are dedicated to Chess and nothing more. They don't have fancy graphics or all kinds of code logic for the NPCs or whatever running in the background.

Note that a limited amount of options doesn't mean it's easy to be efficient or optimal with those options. Not at all.

But more options means it's much, much harder to be efficient or optimal with them.

For every ability you implement, it adds to the complexity of calculations by an order of magnitude. It's easy to trivialise the effort involved in making an AI even remotely "human-like" or efficient - but it's not a fair position.

All developers can do is to use tricks to try and make an AI appear efficient - and to take advantage of the fact that human players need to adapt to the rules first. But once a player has mastered a complex combat system, the AI doesn't stand the slightest chance - given similar power levels. The only thing that makes combat remotely interesting in that case, is through use of random number generation. That makes it slightly less predictable.

On top of the AI - you have a ton of other stuff the CPU has to calculate, including physics and whatever code logic is in place for whatever happens on screen.

So, no, I don't agree it's "all on the developers". Some of them are working miracles given the tools available.

All of the above applies to both turn-based and real-time combat systems. It's just that real-time doesn't have the luxury of turn resolution time.

 

[Corwin]

I agree that Chess is boring, Bridge on the other hand is a MUCH more fascinating challenge!!

 

[HiddenX]

I agree that Chess is boring, Bridge on the other hand is a MUCH more fascinating challenge!!

Card games have always a random factor (-> the cards you get) - chess not, it starts always the same.

 

[daveyd]

Dragon Age is not a RtwP RPG. It's hard to argue with you when this is one of the premise of your argument.

Infinity engines games, other obscure games aside, are the only proper RtwP rpgs we ever got.

Dragon Age isn't a RTwP RPG? OK, what exactly would you classify it as then? The combat is an Real-time. You can pause it during combat to issue commands. It has character statistics, progression, choice and consequence, etc. and all the other characteristic traits commonly associated with the RPG genre… Whether or not you think it is a good RPG is obviously a matter of opinion, but entirely irrelevant to what kind of game it is.

But if we're allowed to decide what games are the "proper" examples for the battle systems for the purposes of this debate, then I'll say Divinity: Original Sin and Shadowrun: Dragonfall - Director's Cut are the only proper turn-based tactical RPGs we ever got. (Well, the Gold Box games and Dark Sun: SL were "proper" tactical turn-based games for their time). Haven't played Wasteland 2 yet so I can't say if it counts as a proper one just yet

Also notice your ''believability/realism'' don't mix those too and don't complaint about stawmen.

No, that's true they're not the same thing, but they often go hand in hand (i.e., if graphics look more realistic, I find them more "believable"). Of course when I say "realism" pertaining to a combat system I'm not necessarily talking about how it looks nor whether or not it contains fantastical elements; merely how closely the action resembles a "real" fight, which makes it more "believable".. Which is what I assume is the same exact thing you were talking about when you complained how stupid you think it is that your character just stands there "like a zombie" and gets hit with a sword in a turn-based battle.

Anyway, at least you're kind of trying to back up your argument now instead of just arguing against your imagined theories on why people don't like RTwP party based RPG combat. However, you still haven't really given any reasons for why you think RTwP is the superior combat system beyond that you find real-time more believable… If that's all it is OK, but IMO the added "believability" isn't worth the trade off- the clusterfucky chaotic combat that I think is a pain to manage, etc. Of course apparently you like this chaos. That's fine, too. But I just don't enjoy having to constantly fight with interface or game mechanics. If my party dies in RPG combat, I want it to be because I made a poor choice or wasn't properly prepared for it and maybe even a bit of bad luck (e.g., critical hits / misses, etc.)… But not because of issues and shortcomings with the combat system itself.

I also disagree that RTwP combat is necessarily faster. In Baldur's Gate, fights can often drag on forever (e.g., when your character and an enemy both have very good AC or lots of buffs / resistances). It's only faster in easy fights where you can basically let the game run on auto pilot. But I'm not a fan of lots of easy battles against hordes of generic foes.

 

[daveyd]

In the hundreds of hours I've spent playing the Infinity Engine games, I never found the pathfinding as "atrocious" as you describe. The only time I had issues with pathfinding was when I tried to send my party to a distant point on the map without clicking on shorter waypoints in-between.

I think it's safe to say that your idea of a "big problem" is subjective to say the least.

Dart basically summed it up… Obviously the pathfinding in IE games isn't so bad in the wide open wilderness areas where there isn't too much for your party to run into. But it's a nightmare in many of the dungeons / caves / labyrinthine areas (and there are a lot of those in the Baldur's Gate series). Now sure if you're extremely patient and pause A LOT you can prevent your party members from bumping into obstacles / each other and then taking a wide detour, but I find that extremely annoying… especially when it happens in the middle of trying to fight monsters.

I find the "cancelling" effect in RTwP games to be a pretty big issue. Sometimes it's just annoying: I command someone to cast a healing / buff spell on a party member but then the party member get's KOed / dies. So now the healer has essentially wasted time trying to cast a spell on someone. For obvious reasons this type of scenario doesn't happen in a turn-based game. But it can potentially completely mess up the fight in the games where characters don't have auto-actions when they're not under your direct control.. Or when a ranged attacker runs out of ammunition (in a turn-based game you'd realize this immediately). If a character who you thought was doing something has their action "canceled", now they're just standing there until you give them a new command.

I just don't like having to constantly fight with UI or game mechanics. When it's done well, turn-based tactical combat is a lot better in this regard. You give your character a command and you know exactly what they're going to do (or attempt to do). In RTwP they might end up doing something completely different or even nothing at all. Sure it's possible Pillars of Eternity, Serpents in the Staglands, After Reset or Insomnia will find solutions to (or at least make improvements upon) a lot of the shortcomings with RTwP… I'm only basing my opinions on the rather limited number of RTwP RPGs we've had in the past.

Yeah, my opinions are usually subjective. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a way to make them objective fact, but when I do, I'll let everyone at RPGWatch now what the objective truths about RPGs (and life in general) are

 

[Corwin]

Card games have always a random factor (-> the cards you get) - chess not, it starts always the same.

That doesn't apply if you're playing Duplicate or even Team Bridge; then everyone gets the same cards and it's what you do with them that counts!! Bridge is unlike any other card game in its complexity. though good chess players usually make good Bridge players.

 

[JDR13]

I find the "cancelling" effect in RTwP games to be a pretty big issue. Sometimes it's just annoying: I command someone to cast a healing / buff spell on a party member but then the party member get's KOed / dies. So now the healer has essentially wasted time trying to cast a spell on someone. For obvious reasons this type of scenario doesn't happen in a turn-based game. But it can potentially completely mess up the fight in the games where characters don't have auto-actions when they're not under your direct control.. Or when a ranged attacker runs out of ammunition (in a turn-based game you'd realize this immediately). If a character who you thought was doing something has their action "canceled", now they're just standing there until you give them a new command.

I never found it to much be an issue at all. I'm guessing your experience probably has a lot to do with the in-game settings you were using. Characters who have their action canceled don't just stand there, they'll use their default attack on the nearest enemy at the very least. That was my experience anyways.

Yeah, my opinions are usually subjective. Unfortunately, I haven't yet found a way to make them objective fact, but when I do, I'll let everyone at RPGWatch now what the objective truths about RPGs (and life in general) are

It wasn't meant to be taken literally. That was just my way of saying I didn't agree.

 

[JDR13]

The development team isn't necessarily responsible for the limitations of the platforms they need to develop for. There's a reason AI is one of the first things people criticise in turn-based strategy games, and it's not because it's trivial to implement one that's efficient.

It DOES take an extreme amount of calculations to develop an AI that can use a large arsenal of options available in a smart or challenging way. This gets clearer when you think about how long it took before we had a computer that could challenge a real Chess master. Chess has a relatively narrow amount of options compared to something like a sophisticated party-based tactical combat system.

For every ability you implement, it adds to the complexity of calculations by an order of magnitude. It's easy to trivialise the effort involved in making an AI even remotely "human-like" or efficient - but it's not a fair position.

On top of the AI - you have a ton of other stuff the CPU has to calculate, including physics and whatever code logic is in place for whatever happens on screen..

Those things probably did apply prior to 1998 when the Infinity Engine was being developed, but I highly doubt that a RTwP game being developed today or recently is being held back by CPU calculations regardless of what else is happening onscreen.

 

[DArtagnan]

Those things probably did apply prior to 1998 when the Infinity Engine was being developed, but I highly doubt that a RTwP game being developed today or recently is being held back by CPU calculations regardless of what else is happening onscreen.

Oh, they apply now and far into the future, I'm afraid.

But it's no biggie. I agree to disagree

 

[JDR13]

I'd love to see some factual documentation that backs that up, but it's not a big deal here either.

 

[DArtagnan]

I'd love to see some factual documentation that backs that up, but it's not a big deal here either.

If such documentation existed, it would mean you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to AI and what it means to have an efficient one with complex systems. As such, it can't exist

 

[JDR13]

If such documentation existed, it would mean you don't really know what you're talking about when it comes to AI and what it means to have an efficient one with complex systems. As such, it can't exist

In other words, you don't know if what you're claiming is true.

But I didn't need further confirmation of that.

 

[DArtagnan]

In other words, you don't know if what you're claiming is true.

But I didn't need further confirmation of that.

I was making a little joke.

Of course I know it's true - as far as you can really know anything. I don't go around making such technical claims without having insight.

But digging up some kind of documentation that would convince JDR is well outside the scope of my interest or patience.

So, by all means, go on believing what you want about that which you obviously know very little about.

If you really DO want to know, I'd suggest looking into the Stardock games. The lead guy is famous for his AI routines - and he's been using multi-threading for a long time. I know he's been public about how he goes about writing a reasonable AI given the limitations available. That's exclusively for turn-based strategy games, though. Those are much more lenient when it comes to AI respond times than a real-time combat system.

 

[JDR13]

But digging up some kind of documentation that would convince JDR is well outside the scope of my interest or patience.

Yeah... that's pretty much along the lines of what I was expecting from you.

That's ok though. Let's just move on.

 

[DArtagnan]

Yeah… that's pretty much along the lines of what I was expecting from you.

That's ok though. Let's just move on.

Agreed