Pillars of Eternity II - Going Turn Based January 24th

Originally Posted by Wisdom
Bleh. PR statement to the max.

I agree because it is a PR stunt.

Anyway my problem is I will never understand gamers who only play turn-based games though.I already said I prefer both and really see no need to debate which is better.

In the past I was biased about only playing RTwP but my tastes changed.

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
I don't think it is THAT difficult to change the game from real time to turn-based. I mean, come on, this isn't exactly brain surgery, lol. For example, if you had a low level fight with about 10-15 monsters in the real time original game, then in the turn based mode, cut back to around 5-10 monsters (or 6, or 7, whatever the best number is in practice) and see how it goes. The fight won't involve as many monsters, but should be far more interesting and rich in turn-based (tactically)

Or, instead of two separate low level monster encounters on a particular map, remove one encounter, and replace the other one with slightly tougher monsters, but less of them. I just think it's funny how there is a sentiment of this being so incredibly difficult to do or something. We landed a man on the moon once, I doubt this is much more complicated. (sarcasm tag for the sarcastic impaired)

I don't think anyone's suggesting it's all that "incredibly difficult". I just think that once you take into account the coding of the new TB system, and then go through every encounter to play around with the monsters and mob sizes, then check and see how loot drops and experience might be affected, and playtest it all to make sure it's properly balanced, it's a fair few man hours. I'm just somewhat surprised they would take on the fairly non-trivial cost to do so at this late stage. But we're in the realms of mild surprise here, not shock at the insurmountable task.

Originally Posted by mercy
This won't be really turn-based as designed from the ground-up, but just a Turny-Basy jackSHT Donut-flavor added later. This free feature won't make this trainwreck a better game. More confusing for sure. Also The GUI LOOKS LIKE SHT!!!!!!!!

Wow not batshit crazy…

Originally Posted by TomRon
Fallout Tactics? At least I found the real time option really good in that one, while my friends mostly played turn based…

I didn't bother with fallout tactics, but also for other other reasons.
But there was also XCom Apocalypse. While I kind of liked the game, the combat didn't really feel good. I think I played it as turn based and occasionally switched to real time on easy battles.

Sorry, didn't have time to read the whole thread, but was there any talk about amount of combat? So, will all the previous combat only be in turn-based or did they adjust that for less filler battles?

Originally Posted by Kordanor
I didn't bother with fallout tactics, but also for other other reasons.
But there was also XCom Apocalypse. While I kind of liked the game, the combat didn't really feel good. I think I played it as turn based and occasionally switched to real time on easy battles.

I've tried to get into Apocalypse on several occasions but the combat always makes me give it up again.

Originally Posted by TomRon
I've tried to get into Apocalypse on several occasions but the combat always makes me give it up again.

I liked bot Fallout Tactics and Xcom Apocalypse and finished them several times. But I think that neither of these games required significant encounter balancing directly in regard to RT vs TB mode. Fallout Tactics was basically set of individual missions and whole game was on completely different scale then Deadfire. In Xcom, if Im not mistaken, missions/encounters were procedurally generated. In both games it was also possible to switch between RT/TB modes during the game, which means that it was possible for player to directly influence pacing by choice of the mode. I suspect that implementing TB into Deadfire was much more demanding and if they dared to underestimate the encounter re-balancing and how it influence experience gain and pace of the game, TB mode will fail.

I'm remaining a bit reserved on this.

TB might be good, because it is tactical, etc, etc, etc -- but it is slow.
For such a combat-heavy game, this could be a real pain in the ass. E.g. if wiping out low-level Joxer-friendly "thrashmobs" would take for Eternity (ahem), I'd just give it up in frustration and play something else that respects my time better.

Do we know if it's possible to turn it on and off, similar to Arcanum? If so, real time could be used for trash and TB for bosses.

Originally Posted by Maylander
Do we know if it's possible to turn it on and off, similar to Arcanum? If so, real time could be used for trash and TB for bosses.

No, they've said the game mode must be selected at the start of a new game, and can't be switched. I'm guessing because of the significant rebalancing for TB mode.

Originally Posted by mercy
This won't be really turn-based as designed from the ground-up, but just a Turny-Basy jackSHT Donut-flavor added later. This free feature won't make this trainwreck a better game. More confusing for sure. Also The GUI LOOKS LIKE SHT!!!!!!!!

LOL looks like someone has a grudge against a game?

Originally Posted by Darkheart
Sorry, didn't have time to read the whole thread, but was there any talk about amount of combat? So, will all the previous combat only be in turn-based or did they adjust that for less filler battles?

Dev said TB will have its own encounter balance. Considering it's releasing in "beta" and that they want feedbacks, it will probably changing over patches.

Saying that, Deadfire doesn't have that much filler combat unless you are trying to destroy all the ships that aren't even going to attack you. Although, sometimes I'm confused because it seems people here just want a max of 10 combat encounters in their 60 hours long RPGs. What's the point of leveling up and getting new combat skills if you don't want to use them?

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I agree because it is a PR stunt.

Anyway my problem is I will never understand gamers who only play turn-based games though.I already said I prefer both and really see no need to debate which is better.

In the past I was biased about only playing RTwP but my tastes changed.

I'm in the camp where if it's a party based game I enjoy turn-based. If it's a single character game like Skyrim, I enjoy real-time.

I still enjoyed Kingmaker and both Baldur's Gates but I have played Temple of Elemental Evil more than those games.

Originally Posted by Ripper
No, they've said the game mode must be selected at the start of a new game, and can't be switched. I'm guessing because of the significant rebalancing for TB mode.

Ah, fair enough. Not likely to be trying it out then. Oh well.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I agree because it is a PR stunt.

Hmmm, considering that Deadfire flopped, the cynical part of me keeps telling that Obsidian is trying to "Original Sin-ify" the game as a desperate attempt to boost sales.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not.

Originally Posted by duerer
Hmmm, considering that Deadfire flopped, the cynical part of me keeps telling that Obsidian is trying to "Original Sin-ify" the game as a desperate attempt to boost sales.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not.

Well I was referring about what Sawyer said in the article.

He was in full PR speak mode.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
I agree because it is a PR stunt.

Originally Posted by duerer
Hmmm, considering that Deadfire flopped, the cynical part of me keeps telling that Obsidian is trying to "Original Sin-ify" the game as a desperate attempt to boost sales.

Originally Posted by Couchpotato
Well I was referring about what Sawyer said in the article.

Yup, aware of that. Sorry, I've just started thinking on the reasons behind the PR stunt.
I mean: Deadfire bombed, Obsidian sold to MS -- so what is the business logic behind this risky development?
A farewell gift to the indie community? A lingering obligation to one of their biz partners?
Dunno.

I honestly don't see this as some kind of public relations stunt or trick, just an attempt at winning over folks that prefer the turn based combat systems. I could be very wrong, but until proven otherwise, I'm giving them the benefit of doubt.

Originally Posted by Kordanor
I didn't bother with fallout tactics, but also for other other reasons.
But there was also XCom Apocalypse. While I kind of liked the game, the combat didn't really feel good. I think I played it as turn based and occasionally switched to real time on easy battles.

I don't remember much about fallout tactics, but I do remember the combat in Xcom Apocalypse being a mess. In turn based mode it was tedious and lacked the strategy that made the other xcom games work. It also had numerous bugs do to it still using a real time engine, for example if you fired your gun in turn based combat and then immediately moved, it was possible to move into your bullet and damage yourself. Real time was clearly what it was designed for, but even that was kind of mindless and nowhere nearly as interesting as other RT games. But at least it was much faster. If you ignore the combat, the game itself wasn't so bad, but it's definitely one of my top examples of RT/TB switches in the past games ending up with a game that was mediocre at best in both.

I just recently replayed Fallout: Tactics, still a great game and a load of fun! It was over before I knew it.