Combats Turn based and real time

Dasale

SasqWatch
Joined
October 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Not sure it's the right section, as it can apply to a game with combats that isn't RPG. So perhaps it need be moved.

In my opinion real time combats has two elements that haven't turn based combats:
- The thrilling coming from the pressure of real time action, which can generate some stress spike or adrenalin.
- The real time action brings constant micro changes, and you need react to them to adapt, this makes feel two totally similar combats are different anyway. And that will help delay the feeling of repetition coming from doing two very similar combats.

I noticed turn based combats can use tricks.

In new XCOM series a lot of the gameplay is based on gambling and surprises. I don't mean it's random luck that makes win a combat, but that the design focus heavily on gambling. And when you realize you will do a gambling, or even when you realize you just did one, then there's a stress spike or adrenalin spike… as in real time combats. Also the enemies group you discover on map suddenly is playing a quite similar role in the gameplay, sort of mimic real time action effects of adrenalin and stress.

Alert enemy group plays also another role in my opinion, not only they keep the player stressed, but also they add a surprise element that vaguely mimic the micro changes that generates real time action, they require be aware and stay focused to adapt to the context change.

And there's also Super Dungeon Tactics that found a more sophisticated trick. At beginning of each round multiple dices are thrown with various results, like some bonus to damage or to speed, or some malus, or even unlock some special active or passive skills. And for the whole party you choose what character will get what result. In a way it is simulating the constant micro changes coming from real time action, and transposed in a turn based system. It definitely forces be concentrated at each turn or almost, a bit like real time combats.

Im' not saying any turn based combats should use those XCOM or Super Dugneon Tactics tricks but I found interesting the parallel with real time combats.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
My problem with real time is that it transfers importance from the characters' stats/skills to the player's skills. I'm more a purist RPG, where I like the outcome of actions to depend entirely on the characters' abilities (it's the character the one with 19 Dexterity, not me).
 
Joined
Sep 23, 2008
Messages
5,645
Location
Tardis
But, it is the player who chooses whether to attack with glaive or magic missile. So it is still the player's skill!!

Derp.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
170
real Time just supports quick thinkers more, not slkow thinkers.
Slow thinking can yield good fruits as well, it merely needs more time.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
real Time just supports quick thinkers more, not slkow thinkers.
Slow thinking can yield good fruits as well, it merely needs more time.

I see what you mean an yes that's a point, but also I'm impressed how the elders wandering here, succeed keep all their skills and ignore aging. Myself I failed, I clearly saw reflex going down, but also I get blase faster, and suffer faster of usual repetitiveness of real time combat, for example Far Cry 2 failed make me believe it had varied combats, but ok Far Cry 3 succeed achieve it a longer time.

It's a slope, to have been in front of tedious walls I gave up climb, that is too fast action games, discourage me to try more action games, I'm close to a point where I'll will never buy any if there isn't an active pause system (as in MEA or Zombasite).

But my post wasn't to confront turn based combats and real time combats. Just to pinpoint that in my opinion how some turn based game tried mimic real time usual benefits that you'll hardly find in turn based combats. And I found it interesting in the perspective of designing turn based RPG.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
Honestly, I can't actually understand your posts. Grammar moistly.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
170
I see what you mean an yes that's a point, but also I'm impressed how the elders wandering here, succeed keep all their skills and ignore aging. Myself I failed, I clearly saw reflex going down, but also I get blase faster, and suffer faster of usual repetitiveness of real time combat, for example Far Cry 2 failed make me believe it had varied combats, but ok Far Cry 3 succeed achieve it a longer time.

I do believe that my reflextes aren't as good as they once were, too.

Once, I had the impression of repetition when playing my last true RTS game ... At one point I got the feeling as if every battle was basically the same : Build up a base, build up armies, confront the enemy group and/or ward off their attacks.

I don't know why, but I just don't have this feeling of repetition with turn-based games.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,893
Location
Old Europe
My problem with real time is that it transfers importance from the characters' stats/skills to the player's skills. I'm more a purist RPG, where I like the outcome of actions to depend entirely on the characters' abilities (it's the character the one with 19 Dexterity, not me).

No.

RT products demand a bigger skillset than turn based products, it is a given and a different issue.

The weakening of stats/skills happen strongly in UgoIgo products.
UgoIgo follows a step by step pattern that allows to correct and adjust to outcomes as they go.
Effectiveness and reliability are pushed to a secondary level.
A character might not hit, an effect might not proc, it does not matter as a player takes it into account immediately and adjust.
This opens the way to retaining levelling up points etc as a player can let it happen.

In RT and other turn based products, reliability and effectiveness are mandatory qualities in characters. Players can not afford a character missing, an effect not procing as easily as they can in UgoIgo.

In UgoIgo, playing with an underlevelled character is no big deal, a 55pc hit chance can be handled as a 75pc hit chance. Does not make much of a difference as actions are thought one by one. If hit then, if not, then.

In RT, actions are thought as a chain. For the chain to exist, every action must be reliably enough executed.

The transfer of skills from PC to players happen in UgoIgo. A player's skills can compensate for a failing PC.

In RT products, players are left with much less room to compensate a failing PC.

That is one cause notions like DPS, which are rock solid, are largely preferred in RT products. They guarantee the mandatory reliability and effectiveness required in RT products.
 
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
6,265
I like a middle area of real time with pause. TB is just too slow for me these days although I loved it back in the day and I am coping with it in DOS2 as long as I play in small doses (as the rest of DOS2 is stellar). I like faster combat with the ability to pause the game to think and study what is going on and issue some commands. I have horrible twitch reflexes and fail at most FPS games. I only succeed so well on hardcore mode in FO4 as you have VATS as well as stealth and not all battles are crazy fast. I guess that is why I play stealth so much in any game that has more twitch combat since for me it helps slow down the pace.
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
3,946
Location
NH
Turn based is and always will be king for me, sometimes an exceptional real time game might strike my fancy, but I always go back to what I love. I've noticed I also replay real time games far less than I do turn based products.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
18,685
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
To relate to Dasales original post, I agree that turn based can get stale and that some interesting mechanics of some newer titles can get the adrenaline up in spite of them being turn based, and to me that is mostly a good thing.

On the other hand, the tension is quite palpable (is that the right word?) in the original UFO games too. It's all about presentation and immersion, not about what combat system you use. I like my games turn based or at least RTwP if they're party based, because otherwise I'll actually only be controlling one character most of the time. I did enjoy Dawn of War 2 a lot though, so there are exceptions. But RT requires a heavier investment in actually learning to play the game (keyboard shortcuts, abilities by heart etc.), so I actually agree Chien has a point with the claim that RT requires more skill. I can also agree on the point that Character skill trumps Player skill more in a RT game that is NOT an action game than in a turn based game.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,216
Location
Sweden
I don't think it's that simple: games can do both real-time and turn-based right or wrong, it's too general of an assumption.
I personally prefer games with turn-based combat, I used to play chess and it feels similar.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2016
Messages
200
Location
Portland, ME
I do believe that my reflextes aren't as good as they once were, too.

Once, I had the impression of repetition when playing my last true RTS game … At one point I got the feeling as if every battle was basically the same : Build up a base, build up armies, confront the enemy group and/or ward off their attacks.

I don't know why, but I just don't have this feeling of repetition with turn-based games.
I gave up play RTS since long but in general I also notice the feeling of repetition in action games is coming faster. But many turn based games don't do that well either and feel repetitive too for me. The real difference is some of them are saved because there are large margins of experimentation, not the most efficient, but for curiosity and it saves those games by increasing a lot the diversity, by myself. Some actions games can do that too, for example in MEA I had fun experiment various bizarre weapons crafting. But again MEA as a pause system so it's different than usual action games.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
To relate to Dasales original post, I agree that turn based can get stale and that some interesting mechanics of some newer titles can get the adrenaline up in spite of them being turn based, and to me that is mostly a good thing.

On the other hand, the tension is quite palpable (is that the right word?) in the original UFO games too. It's all about presentation and immersion, not about what combat system you use.
Presentation and immersion are more subjective values than game mechanisms. It's hard for turn based to really get a high immersion level, it's achieved more from concentration required by the game, but repetition is often the flaw of turn based games and where immersion from concentration is broken.

During a long time in Super Dungeon Tactics I was making play sessions a lot too long, not really because of the difficulty, but because I had to analyze at each turn because of the special system used.

At each attempt to play X-com I get bored soon, mainly because I didn't want dig the base management and felt combats first steps too heavy. So I can't say for this game. If you have another example of turn based game I could argue.

For XCOM the design is so heavily oriented to gambling that it can only be a design trick. And watch some let's play shown me so clearly how emotions was linked to the gambling, and much more than pods awakening.

For Super Dungeon Tactics I never seen such system before and in my opinion it needs be experienced to realize. Now the design isn't perfect, Im' pretty sure some characters and building can generate a relatively systematic play despite the constant variations.

There's nothing new in what I explained. A fairly good example is the classic Roguelikes, and permadeath is here to amplify the gambling emotions. The random is a sort of passive gambling, plus decisions have a gambling aspect, at least blinded or not with a high knowledge of the game. That's where XCOM design is more vicious in my opinion, by making more active the gambling and pushing it in front of the scenery and player action.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
I like a middle area of real time with pause. TB is just too slow for me these days although I loved it back in the day and I am coping with it in DOS2 as long as I play in small doses (as the rest of DOS2 is stellar). I like faster combat with the ability to pause the game to think and study what is going on and issue some commands.
Is it too slow or too easy too often? That is automatic playing too often? Frankly DOS1 had a problem with combats with too few with an interesting design and requiring real thinking that you haven't done already in x previous combats.

For me slow means that I see the time passing, which means I'm concentrated on nothing, which means I'm in automatic play mode. If I'm concentrated and focused it can't be too slow as I don't see the time passing. And my 6 hours play sessions with Super Dungeon Tactics for 1 or 2H initially planed, shown me that very well.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
3,258
I like RTwP in the Homeworld series of RTSs. But combat in these games is pretty slow.
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
170
Presentation and immersion are more subjective values than game mechanisms. It's hard for turn based to really get a high immersion level, it's achieved more from concentration required by the game, but repetition is often the flaw of turn based games and where immersion from concentration is broken.

During a long time in Super Dungeon Tactics I was making play sessions a lot too long, not really because of the difficulty, but because I had to analyze at each turn because of the special system used.

At each attempt to play X-com I get bored soon, mainly because I didn't want dig the base management and felt combats first steps too heavy. So I can't say for this game. If you have another example of turn based game I could argue.

For XCOM the design is so heavily oriented to gambling that it can only be a design trick. And watch some let's play shown me so clearly how emotions was linked to the gambling, and much more than pods awakening.

For Super Dungeon Tactics I never seen such system before and in my opinion it needs be experienced to realize. Now the design isn't perfect, Im' pretty sure some characters and building can generate a relatively systematic play despite the constant variations.

There's nothing new in what I explained. A fairly good example is the classic Roguelikes, and permadeath is here to amplify the gambling emotions. The random is a sort of passive gambling, plus decisions have a gambling aspect, at least blinded or not with a high knowledge of the game. That's where XCOM design is more vicious in my opinion, by making more active the gambling and pushing it in front of the scenery and player action.

I do not think XCOM is based on gambling. It's very much about placing your soldiers well and using the right tactics to get ahead. I have seen let's plays of people playing on Legendary without a sweat, whilst I would need to keep playing on Commander to have any chance of beating the game on ironman.

There's even one youtuber who played XCOM 2 Long war on Legendary and you can see he understands the mechanics much better than most people. For example, removing a piece of equipment adds mobility which was very important in LW2, but I never ever wanted to remove equipment as I felt it would lessen my chances of success.

If you end up going for 50% shots every time then yes, you are gambling, but most times, it is about positioning and ensuring you use abilities correctly.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
9,175
Location
Manchester, United Kingdom
Back
Top Bottom