RPG Combat...uh...huh?

[EEVIAC]

The more I read this thread the more I wonder whether we're just arguing over semantics. By "tactics" and "depth" do you mean more combat options like ToEE and environmental interactivity like S2? Or do you mean detailed cover and morale rules, differences in chance-to-hit from elevation or running/standing shots? If its the latter, I'm definately opposed. Detail through combat realism for its own sake is bullshit. Games don't need to be realistic to maintain suspension of disbelief. If its the former, that's a different story.

In both Fallout and ToEE the options you have are extensions of character choice, skills you've tagged, feats chosen. In S2 its less about character and more about positioning, using the environment to gain advantages. If we're talking about innovating, there's no reason why a new system couldn't combine both of those aspects. (Maybe that's what you've been suggesting all along.)

More importantly, you haven't sacrificed controll, quick resolutions, or the inherent tension that comes from turn-based systems. The problem with all simultaneous systems (whether you want to call KOTOR or BG phase based or RT + P) is the way in which they present combat scenes to the player through images. How many times has your scout dropped into a skirmish and helped mop a map with a few lucky shots in S2? In a turn based system I can watch each team mate do their thing - the carefull two-turn snipe, the heavy machine gun spray, the impossible "get fucked" head shot from the consistently useless medic. Each of those moments has anticipation and drama completely lost in a simultaneous system. The same drama exists whether its a single character game or party based. The differences aren't just drastic, they're critical.

By the by, I'm not trying to hold up Fallout as a paragon of turn based excellence. Just trying to provide an alternate point of view.

 

[EvoG]

Yup, not talking about UBER detailed war sim, which is why I only suggested Silent Storm as a comparison to Fallout. I was getting the impression you people thought S^2 was 'too detailed', which had me baffled. Glad to hear its not the case.

Yes I plan to innovate...rather, as that may sound arrogant, I plan to try new things I haven't seen yet in any game, and hope 'they's fun'.

Now that we all agree, I'm very much happier.


Cheers

 

[Stark]

I think Talorc's post expressed essentially what I think too, except he expressed it much better.

I recall FO2 had overly long, drawn out combat too, despite it being TB lite. So how long the combat lasted probably hinges more on the level design than whether it's TB lite or TB tactical.

ToEE speeded up the combat somewhat by creating the illusion of simultaneous turns for enermies sharing the same turn. I wonder how viable it is to implement this in FO type of combat. on the one hand, it's nice to follow through the combat, but on the other hand, as has been pointed out, an overly drawn out combat may distract player from the story itself.

still, having played SS type of deep tactical games, I think it'll be hard for me to go back to FO's TB lite combat.

as for whether you get to control the NPCs during combat, i think if you're going for deep tactical combat you're better of letting the player control NPCs. If the combat is going to be long you might as well let player be more involved than being a mere spactator most of the time. As for the compromise "giving command but not direct control using leadership" I'm sceptical, because I'm not aware if this concept has ever worked successfully in any TB games I know of.

 

[crufty]

But really, you guys should get your TB's straight when arguing systems...its obvious that all TB isn't created equal.

For another purely tactical example, check out the aging Epic 40k - Final Liberation. If I recall correctly, it had a nice opportunity fire ruleset...scrambles across open ground were tense affairs, as quite often the cpu player would rain artillery fire down from afar. It also shows the downside with turn based combat, in when you have to move a large amount of untis, battles become long affairs just from the shear number of units you have to move.

I think the most important thing with TB is scale...if you have maps that are too big and turns that are too small, that draws things out. Better off doubling AP and halving map scales and getting quicker battles than vice-versa. Just one idea, anyway...

 

[EvoG]

I agree about speed, absolutely. Silent Storm is an example of great battels, but not an ideal for speed and resolution.

 

[RGE]

Better off doubling AP and halving map scales and getting quicker battles than vice-versa. Just one idea, anyway...

Isn't this pretty much what Arcanum did? Now, I'm not sure, but perhaps Arcanum had higher AP costs for attacking as well. And it was probably the lack of protection against fatigue damage that brought my melee character down. But it felt as if the NPCs had way too long turns for me to be able to anticipate when it was time to heal or run away. Or maybe I was just outmatched. Lots of creatures seemed to be very dangerous in melee though, so the only time I play through the game, I used a rifle in real time. Felt like a big game hunter.

 

[Stark]

Better off doubling AP and halving map scales and getting quicker battles than vice-versa. Just one idea, anyway...

depends. doubling the AP might just unbalance the game. whoever gets the initiative will get a huge advantage over the opponent. If you further halve the map the situation willl be worse.

EvoG, reading your previous posts I think you have some idea on how to implement the follower commands (as oppose to full control of NPC). you might want to divulge a little for discussion here?

 

[EvoG]

First off, S^2 gives huge AP's in the 50's and 60's, for which the idea is that even though doing an aimed shot can take 26 AP or loading a weapon 12, it allows for a great 'resolution' of events to take place in that chunk of AP. Things could take anywhere from 56 AP to 1, 56 possible levels of activity. I also loved that fast characters could really haul ass if they get into trouble, so it felt like I was really whipping around levels when needed.

Stark : Well, I didn't want to talk about phoenix yet/again ( I promised Atoga ), nor did I want to give away any details, but in a nutshell :

You want to have NPC's in your party that are autonomous right? This way they have attitudes, personalities, opinions and character. By controlling them directly, you lose that autonomy. Well, take your characters charisma, and your NPC's loyalty or merely attitude towards the player...any applicable skills (leadership) and allow the player to issue commands to the player through my dialogue system, which isn't limited to out-of-combat usage. This hasn't been finalized of course, but the most reasonable option would suggest that NPC's are given broad commands "flank right/left, cover me" at basic levels, and as you character grows in ability, leadership and presence, followers will tend to obey specific instruction, where instead of saying "flank right", you could actually designate an area to which you wish the NPC to move to, idealy instituting a 'refined' flank, where you decide his flank position rather than him deciding. Not a specifc spot mind you, but an area, saying "flank enemy positions from this general area", denoted by some interface such as a transparent circle defining the general area the NPC would go to. More specific than "flank right", but less specific than "go to this exact spot".

Sure it sounds more 'combat sim-ish', but its no different than controling 6 characters in Silent Storm, only that you don't explicitly control the NPC's AP, he does, and decides what to do with them while assessing your orders.

Cheers

 

[crufty]

doubling the AP might just unbalance the game. whoever gets the initiative will get a huge advantage over the opponent. If you further halve the map the situation willl be worse.

Yeah, could happen. With opportunity fire it wouldn't be so bad. If you have attacks/counter-attacks resolved simultanously, then it might not be so devestating. It all depends. In X-Com a realistic scale can heighten the tension--is there an alien over there? It's been 20 minutes, and I haven't encountered an alien...where is it? etc...

But if you know where the enemy is, and you are just killing turns moving, then not so fun. I guess its a matter of personal preference--I'd rather have more, quick resolving battles then fewer, 2 hour long marathons. Not to take anything away from a massive turn based battle--it can be fun in it's own right. But when that random encounter window opens, usually I want it to close ASAP.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

I have not played Silent storm but for me the best combat in any game was in X-COM1 (with the only exception of the 1 or 2 alients that were hiding after you had killed the first 10)

However people that work and have limited time might prefer a faster paced rpg.

Fallout combat was great because it meshed so good with the overall Fallout theme.

The combat it shelf was sufficient good but it was not what made fallout great.

The simulation of life and death in a savage postnuclear society was what made fallout great.

My idea of combat is .

Simple combat for easy simple fights.

Heavily scripted battle system for the main and important battles.

 

[Stark]

EvoG,

the stuff you described on controlling the NPC via command, sounds intriguing, though I would imagine it a hell to code/script to make it work.

I'm looking forward to it.

 

[AlanC9]

This hasn't been finalized of course, but the most reasonable option would suggest that NPC's are given broad commands "flank right/left, cover me" at basic levels, and as you character grows in ability, leadership and presence, followers will tend to obey specific instruction, where instead of saying "flank right", you could actually designate an area to which you wish the NPC to move to, idealy instituting a 'refined' flank, where you decide his flank position rather than him deciding. Not a specifc spot mind you, but an area, saying "flank enemy positions from this general area", denoted by some interface such as a transparent circle defining the general area the NPC would go to. More specific than "flank right", but less specific than "go to this exact spot".

So the interface changes as leadership increases? I'm not sure that's such a hot idea.

 

[EvoG]

No significant change. Its like the difference between getting a 'straight to hit' weapon or later an 'area effect' weapon.

Then again as I said, nothing finalized, and the last thing I want is a confusing interface (which I dont consider this to be btw). I'm conscious of it, dont worry.


Cheers

 

[rob]

My small opinion on action points:
Think that arcanum was a good example of how NOT to do an action point based system. It happened several time to have way too much enemies with waaay too much action points in small environments. Party rushed and slaughtered. Spent most of the time throwing stun grenades to have the chance to handle them separately. Became a bit repetitive after a while, good thing was that it was fast. Cannot really tell if it was an inherent problem of the way the ap system was done, or more of "environment design".
About map size, it really depends on the focus of the combat. For ranged, you need medium to big maps, because most of the strategy in ranged comes from using the environment, for melee big maps are bad. In both case a good number of action point would help: if you need one turn to try to flank someone, and not three is definetely less boring. all in all I see it challenging implementig well both melle and ranged in the system and combat. I think again that ja2 made a good job, going melee was really tough, but if you got close to an enemy with enough ap you had him, simply because melee hit knocked down stamina, so the enemy went unconscious. Also for combat speed I think the cheap solution is that hit make a lot of damage. It is reasonable with guns. And if you can take baddies downy with a couple of shots, than everything goes fast. The problem can came that if the players also needs two hits to go down than luck also playes a big role(using a perfect tacti and being killed by un unlucky headshot may became frustrating if it happens too often). Buhhh, I feel like I am stating the obvious so I stop.
No I don't, I like the idea of being able to give more refined orders to the npc when the exprerience increase. If the personality of the npc playes a role in the execution of the orders and the npc can give also orders, well I would love this system.
Looking forward to the real thing EVo

 

[MF]

EvoG, You're right about Fallout's combat's simplicity. It's rather straight-forward in taking turns trying to skewer each other. However, I believe you underestimate the math involved. Like Saint pointed out, saving AP's gives you a bonus to defence. This is a pretty sound tactic, and effective if you've invested in the proper perks and skills. The complexity of Fallout's combat lies in the character system as well as in the combat itself.
A melee character can knock people down, which is a tactic. But it's once again based on the character and not the combat itself.

That aside, Silent Storm is a party based tactical combat game. A one-man tactical combat game would be strange, if not stupid. Fallout is all about 1 person. I hated the NPC's in Fallout 2, and only suffered the ones in Fallout 1. They were clearly just an 'extra' in Fallout, and elevated to a more integral game experience in the sequel, which I didn't quite like.

Having tactics as one man is nonsense. You're either a wheeny, or you're rambo, there's not much else. All tactics consist of preparation, character development and other non-combat actions. Did you ever get into a really tough fight in Fallout 1? If you were a combat character, there were some tough fights, but as a combat character you could manage them as long as you put some thought into the battle. Just wasting someone in Junktown is also 'combat', but it's more a social thing than actual combat. That was Fallout's strength.

Try to think of ways to make combat interesting for one character, and still have it based on the character. I can't. I can't, aside from some obvious polishings, do better than Fallout.

 

[Petey_the_Skid]

Eh...I think some tactical type things could be inserted to make Turn based combat more enjoyable. In fact, some of the things done in Fallout Tactics could definetly improve it, like the stances, the "ghosting" of the character to represent sneaking, and the fact that most weapons took a little less ap to fire, making non-targeted shots a lot more viable(i've never actually used a targeted shot in Fallout Tactics, only the rpgs). Other simple tactics, like flanking in ToEE, are nice to have as well, but I don't need a full blown combat engine.

I liked the joinable npc's in Fallout and Arcanum, but they were rather stupid(slightly improved in arcanum)...the logic parameters that npc's would use to take actions would have to be carefully set, so that they will shoot and heal effectively(if i give vic 6 stimpacks and a couple superstims, why the hell doesn't he take a couple seconds to use one when he's hurt, instead of waiting for me to fix him while he runs around in circles from a combat he can't even escape from).

This leads into a real biggie for me(in any combat model, not just TB) is that if enemies(or joinable npc's for that matter) are going to flee, for whatever reason, they should have a chance to actually escape, not simply run as far away from you as they can and then huddle in a corner till you kill them. That really bugs me for some reason. This was one of the nice things in Jagged Alliance, at least on the world map part, some of the enmy squad might runaway(and actually leave the map) if the battle was obviously going against them.

Overall, in a single player crpg I won't be looking for the uber tactical combat game, but a few more options than tit for tat is nice to have. Giving simple orders to joinable npc's is nice, but they'll need to work, unlike in Arcanum where they don't, and the npc's need better logic than what's been seen in past games.

 

[RGE]

However, I believe you underestimate the math involved. Like Saint pointed out, saving AP's gives you a bonus to defence. This is a pretty sound tactic, and effective if you've invested in the proper perks and skills. The complexity of Fallout's combat lies in the character system as well as in the combat itself.

Effective? Are you kidding me? Even with the HtH Evade perk you only get one extra point of AC for every point saved, to a total of two extra points of AC for every point saved. And AC is on a 1-100 scale as far as I know, so if you have 12 APs you get 2% extra AC for every 8.33% of your actions. That is not sound, you lose more than you gain. Sure, you also get 1/12 of your Unarmed skill as a bonus, but that doesn't rely on saving APs. The only thing saving APs is good for is to stand still rather than move away slightly, but even that's questionable since moving away might make melee opponents lose an attack as they have to spend their APs on moving, and ranged opponents just might lose some accuracy at longer distance (though this is hard to determine).

Let's say you want to dodge a lot and put all 12 APs into it, for a bonus of 24 AC. Now, how often do you normally get hit by enemies? They seem to hit me pretty much all the time. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they have way above 100% in their weapon skills. Perhaps with a good armour and a high Unarmed skill you can bump them down to only hitting 50% of the time? So if you save all your APs they'll hit you only 26% of the time, almost halved. While you do nothing except possibly using your free moves from Bonus Move. That'd have to be some damned special circumstance to make it better to stick around rather than running or beating your way out of there, thereby spending your APs on something more useful than giving your AC a minor boost.

 

[suibhne]

I definitely come down on the "tactical" side of the fence, as well. I'm about 30 hours into playing through JA2 for the first time, and it's bringing me back to the days of first playing FO into the wee hours of the morning. A few responses to other points:

JA2 significantly changes the AP equation from FO. Shots take roughly the same amount of AP as FO's, but movement requires many more AP than the FO hex-based battlefield. At first JA2 took quite a bit of adjustment for me, but now I find it to be much more logical.

Please don't make NPC control in Phoenix dependent on dialogue; it's simply not realistic to always rely on dialogue in a battle situation. You could design a hierarchy of control, based on leadership skill and intelligence, wherein voice commands are at the bottom - and there's a chance they won't be heard or understand during a battle, depending on the environment (distance, wind, noise, etc.). Realistically, though, gestures or hand signals offer a more effective command system than shouted directions.

In response to some poster or another, whose identity I'm far too lazy to recollect, Leaving out features like "interrupts" (done so well in SS and JA2) isn't a nod to the realism of untrained combat in the wasteland. Hell, I'm almost totally untrained in real-life combat, but it's nutty to say that I'd never have a shot at interrupting a hostile's action (assuming we're talking about a TB-based abstraction of combat) if he happened to run across the room directly in front of me during a heated battle. I should have some chance at an effective interrupt even at low level; this feature simply increases the viability of TB as a combat model.

Finally, yes, tactical TB combat takes a lot of time, but one way to mediate this impact is to design less combat. CRPGs tend to rely heavily on combat, I think, because computers do an execrably poor job of modelling satisfying social interactions; that said, CRPGs tend to feature far too much combat. This was just as true of FO as it was of PS:T, NWN, and KotOR.

 

[EvoG]

Realistically, though, gestures or hand signals offer a more effective command system than shouted directions.

Well this is more or less what I mean...SOME form of communication and don't think 'dialogue' is conceptually similar to how you're used to it in other games...just the way we broadcast 'communication' and 'emotes' to other characters.

Interrupts are definitely not going anywhere...they make combat more dynamic and gives high initiative players an edge in intercepting an opponent, allowing them to 'save' their turn for later in the battle to assess what they do. I want it so those that enjoy combat can specialize in a combat character and see a marked difference in the things they can do and see over players that choose stealth or dialogue, which have their own set of features unique to that type of character development.


Cheers

 

[Spazmo]

To me, it's not an issue of depth or complexity, it's an issue of... well, it's an issue of me really, really sucking ass at Silent Storm. I"m just terrible at it. That's why I don't want Silent Storm style combat in an RPG--I'd get whupped left and right. So go ahead and include whatever level of depth and all the little tactical niggles you want--just be gentle.

 

[chrisbeddoes]

Yea me too. Don't worry though, its all good. Everyone will like what we're doing.

I'm a big fan of scalable difficulty and customizable gameplay.


Cheers

No scalable difficulty please.

Just make it hard on the begining and then after you gain lots of levels then you should be able to kick major a*s

 

[merry andrew]

Just make it hard on the begining and then after you gain lots of levels then you should be able to kick major a*s

Ewww. I dunno that gets boring for me.

 

[Anonymous]

To me, it's not an issue of depth or complexity, it's an issue of... well, it's an issue of me really, really sucking ass at Silent Storm. I"m just terrible at it. That's why I don't want Silent Storm style combat in an RPG--I'd get whupped left and right. So go ahead and include whatever level of depth and all the little tactical niggles you want--just be gentle.

omg noob

Strange, I was really really terrible at JA2, but i'm doing fine in Silent Storm with just 1 dood. I need to restart often, but once I figure out the right strategy, I win easily.

 

[Reklar]

Yea me too. Don't worry though, its all good. Everyone will like what we're doing.

I'm a big fan of scalable difficulty and customizable gameplay.


Cheers

No scalable difficulty please.

Just make it hard on the begining and then after you gain lots of levels then you should be able to kick major a*s

Oh yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense, make it so difficult at the beginning that hardly anyone can muddle through it because they're so frustrated and then, if they are persistent enough, make it boring because you can whup everyone without breaking a sweat? If you want a game to be like that just set it to the hardest difficulty setting on your first play-through and let the rest of us who don't enjoy getting the crap kicked out of us repeatedly have the game at an easier difficulty setting.

Don't listen to him EvoG, just make the difficulty scalable as you originally stated and ignore masochists like chrisbeddoes.

-Reklar
(a Fallout/RPG fan)

 

[Anonymous]

But make a really hard difficulty, for when I get bored and want a test of my abilities.