Pro's and con's of realtime combat...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
If you had realtime combat you could click really fast and wipe out your opponets, there is no chance, or stratagy to tat. Its not roll playing, its button mashing, like anewbee playing Marvel verses capcom.

But you could execute suppresion fire: you could fire slowy in the general direciton of sombody to keep them there, without killing them 9if mission peramiters require a live bounty) Ja Know?

You could easaly escape from battle, if you were injured or somthing

the list goes on........

-The Silent Hawk-
()_________ ///// \?

http://silentorigin.homestead.com/files/hawkcopy.jpg
 
a question of implementation

It's a question of implementation. If it were implemented poorly (IMO), then it would be a stupid clickfest. If it were implemented properly, it could be cool.
 
RE: a question of implementation

>It's a question of implementation.
>If it were implemented poorly
>(IMO), then it would be
>a stupid clickfest. If
>it were implemented properly, it
>could be cool.

RPGs are meant to make you take on the role of the character. You depend on the character's stats and skills to make your decisions.

Realtime combat defeats that purpose. In the ol' Eye of the Beholder games, all you needed to do is move up, slash, and move backwards. You could outrun fireballs, arrows, everything if you were quick enough with the arrow keys.

ALL realtime games depend on the player's abilities, not the characters.
It's essentially DOOM with stats.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
implementation

That's still a matter of implementation and player manipulation of the system. In F02, at the SAD, I could "initiate combat" outside of a turret's line of sight, walk one hex in, take a called shot, and take a step back out of the turret's line of sight. I always gain sequence over the turret because *I'm* initiating combat. I'm also relying heavily on player ability, not character ability. I, as a player, know that if I walk around that car and into the turret's FOV, it's going to shoot me with miniguns and annihilate me. By manipulating the turn-based sequential combat system, I killed all of the turrets at SAD without taking any damage. All AI can be abused regardless of whether or not a system is turn-based or real-time.

With stupid AI and a poorly implemented target acquisition system, you're right, real-time combat can be reflex based. However, I've played Quake III and Tribes -- I've also played Asheron's Call (a real-time CRPG). Asheron's Call is hardly reflex-reliant. Combat moves at a very reasonable pace, and you're still able to choose targets, use your inventory, run around, and use skills without having to click like a madman. Furthermore, any game which is real-time with pause *certainly* does not require the player to exhibit any sort of exceptional dexterity.
 
RE: a question of implementation

They could have some monsters/enemies that move quicker than you do. So running could get you killed quicker than standing your ground.

Even with Fallout's turb-based system the AI was exploitable.
-You could use the elevators to your advantage.
-You could use buildings to keep enemies from being able to shoot you.
-You could have an enemy block the entrance into a room that you were in. This would stop the others from coming after you, and you could deal with them one at a time.
And there are a bunch of other ways.

As long as there's a pause feature, real-time shouldn't be a problem. It allows you to choose how your character would react, and it keeps the game from being a click-fest.

Real-time would only change a small part of Fallout combat. That's the extra AC for not using action points. I can't see this working in real-time. Then again, how many people don't do an action for some extra AC?

Skie
 
RE: a question of implementation

>They could have some monsters/enemies that
>move quicker than you do.
> So running could get
>you killed quicker than standing
>your ground.
>
>Even with Fallout's turb-based system the
>AI was exploitable.
>-You could use the elevators to
>your advantage.
>-You could use buildings to keep
>enemies from being able to
>shoot you.
>-You could have an enemy block
>the entrance into a room
>that you were in.
>This would stop the others
>from coming after you, and
>you could deal with them
>one at a time.
>And there are a bunch of
>other ways.
>
>As long as there's a pause
>feature, real-time shouldn't be a
>problem. It allows you
>to choose how your character
>would react, and it keeps
>the game from being a
>click-fest.

Oh realtime with a pause system is fine, like Planescape Torment's.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
RE: implementation

>That's still a matter of implementation
>and player manipulation of the
>system. In F02, at
>the SAD, I could "initiate
>combat" outside of a turret's
>line of sight, walk one
>hex in, take a called
>shot, and take a step
>back out of the turret's
>line of sight. I
>always gain sequence over the
>turret because *I'm* initiating combat.
> I'm also relying heavily
>on player ability, not character
>ability. I, as a
>player, know that if I
>walk around that car and
>into the turret's FOV, it's
>going to shoot me with
>miniguns and annihilate me.
>By manipulating the turn-based sequential
>combat system, I killed all
>of the turrets at SAD
>without taking any damage.
>All AI can be abused
>regardless of whether or not
>a system is turn-based or
>real-time.

However you're not relying on the *player's* reflexes, you're making decisions FOR the character, but relying ON the character for his skills.

>With stupid AI and a poorly
>implemented target acquisition system, you're
>right, real-time combat can be
>reflex based. However, I've
>played Quake III and Tribes
>-- I've also played Asheron's
>Call (a real-time CRPG).
>Asheron's Call is hardly reflex-reliant.
> Combat moves at a
>very reasonable pace, and you're
>still able to choose targets,
>use your inventory, run around,
>and use skills without having
>to click like a madman.
> Furthermore, any game which
>is real-time with pause *certainly*
>does not require the player
>to exhibit any sort of
>exceptional dexterity.

Realtime with a pause is good, however a game that relies on the player's reflexes is not for RPGs. Planescape Torment uses Realtime combat with a pause function.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
Ye Ol' Combat Simulations

With regard to this "controversy" of real v. turn, I had some questions and a thought.

It would perhaps be an evolutionary process to incorporate RT combat into Fallout, and it might reduce the player's reliance upon the stat development of character and increase his reliance upon his own dexterity. What, exactly, is wrong with that, though?

Keeping TB combat would appease the nostalgia of the older fuddy-duddies and remain true to the roots of Fallout, and it might reduce the overall appeal of the game as well as restrict the development of military strategy in combat. What, exactly, is wrong with that, though?

Personally, my conception of how combat can be simulated can, I suppose, be described as RT with a mandated pause. In effect, it still remains a turn based game, since everyone has to make a decision on a turn basis. However, everyone has the same turn to make their choice, and *all* actions are executed at the same time. In this fashion, the dexterity of the player is irrelevant. What becomes more relevant is the player's ability to gauge his opponent's strategy and his ability to keep it all straight in his head.

I don't know of any games that have this type of system, so I can't offer examples. But, in thinking a little more about it, I think that Rainbow Six echoes something of what I am imagining: the player decides who goes where and what they do, and everyone executes those decisions at the same time. In envisioning this, I can see the elements of RT combat incorporated--assign an area to be strafed with fire, and until the next round that area will be riddled with bullets. Anybody who had the misfortune of walking or running into that area (which they had not known would be strafed) would find themselves under much fire. The choice to walk or run becomes important, since a running character is harder to hit, and the faster (more agile) the runner the more difficult it becomes to hit that guy (especially if that guy is really small.) Also, how successful the character is at hitting a target while he is running, or even walking, depends upon the stats of the character. Also, a perceptive character would notice that the Super Mutant out there is firing into his path, and not walk blandly into a hail of bullets.

So, has this style of combat been written in a game played? If so, did it work? Would this idea work, anyway?
 
RE: Ye Ol' Combat Simulations

here is my issue with TB vs RT... The bread and butter of my tactics in FO1 and 2 was the aimed shot criticals ... Might be difficult to aim shots if solely RT gameplay...
Guess you could have a pause feature that will let you select aimed shots while the game is paused... perhaps that when the game is unpaused... the attack is taken... with either a delay in fire (to aim) and/or a decrease to accuracy?
Thoughts?
 
RE: Ye Ol' Combat Simulations

>here is my issue with TB
>vs RT... The bread and
>butter of my tactics in
>FO1 and 2 was the
>aimed shot criticals ... Might
>be difficult to aim shots
>if solely RT gameplay...
>Guess you could have a pause
>feature that will let you
>select aimed shots while the
>game is paused... perhaps that
>when the game is unpaused...
>the attack is taken... with
>either a delay in fire
>(to aim) and/or a decrease
>to accuracy?
>Thoughts?


As somebody already said, it's a question of implementation. To take an aimed shot in real time, you have to uncover yourself for a few seconds. This is where suppression fire, flanking manoeuvers, overwatching, cover & concealment etc. all come into play. In order to make it realistic you have to also model morale and/or individual courage (i.e. is the character/NPC calmly going to adjust his aim while his position is being under heavy machinegun fire?).

At this point we have to ask ourselves if we want FO3 or FO:BOS2...
 
RE: Ye Ol' Combat Simulations

when i was reading through all of your messages on thi subject, it seemed to me that you are more pro RT than TB...well, i think that TB is what made me like FO and FO2.

I've played loads of other RT RPGs and to tell you then truth, most of them sucked. it turned into a click-fest instead of an "it's ok...we dont care care, take your time"-type game.

the whole TB thing is what made FO and FO2 so fun. i hold firmly with my opinion that most of the aspects that were the same in FO and FO2 should still be there in FO3(i.e.-turn-based combat)


Zu "I think TB combat is better than RT" ie

P.S.---And for your information, senso, I am a teen, and unless you are eight(which i seriously doubt) i am not an old fuddy-duddy.
 
RE: Ye Ol' Combat Simulations

<< the whole TB thing is what made FO and FO2 so fun. >>

Really? I thought the wide variety of solutions was what made the Fallout games fun.

Combat is such a small part of an RPG (at least it should be); I can't imagine RT having that much of an impact on it. Planescape was real-time, and it ranks up there with Fallout. You didn't have the same combat options; but casting spells is about as complex as a called shot.

Skie
 
RE: Ye Ol' Combat Simulations

skie, i think you missed my point.

my point was the ppl who are programing it should KEEP THE TB COMBAT!

Zuie
 
Turn-Based -- Real-Time -- Whatever

Are you saying no real-time? Or they can have real-time; but also have turn-based?

Skie
 
RE: Turn-Based -- Real-Time -- Whatever

Lets think what fallout would be like if it was RT... hmm... Can u say diablo?

There is a reason X-Com and other TB games were good. They were different. If it was RT and relied completly on the player's mouse clicking capability, it would loose a substantial part of what made fallout different and special. The other aspect that made it special was of course the good role-playing aspects and character interaction, but it would turn the game into diablo with assault rifles. It would not be fallout.

This is my opinion, but think about it!
 
RE: a question of implementation

that's what the idea has been mostly. a pause system like Torment or Baldur's Gate, but with more in-depth commands (all that suppressive fire and such).
 
RE: Turn-Based -- Real-Time -- Whatever

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-00 AT 02:54AM (GMT)[p][font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-26-00 AT 02:52 AM (GMT)

speaking of X-Com...
X-Com 3 had an option when you began each combat sequence to go TB or RT, and the RT version of combat I thought was a lot of fun, as well as being alot harder. It had a pause option as well and it did rely quite alot on the squad member's accuracy, speed, and other such thing, and was far from a 'clickfest'.

X-Com 3, IMO, was the best of the X-Com series so far, and the RT option did indeed enhance it. I say that the game developers should incorporate an option similar to the X-Com 3 choice so that everyone will be happy. Those who prefer TB will have their TB and those want to try RT will get their RT. One downside to this proposition would be the fact that it would be more work (two combat systems in one game), and the game programmer friends I have are extremely lazy, but I still think it's a great idea.

I'm not saying that TB is bad, I'm just saying we should also give RT combat a chance and not dismiss it as the work of satan and his evil TB-hating minions.

Let me know what you think

-evian
 
RE: Turn-Based -- Real-Time -- Whatever

<< Lets think what fallout would be like if it was RT... hmm... Can u say diablo? >>

So does that make Planescape: Torment a Diablo clone?

<< There is a reason X-Com and other TB games were good. They were different. >>

I believe X-COM was originally turn-based because real-time wasn't feasable at the time. X-COM Apocalypse did have a RT option, and Freedom Ridge might be only RT. X-COM is like Freedom Ridge's Wasteland.

Yes, X-COM was good because it was different. Not because it was turn-based. It was the resource management, research, & combat mix wrapped in an aliens are attacking the Earth package, that made X-COM fun.

<< If it was RT and relied completly on the player's mouse clicking capability, it would lose a substantial part of what made fallout different and special. >>

Yes, if it was RT and relied completly on the player's mouse clicking capability it wouldn't be fun. But, as long as there is a pause feature; then real-time doesn't rely on your dexterity.

Fallout wasn't different and special because it was turn-based. It was the post-apocalyptic 50's feel, the story, and multiple solutions to a problem that made Fallout fun. I never thought, "If combat would've been real-time; this game would be ruined."

I can't see how turning Fallout would make it Diablo. One will have character interaction, multiple solutions to a problem, and a great story. The other will have no character interaction, one solution to a problem (kill it), and amazing cut scenes.

I'm not saying; don't have turn-based. But, I think that Fallout could incorperate real-time; and not lose the things that made it great.

Skie
 
RE: Turn-Based -- Real-Time -- Whatever

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Aug-27-00 AT 04:19AM (GMT)[p]I agree completely.
And another thing: if you're only playing Fallout for the combat system, there's something wrong with you. The reason Fallout is so great is because it's fun. It has great writing, a good plot, a superfly gameworld, and the combat system is only a small part of a great big game. RPGs are called RPGs because that's what you're doing; roleplaying. Being someone else. Unless slowly killing people 24/7 is a big part of your life, a different combat system should NOT be such a big fucking deal (can I say fuck? oh well). Either way, Fallout would never be a clickfest, because the only RPG clickfests I know of the ones that are first person, and we know Fallout 3 will NOT be 1st person. So :Þ

-evian
 
RE: Turn-Based -- Real-Time -- Whatever

Dont get me wrong, i was attracted to Fallout because of the amazingly good char interaction, not the TB combat part. It is just my (Flamable) opinion that fallout should stay true to its roots and remain TB. Plus, i like post-apocolyptic-nuclear nightmare/wastelandish enviroments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top