Sawyer on combat, again

[Briosafreak]

Real Time and Turn-Based Fallout3 remains an issue to many of us, so here are a few quotes fro J.E. Sawyer explaining why he thinks putting both combat modes on the game will be a good idea:
<blockquote>In TB Fallout, you have precision movement over one character. In RT Fallout, you would have precision movement over one character. But, the more important question is: why do you care if you're never going to play that mode of combat? When someone who thinks real-time combat is inherently flawed complains about the implementation of RT combat, it's hard to seriously look for a way to appease them. What answer could I possibly give when you think there is no sufficient answer short of removing the mode? Why does it matter if the TB mode you play is the main focus and RT is given less emphasis?

When I have asked these questions to TB fanatics in the past, their responses have tended towards, "Well, we would like 100% effort to be on TB so that it's balance is 100% of its potential." That's a great sentiment, but ultimately ignores the fact that there are some people, like Sammael, who are honestly very enthusiastic about RPGs but are not enthusiastic about combat in RT, TB, PB, or any other mode. There are also loads of people who are only interested in combat and will only rush through dialogue to get vital information, then move on to the next area full of killing. You can say, "Well, I don't care about those people." That's fine, because you're a consumer, and that's as far as your concern needs to go. I can't think that way. </blockquote>
And how would he liked it to be implemented in the game?
<blockquote> I would rather have a toggle in the game options menu with three options: turn-based, real-time, and ask me. This toggle can only be set when there are no characters in the engine's combat manager. If you're in TB mode, the instant someone enters the combat manager (combat begins), it goes into sequential turn-based mode. If you're in real-time, it just goes right into combat. If you're in "ask me" mode, the game pauses at the beginning of combat and forces the player to choose real-time or turn-based for that battle (as long as creatures are in the combat manager).

There should be no switching of combat modes while combat is in progress.</blockquote>

This was spotted on this thread.

 

[Gunslinger]

The Role Playing Game, budding from its humble predecessor, the table top board game, almost necessitates the focus on turn-based combat. In my experience, real time RPGs hardly delivers. Taking the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale series for example: neither fully implements initiative rolls or even combat rolls because the engine used is inherently flawed; it's nigh impossible for D&D rules, built on turn-based combat, to coexist in such an engine.

The "hook-and-lure" scenario used to promote Fallout Tactics was that multiple characters could work together.
Scenario: There's a small hut filled with three bad guys. They've got guns. *Big* guns.
Solution: Hank, the renowned marksman, waits next to the door with his trusty submachine gun while Joel, the prizefighter pugilist and grenadier, prepares to fling a flashbang through the window. The plan is for Joel to simultaneously flush out the bad guys with his flashbang while Hank hoses the opening doorway with machine gun fire.
Dilemma: I carefully position my two men; Hank in front of the door, Joel next to the adjacent window. I click on Joel, ready the flashbang in one hand and a knife in the other, and make him throw his nade. The plan carries forth without a hitch. The door opens and the three bad guys flood through. I click on Hank and right-click on his submachine gun slot to set it on BURST fire. But while I'm doing this, Joel, who's AI is set on AGGRESSIVE, engages the enemy with his handy kitchen knife. The three bad guys ain't listening to his jive, however, and start blasting poor Joel with their big guns. Even worse, as I try to make Joel run away, Hank's AI is set on AGGRESSIVE also and I've just set his submachine gun on burst. So Hank automatically unloads on the three bad guys, including Joel who's stuck in the middle. The bullets don't differentiate between ally and enemy. So much for Joel.

So there. Real-time "tactical" combat has its flaws. Granted, many people could easily avoid said ordeal with proper planning and quick clicking. But that entire hurdle can be avoided with just a focus on turn-based combat. Personally, I'd like the developers to just focus solely on turn-based combat. God forbid that they overlook turn-based combat altogether and just make Fallout 3 real-time; it'd be just another hack-and-slash, Diablo-esque, click-fest, bore. And the inclusion of both turned-based and real-time won't be that great since one or even both get messed up. Troika's Arcanum had a rather decent turn-based mode but their real-time was severly overbalanced (my halfling rogue with 20 Dexterity and a Dagger of Speed could demolish a group of Iron Golems in seconds).

So...

*Raises hand for just turn-based combat*

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

There's a neat thread about this on RPG Codex. Basically, he's saying you can err on the side of making it turn based, but you can't if you have a hybrid. You're going to have to fudge something so that the other works.

In fact, if you skim through that thread link, I pointed out several things from Fallout that wouldn't be the same just because of that TB/RT hybridization.

 

[atoga]

In United States tax law history, the Tariff of 1883 (signed into law on March 3, 1883[1]), also known as the Mongrel Tariff Act by its critics, reduced high tariff rates only marginally, and left in place fairly strong protectionist barriers.
President Chester A. Arthur appointed a commission in May 1882 to recommend how much tariff rates should be reduced. The issue was controversial during the last three decades of the nineteenth century, making tariff revision a daunting task. Different constituents argued for opposite measures, often wanting to maintain tariffs on some items while reducing them on others. Support or opposition to tariffs often broke down along regional lines.

 

[alec]

There should be no switching of combat modes while combat is in progress

Why not? It seems very usefull to me. Of course, it all depends on how much combat there will be in Fallout 3, but if you have to fight off herds of, let's say, radscorpions, you could do that in RT and when most of them are dead, it would be nice to be able to switch to TB to finish the last ones off.

Anyway, I don't think (as atoga says) that RT is unrealistic at all. Imho it's more realistic than TB. I don't think that in a real gunfight, you get the chance to think like for five minutes or so about your next move (and get a beer out of the fridge in the meantime). TB is, however, a nice and comfortable way of playing (no stress), but realistic? I have my doubts.

 

[Brother None]

Anyway, I don't think (as atoga says) that RT is unrealistic at all. Imho it's more realistic than TB. I don't think that in a real gunfight, you get the chance to think like for five minutes or so about your next move (and get a beer out of the fridge in the meantime). TB is, however, a nice and comfortable way of playing (no stress), but realistic? I have my doubts.

I thought we were past the point where realism mattered.

Fallout always had a well-thought out world, the gameplay, on the other hand, never has been to realistic (holding sunglasses in your hand to up your charisma, runnnig around weilding miniguns like it's nothing and, worse of all, turn-based combat). It's not about what's most realistic, it's about what fits best in the setting and helps the game balance the most.

 

[alec]

I thought we were past the point where realism mattered.

Well, you thought right, Kharn. I just didn't see atoga's point, when he wrote that things start to seem unrealistic in combat in RT. That's all.

 

[Roshambo]

There should be no switching of combat modes while combat is in progress

Why not? It seems very usefull to me.

Thus displaying no clue of game design. Hooray!

A switching method would create either exploits or a combat system like that foun in Arcanum, which had the problems because RT was insisted on by the publisher.

Of course, it all depends on how much combat there will be in Fallout 3, but if you have to fight off herds of, let's say, radscorpions, you could do that in RT and when most of them are dead, it would be nice to be able to switch to TB to finish the last ones off.

This point has been beaten to death already. The Cave of 1,000 Ants is a design flaw, not a problem with the combat system.

Then there's also the problems with balancing each combat system, which can never be done to the point of good balance for both.

So you might end up with a good TB mode, but with crap RT that may also result in gameplay mechanics influencing that of TB play as Arcanum and X-COM: Apocalypse had.

Or it would turn out with a more likely, equally shitty, TB and RT side-by-side system.

Anyway, I don't think (as atoga says) that RT is unrealistic at all.
Imho it's more realistic than TB. I don't think that in a real gunfight, you get the chance to think like for five minutes or so about your next move (and get a beer out of the fridge in the meantime). TB is, however, a nice and comfortable way of playing (no stress), but realistic? I have my doubts.

Unrealistic has more definitiond than meaning based upon Counter-Shit "realism". Such as "it's quite unrealistic to put a twitchfest game mechanic into a CRPG, explaining the mixed feelings most people have about Planescape: Torment".

Even by using the "realism" point you're thinking of, RT combat has to be skewed in favor of making it possible for reflexes and other aspects to take into account. Even by your own example, they are likely going to put in a RT+Spacebar Crackhead Pause, so then they'll be able to pause, assign people to do what they want, then sit there like a complete retard and drool into the keyboard as the combat goes on in an uninvolving manner until they next need to nail the spacebar again. Sorry, but that's banal as fuck.

So, even by shooting while people are moving around, it's no more "realistic" in that way than TB. Just check out the Inbred Engine games for a good example. RT and TB also have to be balanced in more ways than people fighting each other, it goes into the realms of designing areas around what is balanced or not.

As if marketing departments having more sway over design than the designers wasn't bad enough, there's the usual naive people, and then a kid developer like Sawyer. He might be okay with setting work, but as far as complete game mechanics, he has definitely shown that he has a LOT to learn.

Then there's the more than likely situation of the chimps at BIS looking at anything TB and going "This not Infinity Engine...I confused..." Hell, it even looks like some of them are still stuck in the min/max shit D&D mindset, and can't think of any other solution for The Cave of 1,000 Ants other than making some unnecessary changes. It's much like Sawyer wanting to make large changes the skill system instead of fixing what is broken by adding in some aspects to some skills and learning what "balance" means for others.

Do you really think people are going to tag his version of small guns?

 

[atoga]

The Board of Managers, charged with governance of the Home, added seven more branches between 1870 and 1907 as broader eligibility requirements allowed more veterans to apply for admission. The effects of World War I, which resulted in a new veteran population of over five million men and women, brought dramatic changes to the National Home and all other governmental agencies responsible for veterans' benefits. In 1930 the Veterans Administration was established, to consolidate all veterans' programs into a single Federal agency. The several wars since then in the 20th and 21st centuries have resulted in more veterans needing services.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Anyway, I don't think (as atoga says) that RT is unrealistic at all. Imho it's more realistic than TB. I don't think that in a real gunfight, you get the chance to think like for five minutes or so about your next move (and get a beer out of the fridge in the meantime). TB is, however, a nice and comfortable way of playing (no stress), but realistic? I have my doubts.

I really don't find two people standing in the open, shooting one another until one drops dead, realistic either - but that's how real time combat works. Even with melee, you end up with two people swatting each other with weapons until one falls over dead.

Reality is actually much closer to turn based. You DON'T have two people swinging swords, striking one another repeatedly until dead. Nor do you have two people standing out in the open, popping each other with lead bullets. Typically, one person is striking or shooting, the other is dodging, parrying, or behind cover.

Armor Class is typically a measure of how well your character can avoid damage, whether using dexterity to dodge or using the armor's protective value to defer a blow. So, when the enemy is rolling to strike successfully, it's measured against your character's ability to minimize the impact of the strike. That model alone is much closer to how real combat works.

 

[atoga]

The selection of the sites for the three branches was based on three motivations: practical, political and economic. First, the Board needed sites ready to be used immediately before the second winter after the war, and before the time of the November 1866 elections. The Togus site, having been a resort, had a sufficient number of buildings appropriate for housing the disabled veterans. Choosing Dayton as the Central Branch site satisfied the powerful Ohio faction in Congress, as well as the numerous Union generals from Ohio, particularly William Tecumseh Sherman. Locating the Northwestern Branch at Milwaukee resulted in the Board of Managers gaining a large cash donation from the Ladies Managers, enabling them both to purchase a site and have funds left to begin construction.