Quote:

Original post by ENEX It really depends on the person's age. Example: A very tired dad came back from a long day of work would rather play a turn-based game instead of a FAST FAST FAST FAST YOU LOSE kind of game. While a teen in the middle of studying would rather play something real-time.

If I were tired dad coming back from a long day at work, I would bask in the warm glow of blood and sweat as I beat down countless enemies trying to dishonor me. It's a good stress reliever after such a day. I think it has more to do with your current mood. Sometimes I want to sit back and create or build or strategize. Other times I just want to kick ass or blow something up.

I love turn based combat over hack and slash, unless of course its an action adventure rpg like Zelda.

The only concern is, if you going to make a bunch of aeon type spells give an option to do the full version or arbviated version. Another thing is having the player punch in some keys while the spell is going on, to do more damage...

Turn-based games got better when opportunity fire was introduced. I don't like the fact that, once out of AP, you just have to take what's coming to you. I know this is to try and get some sense of 'time' but I wouldn't mind a traditional TB RPG where you ALWAYS get the chance to defend yourself, and the, if you have any AP left from your previous 'moves' you can spend them on a counter-attack.
Imagine a hero and 3 orcs. Orc1 attacks and the hero has a 'free' chance to block. The block is successful so, as the hero has AP left, decides to counter-attack. Orc2 then attacks the hero, the block succeeds but he has no AP for counter-attack. Orc3 attacks and the block fails. The hero is dead.
At least he/she went down fighting rather than just standing there.
Maybe have a reserve of 'defend' points but counter-attack comes from your main AP.
It's a system I plan to use if I ever get around to doing an RPG so any thoughts welcome.

Quote:

Original post by Jiia I'm curious to know how many RPG players prefer turn based combat over real-time combat?

My absolute favorite combat system in all the history of the universe is the Synchronous turn resolution in Scorched Earth: Every player issues his tank its orders and then, when they're all done, the madness ensues.

I also like same-time-rules Risk (on the computer).

Synchronously-resolved turn-based combat r0x0rz but only if the combat system is elegant enough to make the turns turn-over quickly so people aren't waiting forever for another player to consider his options.

Quote:

Original post by ishpeck Synchronously-resolved turn-based combat r0x0rz

But I'm not sure how it could be implimented into a melee combat system. In fighting, reaction (unrelated to reaction-time) is really important. The point of the combat is to defend against then overcome your enemy's attacks. I'm not sure how that would be possible if you had to select attacks to counter unknown strategies ahead of time. It turns into more of a guessing game.

I really appreciate the idea, though.

Geneforge does a decent job of handling real time game play which switches over to turn based combat. Good game for an independent development team.

Personally I prefer turn based combat as it's easier to create situations where strategy and tactics can come into play - but if you're trying to make some money with the game, the market for these type of games doesn't seem to be as large as it used to be.

To answer your question, I prefer real time combat.

Partially informative, majorly opinionated rant:

I never get why people assume that real time combat is inherently less tactical. Do military squads pause time for a second when they enter combat?

Don't mistake game developer's inability to correctly use a concept for proof that a concept should not be used.

Real time combat does not mean that you will end up with hack n' slash, button mashing, derivative and simplistic gameplay. It's just more of a challenge to craft a detailed game with real time combat. Turn based combat is a copout.

Naturally, there are games that are turn based for the sake of exploring the gameplay medium, but turn based gameplay has historically been in place due to technological limitations. If a military strategist wanted to play a realistic game, I doubt that a turn based game would suffice. Real life isn't turn based.

Of course, games don't have to be based on reality. But it often helps.

If you took World of Warcraft and put Devil May Cry's (Yes, I know, I harp on about this all the time) combat in that game, it would be infinitely better. Some people might not like it, but the combat system would be much more rewarding. Of course, grinding wouldn't be grinding if it were FUN at the same time, so I doubt Blizzard would do this [/sarcasm].

[/rant]

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq If you took World of Warcraft and put Devil May Cry's (Yes, I know, I harp on about this all the time) combat in that game, it would be infinitely better.

The reason that blocks devs from doing that is more on the technical side. Lightining fast combat on a MMO is not very feasible (there seems to be a bunch of new games that contend this, though), so they just avoid it. Also, on PC there's the issue of cheaters, which is something that troubles me to no end when thinking of online concepts. I mean on a console it's very difficult to hack a game, but on PC, once developed a hack spreads like wildfire.

edit: thread mixing sillyness

Quote:

Original post by Nytehauq I never get why people assume that real time combat is inherently less tactical. Do military squads pause time for a second when they enter combat?

I admit that my game's combat will not have the strategy that it might if it were turn based (even though I have never seen a melee turn based combat system - so I'm really just guessing).

In the military, I would imagine they plan the entire battle out before dropping off troops, then make small changes as they progress. In huge compains like that of the Civilization series, months and years went by between the combat. So there was plenty of time to think about the next move. Even though X-Com was more on the soldier level, I really hated playing the game in real-time. It was 500% more fun for me with turn based mode. In reality, real-time mode removed everything that made it interesting. This doesn't really apply to my situation, so I'm just saying turn-based systems will always have a place with me.

Even though a soldier needs to be tactical, it's on a much smaller scale. And that is the level that may game is controlled, from the soldier (it's non-militaristic, though :P). I want to avoid hack+slash combat, but that seems a lot more difficult to me than it sounds. How does one avoid it, exactly? Is it the level of detail? The number of options during combat? So just by throwing in more options, I add more strategy? Magic or special weapons (guns), mounts in battle (horse + sword), arching, interactive terrain objects, etc? Do these things help? Arching is already on the todo list, but the others are on the maybe list.

What would make real-time melee combat more tactical?

I don't mind either - it really depends on the game.

Final Fantasy Tactics was slow and boring because there weren't a lot of tactical options.

Fallout's turn based approach was good fun because you did have a lot of tactical options: hiding behind walls, dynamite traps, spray and pray or tactical sniper shots. As long as you turned on "NPCs Always Run" so the 100 radscorpions in the area moved at a decent speed, it was fine to sit and watch.

But then Fallout Tactics introduced real-time Fallout-esque combat and the speed and ferocity of some of the battles was cunningly fun. You had all the tactics of Fallout combat but all the speed of a FPS. Good fun.

Then you've got the mix and match system like KotOR. Pause the real-time battle at any time to queue up a list of actions. Not a lot of tactical options though.

It really depends on the type of game you're going to make. If you're making an urban game with a lot of room for strategy, turn based is fine. If you're setting the game in the middle of open plains, real-time is better.