Sure, It might be fun/relaxing way of playing.. but if you want combat as skillful as it gets then real time is where the game should be at.
I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what I've said really.

The purpose of computer games is not to measure skill but to provide fun.

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1333901141' post='4929343']
Sure, It might be fun/relaxing way of playing.. but if you want combat as skillful as it gets then real time is where the game should be at.
I don't understand what's so hard to understand about what I've said really.

The purpose of computer games is not to measure skill but to provide fun.
[/quote]

Depends what you find fun.. I find competition and challenges against other players fun.

I just disagree with pretty much everything you've said.

That's fine, you're perfectly welcome to disagree with opinions and preferences.

WoW is not turn based at all.. That's just laughable.[/quote]
Well, I hadn't played WoW and had just asked someone else about it (so I had a questionmark on my graph next to WoW). I guess they mistook the WoW 'global cooldown' as turn-based, with is fully understandable considering other MMOs that I have played (Everquest and Dark Age of Camelot mainly), are turn-based internally though they hide it with actiony glossing.

And chess is turn based but you still have a timer that stresses you to make quick decisions because if the timer runs out before you win then you lose.
So if the only reason you're making better and smarter moves than your opponent is because you think 10 times longer each turn than him then you're going to lose.[/quote]
If I have 'x' amount of time, I use that time to make my decision. If I have 'y' amount of time, I use that amount of time to make my decision, allowing me to think clearer. Whether I have two seconds or two minutes to make a decision, I will still make a decision within the time frame, but the two minute decision will be more deeply thought out. Hence, turn based games = more of a thinking game, because you spend more time thinking. Granted, you can have more time thinking in action-based games if the game is set up that way (showing you a challenge before you actually engage it, for example), but the game has to be specifically designed for that whereas turn based games have that by default.

Point is that you can make very deeply thought out moves even in real time if you have a lot of experience.[/quote]
Do you mean, in the midst of combat in a first-person shooter, while in the open and surrounded by enemies, your mind mentally processes far enough in advance to know what actions you are going to take after you kill the enemies, cross the bridge, blow up the door, and enter the next room?

Because personally, while under fire I only think of the current challenge and how I can use the surrounding environment to overcome the current challenge. Even if I'm thinking far enough in the future for that challenge (I'm going to smoke grenade that area, flashbang that window, flank behind that building, and jump them from behind...), I'm still only thinking of that one challenge, until I get to a place where I have shelter behind a wall and my adrenaline for that challenge stops forcing my mind to focus on it (a mental 'tunnel vision' if you will).

But in a pure turn based game, I'm always at a 'shelter behind a wall' even if in the midst of combat, I can think of the entire series of challenges I'm facing, my desired overall goal, and how to reach it.

To simplify what I'm saying: In the midst of danger, I think tactically. When not in danger, I can think both strategically and tactically.

So saying that turn based makes it more of a thinking game is wrong.. because you think just as much in real time.[/quote]
I'm not sure what your definition of 'just as much' is... but according to english, saying, "You think just as much if you think for 5 minutes as you do if you think for 5 seconds" doesn't make sense. Maybe you mean, "You think just as deeply, or just as accurately, or just as tactically, regardless of how much time you have"? But again, however much time and information is handed to me, I'll scale up my decision to meet it, and the quality of my decision increases.

Real time = reaction + thinking + thinking fast (more skillful thinking)
Turn based = only thinking.[/quote]
Real time is primarily reaction, with some limited thinking ahead.
Turn-based allows thinking deeply ahead.

======================================================

[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1333886986' post='4929294']
My desired games are somewhere between the 'Final Fantasy' and 'KOTOR'.

Its a bit funny, since FF and KOTOR have exactly the same system, time-wise. You act, then you get a delay during which you cannot act, then you can act again. Same as in almost every D&D game on PC. I call it "round-based", because its fairly specific, and is neither turn-based, nor real-time.[/quote]

That's kinda was what I was trying to say: that there is a gradient between pure turn-based, and pure-action based. KOTOR is about dead center between them, and Final Fantasy is closer to the 'turn based' side of the spectrum. They involve both the passage of time (like action games, the speed you act has some affect) and the usage of turns (or action points, or whatever terminology the game uses).
My personal preference would be something more actiony then Final Fantasy 7, but less actiony then what I remember from KOTOR (though admittingly I haven't played KOTOR in awhile).

Point is that you can make very deeply thought out moves even in real time if you have a lot of experience.

Do you mean, in the midst of combat in a first-person shooter, while in the open and surrounded by enemies, your mind mentally processes far enough in advance to know what actions you are going to take after you kill the enemies, cross the bridge, blow up the door, and enter the next room?

Because personally, while under fire I only think of the current challenge and how I can use the surrounding environment to overcome the current challenge. Even if I'm thinking far enough in the future for that challenge (I'm going to smoke grenade that area, flashbang that window, flank behind that building, and jump them from behind...), I'm still only thinking of that one challenge, until I get to a place where I have shelter behind a wall and my adrenaline for that challenge stops forcing my mind to focus on it (a mental 'tunnel vision' if you will).

But in a pure turn based game, I'm always at a 'shelter behind a wall' even if in the midst of combat, I can think of the entire series of challenges I'm facing, my desired overall goal, and how to reach it.

To simplify what I'm saying: In the midst of danger, I think tactically. When not in danger, I can think both strategically and tactically.
[/quote]

Yes, I can do that.

You're example is very vague too.. since you are just talking about any kind of FPS shooter.
I would need sooo much more details of the scenario if you want a better answer.

Imagine if chess wasn't turn based.
Just a global cooldown or else in theory the game is over within 0.01 sec if he can move his hands/pieces fast enough.

The faster and more intelligent thinker would win.
If you take too much time on you to think a move when it's not turn based then he's going to win before you can say GG.
So both would have to try and make a move each global cooldown, not every global cooldown but most of them is pretty important.
And the one who is the better thinker will win.

[quote name='Servant of the Lord' timestamp='1333910557' post='4929368']
Do you mean, in the midst of combat in a first-person shooter, while in the open and surrounded by enemies, your mind mentally processes far enough in advance to know what actions you are going to take after you kill the enemies, cross the bridge, blow up the door, and enter the next room?

Yes, I can do that.[/quote]

You can, but while thinking about the next room, wasting your mental cycles on it, one of the people around you would shoot you down.

I can think of the information ahead of time, and have it in my head while engaging the enemies, but I can't focus on strategic planning in the midst of action-packed tactical situations where I only have less than a second to decide.
If you actually can, good for you. But for those of us who aren't savants, we need time to consider and think things through.

You mentioned timed chess matches... Wikipedia says they last up to 7 hours long, unless deliberately playing a 'fast' chess game of 30 minutes to an hour...

[size=2]Wikipedia [Time control] [color=#000000][font=sans-serif]

The World Chess Federation [/font][font=sans-serif][size=2]FIDE[/font][color=#000000][font=sans-serif]

sets a single time control for all major FIDE events: 90 minutes for the first 40 moves followed by 30 minutes for the rest of the game with an addition of 30 seconds per move starting from move one.[/font][/quote]
That's apparently how the professionals play the game. Up to 30 minutes for one chess move is given them. Ofcourse, they wont use it all on every move, but they have it available because it changes the way they think if they have less time.

You're example is very vague too.. since you are just talking about any kind of FPS shooter.
I would need sooo much more details of the scenario if you want a better answer.[/quote]

My point is not "What would you do in situation 'x'", but I'm saying that I personally, when I have to think tactically about a challenge I am facing in a urgent situation, automatically tune out the large scale picture to focus on the immediateness challenge. But you apparently are able to plan what you're going to eat three weeks from now, while getting shot at from an enemy two feet away, without compromising in the least how you are going to overcome the challenge in the next half-second, good for you!

Imagine if chess wasn't turn based.
Just a global cooldown or else in theory the game is over within 0.01 sec if he can move his hands/pieces fast enough.

The faster and more intelligent thinker would win.[/quote]
No, the faster thinking would win. Not the more intelligent one... The more intelligent one could be either of the two.
Maybe people, myself including, can make very very rapid decisions. Those decisions aren't always better than the decisions of someone taking more time to think the issue out. They are often 'acceptable' decisions, and fine for day-to-day situations, but they are rarely the best and most intelligent decision.

If you take too much time on you to think a move when it's not turn based then he's going to win before you can say GG.
So both would have to try and make a move each global cooldown, not every global cooldown but most of them is pretty important.[/quote]
Like I said, I can scale my decisions to meet the time requirement... but if I have more time, the decisions will be better decisions. Thus, one type of game is more reactionary thinking, and one is more strategic thinking.

And the one who is the better thinker will win.[/quote]
No, the one who is the faster thinker will win, not the better thinker (if by 'better' you mean 'more intelligent').

I can think very rapidly, because I'm very impatient, and make perfectly acceptable and workable decisions while much more intelligent people I know, invest an extra 20 seconds, and come up with decisions that are better.

[quote name='jbadams' timestamp='1333890388' post='4929310']
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1333889000' post='4929303']
And about all the different things you can do in a turn... I can easily do all that within 6 seconds.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe you --
[/quote]

What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.
I've been playing games for more than 15 years.

Just because you can't do it doesn't mean other people can't do it.
So if you don't believe me then I guess the discussion between us ends at that.

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation.. that means you would have to have over a thousand skills in the game.

When I played WoW for example I probably had around 50 abilities hotkeyed/keybinded. I used up every single hotbar slot available.
Doesn't mean I had to decide between them all for each situation.. All skills are used for different situations.
[/quote]

I dare you to complete a 600 province dominions 3 game turn in 6 seconds. Go on. Do it. Although that is a tbs/rts debate as opposed to what you see in rpgs. Also try doing that using spell casting which is extra time with up to 100 spell casters per province.

Diplomacy is another example but only has like 70 territories.

I suppose you might argue that in a single character rpg turn based isn't that important.

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1333892098' post='4929316']
[quote name='jbadams' timestamp='1333890388' post='4929310']
[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1333889000' post='4929303']
And about all the different things you can do in a turn... I can easily do all that within 6 seconds.

Sorry, but I simply don't believe you --
[/quote]

What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.
I've been playing games for more than 15 years.

Just because you can't do it doesn't mean other people can't do it.
So if you don't believe me then I guess the discussion between us ends at that.

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation.. that means you would have to have over a thousand skills in the game.

When I played WoW for example I probably had around 50 abilities hotkeyed/keybinded. I used up every single hotbar slot available.
Doesn't mean I had to decide between them all for each situation.. All skills are used for different situations.
[/quote]

I dare you to complete a 600 province dominions 3 game turn in 6 seconds. Go on. Do it. Although that is a tbs/rts debate as opposed to what you see in rpgs. Also try doing that using spell casting which is extra time with up to 100 spell casters per province.

Diplomacy is another example but only has like 70 territories.

I suppose you might argue that in a single character rpg turn based isn't that important.
[/quote]

Not sure what you're talking about provinces etc.
But 6 seconds isn't set in stone.. It's just a number someone earlier in the thread created.

You would have to judge what is a good seconds per turn ratio when transforming a turn based game into a real time game.
But if I'm imagining it correct you're talking about something like Civ.. Then the easiest way to remove turn based is just to remove it.
Let the player take as much time as he needs to do the 600 province things you're talking about.. and the player who does it faster and thinks faster and better will win.

Chess masters seem to think that playing really fast makes for an inferior game with less strategy.

"Blitz chess kills your ideas." - Bobby Fischer
"Playing rapid chess, one can lose the habit of concentrating for several hours in serious chess. That is why, if a player has big aims, he should limit his rapidplay in favour of serious chess." - Vladimir Kramnik
"He who analyses blitz is stupid." - Rashid Nezhmetdinov
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Fast_chess

What games are you a master in, glhf?

But 6 seconds isn't set in stone.. It's just a number someone earlier in the thread created.

it comes from D&D.

But if I'm imagining it correct you're talking about something like Civ.. Then the easiest way to remove turn based is just to remove it.
Let the player take as much time as he needs to do the 600 province things you're talking about.. and the player who does it faster and thinks faster and better will win.

Then it would turn into a different game that requires different skills. Not necessarily more or less skill, but different kind of skill. As it has been stated several times by now, reflexes and speed are not the only set of skills a game can require. Turn basedness removes the requirement for fast reflexes and reactions - a player without those can still excel at the game - placing emphasis on a different set of skills.

What reason would I have to come here and lie about that?
I know I can do it because I can.

Sorry, "don't believe you" was perhaps a poor choice of wording; I'm not calling you a liar. I am however suggesting that you simply do not understand what I've been saying, as evidenced by the following:

Your argument about having 100 skills to choose between for a each situation is pretty crazy too.
I mean sure there can easily be 100 skills in the game.. but not all for the same type of situation..

In a game of D&D*, you can (and often do) choose from almost any of the actions available in the game. Thanks to the extra time available to carefully select an action, you actually can choose from any of the hundreds of spells and abilities available in the game, and I've seen people use spells or abilities in very unexpected ways to solve a problem or beat an opponent. In a game of D&D (and some other turn-based games) you really can have hundreds of options available in any given situation.

It's absolutely fine if that isn't the type of game you want -- but that is an advantage of a turn-based system -- and you simply can not possibly make a choice as detailed in real time as you could have in a turn-based system.


In any case, I won't be bothering to continue responding to you, as you're pretty obviously incapable of handling any disagreement with your opinion. You asked what the advantages of a turn-based system are, and you've been given several examples -- and it's perfectly fine if you don't want to use them or don't consider them appropriate for your game -- but that doesn't make them invalid as you seem to think. Having responded to another of your topics recently, it's pretty obvious that you just want people to agree with you, and that just isn't what discussion is about. If you continue this way, you'll end up with no one bothering to respond to you.


Good luck with your game, and I hope that you're eventually able to learn to accept that differing opinions can still be valid, even if you don't want to use them in your game.

[size=2]*I'm using D&D as an example repeatedly because you chose it yourself as an example, and because I know the game reasonably well.