Turn-Based vs Real-Time Combat @ CRPG Addict

[JDR13]

I like both, although RTWP is probably my favorite. Some games are simply too time consuming with pure TB combat.

 

[Nerevarine]

I like both, although RTWP is probably my favorite. Some games are simply too time consuming with pure TB combat.

Certainly a fair point. What's your opinion of a system like Jagged Alliance 2 then, where non-combat situations are handled in real-time? I've always felt like that was a solid compromise to the problem of tedium that can occur in pure turn-based games.

 

[JDR13]

Certainly a fair point. What's your opinion of a system like Jagged Alliance 2 then, where non-combat situations are handled in real-time? I've always felt like that was a solid compromise to the problem of tedium that can occur in pure turn-based games.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question, but aren't all non-combat situations handled in real time in the context of this article?

 

[Nerevarine]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question, but aren't all non-combat situations handled in real time in the context of this article?

Yes, I should clarify a bit more: What I mean is that in a game like Jagged Alliance 2, every map or zone is technically a continuous battle if you think about it; it's not set in an open-world and it's not a game where you explore in non-combat areas because every part of the game is part of a combat situation. However, rather than force the player to move in turn-based mode in these "battles," movement is set in real-time until the next enemy is spotted within the same battle. It's not very different from how a traditional turn-based RPG functions, and perhaps my question isn't valid as a result of that, but I guess I view Jagged Alliance as a slightly different scenario because every map feels like a continuous battle or non-stop combat situation.

 

[Thrasher]

I prefer turn-based with an auto-resolve button. Perfect compromise. Mmmmmm!

 

[Motoki]

I prefer turn-based with an auto-resolve button. Perfect compromise. Mmmmmm!

Right, those are good because if you come across the umpteenth rat or slime you can quickly dispense with it, but if you try using auto on a boss or key battle you'll get your ass handed to you.

 

[JDR13]

Right, those are good because if you come across the umpteenth rat or slime you can quickly dispense with it, but if you try using auto on a boss or key battle you'll get your ass handed to you.

I like the way the later Might & Magic games did it. It wasn't auto-resolve, but at least you could switch to real time to mop up weaker enemies quickly.

 

[Nerevarine]

I prefer turn-based with an auto-resolve button. Perfect compromise. Mmmmmm!

Right, those are good because if you come across the umpteenth rat or slime you can quickly dispense with it, but if you try using auto on a boss or key battle you'll get your ass handed to you.

I completely agree, auto-resolve is a good solution. However, it makes me question the design decision to have decidedly weaker enemies/encounters in the first place (aside from the need to allow low-level characters to advance in the very early stages of a game); why not design a game where every encounter is worth the time and effort? That would probably be the ideal solution: to not create "trash mobs" in a tactical turn-based game to begin with, or at the very least, keep them to a minimum near the start of a game.

 

[Thrasher]

Well I prefer an open world design that leaves the order of exploration up to the player. Given that, you may come across easy mobs, or killer mobs. Not having everything perfectly scaled to your level adds to the excitement, for me.

 

[Nerevarine]

Well I prefer an open world design that leaves the order of exploration up to the player. Given that, you may come across easy mobs, or killer mobs. Not having everything perfectly scaled to your level adds to the excitement, for me.

I agree with that as well; in no way am I saying that leveled enemies are the answer, as I generally hate level-scaling of any kind. I just think that every encounter (or at least most encounters) should pose some form of danger to the player in order to keep the combat interesting, and the fewer trash mobs the better. This is obviously much harder to accomplish in an open-world game, but I think that it could still be accomplished.

 

[Thrasher]

Not sure how you could do that without removing freedom, or adding level-scaling.

 

[Nerevarine]

Not sure how you could do that without removing freedom, or adding level-scaling.

I suppose from a pure open-world standpoint, the Gothic series and Risen came pretty close by making nearly every creature with the ability to kill the player until they reach a certain point, but I suppose they do technically become "trash mobs" or easy encounters once that point is reached. I have no problem with this in real-time games where these encounters can be resolved quickly, but in a turn-based, tactics-heavy game, I would prefer a worthy challenge throughout and with no level scaling. I suppose auto-resolve is the best known solution for this, but there must be a way to address this issue without taking away freedom or implementing level-scaling.

 

[Thrasher]

Just thought of a cheesy way, like they did in SoZ. At a high enough level, the random encounters ran away from you, but you could still give chase and fight 'em if you wanted. Now that I think about it, that's a pretty elegant solution.

 

[Motoki]

Just thought of a cheesy way, like they did in SoZ. At a high enough level, the random encounters ran away from you, but you could still give chase and fight 'em if you wanted. Now that I think about it, that's a pretty elegant solution.

I think that's fine and makes more sense than a low level enemy attacking some uber level 50 player. It avoids forcing the player into a combat situation that poses no challenge but allows them to pursue it if they wish.

 

[JDR13]

That concept has been around since the original HoMM, but I agree it would be nice to see it utilized more in crpgs.

 

[Nerevarine]

Just thought of a cheesy way, like they did in SoZ. At a high enough level, the random encounters ran away from you, but you could still give chase and fight 'em if you wanted. Now that I think about it, that's a pretty elegant solution.

Ah, that is a good solution. I have seen this in strategy games before (HoMM is a good example with this feature, as JDR pointed out), but I can't remember off the top of my head if I've ever seen this in an RPG.

 

[Thrasher]

Like I said NWN2 SoZ had it, but it took a lot of levels before the mobs started running away...

 

[Motoki]

I remember some old NES RPGs like Dragon Warrior that used to have weak enemies run away from you. Of course you couldn't chase them down since they only appeared once the combat started, not on the world map, but still it kept you from fighting slimes over and over when you were level 50.

 

[Grimlorn]

I remember some old NES RPGs like Dragon Warrior that used to have weak enemies run away from you. Of course you couldn't chase them down since they only appeared once the combat started, not on the world map, but still it kept you from fighting slimes over and over when you were level 50.

Dragon Warrior/Quest didn't have a lvl cap of 50. It was 30. Get it right noob.

 

[Motoki]

Dragon Warrior/Quest didn't have a lvl cap of 50. It was 30. Get it right noob.

Haha well it's been a bajillion years since I played those games.