Turn Based or Real Time Combat?

[kofeiiniturpa]

I agree, they are getting old fast. Some people pick their favourite feature, proclaim that the game will suxx without it and expect to be treated seriously by the devs. Combined with unrealistic expectations, this is the biggest plague of this forum IMO.

*thumbs up*

I'm surprised that there is no "Hybrid" option in the poll. I always had the impression that VATS was well-received by the players and since it was optional, you could stick to the classical real-time if you wanted.

I'd love a "hybrid" - even though, I also have to say VATS doesn't really count towards it because it has really nothing to do with "turnbased". It was a loose nod towards the called shot from the original Fallout, and implemented mostly to glorifiy headshots and gore, and gaining an "overadvantage" for a brief moment. At very least a system like that would need some heavy modifications (preferably not towards slow-mo, though) to work in a satisfactory manner as an option for the normal run'n gun.

I'd say a proper hybrid was a way to toggle between two modes, but that'd likely mean the game would need to be balanced separately for two different ways of doing combat (I wouldn't say no to it, but I guess it would be a hell of an undertaking).

Anyways, there are lots of possibilities to meddle with it.

 

[wisdom000]

Here is an interesting thing, the pnp game is turn based.....with the ref/gm describing the scene, while the players make choices and take action every turn.

Now as much as i would like run and gun battles with no pauses, it is not for everyone and combat would be more like a shooter where you may miss no matter how good your characters skills are. Turn based you have time to think and make reasonable perhaps not correct choices...... personally if it could be done a choice of one or the other would be of course the best, but i known that is very improbable.

The only reason tabletop systems use turn based is because A gm has to interpret the results of the actions of all the PC's, all the NPC's, and whatever else is going on. Otherwise its just a bunch of people yelling at each other and making pew pew or bang bang noises.... possibly even dakka dakka dooweeeeeeeeeee....

If combat on a tabletop game could be done in real time, we would do that. But every attempt just devolves into the equivalent of little kids playing cops and robbers screaming:

I hit you....
Nu uh....
Uh huh...
Nuh uh....
Uh Huh....
Nuh Uh....
THWOCK Now I really hit you....
I'm Telling Mom....

The argument "because thats how the tabletop game handles the mechanic" kind of compeltely missies the point of playing a vedeo game version of it in the first place. You might as well as for the game to be narrated in text, and the whole thing play out on a battlemap with miniatures. The graphics of the game being mountain dew and cheetohs. And yes, I understand that is pretty much the entire concept behind games like DnD Tactics, and Final Fantasy Tactics...and God This Game Is Boring Tactics... And I understand that there are a great many people who like those games, some of them unfortunately are my friends...

But cyberpunk combat is supposed to be fast paced... you aren't supposed to have time to think, its supposed to be react or die. Hell, I don't even want the pause function to be available during combat..

More than anything, the reason I want to play Cyberpunk as a video game, is because I want to see the game emulate the things that by nature the Tabletop game can't emulate. I want to drive him down the road, I want to make him get in huge epic John Woo gun fights, I want to watch him get into car chases and... I want my heart to pound, I want my sense on alert, I want a reason to put down the beer, and when its done, I want a reason to smoke that cigarette and reflect.

Like I said, something like the vats system from Fallout 3/NV would be fine to reflect cyber, but I would rather just have a small moment of bullet time like sleeping dogs. Although really either one would pretty much make it impossible for their to be any kind of co-operative play.

 

[wisdom000]

Why are we even talking about some FAIL-based system that would ultimately destroy CDPR?

I would never buy this game, along the 90% of all gamers out there.

Thread Closed.

Dude, I despise turn based, and like you, I would not buy the game if that's how combat was handled.... but you don't speak for anyone but yourself, and you certainly don't have any position to be telling other people when the line of discussion is closed.

 

[wisdom000]

I agree, they are getting old fast. Some people pick their favourite feature, proclaim that the game will suxx without it and expect to be treated seriously by the devs. Combined with unrealistic expectations, this is the biggest plague of this forum IMO.

I'm surprised that there is no "Hybrid" option in the poll. I always had the impression that VATS was well-received by the players and since it was optional, you could stick to the classical real-time if you wanted.

I dug Vats, it was an interesting mechanic, though I preferred to manually shoot, because I was generally more accurate and wasted less shots that way...

 

[wisdom000]

There were "rounds" happening behind the screen (based on various factors), yes, but everything happened in real time (with the ability to pause at will to issue new orders - as you were not in direct control of the character/s). Tha'ts the point. I'm a bit unsure how can one get a turnbased feeling from a game where you never take any turns. The method used in KOTOR (and also the old Infinity Engine games) is round based realtime with pause.

I have never played KOTOR before.... but what you are saying kind of intrigues me, how does "turn based real time" It sounds like the main character plays out like a shooter, or whatever... while the NPC's act in turns? This would seem to give the protagonist a huge advantage?

 

[braindancer12]

a fast real time combat system is the best. but the game should still be a rpg not like Mass Effect.......which was with every new game more shooter and less rpg....

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But cyberpunk combat is supposed to be fast paced... you aren't supposed to have time to think, its supposed to be react or die.

That can be done in turnbased combat. The new XCOM is a swell example of that. One wrong move could result in killing half of your team, wihch in turn leaves the rest of the team at peril (and likely ends up in you trying to run away in hopes that at least one more experienced soldier will survive). Time to think will not always save you because available moves within a turn limit your tactical (and desperate) possibilities.

Obviously it wouldn't wouldn't be "fast paced" as in "messy", but nonetheless.

That probably tells nothing to you, but said it anyway.

 

[Yngh]

I have never played KOTOR before.... but what you are saying kind of intrigues me, how does "turn based real time" It sounds like the main character plays out like a shooter, or whatever... while the NPC's act in turns? This would seem to give the protagonist a huge advantage?

It is a queue-based combat - you give orders and your character carry it out, but you can also manually move him. It's a real-time system with active pause, sth similar to the system used in Dragon Age: Origins, actually. The protagonist doesn't have much of an advantage, because the NPCs use the same system you do. However, the player's abilities don't matter much - it's only about the stats of your character and your chosen tactics.

 

[wisdom000]

It is a queue-based combat - you give orders and your character carry it out, but you can also manually move him. It's a real-time system with active pause, sth similar to the system used in Dragon Age: Origins, actually. The protagonist doesn't have much of an advantage, because the NPCs use the same system you do. However, the player's abilities don't matter much - it's only about the stats of your character and your chosen tactics.

That's... much less exciting than I hoped it would be... it still sounds like combat is staggered....

I mean I can see where in some games something like that would be kinda fun... but it's definitely not what I would want for Cyberpunk..

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I have never played KOTOR before.... but what you are saying kind of intrigues me, how does "turn based real time" It sounds like the main character plays out like a shooter, or whatever... while the NPC's act in turns? This would seem to give the protagonist a huge advantage?

Yngh described it well.

Round based RTwP - basically - works so that you choose an enemy (and possibly attack type if you want) and watch combat happen. You then - if you wish - pause the game when the situation calls for it to issue new orders for the character (heal, move away, different attacks, change target, etc). And you are never in full control of the character (as in, determining all the minute details of how combat goes, the character is the one doing the combat you only decide in what manner).

I've never liked that personally because of the lack of control and involvement.

 

[wisdom000]

Yngh described it well.

Round based RTwP - basically - works so that you choose an enemy (and possibly attack type if you want) and watch combat happen. You then - if you wish - pause the game when the situation calls for it to issue new orders for the character (heal, move away, different attacks, change target, etc). And you are never in full control of the character (as in, determining all the minute details of how combat goes, the character is the one doing the combat you only decide in what manner).

I've never liked that personally because of the lack of control and involvement.

Yeah.... then my previous post applies double, that is definitely not anything I would want for Cyberpunk.

Turn based combat, of really any sort, just removes fluidity and speed from the equation of combat. I know their are less coordinated people out there who for whatever reason have trouble with a controller, or keyboard set up, or just have poor hand eye co-ordination. But turn based, always seems to require either a level based game, or it requires preset maps where combat takes place in. It takes all the speed, and adrenalin out of combat, and always seems to replace it with something dull. I want combat in a video game, no matter if its level based or open world, to feel like an action movie. And turn based just never seems to do that for me... it always remind me I am playing a game, and sucks me right out of whatever is going on at the time. It takes the fun out of combat, and makes it a chore. At least for me.

I appreciate that people like the strategy aspect of it, I really do... but that's not, and never has been what I am wanting from a video game. I honestly don't even care for using miniatures in my tabletop games all that much, regardless of my awesome table. It just kind of sucks me out of what is going on, and feels like a board game. In some cases, for accurate play, it's required... but in most cases, the combat that goes through simple description feels more cinematic and immersive than moving miniatures on the board and getting bogged down by spaces of movement and what not. It slows down the action... and that's really never a good thing for me.

I want to have the choice to be sneaky.... or to be tactical, or to run in all guns a blazing... or to jump into the middle of a bunch of dudes and go all Tony Jaa on them... and I want to be the one doing it, not just setting it aside so I can watch my character go through some pre-rendered and extremely repetitive range of motions with little to no input from me.

And yes, I understand, than even in the best action or fighty fighty, shooty shooty games, the animations are just as pre-rendered, but you don't notice it because you are in control, you lose yourself in the moment of it.

 

[Yngh]

That's... much less exciting than I hoped it would be... it still sounds like combat is staggered....

I mean I can see where in some games something like that would be kinda fun... but it's definitely not what I would want for Cyberpunk..

Don't worry, it is highly unlikely that the devs will use a combat system like this. Also, look at the results of the poll - to say that the majority wants real-time combat would be an understatement.

However, active pause is definitely a possibility, or at the very least sth like in the Witcher 2, where you could change signs or pick a different sword from the menu without having to be super fast (but the character still had to draw a different weapon in real-time).

Considering VATS, with some modifications, it could be a nice system. I would remove slow motion and excessive gore. I would also allow the player not only to pick targets, but also to order the character to move to a different position, i.e. change cover. All of it would be optional, of course, like in F3/FNV. It wouldn't be a true turn-based system, but it would be perfect for those who don't want to play the game like a standard shooter.

 

[StunDamage]

There is no point in considering turn-based combat as an option for an open-world game. Unless you want Cyberpunk 2077 to load a completely new mini-game everytime you enter combat and completely break all the gameplay coherence. Even if you put that aside, TB combat is only good for strategy games and would add nothing. It will only take - the immersion, the feel, everything.

Real-time combat all the way. Of course, it shouldn't be a shooter. It will depend on skill to some degree, mainly how fast and well you aim, but all the statistics should be considered while the game does invisible calculations on how much damage you inflict. Depending on the way they handle skills, it can be a good idea to include a pause, or at least same kind of slow-motion, as same people said earlier.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Yeah.... then my previous post applies double, that is definitely not anything I would want for Cyberpunk.

Turn based combat, of really any sort, just removes fluidity and speed from the equation of combat. I know their are less coordinated people out there who for whatever reason have trouble with a controller, or keyboard set up, or just have poor hand eye co-ordination. But turn based, always seems to require either a level based game, or it requires preset maps where combat takes place in. It takes all the speed, and adrenalin out of combat, and always seems to replace it with something dull. I want combat in a video game, no matter if its level based or open world, to feel like an action movie. And turn based just never seems to do that for me... it always remind me I am playing a game, and sucks me right out of whatever is going on at the time. It takes the fun out of combat, and makes it a chore. At least for me.

I appreciate that people like the strategy aspect of it, I really do... but that's not, and never has been what I am wanting from a video game. I honestly don't even care for using miniatures in my tabletop games all that much, regardless of my awesome table. It just kind of sucks me out of what is going on, and feels like a board game. In some cases, for accurate play, it's required... but in most cases, the combat that goes through simple description feels more cinematic and immersive than moving miniatures on the board and getting bogged down by spaces of movement and what not. It slows down the action... and that's really never a good thing for me.

I want to have the choice to be sneaky.... or to be tactical, or to run in all guns a blazing... or to jump into the middle of a bunch of dudes and go all Tony Jaa on them... and I want to be the one doing it, not just setting it aside so I can watch my character go through some pre-rendered and extremely repetitive range of motions with little to no input from me.

And yes, I understand, than even in the best action or fighty fighty, shooty shooty games, the animations are just as pre-rendered, but you don't notice it because you are in control, you lose yourself in the moment of it.

I guess there's nothing much to say then. I like TB combat because it's clear, it let's me focus more on the game rather than the controls, it makes me think (in battle, and choosing my battles), it highlights the character(s) I've built (easier to "immerse" - a buzzword I never like to use - precisely because it is not me with a mouse and keyboard out there, but the role I'm playing), and because it is/can be both relaxing and intense fun at the same time (though intense for different reasons than your formal every saturday action game). I've had the best and most intense battles in years with the new XCOM (even if I find it's implementation a bit lacking), not because I would be somehow handicapped with my mouse (I'm not), but becase the situations there never came down to a messy twitchfest where the mistakes I made I made out of not pressing buttons in the right order fast enough.

 

[username_3644576]

I admit the new X-Com is one of the (sadly) few recent examples of combat done right. The kind that actually forces you to think. The abilities of your character(s) cannot simply be substituted with your personal skill but are complimentary to it. That makes you care about the character development and the kind of skills you focus on. While I'm rooting for an interactive pause game, I'd much rather see something like X-Com for Cyberpunk than yet another more or less generic shooter that I know I'll probably be able to beat without a single point invested in combat abilities.

 

[Sardukhar]

I don't want you calm while you're in a gunfight. If that happens, for whatever reason, I as a GM/Ref have failed. FAILED. And I hate failure - it tastes like under cooked chicken parmesan. Really weird and bad.

X-Com and it's combat bored me. I'd have preferred the old turn-based Action Point combat. Thank Someone for Xenonauts!

Anyway, yeah. Real-time. One save file. Exciting combat.

CAVEAT: If you're running a solo team or something as a Corporate, ( this will never happen) in a tactical command center, feel free to whatever. Have a drink, eat something light, relax. Solos are disposable, right?

 

[username_3644576]

I don't want you calm while you're in a gunfight. If that happens, for whatever reason, I as a GM/Ref have failed. FAILED. And I hate failure - it tastes like under cooked chicken parmesan. Really weird and bad.

X-Com and it's combat bored me. I'd have preferred the old turn-based Action Point combat. Thank Someone for Xenonauts!

Anyway, yeah. Real-time. One save file. Exciting combat.

CAVEAT: If you're running a solo team or something as a Corporate, ( this will never happen) in a tactical command center, feel free to whatever. Have a drink, eat something light, relax. Solos are disposable, right?

That's PRECISELY the kind of situation a shooter can't really handle. A tactical game on the other hand might make it quite interesting.

Anyway, any argument that a shooter or an action game somehow makes you more "involved" in combat is bogus. Either way you are NOT participating in combat yourself. You're only pressing buttons on your keyboard, clicking with a mouse or using your pad and the character in the game does the job for you. The difference is that while a shooter mostly tests your reflexes, a tactical game forces you to think of viable strategies. I can understand why someone might like the former, but the latter has so much more potential for the game's variety, skill trees being interesting and meaningful, party tactics being viable and balanced and so on. I mean, an RPG is a pretty cerebral genre and always has been. Why turn it into an arcade game?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

That's PRECISELY the kind of situation a shooter can't really handle. A tactical game on the other hand might make it quite interesting.

Anyway, any argument that a shooter or an action game somehow makes you more "involved" in combat is bogus. Either way you are NOT participating in combat yourself. You're only pressing buttons on your keyboard, clicking with a mouse or using your pad and the character in the game does the job for you. The difference is that while a shooter mostly tests your reflexes, a tactical game forces you to think of viable strategies. I can understand why someone might like the former, but the latter has so much more potential for the game's variety, skill trees being interesting and meaningful, party tactics being viable and balanced and so on. I mean, an RPG is a pretty cerebral genre and always has been. Why turn it into an arcade game?

Very much agreed.

 

[Sardukhar]

Because a tactical game allows pause for breath, thought, consideration. You can whip the camera around, take a look at all angles, etc.

In an immediate environment, the only break is to hit the ESC button which will typically obsure your whole screen. It is a temporary relief and one most of us don't even try for - your best chance in a nasty FPS/TPS situation is to be quick and accurate and not hesitate.

These "viable strategies" are the reason it's not tense and freaky. Any viable strategy you try for in a gunfight ought to be pretty simple and to the point - it's a gunfight, not chess. Your life is on the line. There is no nice, safe overview of the battlefield.

Crazy, messy gun and knife fights are a Street staple. They aren't nicely calculated maximum-force to minimum-area surgical strikes. If you can lean back and sip your coffee, you aren't playing Cyberpunk. Maximum attitude on the mean streets - not a nice read over your tactical options.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Depends on what it is that is intended to create the tension. Is the fear of death by taking a wrong course of action out of few desperate possibilities, or just spooking the player to make an acrobatic mistake with a controller?