Interview Jagged Alliance 3D Q&A at CRPG.ru

[Balor]

In turn based, you get consistant breaks in the time. After all actions are finished for that turn, it switches to the next guy. With real time with pause, you get breaks whenever. The only thing you really don't have to pause for is to keep attacking a target. However, if you're in a situation where there is lots of cover, and the AI is using the cover, some enemy dillhole will most likely trigger your autopause every time he ducks down and pops back up in to view for the "New Enemy Spotted" thing.

Yes, finally someone came up with something different (and valid) argument then 'RTwP sucks because it not TB, and, therefore, must suck!'.
You are right - it's one of flaws in SPM. However, such situations do not happen all that often, and it's not as nearly as bad as you describe. I do remember only one situation like that, when I assaulted a gun-making factory, that had a few towers with guards (that were ducking for a reload from time to time). However, it's not nearly as bad as being killed by an enemy that comes out from the nearby door (or something like that) when you are out of AP in Ja... cause it's IC, so to speak. (And no interrupt will save your sorry ass. And, like it’s noted already, interrupts are hacks that deal with hackish nature of TB itself.). And 'constant pauses' issue is purely interface issue, and bitching about it - to be like those Diablo lovers that hate to be distracted from the very process of killing. When you want something else then pure button-smashing action, you have to sacrifice something. If you want it to be ultimately realistic too, you have to sacrifice even more.
You may say that it feels weird, behave strange and generally different from TB you learned to love and understand. Just don’t say it’s dumbed-down. It’s hypocrisy, or outright lie, even.

 

[Stark]

Yes, finally someone came up with something different (and valid) argument then 'RTwP sucks because it not TB, and, therefore, must suck!'.

make some valid quotes where codexers made claims like that. i would be interested to read that.

Just don’t say it’s dumbed-down. It’s hypocrisy, or outright lie, even.

i think you're the one spreading lies here. in all the posts i read people cited valid reasons why they prefer TB. stop spreading lies, please.

 

[EEVIAC]

You say redundancy, I say options.

Less options by a similar process is not an improvement. That's why its "redundant," there are better ways of doing the same thing (either RT or TB.)

Theorem:

This statement is criminally wrong.

How could I do anything but wither under the weight of your "scientific method"...

Proof:

The worst part of RT is that you can't control one person well unless you have the real-world skills and a kick ass interface[...]

Real world skills? Do you have a motor function disorder by any chance? Despite my lack of real world ninja skills I have no problems manipulating an XBOX controller to make Ryu do astounding things with gravity and katana. My shapechanging abilities are a little better, though not at the same level as the Druid in Diablo, yet I do just fine.

[...]and trying to control a team in real time and have any depth at all is hopeless.

RTWP is better with squad management than pure RT, but its still not as comprehensive as turn-based.

The worst part of TB is the crappy artifacts of discreetizing time that make tactics from TB combat useless in real life, and tactics in real life impossible to implement in TB.

How discrete is it for a RTWP system to pause the action every time it runs accross a user defined event? That sounds worse than a "crappy TB time artifact" to me. Not only do you have to contend with time abstractions, you have to define a bunch of variables so that the game doesn't start playing itself.

RTwP solves both of these problems.

See above - it hasn't solved squat. Its kludged together a mess of mechanics from both systems without a cohesive style of its own. Its a system for morons who can't hack the creative thinking requirment of a full turn-based system and want a pause when their action skills amount to nothing.

QED, bitch.

Let me guess, that's latin for RTWP sucks a dick, right? I agree, those Romans really knew their shit.

 

[Balor]

Let me guess, that's latin for RTWP sucks a dick, right? I agree, those Romans really knew their shit.

Quality of the argument is sky-high.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Quality of the argument is sky-high.

*ahem*

IRONY!!!


Thank you for your attention.

 

[obediah]

See above - it hasn't solved squat.

Well except for buttload of examples I gave, that you conveniently ignored and seem to pretend don't exist. If you only want to reply to part of a post, fine, but at least update your story to reflect that you've read the post - otherwise I can't tell if you're too bored to read the post, or one of those retarded usenet debaters.

 

[Balor]

IRONY!!!


Thank you for your attention.

I know it's IRONY!!!
But does it help with quality? It's just cheap, and not fun at all, if it's supposed to be.
Oh well, I'm bored with this dicussion. E5 thread on this subject is 6 pages long, I've depleted all my arguments up there (and opponents too), now both sides can all but repeat themselves, at best, or revert to throw banana peels like above. *sigh*
Well, time will show.

 

[obediah]

The worst part of RT is that you can't control one person well unless you have the real-world skills and a kick ass interface, and trying to control a team in real time and have any depth at all is hopeless. The worst part of TB is the crappy artifacts of discreetizing time that make tactics from TB combat useless in real life, and tactics in real life impossible to implement in TB.
RTwP solves both of these problems

First off, the "tactics in real life not possible" jazz isn't true. In real time, there isn't a sequence like you have in turn based so everyone usuaully ends up shooting everyone else at the same time. Short of a bad western, that never really happens. Usually you have two or more people behind cover shooting and covering, which is pretty much what happens with that whole turn based "exploit".

I'm saying, model every bullet, box, crate, etc.. Let the people shoot back and forth in real time until someone has to use tactics to end the stalemate. It doesn't get any more realistic than that - I guess we'll find out in the next 10 years if it's any fun or not.

The point of the smarmy proof, was that EEVIAC asserted that RTwP contains the worst parts of RT and TB. My theory is that RTwP solves the worst problems of each, while introducting it's own worst problem, it doesn't say anything about which is better. Personally, I enjoy TB more, but that doesn't make his statement seem any less wrong.

Besides, JA games have always had interrupting, which still allows better use of cover, but also allows you to take a chance on getting damage every time you do this.

A lot of games use something like this to help the turn wacki-ness, but a lot skip it as well (MOO II was pretty silly at the end). None of the attempts perfectly cover up the problem, and they've been evolving for decades - give RTwP some time to grow and address it's own problems.

Secondly, the autopause system is going to end up pausing the game much more often than turn based ever would while making the fun part of combat, actually shooting and keeping score, automated. What would you pause on? Spot a new enemy? Take damage from new enemy? Health is medium and/or low?

I think I said earlier that this is a problem. Obviously the pausing needs to be specialized for the game - in a realistic modern engagement, you'd want to know whenever anyone took a hit because that person's chance of surviving the fight just took a big dive. Some fantasy games would probably work okay with much looser pauses. Some games would be more high level, you cover this direction, you cover here, you get up on that tower and shoot anything, and you search the building. - maybe pause eveyrytime you detect a new threat, or a threat changes status (i.e. intensifies, drops off, begins moving, screams "Oh Shit They Got Me").

...lot's of valid RTwP concerns...

Separating the wheat from the chaff is the biggest problem I can think of with RTwP. I'm not a developer so I don't konw how or when they will be resolved. I imagine the focus of the game will affect it a lot. If you went back in time and looked at early TB rules, it would be hard to imagine JA or even X-Com working as well as they do.

 

[Fresh]

- Why is the amount of "time" (to perform ones actions) available in the players turns in TB often roughly the same? Or are they? Would it be no fun if the turns were a) shorter b) longer than for example in JA2?

not sure what you mean by that. do you mean the number of action points a character is allocated to in any one turn? it certainly varies from one to another.

Yeah that was fuzzy, hard to explain though. What I mean is the "simulated time-period" in which your character acts. What happens if you reduce or expand that period and whats optimal? Would it be more fun if a turn simulated say 1-2 seconds or 5-6 seconds or 20 seconds of in-game-time?

Do this differ alot from say FO to JA? Is it clear how many seconds a turn is supposed to be? (For example I remember a pnp rpg where a combat-turn was supposed to simulate approximately 3-4 seconds.)

Another question: What do you call the kind of system Fallout Tactics use?

 

[Gwendo]

When I play a TB game, I play for the pleasure of playing a TB game. That's that simple. I hope developers aren't going to try to convince people to buy lemons when they want oranges, arguing that both are fruits or that lemons are better than oranges...

 

[Gwendo]

Fallout Tactics uses two systems. Which one are you asking about?

 

[Naked_Lunch]

The sucky one.

 

[Fresh]

Aight so according to the official page FOT "... support both turn-based and Continuous Turn-Based play."

edited

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Aight so according to the official page FOT "... support both turn-based and Continuous Turn-Based play."

edited

Of course, continuous turn based was just real time cleverly re-termed for marketting purposes.

The point of the smarmy proof, was that EEVIAC asserted that RTwP contains the worst parts of RT and TB. My theory is that RTwP solves the worst problems of each, while introducting it's own worst problem, it doesn't say anything about which is better. Personally, I enjoy TB more, but that doesn't make his statement seem any less wrong.

Well, he's pretty close to being right. In a real time scenario, it's nearly impossible to use terrain. You get in the open to fire, you get shot. You crouch behind something for cover, then later stand up, you're getting shot while you're standing up. It's often better to stand there and take it than it is to give the enemy the chance to shoot you while you're crouching and then once again when you're standing up.

At the same time, you're removing the interactivity of both turn based and real time in the process of attempting to give greater micromangerial control to real tme. It would be far, FAR better if they just took a true phased based route like Laser Squad Nemesis did.

 

[Fez]

For me, part of the problem is that real-time combat is supposed to be tense and frantic once combat has begun. I should be rushing around trying to give orders and keep watch over everyone. It's part of the design, and if it is done well, I like it. A test of nerve and quick decisons. Once you add a pause function, you destroy all the tension that has built up. It'd be like stopping a movie every five minutes for someone to go to the toilet. It ruins the feeling of panic and the pressure by giving time to plan everything and pause (sometimes automatically) the instant something happens. If you are going to do that, you may as well make it TB and take full advantage of it. Include all the trappings of TB that you couldn't have in RT and make it a game of planning and careful consideration.

It's like Dark Omen or Total War compared to Battle Isle or Heart of Iron.

 

[obediah]

The point of the smarmy proof, was that EEVIAC asserted that RTwP contains the worst parts of RT and TB. My theory is that RTwP solves the worst problems of each, while introducting it's own worst problem, it doesn't say anything about which is better. Personally, I enjoy TB more, but that doesn't make his statement seem any less wrong.

Well, he's pretty close to being right. In a real time scenario, it's nearly impossible to use terrain. You get in the open to fire, you get shot. You crouch behind something for cover, then later stand up, you're getting shot while you're standing up. It's often better to stand there and take it than it is to give the enemy the chance to shoot you while you're crouching and then once again when you're standing up.

That sounds like the result of an arcady design decision. If I was making a RTwP, cover would be as important as in RT, if I ever get a chance to play that E5 or whatever game, I expect cover to be important there. I'm guessing that while the JA3D people want us to think it will be a complex game, it will be arcady real time.

At the same time, you're removing the interactivity of both turn based and real time in the process of attempting to give greater micromangerial control to real tme. It would be far, FAR better if they just took a true phased based route like Laser Squad Nemesis did.

Unfortunately, I don't have the schedule to try out MP games, so I haven't played Laser Squad Nemesis. I'm open to any attempt to try allow the same control of TB while more accurately modeling the flow of time. Combat Mission, Hearts of Iron, and Titans of Steel for example all have different, yet interesting ways of doing time. None of them make me say TB is dead, and all have problems. All of them also fealt like an improvement in realism over TB.

 

[EEVIAC]

See above - it hasn't solved squat.

Well except for buttload of examples I gave, that you conveniently ignored and seem to pretend don't exist. If you only want to reply to part of a post, fine, but at least update your story to reflect that you've read the post - otherwise I can't tell if you're too bored to read the post, or one of those retarded usenet debaters.

You want me to address points like "realistic modelling of time in the real world" (when your advocating a system that allows you to pause time) or retarded things like "I can't do a 100M sprint in TB?" No thanks. Saint had already made comments on a lot of your points so I didn't need to repeat them.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Unfortunately, I don't have the schedule to try out MP games, so I haven't played Laser Squad Nemesis. I'm open to any attempt to try allow the same control of TB while more accurately modeling the flow of time. Combat Mission, Hearts of Iron, and Titans of Steel for example all have different, yet interesting ways of doing time. None of them make me say TB is dead, and all have problems. All of them also fealt like an improvement in realism over TB.

LSN has a single player campaign now. Well, four of them I think. One per side.

 

[obediah]

You want me to address points like "realistic modelling of time in the real world" (when your advocating a system that allows you to pause time) or retarded things like "I can't do a 100M sprint in TB?" No thanks. Saint had already made comments on a lot of your points so I didn't need to repeat them.

Saint drew out the standard interrupt/overwatch patch that only partially addresses one issue (opportunity fire). For you, comparing RTwP to TB is bashing every defect large or small with RTwP while ignoring all of the problems with TB. I'm not looking for a my local sports team is better than your local sports team thing here. If you actually want to exchange ideas, here's a question:

Why is it retarded to expect a tactical combat engine to be able to realistically model running? Fleeing, pursuit, charging all rely on this, and are common things in combat.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Neat.

 

[EEVIAC]

Why is it retarded to expect a tactical combat engine to be able to realistically model running? Fleeing, pursuit, charging all rely on this, and are common things in combat.

It does, that's why you're retarded for even considering it a flaw.

A player runs 100M over open terrain in open view of an assailant armed with a Bren gun that has a practical rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute, or 2 rounds per second. Lets just say the assailant can fire one 5-round burst every three seconds and the player takes 12 seconds to cover that distance.

In TB it takes you 12 seconds, divided into two six second turns, to run 100M. In that time the assailant can hit you with four 5-round bursts. This is an abstraction.

In RT it takes 12 seconds to run 100M in one continuous blood-bath. In that time the assailant can hit you with four 5-round bursts. This is probably what happens in real life when you're concerned about running 100M in one movement in a combat situation.

In RTWP it takes 12 seconds to run 100M, unless a user-defined "STOP BEING A DUMBFUCK" auto-pause has been checked, at which point the player can do something smart like moving towards cover. If it hasn't been checked, the player can pause (just like the Marines do, apparently) then react in RT. The gunner still fires four 5-round bursts. This is also, obviously, an abstraction.

Again, RTWP doesn't solve squat.

 

[crufty]

Ultimately, I think as long a game is aware of the limitations of each form of combat and does not try to go past them, all can be effective. Personally, I prefer TB.

A game that did RTWP horribly: X-COM III. It was too tedious for TB, and the RTWP was too difficult to control. Frequently my entire squad would be killed immediately, or they would all run off the screen and decimate the alien threat, with little interaction from me.

Yet we also have Syndicate, which did RT beautifully. There, ultimately the lack of tactics in RT were part of the game...you are an evil corporation, who cares if you accidentally slaughtered the entire city and set fire to some cop cars because your mouse skills weren't very good. As long as you took out the mayor too, you were ok...

Ultima VII, if I remember correctly, was RTWP. There, I think a TB interface would have slowed down the game considerably--if only because combat was not the focus of the game. Combat was a simple affair, and complicated assaults were not neccessary. Having Iolo shout "Die Fiend!" and dagger the alligator to death was enough.

Then in a game like Final Liberation, I enjoyed the TB part of it. It could have been real time--and true, the TB part meant 4 hour battles--but the TB aspect gave it a nice dimension. You could soften the enemy with long range artillery, then send in your personnel carriers and unload your troops. Opportunity fire was devestating. It is not the best TB implementation--and far from an rpg--but again, the game was paced for TB.

Personally, I think RTWP or RT are not so good for games where the survival of your characters--or complicated tactics--are required. But if your AI is tight, and the stress of the game is more on strategy management (and not on AI vis-a-vis Ivan management), then it can still work.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Darklands also had really good RTwP.

 

[Sarkile]

I only first played Darklands a few years ago, and IMO the graphics made it difficult to play through the battles. I liked the city art though.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Sometimes they did, mainly with the spiders in the forest, but I rarely had a problem with the combat engine itself.