Skip to content
enderandrew wrote:Balthazor wrote:I enjoyed the party combat of Dragon Age. I would generally put the camera in a top-down zoomed out perspective much of the time, and it reminded me of a 3D, upgraded version of Baldur's Gate, with a wider area of view.
Something like that would be fun, and graphically appealing. The mechanics would be different, given that the developers have already stated it is going to be turn-based, but I'm sure they could apply turn-based party combat using a 'modern graphics' engine like that used in Dragon Age.
I enjoyed Dragon Age as a game, but it was lacking in the vein of tactical, party-based combat.
Temple of Elemental Evil has [IMO] the best turn based party combats mechanics ever done in a cRPG.dmazz wrote:I dislike party control quite a bit. No game to my knowledge has ever made a decent party combat control system.
Baldur's Gate 1 & 2.; Icewind Dale 1 & 2, and Planescape all had this built in.(I think npcs should have their own combat style and tactics)
I don't get that... I don't recall ever playing an RPG that was about 'survival role playing'; what exactly does that term mean? Most RPGs I've played are about social manipulation and hired (or donated) service to total strangers. The best RPGs can also be about extrapolating PC ethics, and their applied behavior and consequences.Party control is also against the spirit of a RPG, which is primarily about survival role playing and not squad based combat.
dmazz wrote:I dislike party control quite a bit.
dmazz wrote:... telling a party member to a enter a building and plant booby traps should be possible for the A.I without doing everything yourself.
It will be squad based, a full-party RPG like the original Wasteland, or Wizardry, or Bard's Tale, or Might and Magic.
Vryheid wrote:Fallout combat was fun, but the system was not designed for party based combat. Too often battles came down to huge mobs of NPCs insta-gibbing each other at point blank range with SMGs or assault rifles. There was basically nothing in the way of cover and advanced tactics, and weapon effectiveness was far too dependent on character skills. These flaws can be ignored when you're customizing a lone hero who can singlehandedly wipe out waves of enemies, but in a party based game there has to be some order and strategic options for how you can organize in battle.
Fallout Tactics did a much better job at combat, giving options such as crouching positions and the ability to use cover. Not only that, you could directly control companions, which was a vast improvement over the original game. However, having to repeatedly grind your way through dozens of entrenched enemies in maze-like dungeons is not very enjoyable and really doesn't belong in the Wasteland series at all. There has to be a much stronger sense of pacing and relief to keep players interested.
I'd like to see Tactics' approach with turn based isometric combat mixed with the isolated but intense battles of Wasteland. Wasteland also didn't have as much of a focus on ridiculously overpowered critical hits; I'd like that to move over as well. Other than that though, the general combat system of Fallout could be a good partial inspiration. It definitely is what a lot of fans will expect out of Wasteland 2 who didn't play the original.
At some point, [IMO] the abstracted "game" aspects must trump realism...
dmazz wrote:Realism is one argument but simple gameplay is another. The truth is turn based combat with multiple NPCs you directly always control takes too much time. It rips you from immersion in the RPG element and instead your playing a 'turnbased combat sim' instead.
So the challenge then becomes speeding up combat without losing tactical depth. What degree of tactical depth is unknown, but many people agree Fallouts combat system is too simplistic, JA2/Silent Storm too complex. Fallout: Tactics combat system sits in the middle.
A polished Fallout: Tactics combat system with a 'time slider' (Max Payne bullet time style) that is able to slow down the passage of time to very small increments (the action for me was always too fast, especially with needing to control every single person in the squad) would be my ideal at this time. Advanced combat A.I that does alot of the basics in combat would speed up basic movement and actions significantly without losing depth. The more advanced the combat A.I the more time is freed up for combat actions to be performed, moving combat along at a faster pace.
To me the whole point of strategic combat is that I am the one making the decisions. Would you want to play a game of computer chess where the computer made the decisions for both sides?
And why would you need a time slider? The very nature of turn based combat is that it actually freezes time completely.
you should be able to give them some sort of general strategy (be aggressive, be passive, protect yourself), but with a decent chance (depending on NPC characteristics and the interplay between your character and said character) of doing whatever the hell they want. NPC's in combat should be a major asset but also a major problem. Maybe better relations will eventually open up more combat options? At the last, better PC-NPC relations should lead to less problematic NPC actions, depending on their natural tendencies.
Combat should be less common than usual for an RPG, and most battles should be relatively low-key.
Basically, battles should have the potential to take more time, but they should be less common and, typically, less intensive. Getting yourself in a real "combat" situation, should be a real problem.
I'd say that intense battles could involve tougher odds and more tactical elements.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Lucius and 5 guests