It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionTorment: Tides of Numenera(1082 posts)(1082 posts)
(1082 posts)
Pages:
1
10
20
30
40
50
53
54
55
56
57
70
73
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
tomimt: Personally I think the re-usability of Wasteland 2 combat code has played a role in this as well. They've done a working system already, so re-using it for Torment would save a lot of development time and costs.

But personally I don't care that much which one they choose, as I plan on avoiding comabat as much as possible.
Exactly, if saving time and money on making a new system would give us a bigger game faster, then by all means
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
JMich: Which cases were those?
BGII is my main benchmark for this, I know it wasn't perfect but the balance in pacing was right, very easy to fine tune dependent on the complexity and difficulty of the combat. That said a Torment game shouldn't be as combat heavy, so there should be less frequent desire to speed through the more mundane fights.
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
tomimt: Personally I think the re-usability of Wasteland 2 combat code has played a role in this as well. They've done a working system already, so re-using it for Torment would save a lot of development time and costs.
And the fact that they bring that up now makes me wonder about their budget planning.

I backed at the tier that gets me a copy of W2, and look forward to the W2 combat system... in W2. If ToN ends up turn-based, I hope they make the effort to differentiate its system adequately, rather than slapping on a Numenera-esque coat of paint. Or, of course, that I can avoid combat.
Post edited November 25, 2013 by VanishedOne
Posted November 25, 2013
So, let's assume TB is decided upon.
Character movement might be regulated through Action Points, like Fallout and Wasteland 2, but this is not set in stone.

If turns are strictly sequential, then each character must complete his turn before you can move on to the next. Alternatively, turns might be more fluid, allowing you to move each member of your party in any order, even jumping back and forth between them, until they are out of actions or you choose to end the turn (e.g. you could move every party member into position first, then have them each attack in turn before ending the round).

In the first, sequential method, the turn order of party members and enemies would be mixed, based on initiative order. In the second, fluid method, initiative would determine which side (party or enemy) acted first, then all members of that side would take their turns together.
What do you think of all this? Would you rather be for a strictly sequential system, or for a more fluid one? I think I'd rather be for the latter.
Posted November 25, 2013
I think that there is only one solution to the problem of TB / RTwP.

It looks like they prefer TB, because that's less work for them, and I understand that. But for me, TB fight will kill part of the interest I had in this game, and I think that many people think the same.

So, I think, they should do it with TB, and then make paid DLC that changes the combat to RTwP for those who prefer it.

This way, they can do both, earn more money, and satisfy everyone.

Of course, if they are afraid there won't be enough interest, they can start "RTwP for Toment" Kickstarter.

I think i'll mail them with this idea later this week.
Post edited November 25, 2013 by SLP2000
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
SLP2000: snip
Assume they had a RTwP prototype, so switch TB with RTwP and read your post again. Tell me how your idea sounds.
Posted November 25, 2013
I personally don't see what the big deal is. I prefer RTwP and even voted for that option, but if it's turn-based I'm not really going to care that much. I'm just looking forward to the game.
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
JMich: Assume they had a RTwP prototype, so switch TB with RTwP and read your post again. Tell me how your idea sounds.
It sounds exactly the same to me, why?
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
JMich: Assume they had a RTwP prototype, so switch TB with RTwP and read your post again. Tell me how your idea sounds.
avatar
SLP2000: It sounds exactly the same to me, why?
So you wouldn't mind paying extra to be able to play in RTwP, right? While I (whoever I may be) can play it in TB without spending extra. Feel free to switch RTwP/TB in the example above.
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
JMich: Which cases were those?
avatar
IanM: BGII is my main benchmark for this, I know it wasn't perfect but the balance in pacing was right, very easy to fine tune dependent on the complexity and difficulty of the combat. That said a Torment game shouldn't be as combat heavy, so there should be less frequent desire to speed through the more mundane fights.
None of the Infinity Engine games were turn-based though, they had real-time with pause (RTwP). So, no, they didn't cater to those who prefer turn-based combat.

(Personally, I would vote for RTwP, but the site says "We couldn't submit your vote at this time.")
Post edited November 25, 2013 by Maighstir
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
JMich: So you wouldn't mind paying extra to be able to play in RTwP, right? While I (whoever I may be) can play it in TB without spending extra. Feel free to switch RTwP/TB in the example above.
Yeah, I would pay for RTwP, and right now I'm in a mood, I'd pay more than I actually pledged for the game.

I think there are other people who would pay 5$ to play this game with RTwP

And If you switch the TB in this example, I think there are many people who would pay 5$ for TB combat (maybe even me, if I wanted to see how it works).

What is the difference you see?
Post edited November 25, 2013 by SLP2000
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
SLP2000: What is the difference you see?
The same as having Unreal Tournament with only Deathmatch and CTF as a paid extra.
The same as having System Shock 2 using the original control scheme and mouselook etc as a paid extra.
The same as Warcraft 2 having Dune 2's control scheme and its current control scheme as a paid extra.
The same as having Baldur's Gate containing only the melee classes and have the spellcasters as paid extra.

Need I go on?
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
SLP2000: TB fight will kill part of the interest I had in this game, and I think that many people think the same.
That's the problem, as we know it is roughly 50/50. Because it was a yes/no question, you can't pull much conjectures. Thing is, "polls for what people want" don't give the same results as "polls for what people don't want". Condorcet all the way.


edit : phrasing
Post edited November 25, 2013 by Potzato
Posted November 25, 2013
avatar
SLP2000: Yeah, I would pay for RTwP, and right now I'm in a mood, I'd pay more than I actually pledged for the game.

I think there are other people who would pay 5$ to play this game with RTwP

And If you switch the TB in this example, I think there are many people who would pay 5$ for TB combat (maybe even me, if I wanted to see how it works).

What is the difference you see?
I have to kind of agree with JMich on this one. I doubt many people would be pleased to have to shell out any extra money to get their preferred combat style in the game. Even though I prefer RTwP, I'd be pissed if the only option for me to play the game that way was to cough up more money for it.
Posted November 25, 2013
I wonder whether we'll end up hearing about a modding project to implement the unchosen system. A huge project either way - though perhaps more plausible if the developers were feeling helpful enough to disclose some code - but there'd clearly be an appetite for it.
Pages:
1
10
20
30
40
50
53
54
55
56
57
70
73
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionTorment: Tides of Numenera(1082 posts)(1082 posts)
(1082 posts)