UnemployedVillain
Member
Sure as fuck isn't real time
We have 2 of the greatest Rpg battle mechanics and those are Bloodborne and Dragon's Dogma.
Therefore, real time is unequivocably, the best combat system.
TW3 has no business being mentioned in a best combat thread.
My issue with ATB is allies standing idle while you surf through the menus, with enemies and other allies also filling the bars at the same time. If it pauses on menu opening I don't mind so much, but if ATB bars still fill up while lengthy attack animations play out, then the speed of the animation is affecting combat, which feels ridiculous.
Real-time. If done right like in Souls games, nearly everything comes down to the player's skill, and not some RNG bullshit.
that exploits cheesy stacking or line of sight based strategies in a way that feels more meta than tactical to me..
Turn-based. Specifically Grandia 3 has the best turn-based system in my opinion.
Too bad the rest of the game is really bad.
RTwP: Grandia 3
My big winner ! Grandia 3, fun and very challenging combat system. A lot of other game tried to copy it, but none of them approach the finest of G3.
Dragon Age.
Please explain... To me the most meta games tend to be action ones, since they tend to rely on memorizing enemy patterns and timing your actions in between moments of vulnerability.
Please explain... To me the most meta games tend to be action ones, since they tend to rely on memorizing enemy patterns and timing your actions in between moments of vulnerability.
Nope, never played Origins, talking about Inquisition.Surely you don't mean Origins!
To me, it's the lack of tools RTwP games give you to actually use real tactics.
A lot of tactics is route planning, for things like flanking, hemming enemies into disadvantageous parts of the environment, providing cover, pressuring opponents into firing lanes, etc.
Fallout is great for stuff like this, in turn-based combat. Games like Myth mastered this on the real time party-based side. Hell, even the Soulsbourne games let you be tactical in your approach as an individual.
But RTwP games almost universally give you shit tools to actual plan out how the archer should spray attacks while your rogue traverses from point A to B via roundabout route C to avoid exposure.
So you just end up riding the spacebar while you constantly microclick around the map to con the dumb route planner into kind of doing what you want, while your archer is stuck swivel shooting at enemies or doing one-off AoEs instead of continuously targeting only units in an area.
The meta (to me) is that it's a constant fight to shove tactical actions into a combat engine that doesn't actually give you a vocabulary to express them -- so the game is to figure out how to best abuse the pause button to your advantage. Contrast that with Myth, where you could tell 6 combat units to go to a point in a given formation, while another group of ranged units trailed behind them in another formation, and they should all arrive facing a certain direction. That's a real tactical vocabulary that isn't expressed in pause-click-unpause-nowait-pause-click-unpause-pause-click-etc, as you individually creep each person around the map on a practically step-by-step basis.
This question is fairly meaningless. Real time, turn-based, and real-time with pause are not combat systems, they're just paradigms under which combat systems are built. Both Divinity: Original Sin and Dragon Quest are turn-based, and yet could not be more different from each other.
This isn't a problem with RTwP, so much as implementaitons of RTwP. I agree that most do feature this lack of nuanced tactical maneuvering.
Something Like a total War system might be better, coupled with some type of automatic actions based on abilities.
I always thought these games should feature the ability to paint down travel paths on the ground so you know exactly where all your characters are going. Your archer scenario could be handled by this plus say a "Run and shoot" ability that would have him fire at a selected target along his route (maybe he'd move a bit slower while active, or have an aim penalty).
I don't agree. Games implement different variations of a basic template.
Hear hearAnything but real time with pause.
Good action RPG (Dragons Dogma) > Good Turn based (Divinity: OS) > Real Time with Pause (Pillars of Eternity)
HEAR HEARProbably unpopular opinion: Real-Time > Turn-Based > RTwP
RTwP feels like the worst of both worlds to me. I don't find micromanaging pathfinding and click-and-wait-until-dead MMO combat as engaging as either actually fully controlling your character OR a turned-based system that abstracts out all of the run-around-the-obstacles nonsense and has you participate in each blow.
The player's skill at pushing buttons Vs the player's skill at tactics and character builds. I think BOTH require some level of skill.
I think the two tend to appeal to a different audience, but not always. Lots of people enjoy both.
So the question should be "which combat system *type*/paradigm do you prefer and why"? Seems like splitting hair.This question is fairly meaningless. Real time, turn-based, and real-time with pause are not combat systems, they're just paradigms under which combat systems are built. Both Divinity: Original Sin and Dragon Quest are turn-based, and yet could not be more different from each other.