If the not-close-to-perfect "professional" review scores are all Numenera has as a sign of non-failure, it spells real trouble.
Going through Numa writing is same as going through POE's main campaign fighting.
There are many things that cannot be executed in RT, and therefore they are divided in closed time units. The thing is that if the time units are small enough, then it is percived as real time. TB games have been around since ancient times, because else the people would kill eachother of minor disputes about how fast somethings happend. But that has been solved on many accouts, like in RT strategy computer games, where nobody can dispute what really happend. But even there the connection and ping values are important good keybord, mouse, makros and etc. TB is naturally not low tech, but just an other paradigm for action execution.
Yes.
That is not a problem of RTwP, but of the "how" design.
Yes initiative has been badly translated, from TB to RTwP. But i can name you the solution: different timing for parts of animation. Example: A halbard with an intiative of 10 requires a slower attack animation than a broadswod with an intiative of 5. This problem is a result of the limitations that were in place nearly up to the 2010s. Currently i can very easy solve this problem in Unreal Engine 4.
Yes and No. There is the problem to command a party in RT. In RTwP you can naturally have a LILO list of actions for each member and store the actions there. So in other words more a problem of 'how' design, then of the principle.
No. You know there is something we call scripts.
NO. You can have tactical postioning. And RTwP brings other things to the table than TB, not necessary the same, but it can emulate quite good TB tactics if it is done right. Bad examples do prove that you can fuck things up, but not that there is a possibility to make them right.
Then i will surely address them.
Communism fails again and again, bacause it is agains the complex human nature: Humans are greed retarded bastards, and without an incentive they are fucking lazy. And that will never change.
I've said that myself. But you forgot the context of this discussion. It was about the idea that the translation of D&D in real-time was "solid D&D". Of course, if you go RT, you go for RT animations, to use RT's strengths. But the Infinity engine games didn't, they purposefully tried to emulate the PnP 6 second combat round by making all actions take a single fixed amount of time without regards for animation. It was not the result of engine limitations.
So your solution, in addition to pause as a game mechanic and AI, is action queueing and scripts?
I will grant that. But at a cost of making the gameplay about micromanaging (fast clicking or fast pausing). See Starcraft; but Starcraft does not have nearly as much activable abilities / tactical options to manage, which is why it works. It's about squeezing the maximum tactics with what little options/abilities you have.
I wish that worked with PoEtards
I wish that worked with PoEtards
And how does this contradict the principle of RTwP? In my humble opinion as someone who has developed and worked upon simulations (continuous and event driven) this can be made also in RTwP.
[/QUOTE] That can be easy solved by an delay or by sticking the PC to the enemy.
You can have a system that incorporates this, with the result: If the healer is executing his action or he is in an debuff / delay, then you cannot simply interrupt him to change action.
Yes the the economy of actions is different, but also is economy of actions dependend on the situation. If you hava a only minor damaged party then a heal is less valuable than in a sitution where the party has major damage. If you have face one enemy then a week large area attack is also less valubale then a strong single enemy attack.
Have you heard of parry in NWN2?
So, you had to force yourself to stop sleeping, eating and taking a shower to start the game again.
Yes, you can fix it so, if you want it to, is a result of my statement about laziness, and does not contradict my previous stement. I just wanted to make it more accurate and get to the point that communisim has no chance.
"due to the limited AI." you have found for yourself an explanation for the failure of RTwP. I would keep it more general and say in other words: Blame the developers.
Limited AI for party members is part of RTwP design. If the AI was too good, then the game would play itself, and combat would be a screensaver.
Let me give you an example. You have a party of 4, facing 10 enemies. In TB, you act with one character, and then you have to wait for the 13 others to act before you can act with him again. All 10 enemies will act beforehand. So you need to plan for that, for imprevisiblity, for your character (let's call him Bob) possibly being ganged up on. You need to do that during Bob's turn, afterwards he's just gonna have to suffer through it. Maybe your healer's turn comes after 6 enemies have attacked Bob, and then you have a choice: do I heal Bob or can he take more punishment, do I attack instead or move the healer in a defensive position so he does not get ganged up too? Can't do it all. This tension and planning isn't the same for RTwP, because, since all actions are simultaneous, the most you have to wait for to gain back control of all characters is the end of their animation / the end of one turn, no matter how many adversaries. The difference is huge, and therefore the mechanics and abilities of characters must be adapted to it if they're well designed. This is why there's things such as delaying, readying actions, reactions, etc. in TB.
Have you heard of reading? I said manually blocking and parrying are possible strengths of RT systems, strengths that TB cannot have.
