Forum Settings
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

for ppl that complain about turn based combat in mmo

#1 Dec 04 2012 at 1:43 AM Rating: Decent
4,872 posts
Kachi wrote:
catwho wrote:
FF 1-9 are Active Turn Based. FFX is Conditional Turn Based (and I loved it because you could drop the controller and go stir the chicken without missing a beat.) So was Tactics. X-2 went back to Active Turn Based.

FFXI isn't really either of them, and neither was XIV 1.0 - you were free to perform any individual action if the timer was up on it or if other conditions were met (e.g. you had enough MP to cast the spell), instead of waiting for a single universal timer across all of them that indicated "your turn."

Yeah, if for no other reason than you can move around freely in combat, FFXI and XIV were obviously different from traditional turn based systems whether active or not.

coming from a guy who can beat the DMC and ninja gaiden games on the hardest difficulties without even getting scratched.. Id have to disagree slightly..

turn based combat to me is more about strategy, brainpower and planning... 100% brainpower.. its like a game of chess..

whereas games like smash bros, dmc or NG take SOME intelligence but Id say its 90% skill and reflexes.. it comes down to knowing the enemies attack patterns and being fast enough to avoid them... even if you do know the enemies tactics all that knowledge means nothing if youre not fast enough in teh reflex department to pull it off.. so id say its 90% reflex 10% strategy.. and I prefer to win my battles by outhinking/being more cunning than my opponents than being able to press a button faster than he can or before he does.. so Id prefer "slow turn based mmo" combat over monster hunter/guild wars 2 style anyday... even though i can do fine in either scenario.. theres just MORE than enough games out there already that rel y on reflxes as it is.. give us a few games for those of us who wanna use our brains too lol.

You're plucking against one of my nerd pet peeves here, but I'm going to try not to lay into you. However, that's completely wrong.

First of all, turn-based combat, in theory, could be like chess. In standard video games it almost never is, especially not MMORPGs. You have your rare exceptions like certain Fire Emblem games, but even games like FFT suffer from statistical inbalance which causes the strategic elements to be very iffy. In fact, PvP turn-based games are far better at this for the same reasons--because they are able to make it a game of skill over statistics. And that's where real-time PvP games require the most strategy.

First of all, the primary "skill" in those games IS strategy. It's the same in many professional sports. It's not all about having the best reflexes. It's about making snap judgments according to what your opponent is likely to do next. It's chess in hyperspeed. The whole "it's reflexes" argument is, sadly, a defense mechanism for players who can't accept that they're getting "out-thunk" in a shooter or fighting game. But that's exactly what happens. (and I say this as someone who doesn't do that great at real-time strategy games and is, frankly, pretty amazing at turn-based games). Good hand-eye coordination imparts an advantage, of course, but in many of these games, it's strategy that rules. It's knowing where to pan the camera, how to defend against an oncoming attack, and how to create advantages for yourself. It's not just about being able to push the buttons quickly. In neuromotor terms, there's not that significant a difference in those capabilities from one person to the next. At least 75% of the challenge is being able to quickly figure out which buttons to press, not just press the obvious buttons more quickly.

As much as we'd all like to think that we'd kick a lot more *** if those games were just slowed way down, it's generally not true. It's fine to say, "I don't have good reflexes or coordination, so I prefer turn-based games." But it's a total fallacy to say that those games don't require as much strategy when they generally require far more. And the truth is, if you play more of those games, you'll get better at both hand-eye coordination AND strategy. In fact, there have been a number of studies that find that real-time strategy games like certain first-person shooters actually offer more intellectual benefit than turn-based games. The reasoning, essentially, is that you're engaging in the same process of decision-making, but you have to become more efficient at it. Turn-based games can actually make you worse at it, causing you to develop habits of slow decision-making (which are not generally better).

Anyway, sorry for the rant, but purely on the principles of science, it bothers me when people fail to recognize that real-time strategy games actually require a lot of strategy and intelligence. I guess I could have saved us all some time and just said, "There's a reason they call them real-time strategy games."

youre right real time STRATEGY does require strategy... but Age of Empires is on a whole different level than lets say call of duty... you can be wonderful in age of empires (which I am) but suck at lets say CoD..

but a I said before. in something like CoD its more reflexes than strategy because.. you could formulate the best strategy known to man.. and logically and or on paper it very much would work.. however if you lack the skill (i.e reflexes) to pull it off, then youre strategy is then useless... whereas in an rpg (which are usually not very reflex based) once youve figured out what to do.. youve already won.. theres no way at all you could lose.. whereas in CoD you can figure out what to do but theres the chance you wont be able to pull it off.

For example you fight an enemy in an rpg that uses lets say darkness attacks.. you have armor that can absorb darkness, you then come to the conclusion that if he uses darkness attacks he must be weak to light.. and you have light based attacks, and finally you have a way to quickly revive your party members IF by chance they actually should die. Ok now youre absorbing every attack this guy throws at you, hitting him for the most you can due to exploiting his weakness and you have quick revivals in the case something goes wrong... theres now 0% chance of you losing. Whereas in CoD you could figure out "xyz person(s) come here so ill hide in abc area to easily ambush or get the drop on them as they need to come here and have no idea Im waiting" ok but even with that your victory is not guaranteed.. you might catch him off guard and get the kill but theres also the chance that you wont OR you DO catch him off guard but he still pulls the trigger faster..

so in the later example you need both strategy AND reflexes.. whereas the former example only requires strategy.. as reflexes and or "being faster than the other guy" plays no role in the outcome of that fight.

Also as for this comment:

"FFT suffer from statistical inbalance which causes the strategic elements to be very iffy"

Id have to say the opposite, statistical imbalance is what makes the strategy.... strategic.. I find no greater joy in an RPG than taking down something 10+ levels higher than me that due to this "statistical imbalance" of yours.. I shouldnt be able to win... sure in doing so I just made a 5 minute fight into a 60+ minute one (ive been in plenty of 2-3 hour long fights in my RPG adventures lol.. and these werent 2-3 hours or game over screens and retrying... this was.. the one fight/attempt actually lasting awhole 2-3 hours before the battle was finally settled) and to me getting through a battle like that (especially if yo do it on your own without the help of any guides.. but instead coming up with a plan completely on your own) is in extremely great sense of accomplishment... Youd never have an epic battle/long standoff like that in something like CoD where both sides are so good the battle comes completely down to who screws up/makes a mistake first as opposed to whos the better player and it takes 2-3 hours before blood is finally drawn lol. I have however had PLENTY of 2+ hours battle sin Age of Empires

so yeah again RTS definitely DO require strategy.. but something thats more cation oriented or an FPS? yes theres some degree of strategy involved but reflexes are much more important
« Previous 0 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help


Recent Visitors: 88 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (88)