08 Jun, 2006, Hades_Kane wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
I was going to say the same thing as Astiral did. With any amount of planning, normally any issues like that can be easily resolved.
08 Jun, 2006, Hades_Kane wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
As to the topic of the thread… I voted for Speed.

I've never really minded traditional combat, and I've had some very exciting PK fights with traditional, but I really like the speed based because it forces people to actually CARE about their speed related stat (AGI on mine).
08 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Heh, like I said, speed-based is good too. I still prefer turns, but speed is fun. It beats traditional, at least.
09 Jun, 2006, Skol wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
I do love the 'turns' system for D&D/D20 games as well as FF games, they wouldn't be the same without it. I guess I've just gotten used to the fast action of continuous fights in MUD over the ages.

Using a turn based system would definitely allow you to do some different things, like directed prompts (He's swinging a log at your head, do you duck? etc) based off of the opponents actions or things in the room (IE Objects you can use are: a chair, the leg of an ogre, a rock… etc).

It would definitely allow for those and others, not to mention more thought out fighting. But I agree, a timer would be necessary.
09 Jun, 2006, Hades_Kane wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
Yeah, I definitely see the perks in a turn based system, but I too have grown used to the more fast paced environment of more traditional combat. To me breaking apart rounds and having them be based on your speed stat (the speed based system) is a happy medium between both.
09 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Speed all depends. If the players have no idea what they're doing it can be slow, I admit, but I've found turn-based PvP to be _faster_ than traditional. Instead of sitting there and whacking at each other all day, you can usually take each other down in a matter of three or four turns, if you choose the right techniques, and once you've gotten used to the system, a single turn doesn't take more than 5 seconds.
19 Jun, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
To provide an opposing viewpoint: I'm not a fan of turn-based combat. My view has nothing to do with 'realism', however - it's all about the pace. I like combat to be fast and furious, requiring quick thinking and the ability to adapt your tactics on-the-fly. Careful thinking and planning should certainly play a role when preparing for combat, but only before the fight begins.

While turn-based combat is generally far too laid-back and relaxed for my tastes, it does provide an excellent way to handle large-scale battles, or ship-to-ship combat - situations where there is more time to think. Even then, though, I wouldn't have players take their turns one after the other (imagine a battle between a dozen people!), but instead allow each player to make their choices simultaneously, and resolve all the choices at the end of each turn, with each turn taking a fixed period of time (I use 60-second turns for wars, during which each player gets to make 3 actions).

For normal combat, my preference is a combination of timer, combo and action-point based.
19 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
As I've said before (I think earlier in this thread), the players themselves are what dictate the speed. If everyone's lazy, tired, or lagging, turn based combat will move slower. But every time I've taken part in it (which I admit is only with a select few people) it's moved much _faster_ than any other system, because we would plan our turns during the enemy turns, and more often than not have our commands typed up before we even got a turn.
19 Jun, 2006, KaVir wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Well it'll really be the slowest player who dictates the speed - and if there's any tactical edge to be had from waiting, people will wait (they'd be silly not to).

If you're able to have your moves ready before it's even your turn, then that raises the question of what actual benefit is to be gained from making each player wait. If you don't need to see what your opponent is doing so that you can respond accordingly, why not allow everyone to act simultaneously, rather than making them wait for the previous person to make their move?
19 Jun, 2006, Midboss wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm afraid you've misunderstood. We have our turns planned out ahead of time _because_ we can sit back and read what our opponents are doing during their turns. Anyone with half a brain and a little experience on that particular MUD can figure out the proper reactions pretty quickly.

By not making players wait, you deny them the ability to know what's going to happen before it's their turn. I prefer to have some level of reflex involved, and if it uses phases rather than turns, as you suggested, it becomes nothing _but_ strategy. The very first draft of my combat engine used phases, mind, so I'm not knocking something I haven't tried.
20.0/30