Share this project

Done

Share this project

Done
A story-driven CRPG set in the world of Monte Cook's Numenera.  We are deeply appreciative to all of you who made this possible. Torment: Tides of Numenera is available now for PC on Steam or GOG, as well as PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.
A story-driven CRPG set in the world of Monte Cook's Numenera. We are deeply appreciative to all of you who made this possible. Torment: Tides of Numenera is available now for PC on Steam or GOG, as well as PlayStation 4 and Xbox One.
74,405 backers pledged $4,188,927 to help bring this project to life.

Comments

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. When I do, you won't know. on

      I'm torn between being involved in projects and waiting until release. I've decided to skip most of the bickering and internet tough guy/smart guy- bullshit and just give myself tiny glimpses of progress, so I can enjoy projects when they are finished. That's a fucking hard decision to make, giving up control or influence small though it may be - to wait and to be kicked in the balls from an awesome experience. So here's my money and see you at the finish. Tony Evans, I like your style man.

    2. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      @Shevek:

      One last comment and then I'll leave this alone, since I'm not sure the discussion is being very constructive anymore...

      I may have misunderstood something at some point along the line, but what I've been getting from what Brian, Colin, Tony, and others have been saying about combat in T:ToN isn't that there wouldn't be combat, but that there wouldn't be *pointless* combat. Every combat will happen for a reason, and the character will have options to resolve the conflict non-violently or avoid it all together depending on the player's choices.

      But since every specific example of gameplay that I can remember we've been given has been a setup for a potential combat, my impression is that there will be plenty enough of it for those players looking for action. We just won't have to deal with wandering monsters or other random encounters, and we'll have the option to talk our way out of the conflicts we do encounter.

      Again, I may be completely misinterpreting what I've been reading and watching, but the very fact that we're talking about a combat system at all leads me to believe that there will be ample combat opportunities, otherwise any "combats" could be resolved cinematically based on the player's choices, just like dialogue.

      But as I said, one of the reasons I'm in favor of some sort of RT system is exactly because, regardless of however (in)frequently combat occurs, combat isn't a strong focus of this game and RT combat is less obtrusive than "Stop what you're doing, folks, because IT'S TURN-BASED COMBAT TIME!". Which, as I have said numerous times, is fine depending on the game. Heck, I personally think the FF franchise started going downhill about the time the games started moving away from TB combat. But TB systems do put special emphasis on combat and break the organic flow of the narrative.

    3. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      @Shevek: "By that logic, the should also have a similar amount of combat as well. More over, this idea of allowing totally pacifist walkthroughs should be excluded since PST was not like that at all. "

      Um, what?

      I'm not sure we're talking about the same game, here. P:T was notable in part because of the lack of combat required compared to other similar games of the time. If you don't want to go replay the game, go read some of the reviews. Almost every single one talks about how so much of the game revolves around character interaction and so little on combat, and more than one pointed out that through carefully choice of dialogue options it was possible to play though the entire game and only rarely resort to violence. In fact, this was a common *complaint* among the more critical reviews.

      Actually your comment earlier that "combat in Torment was UNIVERSALLY panned" struck me as odd, since it's only been a year or two since I re-played P:T and I didn't remember the combat as being particularly bad. (Actually, I couldn't remember much specifically about the combat at all other than the basic system, which speaks to the small amount of combat in the game.) So I looked up some of those old reviews, and guess what? The only one of the dozen or so reviews I read that had any complaints specifically with the combat system was one by Allgame which said that the combat was too simplistic amd made the game too easy, comparing it to Diablo. On the other hand, the same review made a point of saying that the combat in Baldur's Gate was more challenging and required the player to pause the action to make tactical decisions, even though the games used the same engine and the combat systems were overall fairly similar (both being RTWP).

      So I'm really not seeing that UNIVERSAL criticism of the combat system you mentioned. I'm not necessarily saying that it was great, but it wasn't really that bad, and certainly not bad enough to be one of the things people seem to remember about the game. (And a BAD system can be more memorable than a good one.)

      Really, some of your own arguments in favor of the use of TB combat in Torment actually seem more applicable to RT... If you don't want to place heavy emphasis on combat, why would you want to use a TB system? As @Samwise The Tormented mentioned, TB combat places VERY strong emphasis on combat by treating it as something separate from the rest of the game. With some variety of RT combat, there's no break between combat and non-combat, and so no break in the flow of the game. If combat is to have less focus in T:ToN, then that's actually MORE reason to use some sort of RT system, not less.

    4. Shevek on

      "The Infinity Engine games were released 11 to 15 years ago. Hardware was crap and real-time pathfinding & AI was still a very young technology then, but it has matured a lot after that. T:ToN, being made for modern computers and based on the modern Unity engine, can be expected to have *much* better pathfinding and AI then the IE games. "

      I have played plenty of RTwP games. RPGs, squad based tac games, etc. They all have pathing problems that arise from letting the ai run amok crashing toons into eachother and obstructions. Moreover, even if it ran fluidly, letting the AI handle pathing sure as hell isn't very tactical and I just do not see how letting the AI handle it is more immersive.

      "A horde of melee monsters runs towards you, "Auto-Pause: Enemy Sighted" immediately kicks in. You order your own melee fighters to move forward and your mage to cast a fireball. But where exactly do you position the fighters, and where exactly do you place the fireball? Since casting the spell takes 3 seconds, you need to take into account which path the approaching horde will probably take towards you (are there any choke points they need to pass?), how fast they will run, which position will allow your fighters to form a solid front-line without entering the expected area-of-effect of the fireball, etc. These positioning decisions are made calmly, on the basis of known information, while the game is still paused. How is that not tactical decision-making?"

      That is poor man's turn based AT BEST. Moreover, in all such systems, pausing and changing commands almost always results in lost turns, wonky toon behavior and other such foolishness.The fact that you later try to spin this terrible fault of the system as a strength is either massive igorance or a brilliant feat of Orwellian Double Speak. "War is peace!" "Hate is love!" "Having actions invalidated by a combat system that inadequately deals with combat is tactical!" Bah, foolishness...

      Moreover, RT is not conducive to resource management. In a TB system, you have Action Points or something similar that gives a strategic layer to your tactical decisions. That is completely lost in that FUBAR auto pause scenario. Basically, compare the lame randomness of a zerg engagement in Starcraft to something like Jagged Alliance 2. In a TB game every single sword swing is a tactical decision which, ABSTRACTLY, is FAR more realistic than the devil may care randomness of auto-pausing and sending your toons hap-hazardly bumbling across the screen.

      The rest of your post is just silly. How anyone can see tactical value in a system where you must cancel actions to make up for the game's poor execution of initiative is beyond me.

    5. Shevek on

      Burns:

      By that logic, the should also have a similar amount of combat as well. More over, this idea of allowing totally pacifist walkthroughs should be excluded since PST was not like that at all. No offense, but that is a silly argument. The fact that the dev team, made up of many of the folks who made PST happen, is considering TB is all the proof a PST should need that it can be TB and still be a spiritual sequel.

    6. sam2s on

      @Shevek
      "Bad pathing, poor RT enemy AI"
      The Infinity Engine games were released 11 to 15 years ago. Hardware was crap and real-time pathfinding & AI was still a very young technology then, but it has matured a lot after that. T:ToN, being made for modern computers and based on the modern Unity engine, can be expected to have *much* better pathfinding and AI then the IE games.
      ------------
      "the RT system makes it difficult at best for the player to adequately execute tactical options regarding facing, positioning, interrupts, and the like."
      FACING: Can you explain? I used back-stabbing a lot in IWD and BG2, it worked great.
      --
      POSITIONING: I disagree, I think positioning can be much more tactical and interesting with RTwP, because you need to take into account simultaneous movement. Example: A horde of melee monsters runs towards you, "Auto-Pause: Enemy Sighted" immediately kicks in. You order your own melee fighters to move forward and your mage to cast a fireball. But where exactly do you position the fighters, and where exactly do you place the fireball? Since casting the spell takes 3 seconds, you need to take into account which path the approaching horde will probably take towards you (are there any choke points they need to pass?), how fast they will run, which position will allow your fighters to form a solid front-line without entering the expected area-of-effect of the fireball, etc. These positioning decisions are made calmly, on the basis of known information, while the game is still paused. How is that not tactical decision-making? In turn-based, the mage would get to cast the fireball while everyone else is helplessly frozen in time, thus making the decision of where exactly to place it much less complex. (Note that the given example is extremely trivial, it's just an example of one tiny tactical decision - many such decisions combined make for complex tactics battles.)
      --
      INTERRUPTS: Those kinds of combat mechanics only exist as crutches to try and compensate for the loss of interactivity/reactivity caused by the turn-based separation of actions. In RTwP they are not needed, because there we naturally have real-time interactivity/reactivity. Decisions for how to react to enemy actions can be made when needed, but that does not mean they are not tactical. Example: An enemy fighter has unexpectedly broken through the ranks of your front-line fighters, and charges towards your mage who is currently in the middle of casting a spell that takes 6 seconds to finish. You press pause, and examine your options. Do you let your mage continue to cast the spell, in the hopes that after the enemy fighter reaches her he will miss the first few attacks (or fail to beat her concentration check)? Or do you order her to run away immediately, canceling (and thereby wasting) the spell she has already started casting? Whatever reaction you choose, you choose it calmly and tactically before unpausing again. Tactical choices resulting from the ability to spontaneously react/interact don't exist in turn-based games, so as a substitute you have machanics like interrupts there. Which is better, is a matter of taste. But both can be tactical and interesting.
      ------------
      "total lack of viable tactical thought in combat"
      As I have hopefully demonstrated, this characterization is wildly unfair - no one is asking for Diablo-like clickspamming RT combat, we're talking about tactical RTwP with optional auto-pause, where tactical decisions can be made while the game is paused.

    7. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      @Shevek: "Combat in Torment was UNIVERSALLY panned. It was bad... very bad."

      Which just means that there's plenty of room for improvement. But there's a difference between improving on something and doing something all together different. You don't make a sequel to Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds but in a different setting and with different characters, and then turn it into a slapstick comedy. While it may be the best slapstick comedy ever made, you can only deviate from the thing you're claiming to follow so much before you're a sequel in name only.

      Torment is only an indirect sequel to P:T already. It takes place in a completely different setting. It has completely different characters. The alignment system is different. It's based on a tabletop game, but it's not D&D. Basically, the "sequel" aspect comes entirely from it being the same type of game with similar themes and tone (and now, with it being developed by many of the same people). If it then also has a different type of gameplay than the original... at some point, it becomes a different sort of game experience all together and loses the ability to call itself a sequel without having people familiar with the original wonder what you're smoking.

    8. Shevek on

      "With turn-based, each battle feels like a separate chess-like mini-game in which you move and act very differently than in the main game. Also, forcing all other characters to be locked in place and helplessly loop through their idle animation while the active character can e.g. freely cast a fireball spell on top of them, is just weird. All of this breaks immersion. "

      That is a fine amount of opinion. I could argue the opposite. TB may allow some to grow more immersed in the setting and the depth and importance of every sword blow. There is a greater importance in each combat decision and less errors are made due to inadequacies of the real time system to capture the player's intentions.

      I find that it always breaks immersion for me to group select a bunch of characters, and send them toward the enemy horde in RT because the system always falls apart. Bad pathing, poor RT enemy AI,lack of correct initiative implementation and the like leave a bad taste in my mouth. Also, the RT system makes it difficult at best for the player to adequately execute tactical options regarding facing, positioning, interrupts, and the like. That total lack of viable tactical thought in combat KILLS immersion for me. I do not feel like it is real combat. It feels like two armies of ants fighting eachother and me just watching.

      As far as idle animations and the like, they could simply freeze characters after their last action. That is just an easy aesthetic fix.

    9. Shevek on

      "First, the original P:T used a Real-Time With Pause system, and since this game is intended to be a spiritual successor to P:T, there are matters of consistency and continuation to consider. While Torment could still be an absolutely wonderful game with turn-based tactical combat like FF Tactics, it would be a very different game that what the people who want a successor to P:T would be expecting."

      Combat in Torment was UNIVERSALLY panned. It was bad... very bad. Also, the amount of combat is different between the two titles. It is completely within the realm of possibility to have a change to TB.

    10. sam2s on

      @Shevek
      It's not just about "speeding up" the combat.
      --
      With turn-based, each battle feels like a separate chess-like mini-game in which you move and act very differently than in the main game. Also, forcing all other characters to be locked in place and helplessly loop through their idle animation while the active character can e.g. freely cast a fireball spell on top of them, is just weird. All of this breaks immersion.
      --
      RTwP on the other hand feels more natural and organic, i.e. combat will feel like just another aspect of the game. It's just something your party's characters do, like talking or sneaking or running away, without artificial breaks in immersion. And tough battles will feel more like *actual* battles (bloody, potentially messy, difficult to predict) rather then weird chess games.
      --
      As for turn-based being more tactical than RTwP, I'm not even sure if that's necessarily true - they support *different* kinds of tactical scenarios and challenges, in the case of RTwP the tactics can take things like spell-casting time and movement speed into account much more flexibly. But even if you believe that the kinds of tactics that turn-based supports are more challenging/rewarding then the kinds of tactics that RTwP supports, don't you think that - in this particular game - maximizing the immersiveness and feeling/atmosphere of combat is more important than maximizing the tactical challenge?

    11. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      @John GT and Shevek: You're absolutely right. There's no reason to speed up the action with real-time combat.

      Except for two things.

      First, the original P:T used a Real-Time With Pause system, and since this game is intended to be a spiritual successor to P:T, there are matters of consistency and continuation to consider. While Torment could still be an absolutely wonderful game with turn-based tactical combat like FF Tactics, it would be a very different game that what the people who want a successor to P:T would be expecting.

      Second, while I like both turn-based and real-time combat in a CRPG as long as it's well done, there are some people who absolutely hate turn-based combat. And there are people who feel the same about real-time combat. If you go with a pure version of either type of system, you're going to alienate some people. That's why I suggested a compromise.

      I'm not saying that what I proposed is perfect and absolutely what inXile should do, but rather was just trying to show that it's possible to have a combat system flexible enough to be whatever the player wants from it. And it doesn't have to be some hybrid that has elements of both but that doesn't really satisfy anyone. I'm sure that there's some better way than what I proposed to make a RTWP system that can be played as a TB system without actually implementing two different combat systems that would satisfy both turn-based and real-time fans.

      I think what I posted is a workable system with some tweaks and polish, but it was also just the first thing that popped into my head when I read the update after waking up this morning. :)

    12. Shevek on

      John GT:

      My thoughts exactly. Since there are fewer combat encounters, it makes alot of sense to have those played out through a methodical and tactical turn based system. There is no need to speed up the action with real time gameplay.

    13. John GT
      Superbacker
      on

      If the idea is truly "less is more" to make fewer combats more memorable, then this isn't going to be a wilderness/dungeon hacker and real-time anything is unnecessary to speed it all up. I would rather have Turn-Based with punctuated hits and misses, and the time to observe and enjoy each one.

    14. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      @Brandon: Consider the system I described with the "pause" default action for the main character, a "defend" or similar default action for the companions, and the player only choosing one action per character each "turn". Is that really so very different from a turn-based system, except that all actions in pure turn-based systems tend to take the same amount of time to execute?

      Turn-based systems deal with powerful actions in one of two ways: more powerful actions either require a greater amount of "mana" to perform, or they take more time to perform. Sometimes the two are combined. The system I described is funcitonally equivalent to turn-based systems that use variable-length actions if the player chooses to queue only one action per "turn". The primary difference is that the length of the "turn" is not fixed but based on the length of the action chosen for the character with the "pause" default action.

      Turn-based and real-time systems both have their own advantages and disadvantages, and I like both depending on the specific game. Turn-based systems tend to make combat more tactical and intellectual, while real-time systems tend to be more dramatic and emotional. While either would work for a game like Torment, picking either a pure turn-based or pure real-time system is going to alienate some gamers. A system flexible enough to appeal to both groups depending on how each player chooses to play the game is the ideal solution. While you can't do anything to make a turn-based system play like a real-time system, you can take a real-time system and divide the combat into discrete units of time to make it play like a turn-based system.

    15. Missing avatar

      Zbigniew Skowron on

      Real-time with pause. Personally I hate turn based combat.

    16. itamar on

      Seriously? you now want money for the"priviledge" of testing out your systems in Alpha phase?

      gross.

    17. Missing avatar

      deleted on

      This user's account has been deleted.

    18. Marneus on

      Raaah, I want the player stronghold!!!

    19. Missing avatar

      Empirimancer on

      Real-time with pause, please. Turn-based breaks the immersion.

    20. Brandon on

      @Matt Burns, So basically what you suggest is real time with pause that has specific conditions you can set that will make it pause automatically. Additionally you suggest a queue of commands for your characters to perform.

      I'm sorry but I've seen games that try to do stuff similar to that, none have ever done well by it. I find games that go for a hybrid system either do 1 variation really well and the other terribly. Or they do both terribly.

      It's really for the best to choose one and just go with it. Of course, I say turn-based as I honestly prefer it over real time of any kind. Combat seems more thoughtful and fun. I can make more intelligent decisions rather than just a spam of crap going on on screen and queuing up commands before I even know if those commands are ideal for the situation.

    21. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      Oh, and I'd also make it so that actions selected while paused add to the queue, while actions selected during the game replace the queue (with perhaps the ability to insert it into the queue at the current position using a hotkey). That way players could be strategic in managing the characters' action queues, but still be able to respond instantly to changing situations without stopping the action to edit the character's queue.

    22. Missing avatar

      Matt Burns on

      I vote for RTWP (Real-Time With Pause), partially because that's what was used by the original P:T (and aren't we trying to replicate that experience while hopefully improving on it?), and partially because if done well it allows players the greatest flexibilty in how they want to play the game.

      Here's how I would do it...

      Characters have an action queue, with different actions taking different amounts of time (e.g. a regular attack would take a very short amount of time, while a more advanced and powerful attack or "spell" would have a longer charge/recovery time). The player can queue a series of actions for each character. remove or edit actions in each queue as necessary to react to new circumstances, and each character has a specifiable default action that is automatically and repeatedly performed when his queue is empty. The player can pause the action at any point to evaluate the situation and manage the action queues.

      Okay, so that's great for the fast thinkers, but what about the more thoughtful players that want more time to consider strategy and tactics and would therefore prefer a more TB (Turn-Based) system? Wouldn't they have to keep their finger on the pause button? Nope, because there's a ridiculously easy fix that would basically allow the player to make combat pretty close to Turn-Based.

      I'd make one of the possible default actions (which are performed with a character's action queue runs out) be "pause". This way the action is entirely adjustable from essentially TB (with simultaneous turn resolution) to fully RT, depending on how the player wants to play the game. He could have each character's default action be "pause" to micromanage each character, or he could have only a single character's default action be "pause" to have a party-wide "turn", or he could not use the "pause" default action at all for more fast-paced combat. And of course the player could still manually pause at any time.

      Separate from action resolution, I would include factors to make combat more tactical, such as modifiers for surprise, flanking an opponent, cover and concealment, etc. And for the fans of old-school turn-based RPGs, I might provide an option to display the name of the action being performed over characters' and opponents' heads to help keep track of what's going on. (This obviously wouldn't work in a zerg-rush mass combat, but Tony said Torment wouldn't have much of that.)

      And of course the action resolution could get more sophisticated if the developers want it, such as by having complex default actions (e.g. "attack,defend,heal"), conditional actions (e.g. "heal self if below half HP, heal companion if he is below half HP, otherwise attack closest target") for a degree of programmable AI, or actions that can interrupt an opponents' action queue and cancel queued actions (with the "pause" action being an obvious exception) so that queue management would be less "fire-and-forget". All of this would be nice, but the essential element would be having for each character a selectable default action with a "pause" action as one of the possible choices.

      So that's how I'd do it. It's simple, but allows players enough flexibility to appease both the RT and TB fans. And it improves on P:T's combat system without deviating too far from it.

    23. Missing avatar

      Dennis van den Berg on

      Please go turn-based, RTwP was the only thing crappy about BG and companions, including PS:Tormend. And also didn't make DA:O any better. Just don't use TUs like the original X-COM :-P but give characters a certain amount of actions in any order. One of my biggest gripes with the current XCOM for instance is the lack of the possibility of movement AFTER an action, while the reasoning behind that works if you have, relatively, expendable characters. That reason, making each decision meaningful, doesn't work in a RPG were you invest a lot more in your character.

    24. Mihai Hornet on

      @Rowena

      If you like turn based then Divinity: Original Sin is also worth checking. :)

      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/larianstudios/divinity-original-sin

    25. Missing avatar

      Rowena on

      You guys are the best - everything so far sounds fantastic - I am so excited about this game!! Thanks for the possibility of avoiding combat in many situations - that's a great improvement for gameplay options. Oh and - turn based rocks ;) But whatever it'll be I'm certain you'll make it great ;)
      Hope you guys will have a great time working on Torment ;)

    26. wererogue on

      My best-case scenario for combat would be RTwP, but drawing on innovations from modern RTS, MMO and MOBA games.

      I'm imagining something like the Dawn Of War 2 micro, but with pause. So you can quickly hop around between characters, issue and stack orders, and pause both when everything's going crazy and automatically when significant events happen.

      I don't think I'd hate turn-based, but it would have to be really strategic and it could get to be a bit much if you're doing a "murder everything" playthrough.

    27. Christian Theriault on

      Would too be a buyer for a physical copy of ""Numenera Torment Sourcebook". PLZ make it possible.!!!

    28. Missing avatar

      Nubcakes on

      Turn-Based, Continuous Turn-Based, Real Time with Pausing, and Hybrid systems... It's all good!

      Pretty much any system can be fun if it's done right. I really REALLY liked Might and Magic 1-8. The early ones were strictly turned based and the later ones(6,7,8,9) allowed you to switch between real time and turn based on the fly. I also really liked Baldur's Gate's system too(NWN worked the same way for the most part).

      As long as they(In-Xile) carefully implement the system and play test the hell out of it, I am confident that any system mentioned so far will provide a great experience... As long as it DOES NOT turn out like Dragon Age 2!

      Thank you and have a good day!

    29. Missing avatar

      Ian Koxvold
      Superbacker
      on

      Torment is the single game that I remember most fondly. I can't wait.

    30. Willem on

      Love the screenshot. That is how I want the game to look yeah. Loved the update by Tony (thanks man) and looking forward to having an input on the combat system selected. It is a tough choice for me, I love both TB and RTWP...will have to think carefully on my vote.

    31. praguepride
      Superbacker
      on

      Remember if we all spend $14 and get the comic collection we will break 4.5 mil.

      Buys the comics, read them in your stronghold :D

    32. Missing avatar

      nin on

      So the "Digital Comic Compilation – $14" is the same as getting the 3 singles at $8 each, right (IE it's a discount)? Thanks!

    33. Missing avatar

      Paul R on

      Not turn based please. While turn is more tactical a hybrid system is more emotional. You feel the danger to the character more.

    34. Sam Garamy
      Superbacker
      on

      Personally, I'd prefer a turn based system rather than real time with pause. I was never able to get into the Infinity Engine games because I just wasn't a fan of the system. It just feels clunky to me, and like a half-arsed way of trying to do both turn based and real time, and accomplishing neither. It lacks the speed and intensity of real time, and the thought and tactics of turn based.

    35. Gillsing on

      That is one sweet screenshot. Even better looking than the one from The Bloom. I love the sandy colours of the stone buildings; it's just the kind of colours I would've wanted to see in the Wasteland 2 desert screenshot. And the magical high-tech bridge of light looks great, and provides the kind of contrast I really enjoy. A feast for my eyes!

    36. Missing avatar

      Leckan on

      That pic looks fantastic!

    37. KlausigerKlaus on

      Great News,
      Welcome Chris, I'm really glad you'll join the team again:)

      Concerning the P:E documentary: Have you guys also asked my countryman Guido Henkel for some statements. Though he left Black Isle before the game was released he also played a part in it. Hopefully, there's no bad blood left.

    38. Tobi (Crusader Kickstarter pls!!) on

      lol, @Eric, great vid, and it's true!

    39. Estelindis (Siobhán Mooney) on

      @ Duskwind and JDL: Thanks for clarifying! :-)

    40. Shevek on

      Naw, its best to pick one combat system and design all other systems around it (both from a cost and a design perspective). Games that have attempted what you suggest tend to be RT with a sort of autopause feature which works terribly.

      Ultimately, there is a big difference in designing for a system where things like initiative, tactical facing, etc matter vs designing for one when you just group select and right click the enemy. It will be interesting to see which way they go.

    41. Eric on

      It's ok to not like things.
      It's ok, but don't be a dick about it.
      It's ok to not like things.
      Don't be a dick about the things you don't like.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch…

      Words to live by.

    42. JDL: Operative - kck.st/2l08TJ8 on

      I wonder if alpha testers will be able to try out each way and contribute feedback. I have no idea how big a hassle coding a scenario with each method would be, so it may well be impossible.

      Now, if there was an option in the game to choose which way you wanted combats to go, that would be cool.

    43. JonNik on

      I'm ok with both actually, but I feel RTwP is a bit awkward at times and I appreciate the added tactical options and slower pace afforded by TB, usually. Still loved all the IE games and combat was never a barrier even when the implementation was a bit "problematic" as in the original i.e. ;)

    44. Shevek on

      Turn based would be awesome for this game. If this was gonna throw hundreds of trash mobs at you, then RTwP make sense just to get the crappy combat out of the way as soon as possible. However, they stated they want to have fewer, higher quality encounters. If thats the case, then lets go turn based and really draw those encounters out and maximize their tactical depth.

      I could see them really getting some interesting stuff going in TB too. In particular, the pain sharing mechanic they mentioned sounds like it would work and be far more manageable in TB than it would be in RT.

    45. Missing avatar

      dfinlay on

      I feel like a hybrid system doesn't feel right for this game, unless the dev team has a really interesting and new way of implementing it. As for turn-based vs RTwP, I am happy with either. The two systems really do make a huge difference, but one isn't better (in my opinion) than the other. It's a matter of which fits better with the game as it emerges and I think the team working on it probably has the best insight into that. As such, I would say, make up your own mind and don't leave it to us (ofc, listen to relavent feedback).

    46. JonNik on

      Lol
      @ armored_mammal
      I wouldn't have bothered normally. But your post actually prompted me to make a note to participate in any upcoming voting procedure ;)

    47. JDL: Operative - kck.st/2l08TJ8 on

      @armored mammal

      No need to be rude. You can support RTwP without bashing turn based. Different people have different tastes.

    48. armored_mammal on

      NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO to turn based. Keep it RTwP. Soooooo much better. And it matches the original.

      Turn-based games are so nonsensical.

      'Yes. I will stand here and let you hit me with a sword. Because it is not my turn. Please, go ahead.'

      I know there are a bunch of weebos who love them, but they can go live in the '80s and keep to themselves.

    49. JDL: Operative - kck.st/2l08TJ8 on

      @Siobhan Mooney

      Everything in the Players Guide appears in the core book. The core book has Tons more setting and mechanics information.

      This newly announced product will cover locations and mechanics that appear in Torment but not the core rules.