Share this project


Share this project

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.

Updated our Journal (26): Decision

Posted by inXile entertainment (Creator)

TL;DR: Combat vote results completed – statistically it was a tie! Torment: Tides of Numenera’s combat (and Crises) will be turn-based combat. We’ll address concerns expressed by Real-Time with Pause fans in our design.


Your participation in the combat discussion and vote has been terrific! Almost 20% voted and over 2000 comments were made on our forums alone. That’s twice the turnout I expected, and it’s great to see all of the passion our backers have for the project. I’d like to thank everyone who got involved.

It’s been an exciting vote! The leading system changed a couple times early on and the final tally is: 7,267 TB, 7,052 RTwP and 782 Indifferent. With the vote at 48% to 47%, and with those who voted “indifferent” being more than triple the difference between the TB and RTwP camps, it is essentially a draw.

As we explained in Update 24, we were leaning toward turn-based combat because we believe it’s better suited for the kind of tactical complexity we're looking for through our Crisis system. We believe it’s a stronger fit for bringing narrative elements, including dialogue with NPCs, into hand-crafted combat situations. We have considered the vote, but more important than the vote are the comments (not just in our forums, but on many of the community forums and articles on this topic). Your comments have helped us greatly in understanding why people have the preferences and concerns that they do.

We have decided to go with turn-based combat. Ultimately, there are no losers here. This is all part of the process of making an RPG we are all passionate about and we think you’ll like Torment’s combat even if you voted for RTwP. While we have not been looking forward to disappointing half of our backers, we were happy to find that many of the reasons people gave for disliking TB and preferring RTwP can be addressed through the details of our combat system and encounter design. I’d like to go over some of the more common comments we saw either for RTwP or against TB and explain how we will address them.

Comment #1: Turn-Based combat can be tedious

If one were to take Planescape: Torment and, changing nothing else, switch to TB combat, the result would be miserable for many. You'd be stopped midstride in every Hive back alley to perform the same boring actions on meaningless thugs and zombies.

This isn’t what we’re going to do.

Turn-based combat certainly can be tedious, but that comes down to encounter design. As we stated during the Kickstarter, Torment will have no trash mobs—those hordes of filler battles that require little thought from the player. That type of gameplay is at odds with our emphasis on the story and character development, so each Crisis in Torment will be hand-crafted. It will have narrative relevance and consequences. We'll iterate on them until each one is a quality encounter and provides the experience we seek for that moment in the game.

If any combat situation in Torment were tedious, it wouldn’t be because it's turn-based. It would be because we failed in our goal. And our Crises aren’t just combat. They contain exploration, dialogue, and time-relevant actions and events that can exist outside of combat, like pursuits, environmental puzzles, and application of special skills. You’re going to have to work throughout the game toward your goals, and the Crisis concept is a primary way that we put your intentions to the test.

We understand the importance to you of combat not being tedious. Emphasis on encounter design is important for any CRPG, but for Torment, the bar will be even higher – we believe that through well designed encounters, and extensive gameplay iteration on them, we’ll be able to address the majority of the concerns expressed by those who favored RTwP.

Comment #2: Turn-Based combat can break immersion

"Immersion" is a tricky term that can mean a lot of things, but generally this comment is referring to the jarring sense a player gets when they're walking through a town and suddenly the whole world stops because, say, a feral dog saw them coming down the street.

Again, this isn't what we're going to do. In general, we don’t plan to “surprise” you with a Crisis. Through the design of the areas and the pacing of the game, you’ll know when and where combat is a possibility. The situation will feel tense and in some cases, you will be explicitly initiating the Crisis. This doesn’t mean we won’t ever ambush you, of course, but if we do, it will be very deliberate and not an arbitrary event.

We get that you don’t want to be pulled out of the game in this way and we’ll look for ways to keep you in control and prevent Crises from disrupting the normal flow of the game.

That said, Torment isn’t an action game. Real time doesn’t pass in conversations, for example – you have as much time as you want to decide your choice. And while exploration occurs in real-time, it won’t include twitch elements. All of your decision-making throughout the game will consistently be free from real-time considerations. Torment is a game about thinking and deliberation and will not have any actual time pressure, so turn-based combat will maintain a more consistent feel.

Comment #2a: Turn-Based combat isn’t realistic

A variation of the concern about immersion is that TB gameplay isn’t realistic. In a real battle, you don’t patiently observe while your opponents orderly take turns one at a time.

This is true, but the lack of realism is inherent in most videogame combat and gameplay (again, turn-based conversations come to mind), and RTwP combat isn’t immune to this issue. What we strive for isn’t realism, but creating an immersive experience that allows you to suspend your disbelief. In other words, realism is not at the core of Torment’s party-based combat.

That said, we will strive to make the combats as dynamic and visceral as possible – attacked characters will animate appropriately when struck instead of standing lifelessly, for example, or perhaps having readied actions such as overwatch or interrupts to take actions on the opponent’s turn. We will maintain tension and flow, creating the sense that you are in actual danger and making your tactical and strategic decisions matter.

Comment #3: Controlling the entire party in Turn-Based can be boring

The idea behind this concern is that if only one character in your party is relevant to the combat (e.g., it’s in a narrow passageway or a specific skill/weapon is needed for some aspect of it, etc.) then gameplay gets bogged down. It’s not fun to have to skip most of your characters’ turns, cycling back to the one character who can actually do something.

This problem also comes down to encounter design, and we’ll be paying close attention to this aspect in our specific Crisis designs. Strong support of ranged combat will help, as melee-focused battles can exacerbate this problem. The Numenera rules also help here because skills, while beneficial, generally aren’t required to accomplish specific tasks, and Effort can be expended to give any character a better chance of success at tasks outside their character build. Adam discussed how this works in Update 21 (in the context of dialogue, though it applies to Crisis gameplay as well), but we’ll copy it here again so you don’t have to search for it.

Using skills will be different, too (side note: I say "will," but we're still in pre-production, so any of this can change). Say there's a difficult task you want to attempt—lying to a prison guard or deciphering the text on an ancient puzzle box. Typically, in D&D-style RPGs for example, if you don't have the associated skill, your chances of success are very low, or you might not be able to attempt the task at all. In Numenera, all such tasks are treated the same, and anyone can try them. Training in a related skill or skills will lower the difficulty of the task, but even if you're untrained, you can still apply Effort.

Effort is a concept from the Numenera tabletop game. Essentially you spend points out of the appropriate stat pool (Might, Speed, or Intellect) to lower the difficulty of a task. The idea is, even if you've never been trained in lock picking, a very smart or dexterous character can, with some Effort, increase their chances of cracking a lock.

Your stat pools are renewable with rest. And of course, all of this is balanced. If you're trying to crack a combination lock created by a culture that died out millions of years ago, which requires a combination of smells rather than integers, well . . . you'd have to have a high-level character specialized in the task, who spent all the Intellect they had on Effort, just to make the task possible. That character would still have to roll ridiculously well.

Effort provides more options to customize your character and tackle obstacles. If there's a task you want to attempt—even if it's something normally contrary to your character build—you still have a chance of succeeding if you can use enough Effort. On the other hand, someone who has trained or specialized in that sort of task will have a greater chance of success, and will maintain that edge in similar tasks throughout the game.

Note also that party members can “assist” others in particular skill-based tasks, boosting their chances for success.

In short, we’re fully aware that cycling can be a painful way to play, and that this aspect of gameplay is important to you, and we’ll design the Crises to keep your entire party engaged.

Comment #4: You should implement both RTwP and TB and make it a gameplay option

This solution may sound ideal, but it wouldn’t give anybody what they really want. Area and encounter design needs of the two systems are very different. Designing for both would dilute the quality of the encounters for one or both systems, and most likely require so much time and resources as to impact the rest of the game. In a deep RPG like ours, where combat isn't even the focus, trying to implement two combat systems would lead to an inferior game across the board.

Comment #5: Planescape: Torment had Real-Time with Pause combat, so the new Torment should too

This is a reasonable perspective and valid point of view. Shouldn't we stick with what made the original great?

But is RTwP combat what made Planescape: Torment great? For some of you, the combat may have been an important part of your PST experience, and we hope that you’ll find the combat in Torment: Tides of Numenera to be at least equally enjoyable. But we don't think PST’s combat system was what most players loved about the game.

We believe PST is considered one of the greatest RPGs of all-time, not because its combat was Real-Time w/ Pause, but because of its emphasis on the narrative and on role-playing your character. We explained this in the four pillars we described in the Kickstarter, which are the foundation for Torment: Tides of Numenera:

 1. A Deep, Thematically Satisfying Story
 2. A World Unlike Any Other
 3. A Rich, Personal Narrative
 4. Reactivity, Choice, and Real Consequences

We’re using all four pillars to influence and reinforce our Crisis and combat design. Throughout the campaign, we stressed that we would find an approach for combat that worked well with these pillars. With the approach we have planned – including turn-based combat – we hope to integrate more narrative and more choice and consequence into the combat experience.

Though Planescape: Torment is the starting point for many of our design decisions, Torment: Tides of Numenera was never intended to be a game that, by default, duplicates everything PST did. It is a thematic successor that is inspired by PST, not derivative of it. The themes we are succeeding are the things that made Planescape: Torment a classic – the four pillars and other elements as described in our vision document  – and we don’t see the specific combat system as core to PST’s legacy. We have several of the people from the PST team involved in the project and we hope that you continue to trust that we will deliver the type of CRPG experience you crave.

"The Planescape: Torment experience was never defined by its combat. In Torment: Tides of Numenera, the combat is intended to complement both the narrative systems and the basic gameplay mechanics. It is a challenging decision for the team to make, and I respect and support their decision to choose turn-based."

-- Chris Avellone, Lead Designer of Planescape: Torment; Creative Director at Obsidian Entertainment

Comment #5a: Why all this focus on combat? Planescape: Torment wasn't even about that

This is kind of the opposite sentiment as the previous comment, or rather it's the other side of the same coin. Rest assured that combat is not, and never has been, our primary focus, as you can see in the four pillars above. Torment is very much about the story, the characters, the conversations, and the world, and we are focusing most of our efforts in those areas – it wasn't until six months after the Kickstarter that we even started talking seriously about combat in our updates.

If it feels like we are suddenly focused on combat, it's only because our recent updates have had that focus. In a month or two we'll talk about something else—art creation or story design or exploration gameplay or something—and then it'll feel like we're 100% focused on that.

Moving Forward with You

We're excited about what we have planned, and as you see more of what we’re doing, we think you’ll be excited, too. We’ll be talking about other aspects of the design in the near term, but we’ll certainly be talking more about Crises and combat down the road. We hope that you’ll continue to trust our judgment and dedication to the project and to you. Remember that you’ll have future opportunities to influence the game’s development, including aspects of its combat. We’ll be seeking your feedback in the future and you’ll be able to weigh in on details later to help us hone the experience.

We're grateful that we can solicit your feedback and your input throughout this process. This style of development would never have been possible even five years ago, let alone fifteen. It's encouraging to see your interest and passion in what we're doing. We learn a lot from your comments and posts on these topics, and we come that much closer to creating something great.

We will not take for granted the trust that you placed in us this past spring. We are making this game for you, our backers. When you play Torment, we want you to feel you trusted us wisely. We’re not looking for mass market success – our only metric is your satisfaction, and we are working hard toward that goal every day. Thanks for your support and understanding,

Kevin Saunders
Project Lead

P.S. We have a couple more things to say, but they’re more about our communication and our gratitude, so we’ve put them on tumblr to keep this update focused on combat.

Wesley Hodgson, zmonkey, and 208 more people like this update.


Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Missing avatar

      Xelosu on

      How about I prove to you, here and now, how inXile misrepresented their project during founding? But please take ten minutes reading and examining the evidence yourselves before flaming me.

      Evidence no 1
      In the update #26 we can read:
      “Over the last couple weeks, we’ve seen people say both, “I never would’ve backed this game if I knew it might be real-time with pause” and “I never would’ve backed this game if I knew it might be turn-based.” This misunderstanding occurred despite our best efforts to be very clear, even before the Kickstarter, that our combat system was undecided. We reinforced this ambiguity several times during the campaign, including Tony Evans’ Tales of Torment: Episode 7 on combat, but still were unable to reach everyone – and even here there was some room for miscommunication, with some interpreting the vote to be absolute rather than advisory.”
      Link for reference:

      Where is the problem?
      Project lead himself gives you the link to YouTube to prove they were “informing” people that their combat system was undecided. This is nice and dandy but why not giving the link to KICKSTARTER page? Maybe because such info was only introduced in updates which is in violation with the Kickstarter guidelines:

      “Projects must be clear about their state of development, and cannot be presented as preorders of finished products. Projects must show details (photos, videos, sketches) of their progress so far, along with a prototype demonstrating the product's current functionality.(..)”

      So is not putting essential information about the project up front and instead using updated to do so is really making a “best efforts to be very clear” ?

      This is not black and white issue. People could read more carefully but claiming that they did all they could to highlight this issue is questionable at least.

      Evidence no 2
      The mentioned video (…)
      If you actually take the time to watch it again you will learn interesting things:
      1) at 5:50 the guy mentions 3 combat system options TB, RTwP and Hybrid.
      As far as I know there was no option to vote on Hybrid system (and ironically judging from how the vote went it would be best compromise). This makes misinformation no 1.
      2) at 6:19 the guy tells us that their are making the combat system “we want” and that “we are to tell them which one is it”.
      As far as I see they chosen the system they wanted cause as they themselves stated the difference between both camps was not statistically relevant (with only 20% of bakers voting was not representative anyway). So here you have misinformation no 2.
      3) at 6:26 the guy claims “we are going to present you with the options that have ENOUGH SPECIFIC DETAILS to meet our goals for combat”
      Looking at the options presented at their website I can only wonder what kind of specific details he was talking about, both camps agreed that those descriptions were poor and detail less.

      So here you go, taking from just one update and 10 minutes video I found 4 points in which they missed the promised outcome. Wonder how much misinformation I’ll find reading all updates and watching all videos.

      “They have been clear from the start”.. right..

    2. Nameless on

      @prix - Still not sure of the relevance here, but whatever. Thanks for explaining what you ment.

    3. Missing avatar

      Fry on

      @Andrea Schwendimann
      A public poll - meaning, let people who didn't even back the game vote? I'm not sure how that makes any sense.

      It would be great if we could get more than 20% of the backers to express their opinion, but the fact there are people here who claim they weren't notified despite the fact the update immediately before this one did exactly that should tell you something. 80% of the backers either don't have a strong opinion on the matter or don't read email.

    4. pirx on

      well, it's obvious - any game should entertain, first and foremost. it has to be true to it's inner logic, rather than to some obscure notion of realism. more so called realism == less imagination. though the main point is not how realistic your game is, but that it shouldn't bother to stick to any sort of realism at all.
      i guess it was around the release of half-life that gaming suddenly became mad about "realism". so it supposedly became realistic like a... hollywood movie. cool! still more realistic than, say, Unreal! all it took was a couple of scripted enemies and a "real sci-fi story by a real sci-fi author". meh. needless to say, after that the "realism" marched on - measured in the number of polygons in models, amount of scripting, things that have quite a distant relation to what makes a great game (btw, for me DX >>> HL. hands down, I still refuse to believe how big valve went on to be on a material so inferior to Spector's game).

    5. Nameless on

      @pirx - About the realistic part, care to explain your thoughts abit more?

    6. pirx on

      Hoorray for turn-based combat. Fallout, WIzardry, Jagged Alliance, X-Com - not a bad company, eh?

      On a different note, "realistic" shouldn't ever come into game design.

    7. Skyleaf on

      I am disappointed like hell that this isn't going to be RTwP. That being said, InXile has my backing 100%. I knew what I was getting into when I decided to get involved with this project. I wanted to be a part of the creation of a fantastic game and that still hasn't changed.

    8. Jeffrey Koches on

      holey moley people.. relax! it will be okay. deep breath. in and out.. there ya go. it will be a good game either way.

    9. Missing avatar

      Max Wilkinson on

      I assumed it would be like Planescape and got excited, I hate turn-base. We'll see how this goes, but I'm pretty disappointed this wasn't decided from the beginning, before I backed.

    10. Antaka on

      I fucking hate turn-based combat =(

    11. Dawn_

      I didn't tell it because using my condition is something i will never do. Even to explain my choice or made up a truth of my own.

      All i wish is to be normal, i live already enough with this shit everyday. I'd rather shoot myself than ever give her one ground of me and use it for my own benefit. I want to be apart of it not made it a part of myself.

    12. Dawn_


      Thanks for the thought i didn't tell my conditions to explain why it will be painful for me to play TB as it will probably for some other people. I was just angered at the thought of seeing someone use its condition to make up an universal thought on his own. Disgusting.

      Well TB in itself is longer since you have to think twice your move. But as long as i can avoid every fight i am fine with it. Mostly i was against TB for principles since for me part of nostalgia i got from PS:T includes the combat system (even if honestly it was awfully made in PS:T, i can give you that).

      But more because of the opacity behind it and the lack of respect for those who wanted/voted Rtwp. That single sentence saying "we thought TB would gives the better experience" give both the doubt of their intentions and it's a disguised finger at the one who wanted RtwP.

      Plus, i didn't get to vote, either i missed the updates or the email. But, i was hospitalized, as i will be again from the 11/12 for a week..

    13. Missing avatar

      Aleksandr U on

      Maybe I'm just naive, but I trust the inXile team.
      I do not know whether the new game great, but it makes great people.

    14. Missing avatar

      kilobug on

      @Dawn_ I'm sorry to hear that, but I've good reasons to hope you'll still be able to play the game. First, inXile said a non combat walkthrough will be available, so you've at least that option. Then, combat will be a minor part of TToN anyway, so the "longer TB" shouldn't add that much in term of game length. Remember, there will be no "trash mobs", those are the ones that can make TB games tedious/long.

    15. Saber-Scorpion on

      Sweet! I would have been satisfied with either decision, but I did vote TB in the end. I'm glad the results of the poll were in line with what the devs wanted to do already. I'm excited to see the turn-based crises you guys have planned!

    16. Missing avatar

      Godewijn on

      Awesome explanation. Totally makes sense. Great :)

    17. Dawn_

      And if you wonder, i got a genetic disease that is screwing my every articulation. Making me disabled in the long term, so i can't say how disabled i will be in a year. Even more because the meds supposedly helping me to slow that the spread of my disease doesn't work on me atm.

    18. mangue on

      Ok but please MAKE IT FAST or at least speed adjustable! I stopped playing Shadowrun Returns because it's slow nas lacks important mechanisms for a turn based combat.

      Take old school jagged alliance 2 for a perfect turn based combat.

    19. Dawn_

      Sorry for the intervention but i am very sick myself and i hate those kind of unilateral thought. I can't play this game because of my "disability/disease" it makes me want to throw up.

      With my disease i got no idea if i will be able to play those game i am backing so sorry if you disgusts me. Because i've never and i will never use my condition to dictate some crap/bullshit truth i made up on my own, just to justify my choice even more for a damn game!

    20. Dawn_


      What you says is enterely false. I don't know what kind of disability you may have. But, i have my own and i can tell you i can't stay long in front of my computer.

      TB is making substantialy combat longer than RTwP. So, sorry, not everybody can play TB. Those who can't stay long in front of their computer in a row because for example back issues (which isn't my case mine is way worse).

      Won't be able to manage those 5-10 hours or gameplay added to the game only because of TB.

    21. Iestyn

      As a backer with a disability that prevents real time play, I'm happy with the result. It means that I haven't spent a substantial amount from my pension on something I could not use.

      Very simply put: everybody who can play at all can play TB, the same is not true for RTwP.

    22. Andrea Schwendimann on

      I voted RTWP and in my opinion that would have fitted better, despite the admittedly good reasons for TB.

      That said asking for a refund is something I understand as well, even if I won't ask it. It's not a betrayal or anything like that, it's just that this project has always been a nostalgia operation. You raised this huge amount because of that and changing a core-system so dramatically feels like having backed something else. It feels also like that it will be plain cheaper for inXile to go the TB way for engine reasons.

      That said I trust inXile since at every fair and event they proved to be one of the most passionate dev teams on the planet and I am sure they will deliver. I say this as a RTWP supprter but also as an insider in the videogame media.

      What would I wanted to see?

      A public poll. It would raise the voting pool and settle the things once and for all.

    23. Jinx on

      Real shame you didn't go with RTwP. It worked for all the old games. I can't imagine them with TB combat. I really hope it wasn't out of pure laziness on your part as you already have it working for WL2.
      I do appreciate your explanations for why you think it'll be ok, but I just hope it doesn't come back to bite us all in the ass and make what should have been an amazing game which paved the way for the genre to truly come back, into a failure of a game.

      Regardless, I look forward to some seeing proof on concept in the future!

      As a side note, I don't get why people are up in arms on either side. It's rather cringe worthy to see both parties spitting out whatever verbal mouth diarrhea they can come up with.

    24. Emil Gustafsson on

      Personally disapointed. TB will make the game probably 5-50 hours longer, of slow moving tb fighting.
      Then again in former planescape torment combat was about 25% of the game and 75% dialouge. Still Im gonna miss be able to runpast to strong enemies.

    25. Nameless on

      Only thing worse then the refund crowd is the TB-people feeling the need to jump on their throats and being "right" in their views. Lots of disgusting comments here from both camps.

    26. undecaf on

      Some people would greatly benefit from manning up a bit. Really. Being disappointed is fair, voicing it out is fair, but this is getting way out of proportions for a certain few.

    27. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on

      @pioslik - Your assumptions are incorrect.

    28. Willem on

      Seems the community is quite divided on this issue; I however am glad TB won since it feels more in-line with the type of game that Torment should be in my opinion.

    29. Missing avatar

      pioslik on

      If you don't like good games then why do you backed this in the first place? Maybe you mix this up with Dragon Age or another Diablo 3? Did you even read about what are you backing?

    30. Missing avatar

      kilobug on

      First, congrats and thanks to the inXile team for making an in-depth explanation, showing consideration for the feedback of the backers.

      Then, the inXile team has my trust to make an awesome PS:T successor. That's why I pledged quite a lot of money on this game, and I beg everyone who pledged to keep that trust. If they feel TB will suit their game better, they know what they are saying. Please at least give them the benefit of the doubt, and wait to see how they implement their vision before saying it'll ruin the game.

      And finally, please no witch hunt. The folk at inXile were clear the combat system was undecided - they made an update about it before the end of the KS, they said it in the vision document. And they never promised a clone of PS:T, but a "spiritual successor", insisting in depth on what they consider important in PS:T - and combat system just wasn't in. They never made any direct or indirect promise that TToN will be RTwP, so stop accusing them of betrayal or stealing, and asking for refunds - it's not how KS works.

    31. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      Flame war. Flame war never changes.

      Oh, sorry. Wrong series. ^_^

      I've read a little of the "I want a refund" butthurt, and I can only say I wish there were a special part of just for the people upset that they failed to have their way in what is essentially a minor point.
      PS:T was never about the combat. Sure, you'd go around and kill this monster or that thug, but it was always either in the function of the story - or an *annoyance*. T:ToN should follow in its footsteps, but without the unnecessary, tedious combat. We were promised a possibility of an entirely pacifistic run, where by definition we wouldn't see any combat whatsoever. Think about that when you moan about the combat system as something "central to the game". It's just a way of doing things.

    32. Richard on

      I'm sorry I'm not boarding the rage train because they actually picked the system I chose and I don't really see the use of arguing about it with people who's opinions will never change, but I'm just wondering if I'm the only one moved by the last part of this update? It reads like something you'd write to your girlfriend or something, made me feel all fuzzy inside.
      Thanks Kevin!

    33. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on

      Still waiting for my refund, judging by the "honesty" of inXile I sure will get my money back.
      Meanwhile I enjoy reading inXile-minions comments. I especially enjoys reading comment of the "intelligent" and of the "righteous", they explain the meaning of backing kickstarter and at the same time they ignore the dishonest and unfair way inXile conducted this vote. It seem that there is no limit to hypocrisy.

    34. Leewelo Lorekeeper

      I just want to put that flame war behind us. The decision has been made and was always inXile's.
      I supported RtwP until yesterday. Now I will fight (i.e. vote & express my opinion respectfully) on other undecided topics.
      We should now focus on bringing ideas to make the best TB combat possible within Torment's frame.

    35. Missing avatar

      pioslik on

      @Krzysztof Murawski:
      "i regret backing this up"

      Boo-hoo ;_;

      "Planescape Torment is RTWP and thats the main reason Numenera should be like its predecessor"
      No, it shouldn't.

      "TB is slow and predictable - see Temple of Elemental Evil."
      There are many more TB systems, not only ToEE which even I consider as a slow and boring.

      "i bet most of those that didnt wote would prefer RTWP"
      Are you a fortune-teller? What are you waiting for? Go play Keno now! ;]

      "democracy is not perfect because majority of popula is simply stupid and votes for those with good PR and dont care about agenda or simply dont vote at all because they dont care - thats the case with this poll."

      This gave me cancer. The majority you telling about is the one which wants silly action games, they probably hasn't backed TToN.

      Also- cebula wystaje ci z butów.

    36. Missing avatar

      Krzysztof Murawski on

      Planescape Torment is RTWP and thats the main reason Numenera should be like its predecessor. most backers wanted spiritual succesor that has as many similarities as possible including combat. TB is slow and predictable - see Temple of Elemental Evil.
      also only 14k out of 74k backers shouldnt make decisions that big. i bet most of those that didnt wote would prefer RTWP. those wanting TB take the effort to vote and it payed off for them. democracy is not perfect because majority of popula is simply stupid and votes for those with good PR and dont care about agenda or simply dont vote at all because they dont care - thats the case with this poll.
      im really mad and partially i regret backing this up. i wanted something like Torment and i just feel like ive been fooled by "spiritual succesor" thing...

    37. tarasis on

      My only complaint about the voting was that we weren't sent an email to say when the voting was exactly ending. Update #25 simply said "Voting will close in December."

    38. kremp on

      XCOM:EU truly showed that turn based combat can be really fun even in a modern game. Glad this option won.

    39. Lastan, The Penultimate Castoff on

      Well. I'm glad my option won.
      I was one of the whatevers; the decidedly undecided. Democracy is all fine and dandy, but really, I don't want community participation to turn this game into an Intelligent Design by Committee project. It is just too possible that the majority would get what they asked for, yet nobody would get what they wanted or expected. So I do not want to make a somewhat-informed decision on a game aspect the developers know so much more about. I want what works best for the game, not what I think works best for me before I've seen any gameplay. I will adapt more easily to the game than the game would adapt to a popular-yet-unsuitable combat system. Thus I am really glad the two vocal camps were equally matched; this allowed the developers to go with what they feel is right.
      I fully expect this game to be a work of art, in every possible sense. I had pledged as a sign of support of the artists and their work; if I didn't think they would make the right choices in creating a work of art I'd enjoy, *I wouldn't have pledged at all*. I wouldn't like for the crowdfunders to become a copy of the very same know-nothing publishers who meddle with the unfinished game, ruining it for everyone. So in this round, the developers won. And we all won.

    40. Matthew van Andel on

      Really though people, if you are disappointed by this news, I would encourage you to buy a copy of the Numenera Corebook (yes, the tabletop RPG). The mechanics are absolutely genius, and will make for a spectacular combat system. Things you do before combat will impact the combat, and things you do during combat will continue to have an impact after combat. Each of your core attributes has a limited pool that can either take "damage" or be spent/gambled to improve your chances of success at various tasks. All the beauty of that system would have to be dumped to make RTwP work. This was the right call.

    41. Matthew van Andel on

      I'm a bit perturbed that I didn't get an email or something about the formal vote, but I think the right call was made on this. Numenera has a FANTASTIC static difficulty + effort system that would have been utterly gutted by RTwP. Also, I hope this means that I may be able to try non-combat actions during combat (like trying to talk an opponent that just ambushed my party into backing down). :-)

    42. advmal on

      A rational post from TheTinyMan. Kudos.

      The people claiming they were misled, demanding refunds, even claiming fraud on other forums are going a little overboard.

    43. Steven Shofner on

      Well my vote didn't win. That's cool, because both can be done well and have their own merits, and I trust the dev staff. If this is the direction they were already leaning, it's probably the right choice. I'm no less excited for the game than I was before I saw this update! Maybe more so, since it sounds like the devs are following their vision and not mine!

    44. Missing avatar

      Fry on

      Update #24 which went over the combat options in detail. Update #25 told you exactly what you needed to do to vote. You can't claim to have been taken by surprise.

    45. Taragon on

      i went back and forth on this a bit. Started voting RTwP, but ended up switching to TB since i got worried RTwP would have too great a chance of just swarming enemies and then you miss details of the events going on.

    46. Missing avatar

      Greenfr0G on

      I am shocked: when was this voting done and why haven´t I been invited? :O

    47. ☆ dlux ☆ on

      Every classic RPG on kickstarter other than Project Eternity is turn-based. There is no need to act like a hysterical fanboy, you can bask in TB glory all you want.

    48. Adrià Amor on

      By the way. If you are so touched by the idea of a clone of Planescape Torment you could even ask for an HD port to Inxile. For example myself, I hope that after successfully relaunching this Wasteland and Torment-Numenera sagas, they are able to release new titles maybe addressing new combat systems or even much different scopes as for example an old school multiplayer with all the good story and narrative they are capable of.

    49. Adrià Amor on

      Dear @LC and many other hysteric RTwP fanboys, please stop using this demagogic point which assumes that because of defenders of TB are more flexible, and don't care so much on the battles but more on the narrative and history, it is more important your posture is taken into consideration because you really care about combat as a central aspect of this videogame experience. Would you be so kind to leave this semi fascist argumentation? It even reminds me of those douche-bags that usually smoked in front of kids and families in bars and restaurants because "nobody hasn't verbalized their concerns before" or those others that defend the right to carry a gun (and use it) in the name of his individual freedom (while others than don't care as much about "such" important things don't have to). This endless crying of some individuals is as surprising as exhausting is to read....

    50. armored_mammal on

      @Grenville Wilson: I've read the Crisis design document, and honestly it comes across as thoughts about a 'Choose your own adventure' series of choices in a flowchart rather than combat.

      I actually found it less than illuminating. If you end up in TB mode across multiple rooms just so you can make decisions about flipping switches and stuff it seems obnoxious, but really I don't think it was terribly helpful in revealing their intent for combat unless it was supposed to show (like in their flowchart) that there isn't really combat, just a choice about whether to fight. I'd honestly be okay with that, but I didn't feel like that's what they meant...

      As I've said elsewhere I think InExile has done a pretty terrible job being clear about how they imagine their ideas working.