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.
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

213 likes

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.

Hello,

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 211 more people like this update.

Comments

Only backers can post comments. Log In
    1. Sam on December 7, 2013

      I am not directly asking for a refund, if they offer them I will consider it and see whether I decide it is what I want

      The issue is this was a major game decision that was left far too long and handled badly. If they had been better organised they could have added this question prior to this being funded or as part of the backer survey after the project was funded and had a clear answer of X % want this way Y % want that way and Z % couldn't care less

      The issue I mainly have is that while they said it was not decided on two of the main members of the team pretty much have said they wanted to do turn based which makes it seems like they already had planned it as turn based but knew such an announcement could hurt their overall total so they kept quiet and it appears dishonest

      Now whether that is the case or not I don't know, but I do know this entire situation could have been avoided had inXile done their job better to start with

    2. Sam on December 7, 2013

      Although at the same time they could also not have left combat mechanics for nine months after the project is funded and peoples interest has moved on but organised it during the campaign so before the project is funded people know what they are getting since no matter how bug or small a part they are of the game it is something people are generally very polarised about

      I think both have their place and in my opinion this case RTwP was the one that was better suited just because of the game type, unless they manage to do some amazing things I highly doubt my mind will change

    3. Captain Shrek on December 7, 2013

      Sam.

      I can not see how they can force people to participate. As far as I understand they publicized the vote quite a bit.

      As to the rest, I am still puzzled. Why would ask for a refund, for something they *at least to my naive opinion did not renege on?

      This takes us back to my first question: Did they not say right at the start that Inexile would decide later?

    4. Sam on December 7, 2013

      Well personally I would say make the damn vote have at least 60% backer participation so we know what the real majority thinks but that's me.
      I wouldn't stand for any other vote I had to cast being decided with less than half of the people who it will be affecting

      But that's neither here nor there now, I will see how things go and !maybe ask for a refund if they are offers. Either way I highly doubt I will be very interested in this or future projects from inXile just because of how they have handled this entire situation more than the decision itself

    5. Captain Shrek on December 7, 2013

      Sam.

      Why would that be not okay? I am curious. I am not one of them "blame people for entitlement" persons. But I need to have a clear opinion as to what exactly did InExile do wrong in this scenario.

    6. Sam on December 7, 2013

      And according to some who have interpreted their favouring TB in past comments that their mind was already made up and this vote was just lip service at best

    7. Captain Shrek on December 7, 2013

      Sam.

      What else should they do then?

    8. Sam on December 7, 2013

      @Shrek
      Because it is an unpopular decision, they made it with only 20% of the backers voting and it doesn't fit the idea of a successor to torment most people seem to be saying

    9. Captain Shrek on December 7, 2013

      I don't get it. I remember the part about "we'll decide later" about the combat mechanics being clearly present in the Kickstarter while it was running. So why are people so upset?

    10. Missing avatar

      Xelosu on December 7, 2013

      @tobi
      Yes, I just want my refund and I am out of here. This is not what I pladged for. Everything else was said and done.
      Its funny how they claim making game for backers while spitting in half of the voters face.
      Also I've noticed “spiritual successor “ evolved into "thematical succesor".. Coincidence?

    11. Missing avatar

      Mark
      Superbacker
      on December 7, 2013

      No matter what combat system was decided, half the audience will be unhappy. Unfortunately, I am one of the unhappy ones. I went back and looked on the main site and there is no mentioned to the combat system in specific details. Though there is a reference to tumblr page, which states, "We have different combat systems in mind to reach this goal and will engage backers on this topic throughout the process." Unfortunately, inXile choose to wait until the campaign had ended and funds secured prior to asking the community. I will live with my decision to back the project and perhaps I might even play the game once released, but in the future I will vote with my money and not support additional inXile titles, unless the overall game design and architecture is state up front, but even then I will have to decide carefully. Unfortunately, kickstarter is a mixed bag. I have been part of successful and well delivered products/designs. Unfortunately, as with life, I have been disappointed on a few occasions and I feel like this is one of them.

    12. Missing avatar

      Giovanni Manca on December 7, 2013

      Torment will be a narrative RPG. If devs say that TB is more coherent with the narrative style they are developing, I trust in them.

      Remember that combat won't be the core of Torment. Decisions and story are predominant, the combat will support them and not overwhelm.

    13. Ben Turner
      Superbacker
      on December 7, 2013

      Well said and well addressed. Pick the right system for the game you are making. Both systems are valid, and superior for different concerns. Congrats for doing the right thing for this game, and shame on those so closed-minded that TB could never be a valid style of game if done well.

    14. Sensuki on December 7, 2013

      Knights of the Chalice is probably the best most recent turn-based combat game that I have played. Although if you are not well versed in D&D it might require a bit of RTFM (Read the Fucking Manual) which most people are too lazy to do. That said the game has a fantastic UI and you can find out what absolutely everything in the game does very easily.

      Expeditions: Conquistador was pretty good but the turn-based combat wasn't necessarily the best part about the game, the strategical map resource management was my favourite bit. Shadowrun Returns had very shallow and disappointing combat. I enjoyed playing the game but I wouldn't play it again until the Berlin DLC which apparently changes/adds heaps of stuff, including save anywhere which hopefully means they make the game harder.

    15. Bryy Miller on December 7, 2013

      "OWNED RTWP FGTS HAHAHAHA LMAO LOOK AT THE BUTTHURT - Q_Q MUMMY PLZ LET ME WITHDRAW MY PLEDGE TURN BATHED COMBAT MAKES ME USE MY BRAIN"

      Oh please. Let's not act like turn based combat is Chess, or turns a video game into high art.

    16. Theobeau:OOoE\Mad man with a box/Exiled on December 7, 2013

      Good post explaining inXile's decision.

      As one of 7052 backers who voted RTwP, this update has addressed many of my concerns re: turn based.

      Remain very excited to see how it all fits together.

    17. Bert Derveaux on December 7, 2013

      I prefer RTwP, there are already so many TB games out on the market and many on the way aswell. But I can understand TB games are somewhat easier and less costly to produce. Somewhat dissapointed, because I'am a huge fan of real-time combat, but I can live with it.

    18. Leewelo Lorekeeper
      Superbacker
      on December 7, 2013

      I voted for RTwP but will respect inXile decision.
      I would have strongly preffered RTwP over TB for the tension it brings, it could have brought a nice counterpoint to the non combat side of the game.
      Even though I enjoy TB games, I never found one in 20 years of gaming that did not became tedious, with either terrain & ovement based TB or pure battle TB. Even when the games where purely or strongly build around combat (e.g. Wizardry, Realms of Arkania, Shining Force series (the old ones, not the new crap), any jRPG known or unknown to most western audience...)
      With RTwP, you can just bust through those encounters, show off your overkill skills, or set yourself quick challenges that keep the combat engaging. Less so in TB.
      And putting TB combat in a game where combat is not the emphasis just seems so counterintuitive. I hope you will be able to pull it off and keep us engaged.

    19. Mihael Dreo on December 7, 2013

      People asking for refunds are exactly the kind of people that should never be involved with this.

    20. Slobodan Obrenovic on December 7, 2013

      My delicious morning meal, consisting of greater amberjack, spinach, sweet potatoes and top quality extra virgin olive oil is perfectly complemented by the taste of your tears. Content with the vote outcome and satiated by nutritious food and exquisite drink, I will increase my pledge.

    21. Sam on December 7, 2013

      Just contact inXile
      If enough people ask for refunds then maybe you will get them

    22. Chand Svare Ghei - Moonknight
      Superbacker
      on December 7, 2013

      I am just so disappointed about this, I understand that it was never clear what combat system to be used. But if I knew it was TB, no way I could have backed this, just like I can not back Wasteland 2. Not because I dont want to, but even if I try to like the TB classic games, it does not work. Maybe there can be some pledge black marked where where people could sell/buy pledges?

    23. Kenny
      Superbacker
      on December 7, 2013

      Would have been content with either, but I voted turn based, and I'm really happy that it's turned out this way.

    24. Gene on December 7, 2013

      "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".

    25. Missing avatar

      Yaniv on December 7, 2013

      inXile want to cut expenses by using WL2 combat system, this the real reason for use in TB system. Long and tedious (like the TB system itself) explanation can't cover the truth. They tricked us to back this project by not telling us upfront what system they will use. They swayed the vote and they added the "advisory fail safe mechanism".
      -
      inXile, I wish you "well".

    26. Missing avatar

      mezla1058 on December 7, 2013

      I would've been fine with either, but RTwP butthurt is delicious.

    27. Jiri Cerny on December 7, 2013

      As someone who voted for RTwP I might get disappointed, but frankly who gives a damn? PST wasn't really about combat at all (otherwise all RPGs from Black Isle/Bioware teams would be same games as they used same system across all their franchises, be it BG, IWD or PST, just different environment). And hopefully this Torment won't be about combat either. So yeah, the explanation is good, makes sense, TB it is. Bigger problem I have is the need to wait another year to finally be able to play this pearl...

    28. Gene on December 7, 2013

      That would take even more money than just doing one or the other, and it's very difficult to do well... for this game where combat is not a focus, maybe for a future game when they've got more dev experience with systems under their belt and combat is a bigger focus, don't like the idea of such an expensive gamble for Numenera.

    29. Sam on December 7, 2013

      It didn't really add anything but more importantly it didn't take anything away from the gameplay both were done well and encounters played out very different depending on which you chose. Much the same can be said of apocalypse

      Those are the two most known games that did very well with real time and turn based

    30. Gene on December 7, 2013

      I played Fallout Tactics a long time ago but I don't remember the real time adding very much to the game.

    31. Missing avatar

      Chris Tomaszewicz on December 7, 2013

      I am cool with turn based mechanics. I have absolute confidence that you guys will make an amazing game.

    32. Paul Kennedy on December 7, 2013

      Aww I missed the poll. It's a tough choice though, I probably would have voted for RTwP (I rarly if ever find TB tedious, it's that TBwP was what all those wonderful Infinity Engine games had), but after reading that I think TB is the way to go for this game; clearly the devs have a vision and things like "no trash mobs" and "every encounter will be handcrafted" sound wonderful. As for the both option, just look at the combat system in Arcanum...

    33. Missing avatar

      Magnus Killingberg on December 7, 2013

      Well, I have no qualms. I initially wanted combat to be real-time, but after reading this post, I've been convinced. Good luck!

    34. Sam on December 7, 2013

      @Gene
      Have you played fallout tactics, X-Com Apocalypse or the other examples of both done right?

    35. Siilk on December 7, 2013

      Well crap. Now that's disappointing. I wanted to write a long post here but it's quite clear that devs already made their decision and TB crown simply cannot listen to the voice of reason so there's no point in that now. Oh well, and I thought combat in this game will be enjoyable, how foolish of me. :/

    36. Gene on December 7, 2013

      @Ulrik Have you played Arcanum?

    37. Bruce the Hoon on December 7, 2013

      @Dan. L
      It has not been clear from day one. Anything that could have been done on day one was to have assumed it.
      What really HAS been clear from the KS campaign is, that they have not decided on the combat system yet (TB or RTwP), but they were leaning towards TB. It has been clear, because they EXPLICITLY said so.
      BTW: I voted IDC.

    38. Missing avatar

      Ulrik on December 7, 2013

      Nooooo :( This is not the right way to go. It should indeed be a gameplay option where you could choose between the two. You indeed disappoint half of your backers by doing this. Not worth it.

    39. Missing avatar

      Louhikarme on December 7, 2013

      Good reasonings. Keep up the good work!

    40. undecaf on December 7, 2013

      This is great news. I always lamented that PST wasn't turnbased, but now this will be fixed, hopefully to a great success. Well done, InXile, well done indeed.

    41. Dan. L. on December 7, 2013

      That's... disapointing. The pillars and everything else sounds good. But I didn't pledge thinking it would be turn based, I left that kind of gameplay years ago after playing too many turn based rpgs and only choose very very carefully the turn based games I play. And I already have a few of those I pledged for...
      I'll still accept the result of the vote and the devs decision and won't push it farther than this post, even if the fact that it was so close and it sill ended up being TB is a sore spot for me.

      But damn it... This should have been clear from day 1. Since it wasn't, we were lead to believe it would be RT... And it should have stayed that way!

    42. Tobi (Crusader Kickstarter pls!!) on December 7, 2013

      aaaaanyway, love this update, good explanation. some haters apparently did not read the update because they bring up the exact topics that were explained in detail. so for those, please: demand your stupid refund and go. i bet they are about a 100 of the 74.000 backers so just give them their money and be rid of them.

    43. Tobi (Crusader Kickstarter pls!!) on December 7, 2013

      And so the flamewar begins...lol

    44. silvercross on December 7, 2013

      I disappear from the internet for a couple of weeks and this is what happens. =/

      The thing about votes down the middle means that half the people like the idea while at the same time half the people hate the idea. (Let's not even get to the fact that 80% didn't vote/weren't aware.)

      I'll just say I'm severely disappointed by the decision. Every reason listed by the devs did nothing in terms of quelling that. I suppose it can't be helped. While I want to trust you guys that you'll make it enjoyable and fun to RTwP folks, I am having a hard time not viewing TB combat as a grind.

    45. Missing avatar

      PrimeJunta on December 7, 2013

      I was hoping they'd pick RTwP just to see Hiver's subsequent meltdown. TB is clearly a better fit for the game though.

    46. Missing avatar

      Jeremy on December 7, 2013

      I voted indifferent because I felt this is something the team should have decided by themselves anyways, well fleshing out and adapting their ideas based on feedback. While I don't expect the combat in Torment to be near as visceral and intense, Play the new XCom and tell me turn based is not as exciting or realistic as real time combat.

    47. Gary Riley, Tormented Grand Cipher of ∞ on December 7, 2013

      Let's all wait and see how it works before getting emotional... Once we have videos/ beta play-testing we can complain if it doesn't work, but until then can we not give them the benefit of the doubt? This is what they do for a living - give them your trust until they break it, have they not earned that right? I would have preferred RTwP, but I can also see how this might work with the Numanera rules...

    48. Missing avatar

      Draconis on December 7, 2013

      I personally enjoy both RTwP and TB so I didn't vote but i would prefer RTwP for this type of game. My reasons for this is due to the type of game that is being made.

      This game will have every area drawn like a canvas (please correct me if I'm wrong) and most objects you see on the screen will not be intractable and most combat situations will be derived from having a conversation with somebody (also correct me if i misunderstood that).

      What this means is when i enter combat I will be relatively close to my adversaries in combat i most likely wont be able to hide behind walls and flank my enemies or scale a building to get a better vantage point and high ground which would offer me a bonus to my hit rating.

      I also would not be able to rotate my camera to a different angle to see a situation from a different perspective.

      What i assume is gonna happen is 2 groups standing on opposites side of each-other flinging spells of defensive nature fist then switch to offense, melee combatants closing the distance and range and utility using their skills to take down opponents.

      While I don't mind this type of gameplay i would prefer to see such combat being done in RTwP.

      This is of course being based of my assumptions on what the game is gonna be like.
      It would be nice if you could throw up a smoke screen(or teleport) to tactically retreat from such situations making the enemy come to you so you could ambush them or decide on the way your hunting them down.
      Also i would love to see the usage of wall spells where you( or your enemy) could prevent the usages of a certain routes forcing your(or your enemies) tactic to change.

      This is my opinion on the matter I still believe this is gonna be a great game even if doesn't come out exactly like I imagine it.

    49. olpika on December 7, 2013

      I'm genuinely happy. Not because of some kind of Schadenfreude, just because that's a good piece of news. It's a good way to begin the day!

      It's a very courageous decision from InXile. I'm proud to be a backer of a team that has a real vision.