2 Actions vs Action point based combat?

[Sn1p3r187]

Say something like XCOM enemy unknown's combat vs something along the likes of Silent Storm, Fallout, or Jagged Alliance. For me, I've kinda always liked the Action point system. It's the one I recognize the best and it's the one that feels most fluid to me. I'll admit the two point system like in XCOM EU was nice and in some ways was less forgiving making every move you made something that had to be damn near perfect to pull off. But it was limiting and linear and didn't offer much in terms of combat pace like say in Fallout. Do you have preferences to one or the other?

 

[ZigzagPX4]

I like the two actions. The depth that can be put into simply making those two actions matter was very impressive in both of the new XCOMs.

I like the action points system in old games too, but not as much, simply because the complexity it entails (yes, yes, I'm saying boo hoo old pre-AAA games too hard, you can make fun of me later) is too harsh and unforgiving on people trying to get into gaming. It should be available in some games, but it should not be the turn-based global standard.

People see the two actions as being "simplified garbage" compared to the action points. I hate that opinion. Not everything needs to be as deep and complex as a space shuttle cockpit. I'm fine with streamlining if it serves the game, I'm not fine with streamlining if it's a corporate tool in marketing games to bigger crowds for more money, I'm still fine with it if it's for marketing games to bigger crowds because you want to make gaming a more popular thing and open it up to more people.

 

[Sn1p3r187]

I like the two actions. The depth that can be put into simply making those two actions matter was very impressive in both of the new XCOMs.

I like the action points system in old games too, but not as much, simply because the complexity it entails (yes, yes, I'm saying boo hoo old pre-AAA games too hard, you can make fun of me later) is too harsh and unforgiving on people trying to get into gaming. It should be available in some games, but it should not be the turn-based global standard.

People see the two actions as being "simplified garbage" compared to the action points. I hate that opinion. Not everything needs to be as deep and complex as a space shuttle cockpit. I'm fine with streamlining if it serves the game, I'm not fine with streamlining if it's a corporate tool in marketing games to bigger crowds for more money, I'm still fine with it if it's for marketing games to bigger crowds because you want to make gaming a more popular thing and open it up to more people.

Strange.I kinda always thought the two actions system was a more unforgiving. Kinda like chess on a squad level.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

The action point system is a good idea when you want some people to be able to do many more things in combat than others, or if you want people to be able to grow to do more things over time.

If you're not interested in doing any of that (and specifically balancing around it) it's probably better to just do the two action system. XCOM doesn't really need action points, after all.

 

[aenemic]

I think it depends a lot on the underlying systems, and I can't say that I straight up prefer one over the other. For example, the action points in Fallout are based on Agility, Perks and Traits. They are the result of a specific character build. Characters with low action points are dependant on other stats to balance them out. Which was kind of a problem in the old Fallout games, as a high Agility was way too important for a good combat build. On top of that, there's much more intricate balance required for action point costs for everything. Simply figuring out how much potential damage two different weapons with different AP costs can do is a good example. It can lead to a much deeper system is much harder to balance.

The system in the old X-Com games wasn't great either. As most actions took a percentage of Time Units to perform, the amount of TU's available to a soldier mostly made a difference in how far they could run before taking a shot or throwing a grenade. And if their energy was too low, you couldn't make use of all the left-over TU's. You simply ended up sacking everyone who had too low stats.

In the new XCom's the actions aren't dependant on any stats. Everyone has two of them, and there's a system for how you can spend them. This makes balancing much easier, and it makes it easier to plan ahead. It can feel a bit simple at times, but especially in XCom 2 I think they've offered enough different things to do that it never feels like every turn is the same thing over and over.

So my answer would be: the one that fits the rest of the games systems best, and that provides the best balance.

 

[Sn1p3r187]

I think it depends a lot on the underlying systems, and I can't say that I straight up prefer one over the other. For example, the action points in Fallout are based on Agility, Perks and Traits. They are the result of a specific character build. Characters with low action points are dependant on other stats to balance them out. Which was kind of a problem in the old Fallout games, as a high Agility was way too important for a good combat build. On top of that, there's much more intricate balance required for action point costs for everything. Simply figuring out how much potential damage two different weapons with different AP costs can do is a good example. It can lead to a much deeper system is much harder to balance.

The system in the old X-Com games wasn't great either. As most actions took a percentage of Time Units to perform, the amount of TU's available to a soldier mostly made a difference in how far they could run before taking a shot or throwing a grenade. And if their energy was too low, you couldn't make use of all the left-over TU's. You simply ended up sacking everyone who had too low stats.

In the new XCom's the actions aren't dependant on any stats. Everyone has two of them, and there's a system for how you can spend them. This makes balancing much easier, and it makes it easier to plan ahead. It can feel a bit simple at times, but especially in XCom 2 I think they've offered enough different things to do that it never feels like every turn is the same thing over and over.

So my answer would be: the one that fits the rest of the games systems best, and that provides the best balance.

Hmm. Would you suggest the AP system or the 2 turn system if say me and a team get together to make an RPG? I've been thinking about this idea for a while, it'd take both inspirations from Fallout and XCOM. Though set in more modern times and companions are an option.

 

[eissa]

Hmm. Would you suggest the AP system or the 2 turn system if say me and a team get together to make an RPG? I've been thinking about this idea for a while, it'd take both inspirations from Fallout and XCOM. Though set in more modern times and companions are an option.

the POWER OF XCOM @ MODDING TOOL!

GOD, Its Happening!!
FALLOUT ! AND @ Conversion!