Tactica Online from Imaginary Numbers

[waylander]

I think the things that most guilds want to know is how the turn based system is going to work, why its more fun for us to use turn based, what can we achieve in the world, and why do those achievements matter to us or any other guild.

Emphasis mine.

Please do not let this drive your design theory.

Yes, there should be achievables in the world. And yes, achievables should have SOME effect. But please, for the love of all that's holy in this world, if the winners just get stronger and stronger, you will have Shadowbane all over again. If the achievables are so much more important than just e-peen waving, the game will spiral into uselessness, because only the hardcore will ever play for long. What you will hear from these hardcore is "We want our victories to MEAN something," without ever realizing what it will mean is that only the wolves will play after a while.

Achievement has driven (into the ground) every MMOG we have. I'm not saying it should be ignored, I'm saying it should be VERY CONTROLLED so that the winners get more flexible, not more powerful.

SB went too far because it had no mechanisim for the crushed to get back on their feet, and people left or created a zerg.

In DAOC when one realm pwned all and had the relic, the other realms were essentially at a disadvantage.

DAOC is an example of PVP meaning nothing. The world doesn't (or didn't) change no matter what you did. You just a realm point farmer and hopefully you'd show up on their leader boards.

SB PVP is an example of PVP meaning too much. There were no saftey mechamisims built into the game to keep the crushed people around.

Tactica should find some middle ground between the two.

[WayAbvPar]

<----------- approaching fanboy status.


My one concern with no PvE at all (which is a fresh, novel, laudable approach) is the availabliity of opponents within the proscribed rating range. It seems that a new player who buys the box 3 months after launch might find himself with a dearth of opponents. Similarly, a casual player who plays from launch may find himself left behind by the more fervent players, with a similar lack of opponents.

Couple that with the idea of aiming for 50,000 players instead of 500,000, and I am worried. Any thoughts?

[tazelbain]

Tactica should find some middle ground between the two.

There is no middle ground. Either the defeated can or can't get back on their feet.

[Viin]

More Q&A at mmorpg.com:

We are starving for good turn-based rpg's out here. Any chance of a single player or offline version of Tactica or some sort of campaign mode?

Anything is possible. Let us get this version out of the way, and we’ll see what happens. I have to say, though, why do you want a single player version? It won’t cost any less, there won’t be much difference in your control over your play experience, and your opponents will get a lot less interesting.

How much luck is involved in the combat?

Good question, not a lot. Originally we had a large variance in the amount of damage done by attacks, for example, but in testing we found that this detracted from the experience. This goes back to Tactica Online’s roots as a strategy game – you want your success or failure to be the result of the strategy you choose, not the result of some bad random numbers.

This approach is reflected throughout the game – if your attack misses your enemy, it’s likely it was because they put some defenses in place, rather than because that they just got unlucky. If you win, it’s because you played better, not because everything just went your way today.

What your team refers to as a class and level in Tactica Online may not be what the average MMORPG fan expects. Can you explain these concepts as they exist in Tactica Online?

Class in most games is a restriction on what you can do. Not so in Tactica Online. In fact, you don’t get to choose your class, it’s chosen for you according to the skills you know, and the equipment you wear. Lots of melee skills, you might be a Knight. Put on an eyepatch, and you might become a Pirate. Add a few healing skills, you might become a Paladin. Remove the melee skills, you might become a Priest. Class thus becomes more of an indicator to your opponents of what you might be capable of, rather than a restriction on the skills you can learn.

Similarly, level isn’t an indication of progress, but a reflection of the Point Value of a character. If your Point Value goes down – let’s say you remove some of those melee skills – your level will go down too. Again, level becomes an indicator to your opponents of what you might be capable of.

This is a very different conception of level and class than most people are familiar with, and we may end up changing the words we use because of that, but testing so far seems to indicate people are comfortable with the new usage.

Folks have been curious about the concept of a leader or “King” in the party. As the RPG elements of the game feature a single avatar, rather than a party, that serves as your identity in the game – will this then translate into some kind of effect on the combat aspects of gameplay?

While you’re represented by a single avatar in the shared areas of the game, this is purely a matter of convenience. None of your characters have any greater significance than any other. Think of yourself as the guiding hand behind all your characters, not as any particular one of them.

[Xilren's Twin]

Tactica should find some middle ground between the two.

There is no middle ground. Either the defeated can or can't get back on their feet.

Well, one way this could be address is by NOT having persistance per se.  In other words, reset the world state every X months to allow all parties to begin again from equal footing, same way they do with sports league seasons.  Part of the appeal of direct competitive game is the chance to try again.  In a game like SB, once you lost, it became harder and harder to try again while for the winners, it got easier and easier to stay on top.  Haem was spot on for this point.

Now, resetting could be, wipe, everyone starts the same world again, or if you wanted to structure a story line around it, you could design each world reset to having changes that makes each run through unique.  Like what if this world season has magic cost twice as much as last season, or gunpowder stop working.  Shake things up and keep the game fluid.

Another way this could be addressed is specialization of game types.  To keep with the MtG examples, you have several different formats to choose from, so very few people end up being good at sealed, drafting, standard constructed, block constructed, extended and multiplayer.  Sounds like the basis for this is in there with the limits on points per team per mission, but will the missions be different enough that the are actually different "formats" or game types?

At any rate, looks very interesting.  More please.

Xilren

[Viin]

Now, resetting could be, wipe, everyone starts the same world again, or if you wanted to structure a story line around it, you could design each world reset to having changes that makes each run through unique.  Like what if this world season has magic cost twice as much as last season, or gunpowder stop working.  Shake things up and keep the game fluid.

I was thinking the same thing. You could even run multipule worlds at a time, so that when the top tiers of players have shaken out on World A, let them continue to battle for top slots but start World B to let all the new players and people who dropped out of World A play on a fresh slate. Though that'd have to mean there was a 'finish' for each World, that the players would shoot for.

[Merusk]

I have to say, though, why do you want a single player version? It won’t cost any less, there won’t be much difference in your control over your play experience, and your opponents will get a lot less interesting.

Because some people suck at some games, but still enjoy playing them.  For example, I love FPS games, but I suck, suck suck suck suck SUCK at them.  As a result I never play them online because it's no fun knowing you're just a roaming target whose total kills are 0 every single round.   (This is also why I've never bought an Unreal game.  All I ever hear is how multiplayer is, nothing about the SP segment, so it must not be that great.)

Lots of developers recently seem to think that multiplayer is some sort of holy grail.  It's not.  You've still got a huge single player audience out there with no interest in multiplayer games, or the multiplayer segement of those games.  Obviously, you're making an MMO so you're not catering to that segment, but it's something I've started to notice in both PC and Console games and it makes me lament the course of gaming.   Once again I'm glad I've never sold any of my classic games so I'll still have something to play when they're all some Multiplayer FPS RTS hybred.

[Trippy]

I have to say, though, why do you want a single player version? It won’t cost any less, there won’t be much difference in your control over your play experience, and your opponents will get a lot less interesting.

Because some people suck at some games, but still enjoy playing them.  For example, I love FPS games, but I suck, suck suck suck suck SUCK at them.  As a result I never play them online because it's no fun knowing you're just a roaming target whose total kills are 0 every single round.

Maybe you should try some of the objective-based team MP FPS games.

(This is also why I've never bought an Unreal game.  All I ever hear is how multiplayer is, nothing about the SP segment, so it must not be that great.)

The Unreal games (Unreal, Unreal II) have lengthy single player campaigns and in fact the original Unreal MP sucked cause the netcode was so poor. The Unreal Tournament games are all about MP, though they do have bots you can practice against if you want.

[Descended]

Now, resetting could be, wipe, everyone starts the same world again, or if you wanted to structure a story line around it, you could design each world reset to having changes that makes each run through unique.  Like what if this world season has magic cost twice as much as last season, or gunpowder stop working.  Shake things up and keep the game fluid.

I was thinking the same thing. You could even run multipule worlds at a time, so that when the top tiers of players have shaken out on World A, let them continue to battle for top slots but start World B to let all the new players and people who dropped out of World A play on a fresh slate. Though that'd have to mean there was a 'finish' for each World, that the players would shoot for.

To take this idea further, think about what would happen if everyone was in one and only one limited time, power level appropriate tournament that automatically funneled ranges of similarly powered players into new tournaments upon tournament conclusion.  All tournaments would run concurrently, so every X weeks all tournaments would end, the total number of tournaments necessary to support the active number of players would be calculated, and the players would then be automatically assigned to a tournament appropriate for their power level.

A negative to this approach is that any in-game player organizations become purely social interaction structures in any case where your 'guild' (or whatever you call it) has members of different advancement levels and aren't able to play in the same tournament.

This may be useless rumination, though, if the game story being told is just flavor.  If you are on a loosing faction and the worst that happens to your play experience is the occasional in-game reminder that U R LuZ0rz! then good, fun core gameplay can still be yours.  Of course, this defeats the idea meaningful gameworld changes due to individual accomplishments.

That is the dichotomy I'd like to see Luke respond to most:  what mechanisms do you envision that would allow personal victories to cause meaningful gamewide effects without causing some players to be unable to realistically compete. [Notice I said 'realistically compete' rather than 'fairly compete' because I don't think any PvP system that enforces perfect fairness is 1) possible or 2) fun]

[HaemishM]

Starport uses the limited game length thing. All games are 1-2 weeks long. You have two weeks to compete, and they had servers that are both PVP and Pax servers. The latter is still PVP, but you just can't attack other players directly; it's all about economic competition, trying to get your colonies to produce more experience or money for you without having to worry about PC pirates and colony invasions. It works pretty well.

I'd imagine taking that a step further and moving the winners to new servers with new games would be a good way of separating the wolves from the sheep. Of course, that depends on whether they are trying to go for a one world (a la Guild Wars) solution, or a mult-shard (a la EQ or SB) solution. I think it's more of the one world solution.

[Merusk]

I have to say, though, why do you want a single player version? It won’t cost any less, there won’t be much difference in your control over your play experience, and your opponents will get a lot less interesting.

Because some people suck at some games, but still enjoy playing them.  For example, I love FPS games, but I suck, suck suck suck suck SUCK at them.  As a result I never play them online because it's no fun knowing you're just a roaming target whose total kills are 0 every single round.

Maybe you should try some of the objective-based team MP FPS games.

See, the problem with that, and with all games where Teamwork is the emphasis of MP play, is that I don't have the time or desire to devote to it.   I played America's Army when it came out, and I had a blast as both Deathmatch suicide runs and when the random folks in a match would actually work towards goals.    Then, as teams started to form and online clans came into the game it got progressivly less fun since random folks will always get pwned by clans.

  I *could* have joined a clan, and done all the requisite practices and training and all that other BS, but it becomes like an Uberguild in an MMO at that point.  You're doing more work than you are fun, and you're devoting large portions of your free time to a GAME so you can compete at the game.  No thanks, I'm just looking for some fun when I want it and on my terms.  This is why Singleplayer games should never go away, and questioning, "why would you want to play singleplayer against 'only' the AI?" is in and of itself, somewhat silly.   It's also another reason I didn't bother with Guild Wars.

[Trippy]

I have to say, though, why do you want a single player version? It won’t cost any less, there won’t be much difference in your control over your play experience, and your opponents will get a lot less interesting.

Because some people suck at some games, but still enjoy playing them.  For example, I love FPS games, but I suck, suck suck suck suck SUCK at them.  As a result I never play them online because it's no fun knowing you're just a roaming target whose total kills are 0 every single round.

Maybe you should try some of the objective-based team MP FPS games.

See, the problem with that, and with all games where Teamwork is the emphasis of MP play, is that I don't have the time or desire to devote to it.   I played America's Army when it came out, and I had a blast as both Deathmatch suicide runs and when the random folks in a match would actually work towards goals.    Then, as teams started to form and online clans came into the game it got progressivly less fun since random folks will always get pwned by clans.

I didn't play America's Army much so I can't comment on that game, however with something like Counter-Strike which I have played a ton of, while it is true that well-organized clans will dominate "pub" (public) games the really good ones tend not to play them and instead focus on arranged scrimmages with other clans in their leagues for practicing. I just recently finished Half-Life 2 (meh) and so I've been playing some Counter-Strike: Source just to see what that's like and on the random sampling of servers that I've played on it's still the same as it was which is that the really really good players/clans stay away from the pub servers like they were the plague so I can have fun without being totally owned ever round even though I'm back to being a n00b in the game.

  I *could* have joined a clan, and done all the requisite practices and training and all that other BS, but it becomes like an Uberguild in an MMO at that point.  You're doing more work than you are fun, and you're devoting large portions of your free time to a GAME so you can compete at the game.  No thanks, I'm just looking for some fun when I want it and on my terms.  This is why Singleplayer games should never go away, and questioning, "why would you want to play singleplayer against 'only' the AI?" is in and of itself, somewhat silly.   It's also another reason I didn't bother with Guild Wars.

Speaking of AI and FPSes the bots in the BF2 Demo are pretty good. I still can't quite beat the SP-mode at the Expert setting, though part of the problem is the Commander mode doesn't seem to work quite right in SP (the squads will follow the first few orders from me but then stop).

[Margalis]

I would echo the sentiment, I don't won't guilds playing a large part in a strategy/tactics game. Being in a guild is not a 'skill' and should not confer an advantage. Maybe open up some new game types like guild vs. guild, but that should be all.

[Luke]

Lots of good thoughts here, I can see I'm going to have to check in more often. First note, one ideology gaining power relative to the others has no effect on the skills or abilities of any character, it's purely a storyline thing. Consequently, it's not possible for one group to be at a gameplay disadvantage to another because they've been winning or losing to date. Despite being restricted to the storyline, it's a fairly big and noticable impact. With all players inhabiting one world, when the game's central city falls due to one player, or one guild, that player or guild gets a lot of attention.

This impact upon the storyline has, in turn, an effect on what new skills and equipment introduced in the next expansion. These skills and equipment do have a huge effect on gameplay, though it's more about which skills become available and which don't, than anything related to the relative power of the different ideologies. For example, if a particular part of the storyline was focused around a scientist's attempts to create a telescope (realize I'm trying to stay away from actual storylines), and player's ensured that this attempt was successful via an event during the culmination of that expansion set, then there might be a few new vision-related skills and pieces of equipment in the Research skill line next expansion. If they were unsuccessful, there would instead be an unrelated set of new abilities, neither more nor less powerful. The reward for you as a player is getting to steer the development of each faction, rather than getting to affect their relative capabilities.

As to the guild thing, it's a reality in today's market that you need to provide things for guilds to do as well as players. Accordingly, every expansion has events for individuals, and events for guilds. Both get their own things to do, and both compete only with others of their class (i.e. guilds only with guilds).

Lastly, allowing all individuals an opportunity to meaningfully affect the storyline. Tactica Online is a competitive game. As such, you need to compete to be able to have such an effect upon the world. In any competition, not everyone's going to be able to win, but everyone needs a chance at the prize in order to feel like they're really in the game. The way most sports do this - have representative teams that you can cheer for - doesn't really work in a game like this, but the same reality applies. Most people just aren't able to compete at the top level, and there still needs to be a way to stop them from feeling like they're shut out. The solution we chose is to have tiered events, for players with different ranges of rating - one event open to players with a rating from 1500-1600, one for those 1600-1700, and so on. This gives everyone the chance to compete within their division, as it were, with their own area of impact upon the story that no one outside that division can affect.


Luke

[Daydreamer]

Lastly, allowing all individuals an opportunity to meaningfully affect the storyline. Tactica Online is a competitive game. As such, you need to compete to be able to have such an effect upon the world. In any competition, not everyone's going to be able to win, but everyone needs a chance at the prize in order to feel like they're really in the game. The way most sports do this - have representative teams that you can cheer for - doesn't really work in a game like this, but the same reality applies. Most people just aren't able to compete at the top level, and there still needs to be a way to stop them from feeling like they're shut out. The solution we chose is to have tiered events, for players with different ranges of rating - one event open to players with a rating from 1500-1600, one for those 1600-1700, and so on. This gives everyone the chance to compete within their division, as it were, with their own area of impact upon the story that no one outside that division can affect.


Luke

Yes, yes and triple yes.  This is the problem I have with most PvP, and despite its charm and polish, Guild Wars fails here too in that the only PvP with significant high quality rewards is the Tomb of Ancient Kings (for gold weapons and sigils), and you have to be some of the best players in the game (and a bit lucky too) just to make it through the preliminary maps which give exactly zero reward.

My one burning question is this: how do the rewards differ with the ranks?  How do they affect the story differently?  Are they sufficient reward for difficulty wihtout making the newblers feel left out?

Here is how I would do it, to use your example, 3 players of different ranks are trying to help the scientist make the telescope of different ranks (1500+, 1600+, 1700+) through whatever means needed in the game - say for example fighting through Mystic controlled terriotory to find magically pure sand for melting into a new lense, or whatever.  So all three are matched up for similar fights against equal level 'Mystic' opponents, and each winner nets an amount of victory points for this story event in proportion to difficulty (1 for 1500+, 2 for 1600+ etc., representing that better players push further into enemy territory and secure more magic sand).  Then you can say 50 VPs needed to ensure this basic event occurs, 100 for that, and the top 5 VP scoring 'monumental events' occur.  Though of course you'll want to avoid telling players numerically how close they are to avoid catasses and min/maxers etc who will grind out the fights needed and no more and move elsewhere.  Maybe "My telescope is years/monthes/weeks/days from completion" or some such, with something like "My rival from the Mystic camp is very near/close to/approaching/attempting to/preparing a spell to turn this magic dust I need into a magic time-altering hourglass.  We must hurry!".

[HaemishM]

Many good things

Yeah, do THAT RIGHT THERE. You have yet to say anything that sounds bad.

[tazelbain]

Yes, yes and triple yes.  This is the problem I have with most PvP, and despite its charm and polish, Guild Wars fails here too in that the only PvP with significant high quality rewards is the Tomb of Ancient Kings (for gold weapons and sigils), and you have to be some of the best players in the game (and a bit lucky too) just to make it through the preliminary maps which give exactly zero reward.

This attitude is exactly why we are stuck with shity ass trendmill and loot-whore games.  I wish there were no items and sigils were no-trade, so those of us who play for FUN can play without dealing tons of kiddies who dream of phat loot.  When you start handing out rewards for a fun activity, the fun activity gets lost and it becomes all about the rewards. Or rewards just cover up game play that wasn't fun to begin with.

My guild broke the top 100 rank barrier yesterday.  No loot. No Sigils. Just the satisfaction playing well and the fun of competing against quality teams.  But, I guess we are fools because we weren't in ToPK getting teh loots.

[Margalis]

If you want rewards, let the top X players waive the next months subscription fee.

The only reward in M:TGO is that if you do well enough you get more packs without paying for them - essentially you get money.

[Yegolev]

Put on an eyepatch, and you might become a Pirate.

I'm sold.  Put me down for a preorder.

[Xilren's Twin]

If you want rewards, let the top X players waive the next months subscription fee.

The only reward in M:TGO is that if you do well enough you get more packs without paying for them - essentially you get money.

MTGO is in a bit of a unique position in that some of the rewards they can offer can be quite attractive b/c they have an offline equivalent thats worth some money.  Winning packs that can be traded for tickets or even sold vie paypal or ebay for cash is part and parcel of the game.  Plus you can win invites to RL  Invitational tourneys, or byes at Grand Prix events and such.  The only reason they don't have an online ProTour for big cash dollars is there no real way to prevent multiple people from helping any one player with advice and tips durng a game which is too close to cheating to make cash games desirable.

Help, on of the common myths in MTGO is players bragging about "going infinite" for drafting; i.e. winning enough packs to cover their costs for future drafts so they don't have to spend money at all.  Pay $15 to draft; win 8 packs = $26 recycle into next draft; sell singles from previous draft for additional ticket, repeat ad infinitum.

At subscription game that allowed you to win free months might not be a bad idea so long as the game was a relatively level playing field.  Or winning perhaps stuff usually thrown in a collectors edition (artwork, figurines, cloth maps etc etc).  You know, swag.  Giving people tangible stuff they can brag to their buds saying "I won this playing X" is a nice form of word of mouthl marketing.  In game stuff just isn't as easy to show off.

Xilren

[Threash]

Please stop, just don't say anything more.  I don't want to be this excited about a game thats years away from coming out.

[Descended]

[....]

This impact upon the storyline has, in turn, an effect on what new skills and equipment introduced in the next expansion. These skills and equipment do have a huge effect on gameplay, though it's more about which skills become available and which don't, than anything related to the relative power of the different ideologies. For example, if a particular part of the storyline was focused around a scientist's attempts to create a telescope (realize I'm trying to stay away from actual storylines), and player's ensured that this attempt was successful via an event during the culmination of that expansion set, then there might be a few new vision-related skills and pieces of equipment in the Research skill line next expansion. If they were unsuccessful, there would instead be an unrelated set of new abilities, neither more nor less powerful. The reward for you as a player is getting to steer the development of each faction, rather than getting to affect their relative capabilities.

[....]

Interesting. 

Are player accounts locked into support of a particular ideology at account creation?

I like that player choices primarily affect their own ideology, rather than the game as a whole.

Of course, giving players a choice in how the game changes is dangerous in a class-and-abilities-balance sense.  I don't think you can trust players to choose to promote changes which make that which is underpowered better or that which is overpowered worse, despite the cerebral leaning of this style of game. 

How opaque are the final technical results of successful completion of a particular storyline?  If they are too clear, the developer is denied honest wiggle room while attempting to balance the game.  If they are too unclear, the player is unsure of what he is working for.

[Tmon]

I can't remember whether it is on the web page or in one of the interviews but they explain that you pick an ideology indirectly by what skills your squad uses.  If the majority of your squad guys are technology based then your victories with that squad end up supporting technology, if later you make a predominantly magic based squad then magic gets the benefit of your wins.  I'm thinking that this could cause the world shifts to be relatively small as people shift builds. 

[Luke]

As Tmon says, it's what you do that matters, not what you say. You'll never be asked what ideology you support, but the game will take notice of the way you go about doing things - what skills and equipment your characters use, and how successful they are at which missions.

In events, whether Tournaments or Campaigns, you get a bit more of a direct involvement. Upon winning the event you get to make a choice on that event's particular issue (does the city fall or not, do the missionaries reach Kyoto). Rather than the events for each ratings group all dealing with part of a single issue, there are separate issues for each event. A lesser-ranked event might deal with the research into lenses and telescopes mentioned earlier, while a higher-ranked event might deal with the mounting of an expedition to cross the crystal spheres and breach heaven itself. The former will determine whether a particular set of skills make it into the next expansion set, and the outcome of a subplot in the ongoing storyline, while the latter will determine one of the major plot points for the upcoming story arc (it's very likely that the largest events will be open, rather than restricted to particular ranks).

Whether one particular set of skills do or don't make it in won't affect the power of any ideology or skill set, though, and the only time one grouping will be weaker than another is when we haven't done as good a job of balancing them as we should have (that's not strictly true, as you'll find you don't actually make "pure" teams that often, and like people, most characters will have a few aspects of different ideologies, so there's almost never a head-to-head situation in which power balance is a factor), so it's not really a case of relying on players to shore up a weak faction, but of allowing players to push the story and the setting in particular directions. Does that make sense?


Luke

[Trippy]

In events, whether Tournaments or Campaigns, you get a bit more of a direct involvement. Upon winning the event you get to make a choice on that event's particular issue (does the city fall or not, do the missionaries reach Kyoto). Rather than the events for each ratings group all dealing with part of a single issue, there are separate issues for each event. A lesser-ranked event might deal with the research into lenses and telescopes mentioned earlier, while a higher-ranked event might deal with the mounting of an expedition to cross the crystal spheres and breach heaven itself. The former will determine whether a particular set of skills make it into the next expansion set, and the outcome of a subplot in the ongoing storyline, while the latter will determine one of the major plot points for the upcoming story arc (it's very likely that the largest events will be open, rather than restricted to particular ranks).

They did this sort of thing with the Legends of the Five Rings CCG (dunno if they still do it, haven't played in years). The winners of the major tournaments got to influence the storyline depending on which clan they were playing and how they played (e.g. playing a "corrupted" deck might give a different outcome than say an honor deck). It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in your game.

[Descended]

Just finished reading through the IGN/RPGVault (http://pc.ign.com/objects/735/735695.html) interviews with Luke.

This game has so much potential.  Pleasedontsuckpleasedontsuckpleasedontsuck.

This sentiment got me to thinking: How would I explain what parts games like Final Fantasy Tactics and XCOM I really liked, and why those components of those games were so intrigal to my (repeated) enjoyment.  I haven't played a complete game of XCOM for probably six years, but I am very much looking forward to the GBA XCOM-alike coming out this year.  Final Fantasy Tactics has logged more play time on my PS2 than any other game.  Why do I love these old games so much?

Why I Keep Re-playing Final Fantasy Tactics:

• Charge Time and Variable Turn Speed:  FFT was designed by someone willing to make a turn based system where effects were treated interally as if they were characters.  All characters and effects had a speed at which they accumulated timer system points; each timing cycle each entity's speed score was added to its timer system points.  When a character or effect accumulated 100 points (with special rules to handle overages and ties), a character took its turn, a buff wore out, or an effect (like a summon) went off.  There were information screens available to the player that showed him when an effect would go off relative to other effects and character turns.  I love this to death.  It is one of the two missing components that kept me from really enjoying Final Fantasy Tactics: Advance (the other was a lack of Move skills).  Why do I love this?  Because it makes good unit control require more than just positional tactics.  Because it provides another path to character superiority:  sometimes being able to move and act more often is more effective than being able to do a lot of damage in one turn or being difficult to kill.  I still feel a swell of self-congradulatory pride whenever I think of my Ninja/Bard build that could essentially solo the Weigraf/Velius encounter and still performed very well in the rest of the game.
• Componentized Abilities System:  The Support, Reaction, and Move abilities were available to all job combinations.  This doesn't mean they were universally useful, but it did mean that I could build a huge variety of effective characters that played differently simply because I changed out these supposely secondary attributes.  Because a fair number of these abilities worked as well regardless of what jobs your character had, I didn't feel like the designers were forcing me to use the support abilities in an 'appropriate way' in order to be effective.  If you wanted to blow the time necessary in the Samurai job to get the Blade Grasp reaction ability, it worked just as well for your white mage/summoner as it did for your knight/monk.  Little moments of blossoming creativity would result in ideas like "omg, I can put Hamedo on my engineer, and he'll be able to keep other gun wielders and archers from firing on him!".  Sure, these ideas can turn out to be not so brilliant, but it is actually fun to try them out. At this point, when I start a game, I've already designed my characters: "mmkay, Counter Magic has always looked kinda sucky, so I'm gonna try to optimize it as a challenge by running Geomancer primary for movement and magic attack, white mage secondary so I can cast Shell on myself as I'm running into a spell's area of effect, counter magic as reaction, of course, magic defense up for support, and move +3 so I can get to pretty much anywhere easily.  Hrm... I'll want a bard to speed me up, and maybe a time mage to haste and quick, too... oh, I know, I haven't ever tried Bard/Time Mage -- how can I optimize that..."
• Enjoyable Terrain:  This isn't so much that terrain heights are a necessary consideration when moving your units (that's a given in this style of game), but more that, despite the low resolution and simple terrain textures, the level designers for FFT made some of the battlefields very memorable simply by having a giant hill, or a strategic bridge, or a river crossing that characters with average jumping ability took twice as long to cross as those with more height scaling ability.  I really don't care how shiny your tile sets are, if you don't do interesting things with them.  Give me battles where I can find terrain advantages.  I'm not asking for battlefields where control of a single location means near guaranteed victory, but I do want to be faced with decisions that make me choose between dealing optimal damage this turn and having a strategic advantage over some longer course of the battle.
• Random Effects:  I likes the random!  Weapon and spell damage is fixed per hit (other than criticals), but there are several effect groups in the game that essentially let you gamble with your turn.  Geomancer's elemental attacks are subpar, except they have a 20% chance of adding a negative status effect.  Bards have a song that grants a random positive status effect to each friendly unit some % of the time.  Dancers can cause random negative status effects on enemies.  Most reaction abilities only go off a % of the time based on your Bravery stat.  Not only is this fun to watch, but it also increases the complexity of the battlefield analysis.  I want a chance to show that I can keep up with the changes on the battlefield, and I will become bored if I find I can predict what I am going to do with my troops throughout the battle as soon as I see the battlefield and positioning of the enemy.

Why X-COM:UFO Defense Worked:

• Reaction shots!:  Number one most important super-duper feature of X-Com.  Reaction shots allowed actual field-of-fire tactics.  It also allowed you to laugh your ass off when an alien poked its head around a corner and a barrage of friendly plasma fire resulted in a sprawled-out alien and a bunch of scorch marks on the ground and holes blown through hedges, walls, and the occasional extremely-unlucky-alien-who-happened-to-be-in-the-line-of-fire-two-screens-away.
• Line of Sight (enemy awareness): Positioning matters.  If you screw up your squad movement and don't have someone watching that alleyway entrance, it's your damn fault when the little gray dude with the heavy plasma gets two shots off and then retreats out of sight.  Either that, or you don't have enough men, and thems the breaks.
• Line of Sight (terrain awareness): If your squad hasn't seen it yet, its all black.  You don't know if that area behind a row of buildings has another row of buildings (perhaps with three or four civilians to protect) or is just a wide open firing zone you can cover with a sniper and a proximity grenade.  Make me decide whether I want to invest Major Glory's next three turns moving down that ally to find that out, or to keep him covering those two doors on that warehouse.
• Destructible Terrain:  I remember realizing for the first time how much fun this could be when I had two guys covering the base of some stairs and the alien up there wouldn't come down.  My little laser pistol carrying backup squad took about three turns to actually blow up enough of the upper story so they could see where he was at, but then then it was happy happy laser dodging time for Mr. Alien.
  [li]An Economic/Strategic Overgame:  Kinda like crafting (kinda) helps keep the MMORPG experience from being as repetitive, the base and equipment management component of X-Com allowed just the right amount of structure and storyline to the game.

Maybe some little idea from this will seap into Imaginary Number's discussions and the world will be a better place, blah blah blah.  Here's hoping you make the game I want, Luke, and if not, that you at least make enough money to keep trying until you do  :-D

[Yegolev]

Thanks for that.  Now I'm going to waste time this weekend trying to get X-COM to run on WinXP.

[HaemishM]

One of my favorite parts in X-Com was sending in the missle launcher that turned corners and blew the ever-living fuck out of walls and entire buildings. I kept imaging the surprised alien's face as the missle torched his ass, and left his buddy flapping in the breeze without cover for the next turn.

Good times, good times.

[Murgos]

Thanks for that.  Now I'm going to waste time this weekend trying to get X-COM to run on WinXP.

xcomutil works like a charm for me.

The destructable terrain really set X-Com apart for me.  It was always in my mind that I could just blow a hole in a wall to open up a shot or get the hell out of dodge.  Many times I've tracked an alien down to a specific part of a building and then used one trooper to blow holes in walls to open up lanes of fire for another.

That and bad tactics could royally screw a mission for you no matter how well equipped you were.  Like learning to avoid feeding troopers piecemeal into a fire fight or not to move someone around a blind corner without back-up or even recon by fire.

[Yegolev]

Thanks for that.  Now I'm going to waste time this weekend trying to get X-COM to run on WinXP.

xcomutil works like a charm for me.

You are not helping my family have a husband/father for the weekend.

[Margalis]

If you like FFT I strongly suggest your try Tactics Ogre. I should start doing classic reviews of that style of game, I've got a number of pretty good ones that most people haven't played. (Tactics Ogre, Feda, Earthlight, etc) Tactics Ogre is similar to FFT in some way, but you can have a lot more characters on a map at once. Overall I think it is a much better game.

[Alkiera]

If you like FFT I strongly suggest your try Tactics Ogre. I should start doing classic reviews of that style of game, I've got a number of pretty good ones that most people haven't played. (Tactics Ogre, Feda, Earthlight, etc) Tactics Ogre is similar to FFT in some way, but you can have a lot more characters on a map at once. Overall I think it is a much better game.

I played a bit of both FFT:Adv and Tactics Ogre Advance, and ended up actually buying a copy of TOA to play in my GBA.  I didn't care for a lot of the FFT:Adv 'features', like learning skills from weapons/equipment.  I liked FFT(the PS1 game) very much.  I liked the way job points and the skill systems worked.  Basically, was Demented said up there about FFT, I agree with.  X-COM, I haven't played.

Alkiera

[sidereal]

Jagged Alliance 2 is a similar comp to X-COM that's a little more modern, for whatever that's worth.  Setting up snipers on overwatch in a turn-based game simply never, ever gets old.

The only major problem I have with that game is the damage/HP relationship was often very silly and closed off a lot of tactics.  For example, if you snuck up behind someone and then shotgunned them with an aimed shot to the head, you might take off half their life.  After which the guy will turn around and kill you with a knife-stab to the foot.  The engine supports cool things like throwing knives and stuff, but in practice they're useless.  The almost always best thing to do is simply to law down a massive hail of gunfire from a distance until their hit points are ground down. 

Oh, other great feature from JA:2.  As unites were damaged, their effectiveness decreased.  This makes an enormous difference.  In the 99% of games (both computer games and paper games) where units are 100% effective until they're completely dead, it is always the best strategy to concentrate fire on a single unit at a time until it's dead.  In JA, it's reasonable to spread your fire over multiple targets, since if you can bring them all down to Wounded, none of them will be able to hit you anymore.  I always found that more satisfying.

"I've got a number of pretty good ones that most people haven't played."

Master of Monsters?
Military Madness on the TurboGrafx 16?
Best ever.

[Alkiera]

I liked the tactical combats in Master of Magic, which had both kinds of units... some were a single figure, who was fully effective until dead.  Many others were multiple figure units, which had figures die off as the unit took damage, and the unit was less effective with less than its full complement of figures.

Alkiera

[Murgos]

I liked the tactical combats in Master of Magic, which had both kinds of units... some were a single figure, who was fully effective until dead.  Many others were multiple figure units, which had figures die off as the unit took damage, and the unit was less effective with less than its full complement of figures.

Alkiera

Yeah, there were serious trade offs in MoM over going with a hero/power unit heavy stack.  It was generally worthwhile to include some of the lesser units in there.  That said the AI 'usually' wasn't smart enough to take advantage of the weaknesses of a full hero stack and once you had a good hero leveled up with some nice items you could basically wtfpwn the entire map.