I agree a little, but I still think the Infinity system does cater quite well to the needs of many TB fans.

What do TB fans actually want? what do they think they will be getting?

i) micro managing orders and actions / very precise tactical control of combats
ii) thinking time and planning
iii) for one side to get their orders and carry them out while the opponent does nothing
iv) each individual character to receive orders and carry them out while all other characters do nothing

I think it is mostly the former that is wanted, and for those preferring the latter I think there is a further split: some are hardcore PnP players and don't want the rules to be altered at all in translation, but they also admit that aside from the combat, RPG on a computer cannot ever be the same experience as PnP, and therfore are content with some deviation away from PnP rules.

It's a more difficult dilemma for inXile now, if they choose either one system based on the vote they will alienate almost half their backers.

It doesn't. It plays completely different - in feel and attitude - to a TB system. For me that's primarily a design problem with that system: Combat has to be designed in a way that it isn't too challenging to people that don't use autopause a lot. A TB system allows you to control how people play and balance a combat to that - with RTwP you have to accommodate a variety of 'pausing styles' ranging from 'hack and slash' type never pause to minuscule pause every second approaches.

In reality that often leads to much much shallower game play, during the combat [BG2 for example required you to buff up beforehand, then cede much control, especially of fighters, during the actual fight]. I find RTwP to be a lot more passive, really. You watch the animations play out and react, occasionally, to what happens. In a good TB combat there's a lot more scope to alter the plans and actively re-assess and change things as combat happens. [And, of course, on the bad side of things TB combat encounters, if designed badly, can be a chore. I'd argue that's more down to bad combat design than advantages of either system though - badly, chore like RTwP combat 'feel' less bad, precisely because you can let the combat happen on 'auto' mode a lot more. You can just wait out the combat and let the computer play by itself. Not good gameplay, that, either, though - filler combat is one of the worst aspects of gaming that just doesn't seem to vanish.] My biggest push for TB with this particular game is that it is based upon a TB system in its core design. The skills and attribute and how you build your character is balanced out against that. This balance and core-design philosophy will not just translate to a RTwP system easily. As such inXile pretty much would have to re-design the whole system from the ground up, again, re-balance it all, and create a whole lot of problems for them.

Neither RWtP or TB are necessarily better than the other (both can be 'immersive'), but in terms of game design, systems need to fit and be coherent for good gameplay.

Actually, if you read the update and the info InXile put it in the vote, they themselves admit Numenera combat rules are better suited to a TB system, and that the design team have a preference for TB. The vote isn't a deciding vote, it's an advising one. I think if the vote world of been overwhelmingly RTWP they would have reconsidered, but really if you read between the lines it's basically just "We wanted to make it TB, what do you guys think?".

I don't see why anyone would be really strong feelings about this though, considering how unimportant combat is to a PST successor, the game will end up having very little combat anyway.

I'm in favor of TB simply because I found the combat of every RTWP RPG I've played, from Darklands to Neverwinter Nights 2, to be either mediocre, boring, or in the case of NWN 1/2 so unplayable and frustrating I haven't ever finished either game. It's easy for people to think in the realm of the ideal, but in reality and practice, RTWP has never really been done well.

If the infinity engine games were all turn based, then they might not have been as popular as they were (especially for me). Real time always felt more immersive, but with the pause the grid-free strategy commenced. Turn based games have their followings, but isn't much different. But then not everyone will add their opinion to this poll, so the true answer as to how many want what won't be really known, just assumed.

It's also been nearly neck and neck since the poll began, so if RTWP sucked like you said it does, then it shouldn't have close to 50% of the votes.

Their both good systems, and both can work. It's all a matter of personal preference. As long as they do a good job, I don't care, but a lot of people who pledged for this game would undoubtedly be expecting another Planescape Torment, and not another Wasteland 2.

If Numenera is turn based, I hope Project Eternity is Real-time with a pause mechanic. Diversity is a must.

I think for some people that's a reason not to like it: the sense that a CRPG should always be enabling me to tackle obstacles as I see fit, never giving me a feeling of being controlled by the dev.

In a strategy-heavy RPG, where a lot of your time is spent in the comat system, it just becomes part of the game you signed up for that combat turns terrain into a grid, or that you don't get to think about simultaneity, or whatever. In a game where combat is expected to be more of a rarity, I think there's some worry that it'll feel more like the one or two times Final Fantasy X demanded that you play Blitzball before you could get on with the game.

Popular doesn't mean good. If they made the game based on what kind of combat is most "popular" in video games in the whole world, it would be button-mashing God of War action-RPG, ported to next-gen consoles. Immersion is really a cop-out argument from how I see it, when you are referring to video games. If you want "immersion" go play a game like with no UI like Skyrim or something. I don't think any argument that something is more "realistic" or "immersive" is justifiable if it's going to compromise the quality of the gameplay. And the idea that TB combat always uses a "grid" is strawman, Fallout used a hex grid but it was invisible at all time, Temple of Elemental Evil had no grid at all and was TB. Again, popular does not mean good. And the fact that TB is slightly ahead even though PST was real-time is to me a pretty good indication that many people actually remember playing PST and also remember that the combat was the boring, mediocre part of the game which dragged down the entire experience, which was overall amazing. Anything is possible, but history shows that RTWP combat systems, especially when they are built using P&P rules meant for turn-based play, end up creating flawed and frustrating experiences. How does TB combat mean WL2? And for that matter how does RTWP mean PST? Combat should be the least important part of any Torment game. Sure RTWP is better when you are fighting huge battles with lots of monsters, because all actions are simultainious, but we already know Torment won't be that kind of game, their will be very little combat, and most/all of it will be avoidable, no "trash mobs" at all. Why? They licensed the Numenera ruleset, which includes combat rules. Those rules are meant to be turn-based:
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/114133/Numenera

I should have made that clearer, maybe, but you misinterpreted what I said here. TB controls the flow of the game - it's much easier to be sure everyone will have a turn at the same moment and will approach the combat in pretty much the same manner. Difficulty and combat design does not have to take into account how often someone hits pause or if they have the autopause setting the same. What I meant here is that TB controls how people experience combat and enact it. It's a very clear set of rules that define boundaries.

Aside that I'd argue that TB gives you a lot more option to tackle obstacles as you see fit. One thing turnbased combat is a lot, lot better (if developed well) is to give you a large variety of options - even just for the single reason that in a real-time based situation you'd hardly be able to go through (extensive) skill / trait / action menues as quickly and precisely as you need to. [And yes, you can auto-pause - but that brings me back to that point: Developers don't know how much you will pause and have to plan for people that hardly do so in designing combat encounters.]

Im not quite so sure.
I cant remember the discussion about the combat mechanics of PE (im sure it would be in one of the updates), but Turn based games seem to be the 'in" thing at the moment - we had a dearth of them for a longtime ...and then TB type games started to crop back up via kickstarter imho.
Having said that, id be happy for what works better for this game (i suspect it will more likely be more align with the actual numenera rules itself whatever that may be) - if its a PST successor and heavily into dialogue (can u get too much??) the combat is going to be a side factor..

Perhaps I misinterpret you again, but you appear to be telling me that TB is good because it fosters numerous options, whilst RTwP is troublesome to design because players may vary in their use of just one option.

I guess that's the old difference between what I like to call meta game options, and in world options. Meta game options include things like choosing a difficulty level, deciding whether to use the autopause, and choosing only to rest once every in game 8 hours for rp reasons. They can make things harder or easier, and if the developers are seen to endorse an option (like allowing realtime combat without requiring autopause) there'll be complaints if it's found to be almost impossible to play. In world options include things like whether to cast a direct damage or control type spell, or whether to sacrifice some damage for a higher chance to hit. They're supposed to be balanced, and make the player weigh up the tactical advantages to each choice. More of these options are generally considered a good thing, provided they're balanced and don't go to such extremes the player can't keep track of what's happening.

The issue with real time combat is that it would be perceived as the developers endorsing the game as possible (albeit harder) to play without using any autopause, and so they'd have to make the game approachable from that standpoint or suffer complaints from the people who tried to play it like that. Forcing the game to be turn based acts to remove that meta game option, with the confusion it might cause, giving them the freedom to implement more complex and deep tactical options. As these are (with the caveats I mentioned above) generally considered a good thing, that would be positive.

On the other hand, I'm not at all convinced that they couldn't have the same options with real time combat. Just keep a good selection of the autopause choices on by default and, in the options menu where you can deactivate them, add a warning that the game will be very hard with no autopause and it's recommended to keep most of them on. Then they can design the game with the deeper options, confident that most people will be having frequent pauses, and anyone who really wants a fast paced challenge can take the option (which they advise against doing) to turn off all the autopauses. They may not be able to access all of the more complex content, but that's what can happen if you choose to do that sort of challenge. They can then balance the encounters around the idea that you'll be using the autopause, and get all the benefits he's mentioned of turn based.

Don't forget that although the system it's based on may use turn based gameplay, that's mainly because that's the only system which works in pen and paper, and it's meant to simulate a (literally) real time activity of real(ish) combat. Personally, I'd prefer the way the realtime (with pause) option for a game like this, though I much prefer turn based for larger scale games like Civilisation.

I still don't understand why they can't make it RTwP and then adding an auto-pause for each turn for those who want that style. I think Baldur's Gate perfected RTwP. If you want to stop, just press the space bar and the game is paused for you to scratch your ass or whatever you need to do. There were several auto-pause options in BG, by round, when hit, when hurt, when dead, weapon unusable...best of both worlds in my opinion.

Turn Based 7230
Real Time with Paused 7001
Indifferent 775

WHat did u vote Jmich? ;)

Indifferent. I have faith that whatever system they make will be a good one, not to mention that I won't be playing the game for the combat.