@KawaiiKid First of all, isn't ATB without wait the same exact thing as a CTB?
(If I'm wrong, then please explain the difference to me!) Additionally, would it be useful to include Action Battle Systems (perhaps with and without a separate combat screen, since they make for much different experiences) in the poll, or do you consider ABS's to be outside the scope of the discussion?
===
My own personal favorite type of RPG combat, by far, is an
Action Battle System. I love how they incorporate both real time and real movement, I love how they make me think fast, and I love how they allow me to succeed or fail mostly on my own skill. I love the visceral feel of my actual button presses cutting through enemies, and the excitement of barely getting out of the way of a big attack. Some of the
Star Ocean and
Tales of games make combat feel like a true joy, to the point where I spend hours running around fighting encounters with minimal reward, simply because they're so much fun.
Of course, ABS's take a lot of work to do right - the feel and flow of you and the enemy attacking each other (and subsequent staggering) has to be designed well or the whole thing can come apart at the seams.
I tend to like ABS's that include a separate combat screen (after you touch an encounter on the adventure map), because it allows me to stay relaxed while wandering maps, and then be ready for an adrenaline-fueling battle. Not only that, but there is a clear beginning and end to the encounter, telling its own little story. If combat takes place on the adventure map (which some people do like), I tend to get mentally fatigued because I have to be ready to fight-or-flight at every single moment.
Similarly, I tend to enjoy true
ATB systems (where time continues to flow and enemies continue to attack as you navigate menus) for their real-time, think-quick aspects. It can be engaging (even manic) and keep you connected to the action at all times. I think a lot of RPG players don't like this dynamic, but I think it's really enjoyable and stops combat from slowing to a slog. If you're going to pause the action when it's time for the player to select a move, then you might as well skip the middleman and convert to a CTB.
It's important for ATB systems to feel brisk and "continuous". If you ever spend more than one full second doing nothing but watching ATB bars fill up, that's probably a flaw in the system's design. Designers can get around this by having the bars fill up quickly enough that there are usually multiple characters waiting for commands, or by having the flow of time (ATB fill, DoT effects, status duration countdown, etc.) automatically speed up whenever there are no characters or enemies taking nor ready to take an action.
I am a big fan of the tactical considerations that
CTB systems offer. Some of the best ones (
Grandia 2 and
Trails in the Sky come to mind as personal favorites) offer a lot of ways to manipulate and take advantage of battlers' turn order, which to me is a very fun mechanic that feels a lot more engaging and "playable" than a simple turn-based equivalent. Poorly-designed CTB's, on the other hand, can be badly imbalanced or feel like a needlessly complex version of a turn-based system.
The classic
Turn-Based Combat often bores me, for its lack of tactical depth or viscerality. But such a system can absolutely be great if the designer thinks through a dynamic they want to achieve and designs the system accordingly, streamlining away most of the RPG mechanics that appear in most RPG's "just because it's an RPG" (hit/miss calculations are often a good example). Often, I find that Turn-Based RPG Combat works best when designers add one or two extra resources to manage beyond the basics of HP and MP. A very well-thought-out, balanced, unique, and coherent kit of Skills for each character can also elevate a turn-based combat system, as can unique and memorable enemies that make each troop feel like a different experience (think
Undertale).
