Combat Dynamics
by Phil Carlisle · in General Discussion · 04/02/2002 (8:51 am) · 60 replies
Had a bit of a discussion at work today about how this could work. We hefted around a few crap idea's but came up with a fair one....
Each race starts with a matrix of states and transition moves. Transition moves are effectively defensive or attacking moves. A table is generated with each state and its transition moves such that you get something like..
Current State -> list of possible transitions -> New State.
Initially, you only have one or two possible transitions between each state. This allows for some elements of "unlocking" transition moves as you progress.
How would this work? well, in combat, you can target someone, then after each move, you can then choose another move. So you essentially "plan" your next move in a combo fashion. Much like in a fighting game, but with combo's taking significantly more time than the button bashing of a fight game. What this allows you to do is to think of attack->block->attack combinations.
Given your number of transitions, it would allow for some fairly intricate combinations.
Here's an example.
I start off facing the enemy. I pull a "sword swipe" transition, which leaves me body away from the enemy (you always face them). I then pull a "overhead block" followed by a "overhead cleave". This takes the character from body away to body towards the enemy again.
Now if Ive unlocked my full range of moves, I might have had a "underhand cleave" which would swing down->up instead of up->down, thus meaning the enemy would need to block differently.
It'd need some prototyping, but essentially it would be a matrix of moves that you'd get used to combining with blocks. This sort of "lock step" combat would give each player 0.5 seconds to decide thier next move for instance.
Thats assuming we arent simply going for some sort of sword swipte->raycast damage thing. Just saying if we arent doing direct mouse/keyboard swordplay, then having this would provide some interest (rather than some automated system).
Phil.
Each race starts with a matrix of states and transition moves. Transition moves are effectively defensive or attacking moves. A table is generated with each state and its transition moves such that you get something like..
Current State -> list of possible transitions -> New State.
Initially, you only have one or two possible transitions between each state. This allows for some elements of "unlocking" transition moves as you progress.
How would this work? well, in combat, you can target someone, then after each move, you can then choose another move. So you essentially "plan" your next move in a combo fashion. Much like in a fighting game, but with combo's taking significantly more time than the button bashing of a fight game. What this allows you to do is to think of attack->block->attack combinations.
Given your number of transitions, it would allow for some fairly intricate combinations.
Here's an example.
I start off facing the enemy. I pull a "sword swipe" transition, which leaves me body away from the enemy (you always face them). I then pull a "overhead block" followed by a "overhead cleave". This takes the character from body away to body towards the enemy again.
Now if Ive unlocked my full range of moves, I might have had a "underhand cleave" which would swing down->up instead of up->down, thus meaning the enemy would need to block differently.
It'd need some prototyping, but essentially it would be a matrix of moves that you'd get used to combining with blocks. This sort of "lock step" combat would give each player 0.5 seconds to decide thier next move for instance.
Thats assuming we arent simply going for some sort of sword swipte->raycast damage thing. Just saying if we arent doing direct mouse/keyboard swordplay, then having this would provide some interest (rather than some automated system).
Phil.
About the author
Recent Threads
#22
love the movement speed by direction though, about time someone suggested it. freakin cheesy shooters, running three times whats humanly possible, BACKWARDS. things like that made me put down every shooter ive played.
anyways, i could be wrong about the arc thing, ive been kinda foggy for the last few days, and couldve easily missed something in your doc.
i agree with the guy above, double tapping is too slow to be of use.
04/08/2002 (8:36 pm)
jeff, nice document. i sort of skimmed it, so i might be wrong, but i think theres a problem with the left center right arc idea. how do you know where your target is. unless you have lines dividing the screen, youll never know whether to attack the left arc or the center arc or what. that would be very annoying. love the movement speed by direction though, about time someone suggested it. freakin cheesy shooters, running three times whats humanly possible, BACKWARDS. things like that made me put down every shooter ive played.
anyways, i could be wrong about the arc thing, ive been kinda foggy for the last few days, and couldve easily missed something in your doc.
i agree with the guy above, double tapping is too slow to be of use.
#23
That's why I liked the locking system, because it solves complications by focusing your attention on one person. True, it's a wide-scaled battle, but you have to kill one person at a time. Besides, it's not as if you won't be able to see just as much, since you have to look at them to hit them anyway. Also, I just don't like the idea of running up to someone who isn't paying attention, using a forward strike and them just merrily running off without ever seeing you. With a targetting system, the camera follows them, and so does your attack.
04/08/2002 (9:42 pm)
Another thing I just thought of that may complicate things is the variety of weapons being used. Obviously a polearm is going to have a different attack motion than a sword. The polearm will have a much further range, and will virtually disallow someone from using a sword.That's why I liked the locking system, because it solves complications by focusing your attention on one person. True, it's a wide-scaled battle, but you have to kill one person at a time. Besides, it's not as if you won't be able to see just as much, since you have to look at them to hit them anyway. Also, I just don't like the idea of running up to someone who isn't paying attention, using a forward strike and them just merrily running off without ever seeing you. With a targetting system, the camera follows them, and so does your attack.
#24
Eli McClanahan
The system doesn't have the player "lock onto" another player. The system also doesn't need a reticle to direct attacks because you use your movement to direct attacks. When you shoot a blaster weapon in a typical FPS, you need to turn so you face your target and put your reticle on them. In this system, instead of turning, you simply move in that direction. So, as you pointed out, if you were facing your target and if you ran (strafe) left as you click your attack button, you'd miss. Why? Because your target is in front of you and you directed your attack to your left, even though you are facing your target.
It might be easier to understand if you pictured your character from above (or at least in 3rd person view). If something is on your left, you press left and click your attack button and your character swings his weapon to his left. This is different then the typical FPS design because the actual direction you are "facing" is less important to hitting your target (like when blasting players with a gun and having to "aim" a reticle for control) as the actual direction you are moving.
The important thing to remember is that the "Circle of Effect" is a circle around the player as viewed from above and is always oriented so the "front" arc is the direction the player is currently looking. If you look at a target, they are in your front arc. If you then turn 90 degrees to your right, the target is now in your "left" arc. Also remember that you don't just attack directly to your left (or right) like a ranged weapon directly attacks the point in the middle of the reticle. You attack the entire 60 degree arc to your left (or right) as if you swung your weapon to sweep all 60 degrees. The disadvantage of losing range when fighting with a melee weapon is made up for in "area of effect".
The idea is to achieve a system of being able to outwit your target, knowing where to attack and striking at the right times. Unlike the "traditional" method of melee in the FPS genre which consists of players running into each other, bashing their target with a short ranged firearm shaped like an axe or crowbar.
"Stunned", "Disarmed" and "Combo's" were all kept optional for the reasons and sediment you state. They do add complexity to the system, but perhaps more then useful and more importantly, overall fun. None of them were needed for the basic system to function, but "stunned" and "disarmed" were really meant to be rare occasions by awarding the striking player a bonus for making a well aimed attack. They were not meant to happen every other hit or be a regular occurrence in a fight.
Again, thnx for the feedback, it is useful for me to hear other views.
Daniel Neilson
I'm glad you like the idea, I am encouraged that I'm not the only one =P . You are right though, the "Comboing" does complicate this a bit more then perhaps players would find fun. There are benefits in simplicity. However, the system uses only 6 buttons and they are used in the same manor any FPS player should find familiar. Players should be comfortable with holding down, at the very least, 2 keyboard keys together if they're familiar with playing in the genre. That should be the extent of the "finger gymnastics" the system would require of the player on average to use the system. Double tapping the forward key to "dash" was meant to avoid adding a 7th key-bind just to get the character to quickly run forward (The more key-binds, the more complex things become). I wanted a "dash" maneuver in the system more for allowing the player to cross the terrain and close ground on his Ranged weapon toting targets, then for actaully adding "special" attacks in melee.
Thus allowing players to charge a hilltop and rush a cadre of archers for exmple, or storm the ramparts of a castle before getting cut to pieces by ranged weapons. I could do without any effect on combat dash otherwise has.
Randy "Vashner" Anthony
I was thinking... because the system doesn't use the reticle to direct attacks, it could be used to communicate the type of attack that would be made. For example, if the player is running forward, the reticle might morph to a shape that communicates that. If the player shifts to running left, the reticle then morphs to show the new direction of the attack.
You could enhance that with a melee HUD that replicates the "Circle of Effect" diagram with its arcs. The different arcs light up to help the player understand where their attack will be directed when they click the attack button. These arcs might also light up if an attackable target is standing in any of them aswell.
Conrad "Lynx" Wong
A gesture system might be a little slow or even cumbersome to handle when the heat of action picks up and players to need to react quickly to changes. I did consider it and I think it might be a very useful thing for managing spells and such tasks, just not in melee.
James Hamar
Your ideas are great, and I did consider adding them into the original design of the system. When I played those console "fighting" games like Street Fighter II and Killer Instinct, one thing I enjoyed was "comboing" by connecting strings of moves to unlock larger more powerful ones. For me, it was fun to have your character "explode" and go "Jacky Chan" on your opponent while the score bar whirled away racking up points.
However, one of the prime elements I strived for in this melee design was "simplicity". In order for it to work in the FPS game world I've know for the years I've played online FPS, it had to be kept simple. In a way, the elements of "comboing" expressed in the design were an attempt to bring the flavor you suggest, but still be under the budget for "simplicity". I kept them as "optional" and not critical to the design because even at the level described in the design, they were pushing the simplicity of things.
I still think the spirit of having characters at least "look" like they're using combo's and variety in the simple attacks they execute is important. It not only will make melee combat a lot more fun to watch as your character wades into the mess and mayhem but it will keep the whole concept of melee fighting with large groups of players "dynamic" and not looking stale like a bunch of players jumping around wildely "chopping" madly at one another.
That can all be done automatically though, without the player needing to push certain keys in certain sequences. It might all be done in animation, the player may be attacking the same way by pushing the attack button, however, the game is using multiple animations to show the same thing. Even just having the player perform a different animation with each successful hit is enough to achieve the desirable "spirit" or look of comboing without the complexity.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the goal was simplicity. 6 keys do all the work, and should be no more involved then pressing 1 or 2 together at a time to perform a different attack. I think I achieved that, but describing it all on paper often makes things look more complex to a person interpreting what's written then it really is.
Thnx guys one more time for the feedback. Any other comments are very much welcomed.
04/08/2002 (10:14 pm)
Wow, feedback. Thanks, I do appreciate it. I will try and answer as many questions and concerns as I can, in the order I read them.Eli McClanahan
The system doesn't have the player "lock onto" another player. The system also doesn't need a reticle to direct attacks because you use your movement to direct attacks. When you shoot a blaster weapon in a typical FPS, you need to turn so you face your target and put your reticle on them. In this system, instead of turning, you simply move in that direction. So, as you pointed out, if you were facing your target and if you ran (strafe) left as you click your attack button, you'd miss. Why? Because your target is in front of you and you directed your attack to your left, even though you are facing your target.
It might be easier to understand if you pictured your character from above (or at least in 3rd person view). If something is on your left, you press left and click your attack button and your character swings his weapon to his left. This is different then the typical FPS design because the actual direction you are "facing" is less important to hitting your target (like when blasting players with a gun and having to "aim" a reticle for control) as the actual direction you are moving.
The important thing to remember is that the "Circle of Effect" is a circle around the player as viewed from above and is always oriented so the "front" arc is the direction the player is currently looking. If you look at a target, they are in your front arc. If you then turn 90 degrees to your right, the target is now in your "left" arc. Also remember that you don't just attack directly to your left (or right) like a ranged weapon directly attacks the point in the middle of the reticle. You attack the entire 60 degree arc to your left (or right) as if you swung your weapon to sweep all 60 degrees. The disadvantage of losing range when fighting with a melee weapon is made up for in "area of effect".
The idea is to achieve a system of being able to outwit your target, knowing where to attack and striking at the right times. Unlike the "traditional" method of melee in the FPS genre which consists of players running into each other, bashing their target with a short ranged firearm shaped like an axe or crowbar.
"Stunned", "Disarmed" and "Combo's" were all kept optional for the reasons and sediment you state. They do add complexity to the system, but perhaps more then useful and more importantly, overall fun. None of them were needed for the basic system to function, but "stunned" and "disarmed" were really meant to be rare occasions by awarding the striking player a bonus for making a well aimed attack. They were not meant to happen every other hit or be a regular occurrence in a fight.
Again, thnx for the feedback, it is useful for me to hear other views.
Daniel Neilson
I'm glad you like the idea, I am encouraged that I'm not the only one =P . You are right though, the "Comboing" does complicate this a bit more then perhaps players would find fun. There are benefits in simplicity. However, the system uses only 6 buttons and they are used in the same manor any FPS player should find familiar. Players should be comfortable with holding down, at the very least, 2 keyboard keys together if they're familiar with playing in the genre. That should be the extent of the "finger gymnastics" the system would require of the player on average to use the system. Double tapping the forward key to "dash" was meant to avoid adding a 7th key-bind just to get the character to quickly run forward (The more key-binds, the more complex things become). I wanted a "dash" maneuver in the system more for allowing the player to cross the terrain and close ground on his Ranged weapon toting targets, then for actaully adding "special" attacks in melee.
Thus allowing players to charge a hilltop and rush a cadre of archers for exmple, or storm the ramparts of a castle before getting cut to pieces by ranged weapons. I could do without any effect on combat dash otherwise has.
Randy "Vashner" Anthony
I was thinking... because the system doesn't use the reticle to direct attacks, it could be used to communicate the type of attack that would be made. For example, if the player is running forward, the reticle might morph to a shape that communicates that. If the player shifts to running left, the reticle then morphs to show the new direction of the attack.
You could enhance that with a melee HUD that replicates the "Circle of Effect" diagram with its arcs. The different arcs light up to help the player understand where their attack will be directed when they click the attack button. These arcs might also light up if an attackable target is standing in any of them aswell.
Conrad "Lynx" Wong
A gesture system might be a little slow or even cumbersome to handle when the heat of action picks up and players to need to react quickly to changes. I did consider it and I think it might be a very useful thing for managing spells and such tasks, just not in melee.
James Hamar
Your ideas are great, and I did consider adding them into the original design of the system. When I played those console "fighting" games like Street Fighter II and Killer Instinct, one thing I enjoyed was "comboing" by connecting strings of moves to unlock larger more powerful ones. For me, it was fun to have your character "explode" and go "Jacky Chan" on your opponent while the score bar whirled away racking up points.
However, one of the prime elements I strived for in this melee design was "simplicity". In order for it to work in the FPS game world I've know for the years I've played online FPS, it had to be kept simple. In a way, the elements of "comboing" expressed in the design were an attempt to bring the flavor you suggest, but still be under the budget for "simplicity". I kept them as "optional" and not critical to the design because even at the level described in the design, they were pushing the simplicity of things.
I still think the spirit of having characters at least "look" like they're using combo's and variety in the simple attacks they execute is important. It not only will make melee combat a lot more fun to watch as your character wades into the mess and mayhem but it will keep the whole concept of melee fighting with large groups of players "dynamic" and not looking stale like a bunch of players jumping around wildely "chopping" madly at one another.
That can all be done automatically though, without the player needing to push certain keys in certain sequences. It might all be done in animation, the player may be attacking the same way by pushing the attack button, however, the game is using multiple animations to show the same thing. Even just having the player perform a different animation with each successful hit is enough to achieve the desirable "spirit" or look of comboing without the complexity.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the goal was simplicity. 6 keys do all the work, and should be no more involved then pressing 1 or 2 together at a time to perform a different attack. I think I achieved that, but describing it all on paper often makes things look more complex to a person interpreting what's written then it really is.
Thnx guys one more time for the feedback. Any other comments are very much welcomed.
#25
The attack combo idea is a good one as long as they have disadvantages. When two people are locked in combat, if one is defending normally, allowing his opponent to wear himself out, it's unfair that this working strategy should be betrayed by a technique that would ignore it and cause damage to a player that doesn't deserve it.
Referring back to the Zelda game I mentioned earlier, if you pressed the attack button, you did a right handed, right arched swing. If you pressed it again in succession, you did another swing, this time a left arched swing. If it was pressed a third time, then a final overhead swing was made, completing a combonation move. The combo was completely optional and easy to use, but when you reached the third swing, your character took a little more time than normal, and the attack could be dodged if you had your wits about you. That's the sort of combo I like. It's easy to use, strategic, yet easy to misuse.
I guess why I like the idea of being able to lock onto a player is that I encounter a lot of players out there that simply run, strafe, and jump around on the map to avoid you. It's very annoying and requires a lot of fumbling around on the keyboard. It's not even realistic. What battle-hardened orc wearing armor is going to be seen jumping up and down on a battle field? Really, jumping should take up endurance as well, because it's really misused in the gaming world.
I'd much rather concentrate on what moves I need to use (strategy) than how I can even have a chance to hit my opponent (waste of my time). In reality, it would be very easy for someone to strike down a fighter jumping all over the screen. But, in the keyboard world, that isn't as easy of a possibility. That's why I liked the locking idea, because it compensated for reality when gaming technology fails. But anyway, I'm just explaining and mentioning a bad aspect of fps's.
Really though, jumping should take up stamina, since so many "good" players use it so much unrealistically. I'm being annoyed enough as it is trying to hit someone with that crossbow. It has a blast radius, but there's so much movement that myself and my opponent lose track of one another, and we just end up blindly firing at the ground hoping to get lucky.
Movement should be easier to use in this game, if it's going to be melee-operable, considering it's so easy to avoid attacks like that. Most fps's have long range weapons with a large blast radius so that it's easier to kill opponents. The only game I can think of in which hand to hand combat is preferred is Jedi Knight, and that's just because people love being able to fight as a jedi, with a light sabre. I remember playing it until I realized no matter how good I was it didn't matter - my connection, if below 56k, caused my hits on them to never connect. I actually made someone with a cable modem stand still once and attacked him, to which he received no damage, telling me I was behind him when on my end of the game I was in front of him. I mention this because it's one problem of melee combat - it requires a lot of precision that some people just can't afford.
If you can find a way to make melee fighting more accurate and easier to use, that'd be great. The reason I mentioned striking forward at someone running to your left is because in real life, I would see the person starting to move, compensate by moving my body and hit them. In the gaming world, however, you're stuck doing one motion and are unable to move. It's inaccurate to real physics and a real pain in the butt.
Sorry for the long post, but I like the idea, as I had the same idea a few months ago, and I don't want to see it ruined by being forced to be accompanied by a lot of keyboard slapping and movement rather than strategic strikes and defensive maneuvers.
04/08/2002 (10:47 pm)
I see. In reference to the left/center/right attack range, I was picturing two opponents facing one another, with a left attack being aimed at the opponent's left side, which would in turn require a right sided defensive manuever from the opponent. I wasn't picturing the range of attack as being so "optional."The attack combo idea is a good one as long as they have disadvantages. When two people are locked in combat, if one is defending normally, allowing his opponent to wear himself out, it's unfair that this working strategy should be betrayed by a technique that would ignore it and cause damage to a player that doesn't deserve it.
Referring back to the Zelda game I mentioned earlier, if you pressed the attack button, you did a right handed, right arched swing. If you pressed it again in succession, you did another swing, this time a left arched swing. If it was pressed a third time, then a final overhead swing was made, completing a combonation move. The combo was completely optional and easy to use, but when you reached the third swing, your character took a little more time than normal, and the attack could be dodged if you had your wits about you. That's the sort of combo I like. It's easy to use, strategic, yet easy to misuse.
I guess why I like the idea of being able to lock onto a player is that I encounter a lot of players out there that simply run, strafe, and jump around on the map to avoid you. It's very annoying and requires a lot of fumbling around on the keyboard. It's not even realistic. What battle-hardened orc wearing armor is going to be seen jumping up and down on a battle field? Really, jumping should take up endurance as well, because it's really misused in the gaming world.
I'd much rather concentrate on what moves I need to use (strategy) than how I can even have a chance to hit my opponent (waste of my time). In reality, it would be very easy for someone to strike down a fighter jumping all over the screen. But, in the keyboard world, that isn't as easy of a possibility. That's why I liked the locking idea, because it compensated for reality when gaming technology fails. But anyway, I'm just explaining and mentioning a bad aspect of fps's.
Really though, jumping should take up stamina, since so many "good" players use it so much unrealistically. I'm being annoyed enough as it is trying to hit someone with that crossbow. It has a blast radius, but there's so much movement that myself and my opponent lose track of one another, and we just end up blindly firing at the ground hoping to get lucky.
Movement should be easier to use in this game, if it's going to be melee-operable, considering it's so easy to avoid attacks like that. Most fps's have long range weapons with a large blast radius so that it's easier to kill opponents. The only game I can think of in which hand to hand combat is preferred is Jedi Knight, and that's just because people love being able to fight as a jedi, with a light sabre. I remember playing it until I realized no matter how good I was it didn't matter - my connection, if below 56k, caused my hits on them to never connect. I actually made someone with a cable modem stand still once and attacked him, to which he received no damage, telling me I was behind him when on my end of the game I was in front of him. I mention this because it's one problem of melee combat - it requires a lot of precision that some people just can't afford.
If you can find a way to make melee fighting more accurate and easier to use, that'd be great. The reason I mentioned striking forward at someone running to your left is because in real life, I would see the person starting to move, compensate by moving my body and hit them. In the gaming world, however, you're stuck doing one motion and are unable to move. It's inaccurate to real physics and a real pain in the butt.
Sorry for the long post, but I like the idea, as I had the same idea a few months ago, and I don't want to see it ruined by being forced to be accompanied by a lot of keyboard slapping and movement rather than strategic strikes and defensive maneuvers.
#26
I am getting the feeling that RW will attempt to stay completely FPS based, meaning its always going to be a twitch game.
Phil's comments are actually quite interesting - taking timing into consideration.
I think its easy enough to say that real time, hand to hand combat is just very difficult for the average person to handle. add network lag to this and well, its just not gonna be much different than any fps - think quake 1 with axes :P or counterstrike with knives. there is almost no skill involved in h2h, more of a luck thing.
I would like an emphasis, at least during h2h based combat, to be on a 3rd person or something close to that (perhaps over the shoulder). we need feedback as to what our characters are doing.
Slowing the game down will turn it into a tactical, almost strategic game. What i mean by this is taking the raw speed of a normal fps, and turning it almost turn based - time variable perhaps. Of course i cannot see this working with the current design, but perhaps a different or branched project could consider this.
Slow motion, such as the bullet time in max payne, would allow us uncoordinated humans to control the actions of our characters in a more heroic manner. I'm not a fps master, but i want to control a conan-like guy, guiding him and ordering him to chop your character to bits in a fasion that only conan himself could muster.
04/09/2002 (12:25 pm)
Perhaps I've played too many "avatar" type games in which your character has specific skills, and you simply tell him what to do.I am getting the feeling that RW will attempt to stay completely FPS based, meaning its always going to be a twitch game.
Phil's comments are actually quite interesting - taking timing into consideration.
I think its easy enough to say that real time, hand to hand combat is just very difficult for the average person to handle. add network lag to this and well, its just not gonna be much different than any fps - think quake 1 with axes :P or counterstrike with knives. there is almost no skill involved in h2h, more of a luck thing.
I would like an emphasis, at least during h2h based combat, to be on a 3rd person or something close to that (perhaps over the shoulder). we need feedback as to what our characters are doing.
Slowing the game down will turn it into a tactical, almost strategic game. What i mean by this is taking the raw speed of a normal fps, and turning it almost turn based - time variable perhaps. Of course i cannot see this working with the current design, but perhaps a different or branched project could consider this.
Slow motion, such as the bullet time in max payne, would allow us uncoordinated humans to control the actions of our characters in a more heroic manner. I'm not a fps master, but i want to control a conan-like guy, guiding him and ordering him to chop your character to bits in a fasion that only conan himself could muster.
#27
I think the idea of a "turn" is more to allow you some small time to think of what you are planning.
If you get a 1/2 second window to choose an attack, block or other move, then I think it'll work.
However, I'm going to try some JK2 lightsabering to see if that works multiplayer or not.
BTW: anyone who tried Rune multiplayer will know that H2H alone is pretty bad for combat. Its much less about strategy (which is kind of what appeals to RPG'ers isnt it?).
I'd like to see a few systems in practice at least. This is something worth prototyping. But we need some player models with h2h weapons and anims yet.
Phil.
04/09/2002 (3:29 pm)
Turn based doesnt mean slow combat. Turns can literally be any length.I think the idea of a "turn" is more to allow you some small time to think of what you are planning.
If you get a 1/2 second window to choose an attack, block or other move, then I think it'll work.
However, I'm going to try some JK2 lightsabering to see if that works multiplayer or not.
BTW: anyone who tried Rune multiplayer will know that H2H alone is pretty bad for combat. Its much less about strategy (which is kind of what appeals to RPG'ers isnt it?).
I'd like to see a few systems in practice at least. This is something worth prototyping. But we need some player models with h2h weapons and anims yet.
Phil.
#28
Still I'm not a 'wasd' keyboard player and any game based around that idea will usually frustrate me. Games that are designed to work well either with the 'wasd' setup or the arrow keys won't discourage people from actually playing the game. Just because there is an option to remap your keys doesn't mean that you are actually appealing to both sides. I have seen quite a few games with too many default options based around the 'wasd' setup and if I was to remap it to my prefered arrow key setup, I usually end up not using half the options giving to me. Design the interaction with that thought in mind and make sure you have the different types of players testing it to make sure it works for both. Simple interaction is still usually the best interaction for PC games.
04/09/2002 (8:18 pm)
Jeff Shaw has some good ideas (just run them through a spell-checker though and it would come across even better). He points out the flaws of reticle systems used in FPS-type games. I like his idea of the arc areas for melee combat and changing the reticle to actually fit that idea. It's something to look into.Still I'm not a 'wasd' keyboard player and any game based around that idea will usually frustrate me. Games that are designed to work well either with the 'wasd' setup or the arrow keys won't discourage people from actually playing the game. Just because there is an option to remap your keys doesn't mean that you are actually appealing to both sides. I have seen quite a few games with too many default options based around the 'wasd' setup and if I was to remap it to my prefered arrow key setup, I usually end up not using half the options giving to me. Design the interaction with that thought in mind and make sure you have the different types of players testing it to make sure it works for both. Simple interaction is still usually the best interaction for PC games.
#29
04/12/2002 (10:04 pm)
The only way this could be used and keep it arrow-key friendly (unless if you used the numpad) would be to have left attack left mouse button, right attack right, and center left and right (or, of course, middle mouse button) so that you won't have to move to attack. If you have to move left to attack on your left, by the time it's registered, you'll have to attack in front of you, and so on. Forward and backwards would still have the same effects.
#30
I use the 4 arrow keys for playing FPS games. Have been for years. So, unless someone points out exactly why the system wouldn't work using the 4 arrow configuration, which side of the keyboard you use shouldn't hinder the design.
6 keys is all that are needed. 1 is naturally bound to the left mouse button almost by default, 4 Arrow/WSAD keys for movement and the Jump button. Plenty of keyboard space is left for personallizing the config and adding additional functions, left or right side.
04/13/2002 (6:48 pm)
Just so you know,I use the 4 arrow keys for playing FPS games. Have been for years. So, unless someone points out exactly why the system wouldn't work using the 4 arrow configuration, which side of the keyboard you use shouldn't hinder the design.
6 keys is all that are needed. 1 is naturally bound to the left mouse button almost by default, 4 Arrow/WSAD keys for movement and the Jump button. Plenty of keyboard space is left for personallizing the config and adding additional functions, left or right side.
#31
Personally, i use a PS2 pad, and I'd like to see a system that can work on that too.
Phil.
04/14/2002 (1:03 am)
Why is everyone so fixated on keyboard?Personally, i use a PS2 pad, and I'd like to see a system that can work on that too.
Phil.
#32
Designing a system that can work well with devices other then a KB/Mouse is a bonus and nice to have. However, to design one at the expense of the flexibilty and functionality of a KB/Mouse is pretty much a step backwards (In terms of an FPS). I don't think, in my honest opinion, you could design a system for a gamepad or a joystick (ect) and not give up the freedom of control the mouse allows the player to have. Manufactures of Joysticks have repeatedly attempted to design a "stick" that mimics the flexibilty of a mouse for playing Action FPS games. I have yet to see one model that got it right.
One might argure that developers create systems to function on gamepads all the time for use on console platforms. Games like "GoldenEye" for the N64 is an action FPS, so is "HALO" for the XBox, they all use a gamepad so why can't it be done? Well, developers do it, because they have no other choice. Consoles do not have "Keyboards" and "Mice". Usually when they do, they almost always have to engineer some sort of compromise to deal with the limitations of a gamepad.
Now, I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't try and keep everything we design with a gamepad or joysitck in mind in addition to Mice. I'm just saying that if we restrict ourselves to having to make sure everything works just as good on a gamepad or joystick as it does on a mouse, we'll prolley find many of the elements we'd like to have in the game are not going to be possible without compromise.
Ok, having said all that, I still think the system I posted in the URL above would still work reasonably well on a gamepad as it would using the basic keyboard and mouse.
Here's why. The player would, more then likely, spend most of their time in 3rd person to make it easier to physically track targets without having to keep them in the 90 degree, 1rst Person FOV. Second, the system doesn't rely so much on acute control of the reticle for attacking like a traditional FPS demands. Gamepads tend to have a more "blunted" or obtuse control of the reticle (unlike the very sharp and refined control a mouse has), but the system doesn't require such an acurate focus. It only needs the player to input the direction of the attack while only requiring the target to be roughly near the center of focus. As long as you keep within range, I don't foresee it being to much of a challenge to make accurate melee attacks.
Chris Voyles
Thanks Chris, indeed, my spelling is bad. I need an editor... (any volunteers? ;-) ).
04/14/2002 (2:38 pm)
"Keyboard and Mouse" is by default the expected input system for a player to use in an action FPS. Just as a Driving Wheel is for a Racing game, or a Joystick for a Flight Simmulator. Designing a system that can work well with devices other then a KB/Mouse is a bonus and nice to have. However, to design one at the expense of the flexibilty and functionality of a KB/Mouse is pretty much a step backwards (In terms of an FPS). I don't think, in my honest opinion, you could design a system for a gamepad or a joystick (ect) and not give up the freedom of control the mouse allows the player to have. Manufactures of Joysticks have repeatedly attempted to design a "stick" that mimics the flexibilty of a mouse for playing Action FPS games. I have yet to see one model that got it right.
One might argure that developers create systems to function on gamepads all the time for use on console platforms. Games like "GoldenEye" for the N64 is an action FPS, so is "HALO" for the XBox, they all use a gamepad so why can't it be done? Well, developers do it, because they have no other choice. Consoles do not have "Keyboards" and "Mice". Usually when they do, they almost always have to engineer some sort of compromise to deal with the limitations of a gamepad.
Now, I'm not saying we can't or shouldn't try and keep everything we design with a gamepad or joysitck in mind in addition to Mice. I'm just saying that if we restrict ourselves to having to make sure everything works just as good on a gamepad or joystick as it does on a mouse, we'll prolley find many of the elements we'd like to have in the game are not going to be possible without compromise.
Ok, having said all that, I still think the system I posted in the URL above would still work reasonably well on a gamepad as it would using the basic keyboard and mouse.
Here's why. The player would, more then likely, spend most of their time in 3rd person to make it easier to physically track targets without having to keep them in the 90 degree, 1rst Person FOV. Second, the system doesn't rely so much on acute control of the reticle for attacking like a traditional FPS demands. Gamepads tend to have a more "blunted" or obtuse control of the reticle (unlike the very sharp and refined control a mouse has), but the system doesn't require such an acurate focus. It only needs the player to input the direction of the attack while only requiring the target to be roughly near the center of focus. As long as you keep within range, I don't foresee it being to much of a challenge to make accurate melee attacks.
Chris Voyles
Thanks Chris, indeed, my spelling is bad. I need an editor... (any volunteers? ;-) ).
#33
04/15/2002 (11:37 am)
I always preferred using "ESDF" for my movement keys. that way when you have to chat you dont need to move your fingers - and there are more local keys to bind.
#34
It's easier to chat, but also has a natural length from the mouse so I don't feel cramped. The arrow keys are horribly cramped to the mouse, and don't have any useful buttons nearby like wasd does.
Oh, and anyone who uses inverse mouse is wierd! Just kidding, sort of.
04/15/2002 (12:00 pm)
I use wasd to move in games, and I think it's the best choice!It's easier to chat, but also has a natural length from the mouse so I don't feel cramped. The arrow keys are horribly cramped to the mouse, and don't have any useful buttons nearby like wasd does.
Oh, and anyone who uses inverse mouse is wierd! Just kidding, sort of.
#35
Sur, il du it for u!
-jef
04/15/2002 (12:18 pm)
Quote:Thanks Chris, indeed, my spelling is bad. I need an editor... (any volunteers? ;-) ).
Sur, il du it for u!
-jef
#36
I don't like gamepads because it's a horrible pain to try to look up and down in comparison to a mouse.
Take this into consideration: the system suggested will almost require a third person point of view, and with all of the rolling hills, the camera angles will be forced to adjust for this, making views extremely annoying at times.
04/17/2002 (10:29 pm)
I use the arrow keys myself, as I feel wasd or esdf, etc. is just too cramped for my hands. The arrow keys are moved away from all other keys and are larger, making movement a lot easier.I don't like gamepads because it's a horrible pain to try to look up and down in comparison to a mouse.
Take this into consideration: the system suggested will almost require a third person point of view, and with all of the rolling hills, the camera angles will be forced to adjust for this, making views extremely annoying at times.
#37
I use the surrounding keys as well:
CRTL = Reload
Shift = Run
Enter = Use World Object
Delete = Cycle Inventory Back
End = Cycle Inventory Forward
Page Down = Special
Num7 = Zoom Up
Num4 = Zoom Down
Num1 = Duck
Num0 = Jump
I am wierd. :)
04/18/2002 (3:55 pm)
Arrow keys here.I use the surrounding keys as well:
CRTL = Reload
Shift = Run
Enter = Use World Object
Delete = Cycle Inventory Back
End = Cycle Inventory Forward
Page Down = Special
Num7 = Zoom Up
Num4 = Zoom Down
Num1 = Duck
Num0 = Jump
I am wierd. :)
#38
Crouching Tiger gameplay.
FIGHTING SYSTEM
This is important to keep the first person view!
And to make good fights, we need lot of attack and parry.
So this is the concept:
At least there are 4 attack and parry. To execute them you must do this: push one of the direction+button mouse1.
If this is the left+mouse1= attack by left
If this is the up+mouse1= attack by front
To parry theses attacks, you do the same thing but with mouse2.
Example: your ennemy attack: right+mouse1// so you make a parry: right+mouse2.
So you've got lot of combos possible...
Now, you can add more move like: left+right+up+mouse1
And anymore: Pushing 2 times and quickly a directionnal key make you do a little jump in this direction.
This add more complexity to the fight!
This probably have been said, but if you can find some help here...
Oh and take a look at the game "ONI" for combat.
05/04/2002 (1:51 am)
I've not read all of the text (too much! :) and I think you guys know what you're doing but here is a small contribution I've writed for a Q3 mod one year ago:Crouching Tiger gameplay.
FIGHTING SYSTEM
This is important to keep the first person view!
And to make good fights, we need lot of attack and parry.
So this is the concept:
At least there are 4 attack and parry. To execute them you must do this: push one of the direction+button mouse1.
If this is the left+mouse1= attack by left
If this is the up+mouse1= attack by front
To parry theses attacks, you do the same thing but with mouse2.
Example: your ennemy attack: right+mouse1// so you make a parry: right+mouse2.
So you've got lot of combos possible...
Now, you can add more move like: left+right+up+mouse1
And anymore: Pushing 2 times and quickly a directionnal key make you do a little jump in this direction.
This add more complexity to the fight!
This probably have been said, but if you can find some help here...
Oh and take a look at the game "ONI" for combat.
#39
* Click and hold right mouse button
* While this button is down, mouse movements don't change your view - you're locked on your current facing.
* Now while you move the mouse around, there's another overlay on the crosshair that shows the movements you're making. Your now performing a special attack pattern such as "underhand cleave", "overhead cleave", etc.
* When you're done "casting" your special move, you just let go of the right mouse button and it's executed.
Imagine making the fireball motion from Street Fighter, but with your mouse. The longer the special move and the more complicated it is, the more potent it is. All this, while keeping it real time and not affecting the use of the movement keys or targeting. It actually stabilizes your targeting in the process.
You could even have the name of the special attack or block show up that maps to the pattern you've done so far.
I've coded this in TGE for RealmWars and the UI is very fluid and seemless. I just need better special attack/block patterns and their effects. I'd like to have you guys try it, but I can't find a way to get a build of torquedemo_DEBUG.exe to play on the RW servers. When I query the master server it only shows the main demo server and none of the other player servers. Anyone else having this problem?
05/12/2002 (10:24 am)
I agree that you would need to keep the first person perspective; so imagine everything is the same as it is now in RealmWars, but you add this:* Click and hold right mouse button
* While this button is down, mouse movements don't change your view - you're locked on your current facing.
* Now while you move the mouse around, there's another overlay on the crosshair that shows the movements you're making. Your now performing a special attack pattern such as "underhand cleave", "overhead cleave", etc.
* When you're done "casting" your special move, you just let go of the right mouse button and it's executed.
Imagine making the fireball motion from Street Fighter, but with your mouse. The longer the special move and the more complicated it is, the more potent it is. All this, while keeping it real time and not affecting the use of the movement keys or targeting. It actually stabilizes your targeting in the process.
You could even have the name of the special attack or block show up that maps to the pattern you've done so far.
I've coded this in TGE for RealmWars and the UI is very fluid and seemless. I just need better special attack/block patterns and their effects. I'd like to have you guys try it, but I can't find a way to get a build of torquedemo_DEBUG.exe to play on the RW servers. When I query the master server it only shows the main demo server and none of the other player servers. Anyone else having this problem?
#40
But, I don't think you must unhold the right mouse button but push on the left button: this is easier and preciser to push on a button than unhold one.
So, the right button is used for "special attack" and left button to cast it.
(or why nou the 2 option, you can push left button OR unhold right button)
Example:
You're facing an ennemy: you hold right mouse button, then you push: <-left then up^ then right->, you push on left button OR unhold right and you cast a swing attack.
I think time is not important in making the combination, but you must know that your ennemy can kill you if you're doing nothing...
The other option is to make right and left button made for the right and left weapons/protections, working the same. (you activate it with right/left button and activate it with the other button or by unholding the actual...)
05/13/2002 (9:32 am)
I think this is not a bad idea!But, I don't think you must unhold the right mouse button but push on the left button: this is easier and preciser to push on a button than unhold one.
So, the right button is used for "special attack" and left button to cast it.
(or why nou the 2 option, you can push left button OR unhold right button)
Example:
You're facing an ennemy: you hold right mouse button, then you push: <-left then up^ then right->, you push on left button OR unhold right and you cast a swing attack.
I think time is not important in making the combination, but you must know that your ennemy can kill you if you're doing nothing...
The other option is to make right and left button made for the right and left weapons/protections, working the same. (you activate it with right/left button and activate it with the other button or by unholding the actual...)
Torque Owner Daniel Neilsen
It should just be a nice and simple system with as few key presses as possible.
I tend to think double click/taps are a bad idea as then it just forces the "mash keyboard" scenario.
I also dont believe any form of targetting system is necessary at all. It would very much detract from any large battle scenario.
Why cant you just run up to 3 (or 10 guys) who are already fighting and jab your pigsticker into one of them!?!
OR
If you are a guy, what if you are fighting 3 enemys??
I tend to think the standard 1st person/3rd person viewpoints are sufficient.
Here is an adjusted idea...
q(/mouse wheel): cycle attack type
e: cycle block type
w: forward
s: backward
a: strafe left
d: strafe right
L mouse: LHS action
R mouse: RHS action
You have a number of differnet actions with each weapon you can choose from. These would include block, parry, jab, etc, etc, etc
If you have a sword in your Left hand and jab is selected and you press L mouse, well...you jab...
Each action takes a certain time. If you do a quick slash attack you cannot action again for 1 second....but if you lunge, you cant action again for 2 seconds (just an example)
Each action also takes away from your stamina. If you have above 75% stamina you do max damage, under that and it reduces proportionly.
This system also allows a more enhanced crossbow usage.
Why not have the crossbow be able to be used for other things other than firing arrows?? Why not be able to hold it up to block a sword? Why not belt an ugle in the head with it???
OK, it may break, but who cares? Its fun :)
This style system would be nice and simple with minimal button pressing but full action.