PDA

View Full Version : Enhanced Brainstorming: Saber System


razorace
11-14-2003, 09:01 PM
This thread is for brainstorming for the actual saber system, not the visual components like the hilts, blades, etc. Those are discussed here. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=117038)

I've already called dibs on the saber system so the best ideas will be implimented by me when the SDK comes out for MotF/OJP. Anyone is welcome to help.

I'll clear the floor and let others speak first before I give my opinons/ideas on the system.

Samuel Dravis
11-14-2003, 09:48 PM
I liked the dodge meter from MotF, but it needs to have a slower regen if you're going to put it in JA. It gets frustrating to land the perfect blow 7 times in a row, only for the other guy to dodge.

razorace
11-15-2003, 04:40 AM
Well, the dodge regen seen in MotF was all just prototype stuff. I never did get to the balancing point before I hit the engine limitation wall.

Samuel Dravis
11-15-2003, 04:55 AM
OK. What were you trying to do that it wouldn't let you, anyway?

razorace
11-15-2003, 06:04 AM
There weren't any free data slots so I could improve the animation system. I had the code writen but just didn't have the ability to quickly transmit them to the clients. Major suck. This has been fixed at my request in JKA.

Samuel Dravis
11-15-2003, 06:15 AM
This has been fixed at my request in JKA.
Swung some of that incredible modder weight around, eh? :D

For the sabers, they need to stay mostly as they are, because if they style of fighting departs seriously from base JKA, people are not going to like it.

Also, the saber locks while fighting. Having locks for under a second each time the blades connect would be awesome (this was stated in previous posts by others).

Are you thinking of working on a dynamic animation system? Like if your saber hits the other guy's saber it would deflect a different way each time depending on the relative positions of both sabers?

razorace
11-15-2003, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by Samuel Dravis
Swung some of that incredible modder weight around, eh? :DYeah, I guess. I'm the only one that I know of that complained about it directly so I assume I had a lot to do with it. :)For the sabers, they need to stay mostly as they are, because if they style of fighting departs seriously from base JKA, people are not going to like it.If it's fun and interesting, people will play it. If everyone listened to the vocal minority that acts like the world is ending when you change one thing, we'd still be playing with the same exact gameplay as original Dark Forces.Also, the saber locks while fighting. Having locks for under a second each time the blades connect would be awesome (this was stated in previous posts by others). Yeah, I'm going to shoot for dynamic saber locks...they'd happen freqently but not every collision. Plus, I think the saber locks need to be expanded to something more than just rapid button clicking. Something that takes more skill and strategy.Are you thinking of working on a dynamic animation system? Like if your saber hits the other guy's saber it would deflect a different way each time depending on the relative positions of both sabers?Well, not truely dynamic, that would require a pro team and a complete animation system engine rebuild. My system will be semi-dynamic. I'd still be using the same animations, just with dynamic start points and animation speeds. Combined with some fancy coding, we should be able to do some really cool stuff with teh saber system.

Samuel Dravis
11-15-2003, 07:29 AM
If it's fun and interesting, people will play it.No doubt. Just don't mess the original stances up too much. Additional stances are always good though.
Plus, I think the saber locks need to be expanded to something more than just rapid button clicking. Something that takes more skill and strategy.
Perhaps make the sabers where they can slide up and down. You would have to concentrate on keeping it in the middle, or else.
Yeah, I'm going to shoot for dynamic saber locks...they'd happen freqently but not every collision.
Sorry, I didn't mean on every collision, just some of them.
Well, not truely dynamic, that would require a pro team and a complete animation system engine rebuild.
But, I thought that you were a pro! Who cares how long or how hard it is as long as it looks cool!

If you hadn't guessed, I was just kidding... ;) I know it'll look awesome.

keshire
11-15-2003, 07:34 AM
Yeah, I'm going to shoot for dynamic saber locks...they'd happen freqently but not every collision. Plus, I think the saber locks need to be expanded to something more than just rapid button clicking. Something that takes more skill and strategy.

Either way your still stuck with pressng something. I'd recommend you go with a direction pressing scheme. Press up bring the lock up. press down bring the lock down. etc etc.

press your directions in a circle, disarm. All the while the other person is trying for the same. This leads to a visual representation of what your actually doing. which is a bonus.

Let certain combo's lead to different results.
circle is disarm
left,right is parry
other combo's lead to the lock breaks intorduced in JKA.

All the while the other person is trying to both prevent your combo and do his. Sorta like chess.

razorace
11-15-2003, 07:53 AM
Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking.

However, from a technical standpoint, there's not much you can do while using dynamic locks, there simply isn't the animations for it.

razorace
11-15-2003, 09:21 AM
Well, sure, there's enough animations for the actual saber locks but they wouldn't cover a bunch of possible dynamic saber lock situations. Ones where you'd have to violently move the players around to get into one of the saber lock animation sets.

Maybe we could have it so that there'd be major saber locks and minor saber locks.

The major ones would occur when both players are in positions that could easily blend into one of the saber lock animation sets. These would have a bit of a strategic button combinations to try to get an advantage over your opponent.

The minor ones would occur if the sabers are in too odd of positions, the players aren't the right sizes (yoda/Jawas/etc), etc. These would be like the traditional saber locks where you just mash the buttons. The loser would lose some energy and possibly get knocked into a parry.

razorace
11-15-2003, 09:44 AM
Well, we'll have to figure out how far the size varation can go before it totally frags the set saber lock animations.

bliv
11-15-2003, 10:33 AM
Not quite had the time to read the thread in full from top to bottom but I gather that you are trying to modify the system to make it more film like and involved more skill than the current system?

If that is the case then a suggestion is that you remove the saber throw with all styles of saber and add the kick from the staff stance instead. But that is if you are going for a film like feel.

Don't know if this qualifies for this thread but if you are looking for stance ideas.....try an inverted saber stance?

razorace
11-15-2003, 07:11 PM
In my saber system, secondary fire will be for setting your block direction so kick/saber throw would be useable that way.

I suggest that saber throw be turned into a force power that can be used from the force power menu.

Marker0077
11-15-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by razorace
In my saber system, secondary fire will be for setting your block direction so kick/saber throw would be useable that way.

I suggest that saber throw be turned into a force power that can be used from the force power menu. I don't like this idea. Force throw is already on the force power menu & I don't think you should swap out the block button with another button that's going to be used anyways, I think you should just add a block button. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with the current "if you are not attacking then you are blocking" system.

razorace
11-15-2003, 08:29 PM
Well, the problem is that there's no true way to "add new buttons" with the engine code.

Besides, saber throw will be used a lot less often with the changes I'm going to make.

Emon
11-15-2003, 08:36 PM
...Why the hell not? You can make console commands, right? A button is just a key bound to a console command, which you add in a MENU file.

razorace
11-15-2003, 08:47 PM
console commands don't have the same network priority as actual buttons. There would be lag.

Emon
11-15-2003, 08:49 PM
I doubt changing one action to a regular command could possibly lag the game up, even with a lot of players.

Marker0077
11-15-2003, 08:56 PM
there are a ton of +button commands, why not just use one of those?

razorace
11-15-2003, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Marker0077
there are a ton of +button commands, why not just use one of those?

That might work but it would involve finding some open ones.

However, Block would be on secondary fire either way, it makes no sense to have Block (a very often used button) on something other than secondary just to allow crazy old schoolers to have their traditional setup.

bliv
11-16-2003, 04:17 PM
I agree, and I'm starting to like the sound of your saber system idea.

BloodRiot
11-17-2003, 11:37 AM
Sounds Good so far Razor.

What do you really think about getting rid of the stances and create one fully customizable stance where you buy the moves to create your own personalized style... this for all sabers of course... just like you buy the force points.

razorace
11-17-2003, 08:39 PM
Nah, probably not. That would be a lot of hassle and in the new system, the special moves will not have the same significance that they used it. They will probably just be to look cool. :)

razorace
11-19-2003, 09:07 AM
Is that all everyone has to say about the saber system?

razorace
11-19-2003, 09:34 AM
Styles mostly. I'm debating on working on a Flamboyant style. Like Fencing. I've got a rough stance hammered out for it. where the saber flies off the belt into the already outstretched hand.

I can do a quick replacement job on fast or tavion style before the source comes out so as to get any kinks ironed out. Then I can add a new style when the source is available.

That brings up a good question. How should we handle stances in the new system? I haven't really put much thought....

My feeling is that stances should be mostly the same with some minor tactical differences. This means that the swing speeds will basically be about the same.

Somes example of balancing would be that one handed techniques would have a weaker grip on the blade; Multibladed stances would require more skill points ; etc.

keshire
11-19-2003, 09:41 AM
I think we should go with this type of setup. Stances (the idle position in a style) should be a menu branch.

razorace
11-19-2003, 09:51 AM
Well, I was referring to the current stances/styles as well. :)

Anyway, adding "stances" would be pretty difficult. You'd have to add a bunch of code and add a transition/return movement from the stance position to each saber position. I don't really see that happening for such a simple effect.

If new saber animations were to be done, I'd fill out some of the currently "missing" animations and/or create fully new styles.

And I don't seen the styles being defined by the *.sab files. I think that's too limiting.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 10:14 AM
Especially since it sounds like Renegade is going to use the OJP/MotF saber system in MB.


I do hope to take advantage of the saber work done for the OJP yes.

How much of it I will be using depends on where the OJP saber system is going, and how far it is willing to change. i.e. are we going to play it safe and only tweak the current saber system, or are we going to go for it and make a totally new one? I personally prefer the latter idea - and from the sounds of it this is Razor's intention too...

Please note I'm talking about Enhanced here. The Basic distro - of course - will not alter gameplay...

Before I start - BloodRiot - sorry if I don't mention stuff you have sent me in your concept doc. I dont' have it at work with me. But I think my plans here co-exist with your plans fairly well. I will re-look at your doc when I get home and see if I've missed anything...

Anyway - to give you an idea of what I personally am aiming for, here's a quick rundown of my saber-related plans for MB 2...

Firstly, it will have a lot in common with the current MB system. The main points being:

* Block button (in the case of MB, saber throw is replaced by block)
* When pressing the block button, your movement speed is reduced, but your blocking ability is increased...

I am not going to defend my decision to remove saber throw here - I think that's a discussion for a different thread. In the end, you can either have saber throw as the alt-press (replacing throw), or assign a different key. So it's not like having a block button nessesarily forces saber throw out - in principle at least...

Reducing movement speed when block is held makes ALL aspects of the game look and feel more real imo. If you need convincing of this, just play MB...

The other main arguments I hear against a block button are:

"It will make saber combat more lag dependant"
I dont' see this as that valid an argument. Any feature which adds more twitch-skill based gameplay to a game will make the game more lag dependant - that's inevitable.
If you see this as a real problem, then you will undoubedly want to start making guns auto-aim to fight lag too...

"Why do you need a block button anyway? If your not attacking, your blocking..."
If it wasn't for other consequences of pressing the block button (e.g. reduced movement speed), I would be inclined to agree. You can also use the combination of attack and block to perform a new function.
I plan to use it for direction blocking / knockback. I'll explain...

...If you JUST hold the block button down, then your blocking ability is increased, but it is still auto-block. i.e. your character automatically blocks incoming attacks.
...this means newbs can still have a chance to enjoy playing a Jedi without having to learn advanced blocking techniques. Plus, fast, blue attacks will probably have to be auto-blocked. (I think they'll be too fast to manually block)

..However, if you hold both attack AND block down, you then are able to directionally block - and possibly knockback. Whether you knockback depends on whether you hit both buttons at PRESISELY the right moment...

While 'directional' blocking, you can basically move the blocking position of your saber around however you like. And if you move it to the correct place to block the incoming saber, then NO attack will get through - including specials. i.e. it's a VERY strong defence, but depends on your skill in determining where the attack is going to hit you..

If you don't block in the right place, and the incoming saber is on target, then you will DEFIENTLY NOT block. So directional blocking is a risk to be taken by those confident in their skill.

If you hit the attack and block buttons at presisiely the moment the incoming saber hits your saber, you knockback your opponents saber, giving you a free chance to hit back...

That's the basic overview of blocking for MB 2. How attacking moves will be triggered is less certain for me at the moment...

razorace
11-19-2003, 10:15 AM
Well, maybe you're right. If the blend time is set correctly, it might look ok.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 10:38 AM
I will do when I get home from work...
...are you on MSN or ICQ by any chance?

keshire
11-19-2003, 10:41 AM
Nope. I'm at work. This is what I do for a living.

At home I'm stuck on a 56k, not worth it when I have a t1 here.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 10:48 AM
Oh - and btw - I already have the concept of 'short' locks in MB (which sounds like this idea of dynamic locks being proposed...), and they work great imo. For me, they add a lot to the 'realistic' look of saber duels...

keshire,
OK - I'll just e-mail you then.. :)

razorace
11-19-2003, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
How much of it I will be using depends on where the OJP saber system is going, and how far it is willing to change. i.e. are we going to play it safe and only tweak the current saber system, or are we going to go for it and make a totally new one? I personally prefer the latter idea - and from the sounds of it this is Razor's intention too...

All the way baby! All the way!

Saber stuff reguarding MB2

Well, I don't really see a point in reducing movement speed while blocking. It would take up valuable button space, could cause balancing issues against gunners, and not be realistic to what we have seen in the movies. In prequel trilogy (and in E2 especially) we've seen that Jedi can deflect blaster bolts fairly while running.

I've been thinking that it might be possible to combo the parrying power up that Bloodriot suggested with a directional block all in the same button. This would be quickly and free up a button combo (so we can use the attack + block for something else). The only issues with doing this is determining the downside of doing the parry and if pressing the block button should auto move the block position to the center.

And I haven't seen the short locks of MB. Don't they just jump into one of the preset saber lock animations?

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 11:22 AM
Well, I don't really see a point in reducing movement speed while blocking. It would take up valuable button space, could cause balancing issues against gunners, and not be realistic to what we have seen in the movies. In prequel trilogy (and in E2 especially) we've seen that Jedi can deflect blaster bolts fairly while running.


I beg to differ.

First of all, please note I did not say you couldn't block when running - I said you have INCREASED blocking when not running.
(In MB, I also have a 'sprinting' button, which allows you to reach near-running speed and still have full block - for temporary periods of time)

Secondly, if you carefully and impartially look at saber combat across all of the trilogies, you will be forced to conceed that 80% - 90% of all seen saber blocking (either against blaster shots or saber attacks) are performed while standing still, walking, or at most a slow jog. Blocking while full-running is RARE. My system still accounts for block-running (as I've made clear above) - but it also gives a reason for slower movement rates -and hence creates more Movie-realistic combat.

In base JKII / JKA, there is NO benefit to slower movement while sabering, and therefore it NEVER happens. Jedi's just constantly run ALL THE TIME. If anyone tries to tell me that that is what happens in the movies - well - put it this way - I'm afraid I can't take you too seriously...

However, if you don't see Movie Realism as an important gameplay factor - I accept and respect that viewpoint. I don't agree, but it is a valid argument at least...

keshire
11-19-2003, 11:34 AM
MB is good and all for Movie recreations. But I'd like to see a major saber overhaul. Which is what JKA is made for. I'd like to head in a more competitive saber enviroment with all MB has to offer and some new innovations. With JKA I don't see gunners being nearly as popular as they were in JK2.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 11:41 AM
Yeap keshire - I see what your saying.

I'll be the first to admit that the current MB saber system is only half finished...

THe slow down when blocking does exactly what I hoped it would do - make saber combat more movie realistic. (Whoever says that simply isn't so, I would challenge you to play MB before stating that with such finality...)
But with the introduction of this direction blocking concept, I hope this will give the MB 2 system an increaed competitiveness which - I'll fully admit - the MB system currently is a bit lacking in atm...


Well, I don't really see a point in reducing movement speed while blocking. It would take up valuable button space...


..huh? I thought you had said earlier that you - too - were planning to have a block button?! My block button would take no more button space than your block button!! lol

razorace
11-19-2003, 11:48 AM
Running stuff

I didn't mean to imply that running should be the defualt movement mode. It shouldn't. I just feel that the penalities for running while using the saber while should be more ...err...transparent. Things like major vuneriblities to knockdown moves, Parries, and Force Push/Pull.

keshire
11-19-2003, 11:50 AM
Running already carries those penalties. It was stated by Raven. And is definately noticable in single player.

razorace
11-19-2003, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
..huh? I thought you had said earlier that you - too - were planning to have a block button?! My block button would take no more button space than your block button!! lol

Your proposal takes up two regularly used buttons: Standard Block and Directional Block.

My proposal involved one regularly used button and a possible parry button for tapping (but I'm thinking we don't need a seperate parry button). With what I'm thinking, we could use attack+secondary for something else, like kicking or special moves.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 12:27 PM
Running already carries those penalties. It was stated by Raven. And is definately noticable in single player.


I'm not aware of these penalites in standard MP. And even if they are there, they obviously are not strong enough, otherwise jedi's wouldn't constantly run everywhere in MP...


Your proposal takes up two regularly used buttons: Standard Block and Directional Block.


No - my system used one attack button (already present) and one extra block button. Directional blocking is achieved by holding down both attack and block - as I've already stated.

...if we want an extra 'special move' button - well -that's possible, but I'd argue that's not a priority...

It's possible we are talking about button combinations here rather than buttons themselves. If so - ok - I think I see what your saying.
Basically, I'd rather use the attack + block combination specifically for directional block + parry (and keep special moves how they are currently) whereas I think you are saying you want to use the attack + block button for kicks and / or special moves, and achieve parryng another way...

OK - we can discuss these possibilities. ALl I'm saying is that both our systems have the same number of button combinations avalaible. We now need to debate what those combinations actually do...


I didn't mean to imply that running should be the defualt movement mode. It shouldn't...


Well, I'm glad that we seem to agree on that. And the exact penalties for running are debatable. ...but do you also agree that unless the penalties when running have some significance, people won't bother - they'll just stick 'Always Run' to true and leave it at that - like they do at the moment...

BloodRiot
11-19-2003, 01:17 PM
Well, i've had the chance of discussing such matters with both renegade and razor.

What I initially sugested to renegade was a duel/powerduel only game mode with high emphasis on realistic saber combat.

In the said system, all sabers have the single saber yellow stance speed, they all do the same ammount of damage (wether being high or low...but imo it should be set to very high).

The introduction of the stamina meter would be the most intersting thing about this as it would affect your performance at all possible levels as it simulates something like if you are tired, you are not as fast or you dont strike as hard as you would otherwise. Walk speed is default and engaging sprint or run will tire you (aka drain stamina).

The combat would have 3 diferent actions: attack, defend/block and parry.

*Attack is pretty much self explanatory... the only real diference is that it should be more controlled. I want to wait for razor's mouse control scheme before i go further into this cuz if his idea works it's the best type of control you can possibly get.

*Defense/Block will replace the saber throw. Defense is no longer automatic so to defend you gotta let go of offense. pretty much like movie battles defense but with an extra... you have to to press the direction the attack is comming from to block that particular area.

*Parry is an alternate to defense/block... you attack the opponent's saber to attempt deflecting the saber for a counterstrike (something defense does not do) or disarm.

The reason for the existance of parry vs defend is that defend grants you no attack bonuses whatsoever. You take a defending pose to regain some stamina and is easier to perfom and with more chances of success. Parry on the other hand acts as a "powerup move"... you press attack+defense, it consumes a bit of stamina as a normal attack and then allows the refered attack bonuses for a coutner attack or disarm... the downside is that if the opponent realizes you are trying to deflect him or disarm him, he can also engage the powerup (again attack+defense) and try to reverse the game... the one with more stamina will usually win.

Saberlocks are also a factor here and may occur during any of the 3 types of actions.

Counterattacks can only be performed as a parry followup. It can be a normal saber attack, a force push, a kick or punch, a hilt bash all determined by the action (pressed key) that follows the sucessful parry. The counterattacked player has a penalty to withstand a counterstrike. If his saber get's deflected, he's stunned for a fraction of a second which is a worthwhile bonus for the attacker as any counter he may chose to inflict has a high possibility of success.

Some parries or blocks or saberlocks may occur if 2 players attack eachother and the sabers happen to connect. however, if both player do attack and the sabers dont connect with each other and both saber hit the other player, both of them may lose and end the round as a tie. Of course there's also the possibility of the sabers not connecting and only on of them hit the opponent...but it's a too high of a risk imo.

The major thing in this system is the stamina or fatigue (whatever you may call it) meter. I've mentioned it before but now i will explain it. The meter will work much like the force meter but will gradually decrese it's maximum value overtime. This is too simulate the combatant's fatigue level... you can't possibly keep fighting for 2 hours at top notch performance. Almost every action you make will tire the player a bit... some actions are more exhausting than others of course. A good use for defense is that it enables you to farily easy block the enemy's attacks while replenishing your stamina. Also some factors will decrese the stamina's max level besides the time spent fighting like getting hit (not fatally of course). So a graze to the arm will decrese the max level of stamina to simulate penalties inflicted by the injury. Fall damage applies as well. As explained... keeping your stamina at high levels will be beneficial so timming and strategy is of the utmost importance. Spamming will definetly get you killed in this system as the opponent is likely to defend or parry and you will be too tired to fight back efficiently. I say it again.. stamina will apply bonuses if high or penalties if low to practically everything on does in this system.

The stances should be dropped and replaced by a style editor much like the skin editor menu or the force powers menu... you have a selection of moves that cost points. Like force powers, the better the move.. the more it costs. In this system, dual sabers and staves are a definite advantage and therefore should also be bought with points, much like a longer saberblade should cost more points. I see it this way cuz, if staff is indeed a tough art to master like it is said... then you must spend more time with it than you would with single sabers and therefore cannot allocate as much time to force training as a singel saber user would.

Taking up on the discussion above between renegade and razor, i think the defending while running wont directly be at penalty... but if using this system remember that running drains stamina...and that directly affects defending performance.

Well that pretty much explains what my idea on a good saber system should be all about. I hope i didn't confuse you or bore any reader :)

I've initially talked about this with renegadeofphunk and i know for a fact he agrees with me, I've later discussed this with razorace as well and he poitned out a few things that i already took into consideration when i wrote this post.

Well just say what you think of it :)
Cheers.

keshire
11-19-2003, 01:30 PM
I'd suggest against move picking. And instead suggest style picking. You have seven to choose from so far.

fast
medium
strong

tavion
desann

dual
staff

plus any that others make. And I'm sure I'll make something. ;)

keshire
11-19-2003, 01:32 PM
I'd also like to add stance choosing to the jedi customization menu with at least three stances for each style. As well as saber off/on options.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 01:33 PM
BloodRiot,

Thx. I knew I was forgetting something important from your proposal -and the stamina bar was it!
Indeed, I think the stamina bar would be a great addition.

One thing I would say is that I don't think we should force walk to be the default during duels. There is already an option for run / walk in the standard options after all...
I just think block should force walk - as it already is in MB and which we know works...

..and I THINK our ideas of what happens when you hit both attack + block are similar - i.e. they perform the parry / knockback move. But I'm not sure what you think about my idea of the parry having to be well-timed for it to work - otherwise it's just a strong defense...

And also - just to clarify one point - if both Jedi have a lot of stamina, and they attack each other at the same time, saber locks will result (long or short) - but if one Jedi has a substantially lower stamina than his opponent - this means the lower Jedi will be parried / knocked back? Is that accurate? I hope it is - cos I like this system!

keshire
11-19-2003, 01:36 PM
Actually in a system like that I would force walk too. Especially if running lower stamina. Or at least an option to choose which one you use by default.

And I also think this system would be a good system to use. But I would definately vote for a strong locking system too. Such as the ones discussed earlier in the thread.

BloodRiot
11-19-2003, 01:46 PM
Yes Keshire i agree... i guess i forgot to add that lil' tid bit of info.
Indeed Walking should be default and of course the saberlocking factors razor talked about are needed here. The microsaberlocks should give the impressions the sabers are indeed connecting.

Cheers.

Ytmh
11-19-2003, 07:46 PM
Hi, Ace pointed out to this, which I HAD seen before at some point or another. Let me try to get a few points across that I think are important.

First off, I think that if we are to do anything interesting, we first have to examine fighting games' systems and go from there. The fact is, the vast majority of the work has been already done there in terms of implementation (DOA-SC for parrying, for example.)

Second, Learning to use a stave or a longer saber BY THEMSELVES means actually no more work than learning how to handle one normal saber. I think higher costs should only be applied to learning double saber styles, and not even then because the person could've simply just skipped learning singlesaber style beforehand, thus making it the same ammount of effort than learning to master just one.

Third, the stamina bar idea thing sounds cute, but how are you handling respawns-deaths? What use is having a gradually degrading stamina system thing so complex when it won't be put to use 80% of the times due to simply dying too quickly and starting over at full stamina? You can't make the stamina decrease more drastic or anything because that'd be quite anti-jedi like (But it'd be better for gameplay. You decide).

Fourth, saber throwing is not a logical or sane battle move while at close range, because you're losing your weapon, no matter for how much time, you lost it. So that means that any slash you take while you're weaponless is one hit kill unless we do the dodge thingy. There must be an enormous penality for it simply due to the nature of the attack. To avoid this being a problem, I suggest leaving the saber throw as a secondary move that while is inneffective at 1x1 duel can be used as an aux move to help someone else in a fight, and can actually do regular slash+ damage. A support move, more or less.

Fifth, realistically, the only difference between running and walking in terms of defence is the fact that you're moving faster towards the objects, but in this case the objects are moving so fast already that your own speed added to them is probably not going to matter much if you're a jedi. I figure that the reason that you'd rather stand still or move slightly is to actually only attack through deflected fire rather than cutting through it and attacking yourself . Now the thing is, GAMEPLAY WISE, no matter what the movies say, Jedi and melee only guys MUST have a method of cutting through enemy shots in some form or another without getting killed becuase otherwise you're at a enormous disadvantage. My suggestion to fix this is an 'Attack Charge', of sorts, which allows you to run(jump, strafe) at full speed for 10 or so seconds while actually keeping defence at 100%, the only problem is that any attacking coming out of THAT mode will have a massive delay to it so that if you didn't take the chance well, you'll be pretty open, but if you took it, it's well worth it. (There's more to it, but that's the basic idea).

Sixth, the good'olde blade locking duels. The first thing about blade locking is that realistically your blades will never lock and REMAIN STILL, the minute they lock you'll want to disarm and move in for a strike or at the very least push the opponent away, so locking would be actually a quick tactical move. Ace's idea for when locking should occur makes sense, though on a gameplay level it'd be nice if there was a trigger for it which was set on stone that could be accessed. Such as parrying and instead of attacking you can 'push' the saber forth and lock up. As to why you'd realistically have that option, well, you can't 'disarm' people in the game I think, but it'd be neat if you could. Knock'em sabers away and then just slash their heads off.

Seventh, COMBOS. Why doesn't anyone think about this? Really, now. The only way you can actually get a 'dynamic' feel to it, at least emulate SOME of it, is to give the sensation that there is a reasonable chain of attacks that aren't 'spamming', and all of said hits are meant to be hitting. I think this would require some work to be implemented, but the general outline can be seen again in fighting games. In THIS case however you don't need the extra buttons because you can control the saber quickly enough with how it's set up or any other control methods.

Stay fresh!

razorace
11-19-2003, 10:28 PM
Yes, I imagine that the dodge system will play a big role in all this, especially since real life players can't react with jedi-like reflexes.

For those that don't know what the Dodge system does, it's basically a "n00b/fudging" meter. It runs off a seperate gauge that drains power from the fatigue system to power itself. As long as you have enough Dodge remaining, your player will automatically dodge or block incoming attacks instead getting hit. Dodge recharges relatively quickly (probably a zero-full recharge in about 1 min) and sucks major amounts of stamina.

With this system (probably balanced of course), you'll be able to more accurately simulate reflexes (jedi or otherwise) and prolong battles a while so that each duel doesn't end the defender makes a mistake.

Dodge only takes effect if you screw up by not blocking the correct direction or when a shot gets thru. When Dodge takes over, your character either physically dodges the attack or blocks it with the saber, whatever is more appropreiate.

If the player runs out of stamina, it reverse drains energy from Dodge to give the player a slight reserve of fatigue. After that, you're in deep trouble.

Your Dodge abilities depend on your current skills. Jedi characters have much more Dodge/Fatigue than mercs/other classes.

So, to kill someone, you'd have to do one of three things:

1. Totally out skill them by quickly draining their Dodge with quick, well placed blows.

2. Slowly wear them down by tiring them out.

3. Hitting them while they are unable to Dodge. This will probably apply only in special cases.


On another subject, I think Ytmh has an interesting idea to have the parry ability go into a saberlock instead of just an automatic knockback.

However, we'll have to be sure to have it be balanced so that the defender has a good advantage to do that. We don't want to make attacking or defending too powerful. We want a balance so that players can be comfortable quickly switching from defense to attack and back.

Plus, from experimentation, the saber swing speeds will have to be slowed down to have any chance of skillful saber play. I've found that about %50 normal speed would be pretty good for the "average" level of difficulty. Beginner servers could probably use 25% or something.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 10:40 PM
Thx for contributing Ytmh.
I'll hit your points in turn...


First off ...examining other existing systems...


It's a good idea to examine existing systems - I agree. But I would keep in mind that sometimes it good to be original - i.e. not just do what anybody else has done in a slightly modified form...


Second - staff / dual sabers issues


I'm inclined to agree with you. I'd rather have single-saber / staff / dual sabers totally balanced, rather than one having to cost more skill points than the other...


Third ... stamina bar...


Your either not understanding the stamina system we are proposing, or you don't think it will be possible to find the correct levels of stamina loss (running, attacking etc.) and regain (blocking) appropiate to the desired average duration of duels.

The stamina level of the Jedi will be constantly going up and down as they attack and block - attack and block etc. etc. It doesn't matter that the stamina level goes back to full upon respawn - the same way that it doesn't matter that your force manna goes back to full upon respawn...


Fourth ..saber throw...


I would suggest leaving saber throw for a seperate discussion. The fact is that this new blocking system doesn't nessesarily mean saber throw has to go or stay - they are two different features which don't have to affect each-other.


Fifth.. walking while blocking


The temporary charge idea I already have implemented currently in Movie Battles. I basically have a sprint button, which allowes you to run pretty much at a full run, but still have full defense. (If you don't block while sprinting, you run at faster-then-normal pace.) This is to a maximum of 20 secs. Then, once you turn off sprint (by either hitting the sprint button again, or hitting walk / crouch), you then have to spend half the time you spent sprinting limited to a walk. i.e. you sprint for 10 secs - you must walk for 5 secs before you can resume a normal run...


Sixth ... saber locks


I don't know about 'literal' realism, but as far as Movie Realism, there are many differnt types of locks seen in the movies. Most of them are -as you say - just the sabers clashing, no real duration on the actual 'lock'. But there are other locks - ranging from a few ms to several seconds. So to be movie realistic, you need a decent range of locks, as far as duration.

As far as the locking stuff which Ace has suggested, I like it. It sounds similar to what I've done in MB, but (your right Razor), I just jump into the standard lock anims, but then jump back out again after a few ms. It was very easy to do, and it's farily effective. Razor's locks will look significantly more natural though...


Seventh... combos


I like the idea of combos - as long as it doesn't go over the top.
One other idea I have in mind is to not only have combo attacks, but also a combo defense to counter that attack. Exactly how the defender goes about defending the combo, or whether he gets to start defending in the middle of the combo, I'm not positive at this stage.
...but what I'm sure of are two things. It should be possible for the defender to defend against the whole combo in one go. (In my system, I see this as being if he directionally defends against the first attack of the chain). Secondly, assuming the defender acheives this, then both attacker and defender go into a pre-determined, simply breathtaking-looking sequence - which woudln't be posible during 'normal' combat. I think little sections like that would look simply awesome -and add a whole lot to the look and feel of the duels...

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 10:57 PM
I imagine that the dodge system will play a big role in all this, especially since real life players can't react with jedi-like reflexes


I definelty think the dodge system has a place in the saber system. Now that I think about it, I can remember many instances where a defending Jedi has side-stepped or ducked to avoid an incoming saber attack in the films.

...but I would say this -I don't think a Jedi should be able to defend more than one saber attack in a row. I think if they can defend two or more in sequence, that's when it starts to look 'strange' and 'unnatural'...

...also, I've got a feeling dodge should only be possible for slower attacks...


On another subject, I think Ytmh has an interesting idea to have the parry ability go into a saberlock instead of just an automatic knockback.


Possibly - I'm not sure if I'm quite clear on this idea though. Can this be explained in more detail?


I've found that about %50 normal speed would be pretty good for the "average" level of difficulty. Beginner servers could probably use 25% or something.


I think this depends on two things.

1. WHat stance your talking about (assuming of course we are still having stances - but in either cases, the moves currently associated with the stances...). Red -for example - doesn't need any slowing down imo. In fact, it can be argued it could be sped up and still defended against...

2. If we are keeping in ANY concept of auto-blocking. In my system, just holding block is an auto-block (not directional). I think this is still a good option to have - against gunners, fast attacking styles like blue, and simply when you have a lot of opponents coming at you, and it's not really practical to think about directional blocking each of them at the same time.

Directional blocking is both buttons together, and would only really be used in 1v1 (or possible 1v2 or 2v2) duels...

But of course that's thinking about it from the viewpoint of my system...

razorace
11-19-2003, 11:04 PM
I'm against comboing in a "it's different than normal attacking" sense. It's not realistic and forces people to remember button combinations.

However, I'm in favor of dynamic comboing which basically means that you pick your next saber move is based off all the possible moves from your current saber position. (The JKA system already uses this to some degree.)

For example, from the center position you decide to attack left. Your player winds up and swings left. You're now momentially in the Center left swing position. From here you have multiple options: Wait and let your player move back to the center "ready" position; do another left swing command (center, up, or down) and go into a spin; Do a right swing command and slice your saber back the way it came.

The overall effect is that you can have rthym to your attacks. Just like in the movies.

However, I should notice that bounce attacks need to be changed. A lot of the problems with the current system is due to the way the sabers don't physically exist in the game world. When sabers bounce they often use animation blending to pass straight thru the other dude's saber and hurts him.

Have I several ideas on how to fix this, mainly by having sabers move back to one of the attack positions on impact AND by have the Player's view lock (in the direction of the impact) while the saber is in contact with other objects. This should make impacts feel more real and prevent people from yaw whoring their sabers into people.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 11:22 PM
I'm against comboing in a "it's different than normal attacking" sense. It's not realistic and forces people to remember button combinations.


I think we need to be careful in what sense we are trying to be realistic here.

If you mean making a realistic control system, you would go for something like 'Die By The Sword' - where literally EVERY SINGLE movement of your weapon is dictated exactly by movements of the mouse...

When I say 'realistic', I mean 'looks' realistic to the action to the movies. After that, the only other requirement is that the saber combat is competitive and encourgaes skillful play.

Don't get me wrong - I do think your 'dynamic combo' idea is a good one. But for me, the downside is it would make a sustained series of rapid attacks VERY difficult to achieve. And since we see plenty of them in the movies, I think they should be possible... (i.e. my combo attack, countered by a combo defense.)

I actually think both your 'dynamic combo' idea and my combo idea can both exist in the same system...

razorace
11-19-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
...but I would say this -I don't think a Jedi should be able to defend more than one saber attack in a row. I think if they can defend two or more in sequence, that's when it starts to look 'strange' and 'unnatural'...Dodge will use saber blocking whenever that's possible. The physical dodging will only occur when an attack occurs that totally gets past the saber dodging system (say when someone is attacked at a odd angle). Physical dodges are more expensive than saber dodge blocks but happen less often (assuming that the player has a saber activated and isn't a total n00b).

...also, I've got a feeling dodge should only be possible for slower attacks...What slower attacks? All attacks should be sought at about the same speed. The difference should be in the windup peroid.

1. WHat stance your talking about (assuming of course we are still having stances - but in either cases, the moves currently associated with the stances...). Red -for example - doesn't need any slowing down imo. In fact, it can be argued it could be sped up and still defended against...All of them, but mainly yellow. The only slow part of red is the wind up, that should probably stay about the same speed. The actual attack swing should be about as fast as the slowed down yellow attack speeds. Remember that we're talking actual manual blocking here. It's MUCH, MUCH harder than standing there with autoblock.

2. If we are keeping in ANY concept of auto-blocking. In my system, just holding block is an auto-block (not directional). I think this is still a good option to have - against gunners, fast attacking styles like blue, and simply when you have a lot of opponents coming at you, and it's not really practical to think about directional blocking each of them at the same time.Yes, Dodge handles autoblocking. It just has a Dodge cost instead of being totally random like in basejka.

razorace
11-19-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
Don't get me wrong - I do think your 'dynamic combo' idea is a good one. But for me, the downside is it would make a sustained series of rapid attacks VERY difficult to achieve. And since we see plenty of them in the movies, I think they should be possible... (i.e. my combo attack, countered by a combo defense.)

It wouldn't be difficult at all, you just keep holding down the button. It's just like the current system, just with a little more control

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-19-2003, 11:40 PM
Right - ok I think I get your system a bit more now. And it certainly works as a gameplay mechanic.

...but I'm afraid I don't see the resulting gameplay looking much like the movies...

In the movies, you see fast exchanges - faster than defending players will have a hope of blocking manually. Now, if you talking about slowing down ALL attacks to make them blockable - well - you may be on course for representing some of the slower, OT battles, but you certainly will not be representing a lot of the blisteringly fast combat in Ep.I and II.

Plus, I'm guessing you ARE planning on allowing more than one dodge in a row. And I don't think this will look natural at all...

In short - I'm not in favour of completely ditching any concept of auto-blocking (or completely replacing it with auto-dodging...). I think SOME amount of auto-blocking NEEDS to remain to make sure the fast exchanges seen in the movies are still possible.

WHat I am proposing is a mixture of both. Auto-blocking for fast attakcs, and manual blocking for slower attacks. You can TRY and auto-block against slower attacks, but this shoudn't be very effective, and you won't have much - if any - chance of knockaways...

razorace
11-20-2003, 12:01 AM
Well, yes, things will be slower than the pace you see in the PT, but there's not much we can do about that since we're trying to make a game that is fun to play instead of a video demo. The battles will still be quick paced and furious. They just won't be Yoda vs Dooku fast.

And I don't think you get what I mean about the dodge system. Most dodges will use the saber to block incoming attacks. The physical dodges ONLY occur when the saber would be unable to get to the attack quickly enough to block it.

Like I mentioned above, it's basically just a better autoblock with an meter instead of a random number generator. As such, it won't look unnatural since a Dodge block will look the same as a auto or manual block (unless a physical dodge is required).

I should note that Dodge will probably have to have some sort of effect (visual or sound) to let the players know that it's happening. We need feedback of some sort so people can know why their dodge meter is going down. :)

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 12:14 AM
Well, yes, things will be slower than the pace you see in the PT, but there's not much we can do about that since we're trying to make a game that is fun to play instead of a video demo. The battles will still be quick paced and furious. They just won't be Yoda vs Dooku fast.


I'm not suggesting the whole saber battle would be played at that kind of speed - I'm just saying it should be possible for it to happen.
Fast attacks should be draining. Mine and BloodRiot's system has the fatigue meter. This would drain fast if you continually throw fast attacks at your opponent - so in the end you wouldn't be able to continually sustain them.

Bottom line is, I think it's perfectly possible to represent both OT and PT saber combat in the same system - and keep it skill-based. You just have to get away from the idea that 'skill' HAS to involve directing every little movement of the saber. Skill can involve other things too...


And I don't think you get what I mean about the dodge system. Most dodges will use the saber to block incoming attacks. The physical dodges ONLY occur when the saber would be unable to get to the attack quickly enough to block it.


Ahhh -ok - sorry, I understand now. OK, that sounds good then. It sounds similar to the fatigue system, although I'm guessing your dodge system doesn't get drained when attacking...?



instead of a random number generator.


I agree. No system we come up with should rely on random numbers. The only exception is when the result of the random number is purely visual -i.e. does not affect actual gameplay...

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 12:38 AM
I think I'm starting to get a firmer idea of that I'm proposing here...

...what I'm proposing is a system that incorporates concepts like directional blocking, but STILL has the potential to appeal to 'old-school' JKII / JKA players also.
(Obviously this can only be so true. The 'real' old schoolers would never play anything different from the base game. But I mean in principle - assuming they were willing to try something new...)

...and at the same time this system would allow for both OT and PT type combat.

The base game is ALL auto blocking - there isn't even a block button.
...but saber combat still requires skill to be good at it. If you disagree, try telling that hypothesis to top JKII / JKA players...!

The skill obviously isn't literally controlling the saber in a direct way, but instead it comes from positioning, performing specials etc.

What were proposing with directional blocking is a different type of skill. It feels more 'real' and 'direct' - but that doesn't mean it is ACTUALLY more skillful.
(To demonstrate my point hypothetically - if you slowed down the incoming attacks enough, it would become rediculously easy -to the point that the base game would require more skill.)

So rather than just completely replacing the base-game type play with only directional-blocking type play, instead you can mix the two together. In this way, you get a system which covers the whole trilogy and is more inclusive to different types of players...

razorace
11-20-2003, 12:46 AM
The Dodge system is connected to the Fatigue system. Fatigue points feed the Dodge meter.

Yeah, me and Y set up this basic saber system concept like a year ago and have been refining it ever since. Hell is in the details. :)

Anyway, I've also toyed with the idea of the idea of having the ability to set the saber attack speed at the expense of fatigue. However, that also ties into the more RPG like skills system so I haven't really talked about it here.

I think it would be easier to assume that there isn't a varible swing speed control for now. There's no problem with having a universal server setting for the swing speed but a per player setting is a whole new can of worms.

BloodRiot
11-20-2003, 12:48 AM
I like razor's idea of dynamic comboing over the pre programmed and automatic combos in which you have no power to change and/or stop at will.

All the moves from all the stances are usable as long as they are equalized to yellow speed standards imo.

Well if razor says that the dodge meter will also work as an autoblock then i dont we have a discussion whether or not the autobloking is still in the system. On question though... since the dodge meter represents that above human reflexes that allowed jedi to dodge or block things that a normal human couldn't... welll we ARE talking about the force right? So why not make the dodge ability a force power that is on at all times and is auto engaged just like the force sight when it makes you dodge that sniper shot? Just something to think about..

My guess is that saber speed has to be just enough for a normal human player to be able to block one ore more chained attacks... but still with the right ammount of dificulty that it will require practice and will keep you on your toes.

The attack move is to inflict damage upon the enemy player in order to win, while defense is usd o strategically maneuver into or wait for a more favorable time and/or recover stamina spent on attacks or some other thing. Another way to view parry is like an attack directed at the opponents weapon instead of his body in order to deflect the enemy saber leaving the opponent open for attack for a split second... counter attack is always performed only after a sucessfull parry and it's advantage over a regular attack is that it's ALMOST a certain hit to the body... the risk pays off cuz you will directly cost the enemy valuable dodge points and/or his life.

About some new stuff i just thought about...this shuld be hell but i'll just try it anyway. Since the parry can only be performed from a defensive pose, why not making the parry from a non-defending pose like a fake half attack to allow a real full attack followup? Remeber in th duel fo the fates? obi wan and qui gon side by side with maul right in front of them.. obi wan fakes an attack to draw maul's attention while qui gon goes for the real strike.

Since the dodge meter will be present and will save the player's butt a few times, no matter what you do... it will always look more real cuz only when u run out of dodge and make a mistake... you really get hit and die... so it will always look more real. After dodge is depleted and you get hit.. i'd go for a 1 hit kill. If you are good then even if you get a bit drained dodge meer.. it will recharge.

I've been mostly considering Duels...taking other gamemodes into account, it think the blaster fire defending should be automatic but it's effectiveness would depend on both the points spent on saber defense and the current stamina. Either way Jedi by all means are powerfull and hardly will a smart gunner tak a jedi/sith threat lightly. Nevertheless the jedi must never be uber powerfull to underestimate a gunner.. and even for a jedi... there is a time to fight.. and a time to get the hell out (again TPM offers the perfect example -> Qui Gon and Obi Wan vs the Droidekas on the trade fedaration ship). Since stamina will also affect gunners and quite possibly..dodge as well notsure how razor wants to use dodge for gunners. In the end, it can be balanced.

Keshire: The style choosing over individual moves should also work. I have nothing against that. Just hadn't thought about it that way.

Renegade: yes, the parry will work something like that. By clicking on attack+defense you execute a an attack towards the enemy saber as i said... it will look like a strong defense and is merely a defense powerup as sugested by razorace. After that it has to do with timing liek you said and with stamina again as you said... yup i guess you got that part down nicely :) I think the drawback to parry is that if you have a much lower stamina than the opponents, the parry could or should backfire and it's the players saber that get's deflected and or disarmed. This risk probably makes parry an unwise mov to spam unless you are a good stamina manager. Maybe it should cost more stamina as well... although not completely realistic, gameplay wise it should be itneresting and enjoyable.

razorace
11-20-2003, 01:18 AM
Well, unless we get some new animations designed just for parrying (the current animations are made for actual attacking), I can't really see the parry working by "attacking the saber". The current animations simply aren't set up for the lateral movements used for parrying.

Doing fakes is interesting idea.

Ok, assuming that parry = attack+block, what should the block button do while you're doing an attack? Anyway? Should that be the "fake out" button?

IMO, using Dodge Blocking (saber autoblock) against blaster bolts should be less expensive since bolts seem to be easier physically to block AND because blaster bolts are much harder to manually block.

As for Dodge and non-Jedi, Non-Jedi would have some level of Dodge (simulating luck and professional level reflexes) but it would be much less than what Jedi get. Non-Jedi should also get less stamina to account for them having fewer skills that drain stamina.

BloodRiot
11-20-2003, 01:38 AM
I'm glad you liked the fake idea. I'll explain further.

Parrying is used from a defensive stance while faking is used in offensive stance. The word stance is not to be taken as in the stances we know in JO/JA... but rather as player/character attitudes or behaviors.

When you start defending an enemy attack, you are taking a defensive stance as far as your current combat maneuvers... either for regaining stamina or just waiting for the right time to strike back. If you are attacking than you are obviously on offensive and it's likely that the opponent wil take a defensive stance in turn.

If the fake is implemented, then i propose that the parry can only be a followup of a previous defense move that allows a counter attack afterwards as a followup to parry... so it becomes a chainned (but not automatic as a kata for instance) event: Block -> Parry -> Counter Attack.

If you haven't blocked anything and do the attack+defense move than it's likely you are either attacking or in a standoff. if it's not defending the attack+defense makes a fake attack.

Or we may simple make them a totally diferent set of keys or key combos or whatever.

razorace
11-20-2003, 02:18 AM
Well, we can't make it too complicated or people won't be able to use it effectively.

I think your block->parry->counterattack is an interesting idea but I don't think the player will have enough time during a block to press the parry button. A Parry->Counterattack system would probably work but I'll have to think about how to do it since you'd have to somehow switch to counterattack mode and back after the parry.

BloodRiot
11-20-2003, 03:15 AM
The switch you mention could just be automatic... like the special attack after a sucessfull saberlock in JA.

So that way if you succeed at a parry and perform an attack right after it's automatically the counterattack, but if you wait a second after the parry, then you continue fighting as normal.

JediLiberator
11-20-2003, 03:21 AM
Ok here's my two cents.
Offensively speaking I think the real problem is the saber "styles" should be based off kendo movements rather more than spinny, flashy moves. You see in kendo you have different which each serve a tactical purpose. Yellow would have you point your weapon at the opponents throat and present the a good offensive or defensive position. Red would probably have you hold the weapon overhead with the butt of the hilt aimed at your opponents eyes(for a more powerful downstroke) and blue would have you point towards your opponents knees(to lure him into attacking or to do a quick upward slash to strike the hands or arms or your opponent.) I know you think changing animations is tough, but I've seen it done on a few mods.
Defense wise I like the idea of a block button, maybe with a dodge meter as a backup to that, but you should only be able to dodge one or two stroke. If your still in saber range after that any skilled swordman should be carving you up.

razorace
11-20-2003, 03:37 AM
Say, aren't you one of the guys working on that Matrix mod?

keshire
11-20-2003, 04:58 AM
Let me get this out of the way while its still fresh in my mind.

I would suggest leaving saber throw for a seperate discussion. The fact is that this new blocking system doesn't nessesarily mean saber throw has to go or stay - they are two different features which don't have to affect each-other.

Saber throw should be single use. No force power. I'd also argue it should be an overhead vertical throw instead of the current horizontal. This makes it a last ditch effort attack or a "I know your close to dying" attack. Use of force pull like stated earlier or manually retrieving should follow. Then you could just bind it to a different key.

Aryyn
11-20-2003, 08:14 AM
Blocking its all about blocking. Because a hit is recorded 9 times out of 10.

BloodRiot
11-20-2003, 09:27 AM
To be honest i kinda like the kendo moves idea. But as far as i know renegade and razor also want some prequel duel flash to it.

In fact both blue and yellow stance are too spinny... the best moves are definetly red stance for single saber. They would only need to be a bit speed up to match yellow speed. a mild wind up (as in longer than standard yellow but shorter than red's should provide a good feeling. Even in the movies we see the move windups.

keshire
11-20-2003, 09:36 AM
Kendo Stances should be doable. Unless he wants the whole sha'bang. Then that more problematic. I've got all the saber anims sorted now I'm going thorugh and putting descriptions next to them. Then I'll start some work on altering moves and styles and stances.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 10:04 AM
But as far as i know renegade and razor also want some prequel duel flash to it.


Well - Razor actually doesn't want prequel duel flash -at least not at the same intense speed. i.e. too fast to have a chance to manually block.

I, however, do. I'm not saying I want one OR the other, I think it should be possible to have both. Some players may become expert at the new, slower directional blocking combat. Others may be better at the more 'old-skool' combat - which will more resemble the prequels.

...both should be able to fight each-other in the same system.

...this is why i want JUST block to be auto-block, and block + attack to be directional block...

BloodRiot
11-20-2003, 11:02 AM
I dont have a problem about having both, but i dont think it's a good idea to allow the mboth to work at the same time. Imo if we go for distinct systems i'd make a server option to dictate what type of saber fight is enabled on that particular server... realistic dueling or movie dueling.

But above all i'd rather have a realistic dueling system with flashy movies in between.

Also Renegade... realistic doesnt mean slow paced. and i believe the kendo talk was about moves not pace of the duel. The old school battles will always have to included the realistic feature anyway cuz otherwise it will defer lil from what we already have in JA. The Staff and Dual Sabers are flashy enough on their own.
I believe alot of moves will have to be tweaked tho. The butterfly is a move that i want in, but i dunno how to make it realistic even by your movie standards... Maul used it but as a navigational move not as an attack. the sight of a guy crossing half the taspir landing pad with a butterfly while hitting everything in it's path while still performing the move to the end looks pretty 2d arcade fighting game to me. maybe if we used the sideways and create a backwards only move for the butterfly... it still inflictcs damage but it will look nicer. Another reason for my frown upon the butterfly is that it would be hell to defend that attack without autodefense( or with autodefense for that matter).

Imo if such too-much-like-present-JA visuals are used, it will defeat most of the realism and movie like appeal we strive for.

So in the end, imo we should have a realistic fighting with non and semi flashy moves that represent the basic proficiency with the saber... and we got the flashy stuff like jump attacks, cartwheels and other flashy stuff that destinguish the jedi and their use of the force from ordinary fencers of old or samurais and the way it's depicted in the star wars movies. The best of both worlds.

I'll rest for now. After reading some of your comments i'll try to re-adapt the system and work out a more thought out explanation.
I'll get back on this.

Cheers.

keshire
11-20-2003, 11:06 AM
I'll second the removal of the forward butterfly. As it is people use it as an attack. Same thing with the dual forward butterfly.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 11:13 AM
I believe alot of moves will have to be tweaked tho. The butterfly is a move that i want in, but i dunno how to make it realistic even by your movie standards...


Yeap - I agree. If we want to get it as Movie Realistic as possible, we need to think about altering (or removing) some of the moves currently in JA - I think some of them are way OTT...


Also Renegade... realistic doesnt mean slow paced. and i believe the kendo talk was about moves not pace of the duel.


Razor is proposing slowing down ALL moves - to the extent that you should be able to manually block them. i.e. there would be no moves of the current blue stance speed...

...but saber battles of 'blue stance' speed are seen in plenty of instances in the movies. So if we want this system to represent ALL the different kinds of saber battles seen in the movies, then blue attacks SHOULDN'T be slowed down.

...that's my point...


I dont have a problem about having both, but i dont think it's a good idea to allow the mboth to work at the same time.


...but hang on. What you described here:


So in the end, imo we should have a realistic fighting with non and semi flashy moves that represent the basic proficiency with the saber... and we got the flashy stuff like jump attacks, cartwheels and other flashy stuff that destinguish the jedi and their use of the force from ordinary fencers of old or samurais and the way it's depicted in the star wars movies. The best of both worlds.


..aren't you talking about the same system? Not having to be split up into two different servers (realistic and flashy...) - aren't you saying that you want to see both these kinds of attacks possible? If so - this is exactly what I am asking for. Just add 'fast' attacks to that list you have (jump attacks, cartwheels etc.), and that's what I'm saying...

keshire
11-20-2003, 11:20 AM
Yep alot of the newer moves need to be edited. I'd also like to see the red DFA sped up dramatically at the cost of damage. The fast stance should keep its moves only slow them down some. It needs to be a little slower than say, Tavions stance.

So bring them all [the styles] to the same speed and damage?
Take out any moves that even the force couldn't make look realistic?

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 11:39 AM
OK -I've thought about it some more, and I think I've got a better solution...

..ok - as far as saber combat, let's say it's ALL manual blocking. And as Razor suggests, all attacking moves are slowed down - to a speed where manual blocking is possible.

OK - good. SO how do we represent the frantic pace of PT combat? Through my idea of combo attacks / defense.
...now before you dismiss the idea, remember that this is JUST a VISUAL thing. The results of the combo attack / defense sequences are pre-determined. They dont' require any player input -they just play out.

The only point at which skill enters the procedings is the FIRST attack of the combo - which should be slow enough to be blocked. If the first attack is not blocked, then I think a VERY short two attack combination ensues from the attacker. Or a special move. Either way, nothing so fast that it can't be blocked manually, but just enough so that the 'combo' is at least worth attempting.

..however, if the defender DOES defend against the first attack of the combo, then both players go into a pre-determined sequence. Now the attacks and parries in this pre-determined sequence can be as fast, as flashy and as PT as we like, since neither opponent will either lose or gain anything from the sequence being played out. It is a PURELY VISUAL enhancement so that someone observing the duel might exclaim 'Wow- that was cool. And it looked just like that bit from Ep.I...'.

I visualise these sequences not being longer than 2-3 secs max...

Then, after the sequence has played out, combat resumes as normal.

If attacking players NEVER try and trigger these pre-determined combos, then they will never happen, and therefore combat will be similar to the OT battles.

Well - I hope this is considered for the OJP. But if it's not, it can easiely be added 'on top' of the manual blocking system. i.e. it's an addition, rather than a change. So I can just do that in MB if it's not liked by the rest of you. i.e. I believe I can get both OT and PT looking battles into the same manual blocking system -and that's what i intend to do...

In any case, I think we can move on now and start talking about the specifics of the manual blocking system...

keshire
11-20-2003, 11:54 AM
Wait wait wait. How are the pre-determined combo's activated?

Like a special? which you have linked to the directional block as of now.

If you go with the way normal combo's are activated (running around hitting one button after another) your talking context sensitive blocking. Which could be done as seen from the left/right, forward/back dual attack when surrounded.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 12:15 PM
I'm not sure how the combos would specifically get triggered at this point. Those kinds of details will get more fleshed out as we go further down the line...

...I think at this point we are maybe getting a little ahead of ourselves. Before we can plan the specifics of this saber system, we have to agree on what the aims of this system are.

MY aims for this system are as follows:

* Get saber combat looking more like the action seen in the movies (an obvious one)

* To introduce more direct skill .via the directional blocking system

* Be able to cater for both OT and PT looking combat WITHOUT having to keep them to two different servers...

* The 'look' and 'feel' of the duels should be given AS MUCH attention and priority as the control system.

So, we need to discuss and agree on what the aims of the system are before we can discuss the details...

BloodRiot
11-20-2003, 03:55 PM
Well renegade...i'm not saying i totally dislike your view of combos... i'm just saying i prefer razor's cuz of a few points:

*more variety - instead of having, let's say, 10 moves plus 5 predetermined combos, you can have 10 moves and can do them as a single attack or combo them from 2 up to 5 consecutive moves the way you like using all 10 attack in the order you want. that's a hell of alot more. If someone is willing to do the math i'm sure the numbers will speak for themselves.

*less 2d fighting arcade game like moves - If a kata as it is known know (a predetermined combo) misses, the move has to floow through and the player just stands there attacking the atmosphere... efficient huh?
I figure its partially cuz o this type of move that the fihts seem so clumsy.

*Less predictable - it's a well known fact that people will learn the combo order and exploit it be learning what to do when they find an opening. If there is not set order (unless the player himself chooses to do the same combo endlessly) it's highly unlikely anyone can predict what's next and will have to wait until the move is at least recognizable to be blocked.

*Visual result can be fairly the same - If done properly even if new moves need to be created, the visual effect will be fairly the same as predetermined moves.

there are more less important factors but these should explain my point pretty well.
Renegade... also remember that predetermined moves like you say where you just need to do the first move and the rest plays out... well it sounds alot like KOTOR... while gorgeous to the eye... well it just takes away the adrenaline rush cuz you aren't actually doing anything... you execute the first move, then sit back and enjoy it... well i admit it may be a blast in the first few days... but soon the same moves.. the same stuff will just seem old and it will be a drag to have to watch... even if it's just a few seconds. Just like in freelancer.. it's fun to watch the cinematics where the player's character walks up and starts covnersation... but after a while it's jsut so damned boring you just skip to what really matters.. a text description of the assignemnt and an accept and a refuse button.

again i say renegade.. it's not that i dislike your system.. it's just that i find razor's much more interesting and specially with a greater life span due to variety. but in the end it will probably come down to a compromise anyway... so i'm sure we'll get the best of both worlds.
----------------------------------
On another matter... the moves have to be at an acceptable speed so it's possible to block without using the dodge meter autoblock/autododge... so if a blue stance speed as we know was used.. it would be a total dodge meter drainage... defense would also have to depend on stances and that makes everything too complicated... you can only tell what stance a player is in when he is on idle stance... you notice the posture... or by the speed of the attack WHEN the attack begins... a defender has no chance whatsoever... and on the other hand if you make the defense bluespeed always, then it's 1.04 all over again where defense is almost unbreakable... and isntead of red spamming you'd have blue spamming. Imo all moves for all sabers and all stances being attacks or defense should have the same speed... something like yellow which by all means is pretty fast on it's own.
-----------------------------------
Something that could be an in-between that could please both razor and renegade is to somehow lock the players together when engaged in a chained combo. The players are locked at point blank range while the attacker is comboing and the defender is blocking or parrying. and they MAY move, but they move together. so the only question is.. who's leading the dance?
I think the best way to do enable only 3 types of movement... rotation... forward/backward and sideways.
Rotation works like tank tracks... if they go in opposite directions they rotate around a vertical axis between the both of them.
Sidewalking is when they both press the same direction.
Forward/backward movement can only be performed by the attacker.. he pushes the defender back... the defender can negate this advance by pressing forward too and they styand at the spot, dont really care as there is no pit behind him and backtrack without a care, or negate his forward advance with a rotational movement. A butterfly, cartwheel or a jump action (any direction) can be used to break the attack/defense lock as well.
Note: just to be sure no one misunderstands.. this is NOT saberlock.... it's a character position lock that keeps the players near eachother which is usefull to end the running about, bunny-hopping like saberfight we have now... in any case.. i still feel it should be optional as a cvar and not mandatory as many may not like this and like renegade so well pointed out.. we have also old schoolers to please as well.
--------------------------------
Ok... i'd better stop here... i'm getting ideas every minute and i gotta take notes of this ;)

Cheers.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 04:57 PM
Ok - after talking to BloodRiot, I think I may have been explaining my pre-determined combo stuff a bit wrong.
But rather than go over it again, I'll just post up the conversation that me and BloodRiot had a second ago..

Richie says:
..about the combo attack / defense stuff...let me explain a bit more indepth.
BloodRiot says:
i think i understand what u mean, but go ahead.
Richie says:
I said that these combos can be up to 2-3 secs ...but most of them will probably only be 3 attacks long i.e. less than 1/2 a sec.
Let's say we make 20 different 'combos'. This is how I see the duration spread
10 / 20 would probably be under 1/2 a second.
5/20 would probably be up to 1 second.
maybe 3 / 20 would be up to 2 seconds
and only 2 / 20 would be 2 - 3 secs

the under 1/2 a second ones (the majority) would play most often. The thing is - I think we need to add really fast parrying into the combat which WON'T be possible if all attacks are slowed down to manual blocking speed. Razor's dynamic combo system is good - and I want it in, but it won't solve THAT particular problem.
..that's why I don't want one, or the other, but BOTH..
BloodRiot says:
well i think i know what u mean. i understand exactly what u want to achieve. lightning quick duelking
hmmm in that case... maybe if it acted like a saberlock
Richie says:
yeah -that's the way to think of it. it's like a saber-lock - execpt better looking
BloodRiot says:
what would trigger it tho?
Richie says:
the same kind of things that trigger saber locks currently. doing certain attacks at close quartets to your enemy.
the EXACT conditions I haven't really decided yet
What I AM sure of are the asthetic benefits of having them..
BloodRiot says:
i see
well maybe if the saberlock conditions are met... it randomly makes a combo or saberlock
Richie says:
...possibly..
BloodRiot says:
make a high saberlock probability like 1 saberlock every 15 or 20 strikes
then you'd probably have something visually nice
Richie says:
yeah - I think it would look great. This way, it's still skill dependant (your skill deteremines whether the combo plays at all...) - but you still get the fancy blisterning fast saber combat from the prequels

I know what your saying about the combos getting 'old'
This will depend on a couple of things..

1. How many different combos we have
2. THe length of these combos
3. How often the combos play

BloodRiot says:
but... will it outcome always as a draw or will one come out a winner?
man.. kata's are so predictable than once one starts.. the other player is automatically preparing for roll stab or lunge
anyway... as long as no one attacks the atmosphere.. and it has the timespan u mentioned.. it may be good
in that case yes it's an extra
Richie says:
At the moment - I think they should always be a draw
in this manner, you can't accuse them of 'dumbing' down play
BloodRiot says:
hmmm how about this....
conditions are met.. so it's either a saberlock or a combo
if it's a saberlock.. usually the guy with most stamina win
so the combos work the same way
the guy with less stamina has more chances of losing while equal stamian will result in a saberlock asfter combo then the same rules of button mashing apply
Richie says:
...hmm - yeah - I like the idea of ending the combo with a saber-lock..
BloodRiot says:
well propose this to razor and see what he feels about it
explain that it works like a saberlock but with diferent anims
or else he may also think it's like a kata
Richie says:
yeah - ok - your probably right - I may be explaining it wrong..
it's certainly NOT a kata...
BloodRiot says:
well i thought it was like a kata
Richie says:
ahh

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 05:30 PM
Here's a really straight forward explination of my idea:

Current JO:
--------------

NORMAL SABER COMBAT
->SABER LOCK
-> NORMAL SABER COMBAT

What I am proposing:
----------------------------

NORMAL SABER COMBAT (manual blocking)
-> PRE-DETERMINED SEQUENCE <- This bit handles PT look and feel
-> SABER LOCK
-> NORMAL SABER COMBAT (manual blocking)

razorace
11-20-2003, 10:10 PM
I don't have a problem with prerendered combos as long as they don't impact the gameplay and are client cvared. The problem with having it impact the gameplay would be that it would overshadow the normal saber play and you'd be be right back to the kata/special spamming of JKA and JK2.

However, someone else is going to have to program the combo animation scripting since it's going to be complicated and I'm not particalarly interested in it. I can do the system activation stuff if someone does that.

I'd suggest some sort of txt file system that would use my upgraded animation system to play a scripted seqence of player movement and animations.

The other possibility is to have actual new animations for each combo but that would require a lot of quality animation work.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-20-2003, 10:24 PM
Well - as long as I have keshire and BloodRiot willing to help me, I'll be happy to handle the coding side myself.

...I'm not sure how you would make this a 'client' cvar though...?!
While it will have no direct affect on gameplay (i.e. it can be considered more of a short pause - just like a saber-lock), it NEEDS to be set on the server side - it can't work if one client is set to do it, and the other client isn't...

..the .txt idea sounds interesting. But yeah, we need to investigate whether whole animations, or stringing together anims is the best way to go...
...I think you'd get smoother, better looking results with the whole anim approach, although I appreciate the work involved with that...


OK - now it sounds like we are coming quite near agreeing on the basic princpiles of saber combat for a 1v1 duel. This is good - progress is being made... :)

..however, before we get into too much detail on these specific ideas, we need to consider how these various systems were describing work when it's say 2v1...

...I can imagine it being damn near impossible to manually block attacks coming in from 2 attacking Jedi's coming at you from different angles... what are people's throughts on this? Do the systems we've been describing break down once it's more than a 1v1 situation?

razorace
11-20-2003, 11:43 PM
I meant a client cvar that sets if they prefer to go into a combo animation or just saber lock when it happens. Maybe something that sets the percentage chance of it being a combo->saber lock vs. just a saber lock (this is for when the client is the attacker). Since this is a style over substance feature, I figure that the players should get to decide.

I think the system should work fine in uneven battle teams. My thinking is that you'll simply have to adapt different tactics. Probably something along the lines of parrying more (and knocking one of your oppenents away) and slowly moving backwards to prevent them from gang banging you from different angles. Just like in Episode 1. I think the key is in balancing the parry/counter attacks.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-21-2003, 12:11 AM
AHhh - ok - I see. So the individual clients get to choose what's most likely to get triggered (locks or PT combos) if they are on the attack. OK - yeah - that's cool - good idea...

Hmmm - I'm still having trouble visualising how 1 Jedi is going to handle 2 attacking Jedi's with manual blocking - but I'm off to bed now...

...I'll sleep on it :)

Ytmh
11-21-2003, 01:14 AM
Alright, time for the good'olde analysis of everything since my last comment:

First, The stamina idea is not a BAD idea, but the implementation will need to be very carefuly balanced. I think that, for instance, dash attacks and generally attacks that are fast AND strong will cost more stamina to SUSTAIN.

Stamina should work on a basis of sustaining an attack, and a movement. That is to say, if you throw one attack, move, throw another, move, you'll have much less cost than if you threw the same two attacks in a quick succession while moving. I think this COULD be implemented on a basis of chaining it directly to the dynamic combo system (I'll specify in a bit). That is to say, every action will have a cost, but the cost will be minimal unless you 'push' said action to a higher degree.

That is to say: If you stand back and move but mainly play a defensive game, your stamina cost MUST be lower than someone who is on full attack-movement mode.

Another thing is, stamina's charge level should ruled by certain actions. This brings to mind fighting games again in a sense that you can 'charge' up. I think that it would be interesting to have a mode in which the jedi could 'draw' power from the force and actually affect his stamina directly (Which is what I think Yoda does in ep2 to do all he does). In this case, it would be probably a matter of, gameplaywise, injecting force power directly into stamina.

Second, I, personally, would much rather have a system which was much closer to Ep4+'s saber battles (Obi vs Darth's 'duel' was literally taken out of kendo, downright to stances), because in the prequels, what you see is a result of hollywood flash. It will NOT translate correctly into game form by the sheer nature of it.

That is to say, if the game was a singleplayer game, it would work perfectly fine, but in multiplayer, at that speed it will simply look like 'spamming'.

Now, the thing is, the style used in ep1-2 is reminicent(?) of the chiense blade dance, and escrima. The LOGICAL way to use a saber given it's 360 degree hit radious from the blade are these arts, given their use of blade's entire surface rather than just the single edge.

But again, given the fact that this is a multiplayer game, and that these styles are fun and neat to see, they simply don't translate well into gameplay given the sheer speed they are literally based upon. Now, on the other hand, Kendo -influenced styles may not be the most effective given the weapon, but they make the most sense gameplay-wise given their calculating nature and the fact that while attacks ARE fast, they don't 'dance' around.

Third, Combo system, as I mentioned previously, should be dynamic, and like ace said, allows you to choose which move to run next, rather than stick to a button sequence. That is the sole idea of this and what makes more sense.

Now, 'fighting game special moves' and the such have no real place in a game like this unless they are multi functional and aren't robotic in execution.

To illustrate this, think of every attack movement in the game as a 'special move', but completely functional. If 'special attacks' could be made so that they parallel normal moves in functionality, then I see no problem with them.

As far as premade combos-sequences go, it's a cute idea, but I think it's quite useless. If any of you have played the PS1 game 'Macross plus:game edition', you'll know what I mean. In it, you had a 'ESS' thing, which meant that at certain points in the game you pressed a button and a 'movie' like thing would happen which took the control off your hands and made you sit and watch it. While it was cool and neat the first 10 times, it got really boring.

So I'm with Ace on that, it's cute, if you want to add it, a simple cvar to enable-disable it will do, but not part of the main meat & potatos of the gameplayl

Fourth, 'fake' hits, are actually known as 'cancels' in the fighting game world. It's an old concept which I suggested to Ace some time ago. Our idea is different in several ways, but it allows canceling of any move, and using that 'cancel' period to execute a move with better attributes at the cost of being exposed for a little longer than a regular move.

IE: Attack > Cancel > Attack with SP attributes (Better defense penetration, faster, whatever). The time it takes to attack > cancel will leave the person doing this voulnerable for a bit, and give a clear clue as to what they're doing.

All in all, I think that adding 'double edged' moves are the key to make the system have more depth, because the mastery of those moves may be really difficult, but it's what sets appart the true gamemaster from the lol hp? newbie. Needless to say, it also makes said person much more powerful. ;P

Fifth, Saber locking is dependant on two factors in general: The first, how 'realistic' (in a actual combat) way you want the game to be, vs how movielike you want the game to be.

But then you have a problem of the prequels being 60 times more hollywood-esque than the OT movies. So in my opinion, saber locks should be allowed to happen for as long as they HAVE to happen, but not longer just because they look 'movielike'.

That is to say, if you can disarm-knock away the enemy blade or attack them or end the lock in a second, then you should be allowed to if you do have that type of skill. But if your enemy is as good as you, (or as bad as you) the saber lock could last up to several seconds until someone breaks it.

Sixth: About slowing EVERYTHING down, it's a good idea for the sake of gameplay. Personally, all saber stances by themselves should be of 1 single speed, to make the saber style and so forth be a style option rather than a tactical option (though it obviously affects your tactics, you're not forced to use paper/scissors/rock methods of strategy).

Speed changes can be applied for 'special' types of moves, which may be a counter coming from a heavy attack, or what I mentioned previously. There are many ways of making 'upgrade' attacks which are rewarding to execute but hard to use 'just right' and can work like a double sided blade in that sense.

I think that the smartest way to handle speed vs damage would be literally making the faster the attack goes the harder it is to deflect it/dodge it, hence the more 'damage' it does. This will work well given we're going for 1-max 2 hit kills after you're dodge-forceless.

Seventh, The entire system is geared towards multiple opponent battles as well as duels. The catch is, unless you're literally a demigod, you aren't going to be able to take on two+ jedi at the same time pounding on you without some serious defense tactic.

And that makes more sense than making it an 'issue' given in the movies Darth malet or mawl or whatever fought two jedi at the same time. It's a movie, folks.

Toodles. :D

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-21-2003, 02:02 AM
Right - again - this is a case of where were are talking about the specifics of the system before we've agreed on the aims of the system.

Many times in your last post, you've used arguments similar to 'It may show that happenning in the movies, but that's not actually realistic. Darth Maul couldn't be blocking two Jedi's that effectively for that long etc. etc.'

OK - that'd fine. I accept your point, and you are correct in what your saying.
But the fact is it's obvious we have two different objectives.

You want to make a saber system that is more real in 'real-life' terms - full stop.
However, my first and formost objective is to be 'Movie Realistic'. ...and movie Realism is NOT ACTUAL realism.


It's a movie, folks.


I think you meant this statement to expose my objectives are flawed. But it does the opposite. It indicates EXACTLY why I'm taking the approach I'm describing...


And let's be clear about that your proposing here. If your saying that everything you character does should be directly tied accurately with the actual movements of your mouse, then you are also getting rid of:

* Special moves (Cos pressing jump and attack with a certain distance between you and your opponent doesn't REALISTICALLY relate to performing a half-summersult and swinging the saber in an arc underneath you - by any stretch of the imagination)

* Long saber locks (Cos tapping a mouse button doesn't realistically relate to pushing your saber a certain direction against your opponents saber...)

etc. etc.

My idea of pre-programmed sequences are just fancy looking saber locks. If your reading more into them than that, your not getting what I'm proposing.

If your system is only meant to represent OT-type combat, and the players who were looking forward to playing as Darth Maul with this system are just plain out of luck - well - let's just say I'd prefer to try and be a bit more inclusive than that.

If yuor trying to say it's not possible to achieve both types of combat (OT and PT) within the same system, well - it depends what you mean.

If you mean player-control wise, I agree with you. Double check my last few posts, and I've already conceeded that we DON'T need any form of auto-blocking for 1v1 duels (I've still got my doubts in other areas -specifically 2v1 and gunners -but we'll get to that later...)
BUT, as long as you include at least the the LOOK of the PT combat somewhere in these duels, then you effectively have the best of both worlds. And giving the players the option of what they would prefer to be triggered (OT-style saber locks or PT-style sequences) means all players can influence the overall fight to be more to their taste.

My system is centered around compromise so that as many types of player and as much action from the movies can be catered for within one system.

your system is centered around 'actual' realism at the expense of half the saber battles in the Star Wars films.

I'm not trying to say my system is better than yours -or the other way round, I'm just pointing out the obvious differences. Whether either sytem is better depends totally on your viewpoint and you eventual aims...

BloodRiot
11-21-2003, 02:08 AM
I cant help to agree. Your points are quite valid.

In my point of view... the normal slashes should be based upon the kendo style you mentioned. Yes the movie like combos are indeed just a bit of hollywood flare into the mod and game but even tho not the meat of the mod, it should be there. I imagine those same flashy moves more like finishers to a combo or something like navigational tools with a bit of offense or defense or none. Id' make the butterfly just like the cartwheel.. a simple dodge maneuver. The yellow dfa like move could work perfectly as a finisher or a surpise attack. while doing a combo you leap over the enemy and try to slash him mid air or simple to land on his back for a ground attack. Another very important point you mentioned is they should not be robotic.

You are 100% right when you say that PT is all hollywood BS and has nothing to do with real fighting... but you must also agreewith me that a real swordfight between 2 people rarelly lasts to 3 minutes and it's quite often a matter of seconds. It's rather brutal and has no glamour or flare to it at all. But this game is about the movie and not true battles... and as such we musn't make it a total realistic combat simulation. Adding a lil flare to it wont hurt but again i say.. it's the icing on the cake and nothing more.

slowing down stuff to +- the yellow speed and make it a standard for all sabers is advisable for gameplay's sake. I also agrre on that and i'vementioned it before.

I'd like to have more feedback on the players being locked together while engaged in attack combo vs defense combo.
If you dont wanna read my last post i'll just give a quick description but for more detail i advise you to read above.
While engaged in saber fighting where one is performing dynamic attack combos while the other blocks and/or parries it, the players are locked together like virtua fighter or tekken. They can move but are very limited a they are always facing the opponent.
you can push the defender backwards and the defender may negate that by standing on his ground if he so wishes. either than that they can rotate around a vertical axis located right in between them or they can walk sideways. How to do this is explained above. These locks are broken when he combo ends or if one of the fighters disengages by dodging/rolling/jumping out of there.
I'd really like to ear your oppinion on this.

My idea for a fake or a cancel is to trick opponents in to defending one way while we will really attack the other way. simple as that :)


Welll tomorrow i'm gonna compile a txt file with all the ideas already sugested and provide a basic straightforward explanation on each. I'll base the document on what has been agreed by all like the stamina, the dynamic combos, the dodge meter and such. I'll mention the other relvant aspects but leave them as flaged as points to be considered.

I will then proceed in sending them to razor, renegade, keshire, and ymth if you like too. Then i'll wait for you to send me the feedback. after that i'll try to organize a chat meeting between us so we can decide between us what will be the system draft from which we'll work upon.

now... i'm gonna get myself a lil shuteye.

C ya tomorrow guyz.

JediLiberator
11-21-2003, 02:09 AM
I just want to clarify the point I made earlier. When I talk about Kendo "stances" I talking about changing the way you point the weapon for an immediate tactical purpose(i.e.- lure your opponent to attack, get ready to make a powerful strike, etc) Also I agree with the idea of making the speed of the saber one speed(medium or close to it probably) rather than have strong, medium and light for the single saber.
Lastly, my problem with the "spinny" moves in the normal game is no real swordsman would ever leave his back exposed like that.EVER. Now if you want to keep kata's or the circular moves for the saberstaff that's fine. But a single saber user should NOT twirl or spin except to change the direction he's facing in to face an enemy. The only exception I've seen to this is an practice move Ray Park(the guy who played Darth Maul) did where he literaly leapt about two or three feet off the ground, spun around in FAST move and smack his sparring partner's weapon with a helluva alot of force. Of course, those sorts of moves should cost A lot of force points if they were ever put in this mod.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-21-2003, 02:41 AM
Lastly, my problem with the "spinny" moves in the normal game is no real swordsman would ever leave his back exposed like that.EVER.


Again - this is an actual realism vs. movie realism argument.
I'm sure in the real world it makes no sense to spin around like a madman.

But in the Star Wars world, it makes PERFECT sense to spin around like a madman. WHy? Because Darth Maul is a bad-ass mean son of a b*tch who's full to the brim with the dark side of the force. You need no better explination than that.

It makes perfect sense for 100's of stormtroopers to shoot at enemies only a few feet away and all of them miss. Why? Because heroes need to take on unbeatable odds and win - otherwise they wouldn't be heroes...

...if you start to get too bogged down with what is ACTUALLY realistic, you start to lose the heart of what makes Star Wars what it is - a FANTASY film...

Overall, I consider Star Wars to be a mix between an appropiate amount of 'realism' with full out-and-out over-the-top crazyness. And that's how I see the saber combat system. It's based upon a solid, realistic directional blocking system, but it has little flashes of fantasy liberally sprinkled in at the appropaite times...

BloodRiot
11-21-2003, 02:55 AM
Slight change in plans.

Before i go start a 4 page description of what everything is and how it works only to be foiled by minor disagreements...I'll isntead propose a real time chat meeting where we can debate and define the baseconcept of the mod and what fetures it should contain.

After that i'll feel much more confortable writing that 4 page description of how every lil thing works. And then we can debate again and decide how everything will theoretically work and how the features interact.

I'll ask you to post the time in which you are free to attend this meeting.
I'm usually available after 8pm gmt up to 2am gmt.

Cheers.

razorace
11-21-2003, 03:00 AM
I've been operating off movie realism myself but I understand that there's some things that aren't doable...like expecting people to have Jedi like reflexes.

And I'm not particularly concerned about new animations. I don't think we're going to reasonably have a lot of new ones...if any. As such, all my work is going to be based on using the current animations.

And finally, there's a lot more to the difference between the OT and the PT than just swing speed. If swing speed was honestly that big of a deal, everyone would probably be 100% happy with the baseJKA.

Samuel Dravis
11-21-2003, 03:02 AM
I just bought KotOR today. Playing it is a blast. :) The swordfighting is awesome (haven't got my saber yet :( ).

I've noticed that it would probably be better to have a system where you actually interact with the combat, to keep it more interactive, like using mouse+key combos to select the move you use etc.

If you are going to make saber combat/moves anything like that, then it really needs to have the interactive element emphasized (it is an FPS, after all).

And Renegade is right - it needs to be more movie realism than actual realism, because its just a game. Fun is the overriding factor. I think we can all agree on that.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-21-2003, 03:09 AM
I've been operating off movie realism myself but I understand that there's some things that aren't doable...like expecting people to have Jedi like reflexes.


Well, we need to make a descision about what this saber system aims to do before we can design it. I think a real-time chat, like that one BloodRiot is organising will be a good idea...


And I'm not particularly concerned about new animations. I don't think we're going to reasonably have a lot of new ones...if any. As such, all my work is going to be based on using the current animations.


Well - my ideas aren't invalid if new anims aren't possible. They will be probably harder, and wont' look as good, but still prefectly do-able.

But you know, we could give keshire and BloodRiot a chance. You seem to be judging their work before they've even started...


And finally, there's a lot more to the difference between the OT and the PT than just swing speed. If swing speed was honestly that big of a deal, everyone would probably be 100% happy with the baseJKA.


I understand that - and I'm not trying to pin down one thing and say - this is wrong, or this is right. It's just obvious to me that we don't all have the same aims. And we need to agree on the aims before we can design a saber system -and start nit picking about particulars.
Let's decide what it is we are trying to achieve before we try and achieve it!!!

Ytmh
11-21-2003, 03:47 AM
Alright, before anyone gets any wrong ideas, I'm not bashing anyone or saying anything to purposely throw anyone's stuff down.

What I'm talking about is A: making the game 'more realistic', while still keeping some of the rules from the SW universe, which in turn are completely undefined given they keep contradicting themselves again and again.

B: The kendo stuff, well, the spinning and so forth IS part of certain blade styles, but everything has a purpose and a use. hence my mentioning to chiense sword dance, because that's a very acrobatic type of style, but it's also fully functional and quite deadly.

C: Special moves are fine, as long as they go by what I said previously of being less robotic and having the same type of functionality as normal moves (as well a weaknesses).

D: As far as flash goes, I honestly think it's a priority to have flash to the point it starts to hurt gameplay, but there will be flash regardless because it's pretty and it fits the mood. Like dude said, it's the icing on the cake.

E: I think ace may not agree with many of my points really, since he also wants movie accuracy. I just think it'd be good if the whole SW thing was taken by a 'different angle', rather than holding the movies-etc as 'the final word' on the subject. Breathes new life into an old thing, IMO.

HOWEVER, I'm not saying that anyone's objectives are flawed. The reason I said "It's a movie" is because I thought it illustrated my point better.

F: There will be the ability to do movielike things, clearly. Obviously, the battles will last a whole lot longer than a couple of seconds given the whole system of dodging and blocking and so forth, so in that sense, there isn't an issue.

And the realism part is of course that WITHOUT dodging-etc, if you get hit dead on with a saber strike it's going to kill you. This is also accurate with the movies (Of course, we currently can't simply say people can get cut off limbs and still live, due to obvious reasons.)

G: The 'lock together' mode thing was also suggested by me earlier to ace, but my idea was different in a sense that it invoked more the feel of something like soul calibur, in which we'd employ a targetting system, or in this case a padlock/ztargetting to ensure that you always face your opponent and the whole thing would go from there. It's more freestyle than BR's, and it works differently, but it's somewhat a similar concept.

H: As far as the starwars 'feel' goes, well, WHICH feel? There's the new animated series feel, the PT feel, the OT feel... the game feel, the book-EU feel.. God knows there are like 6000 variants which are all different, and ontop of that none agree with eachother. (A saber can only be stopped by another saber's blade? Or how about special metals. Or shields, or whatever is required to make a plot device work.)

Given this situation, which is to be expected from a franchise that's grown so large it simply CAN'T remain fully consistant, I just decided to more or less "do my own thing" while still keeping the parts of SW I like. Nothing more, nothing less. C'est personal taste really.

I: BR, I'd like to see that doc thingy, and if you want to exchange ideas or whatever, my aim's 'ytmhcubed'. Which I'm sure must be somewhere on my profile, but there you go.

I think that sums it up for now. Haha, Ace will probably have my head, but I've been in worse jams before. :x

keshire
11-21-2003, 04:52 AM
Something that could be an in-between that could please both razor and renegade is to somehow lock the players together when engaged in a chained combo. The players are locked at point blank range while the attacker is comboing and the defender is blocking or parrying. and they MAY move, but they move together. so the only question is.. who's leading the dance?
I think the best way to do enable only 3 types of movement... rotation... forward/backward and sideways.
Rotation works like tank tracks... if they go in opposite directions they rotate around a vertical axis between the both of them.
Sidewalking is when they both press the same direction.
Forward/backward movement can only be performed by the attacker.. he pushes the defender back... the defender can negate this advance by pressing forward too and they styand at the spot, dont really care as there is no pit behind him and backtrack without a care, or negate his forward advance with a rotational movement. A butterfly, cartwheel or a jump action (any direction) can be used to break the attack/defense lock as well.
Note: just to be sure no one misunderstands.. this is NOT saberlock.... it's a character position lock that keeps the players near eachother which is usefull to end the running about, bunny-hopping like saberfight we have now... in any case.. i still feel it should be optional as a cvar and not mandatory as many may not like this and like renegade so well pointed out.. we have also old schoolers to please as well.


brilliant.

If we don't go with the manual/combo lock I discussed on page one, I'd love to see this. And I'm on 8 hours every night. 11:30 to 7:30 central time just about every night.

And if anyone wants or needs a list of sorted and categorized animations just ask. ;)

razorace
11-21-2003, 04:56 AM
I think that sums it up for now. Haha, Ace will probably have my head, but I've been in worse jams before. :x

That's it, Ytmh! You're going down! :D

razorace
11-21-2003, 05:02 AM
Anyway, while BR's dymanic combo system is interesting, I think the ztargeting concept that Y and me talked about would have more control and be easier to do.

JediLiberator
11-21-2003, 05:08 AM
The only problems i would see with the whole "character interlock" idea are that:
a) what happens when you have more than two people fighting?
b)what happens when one player wants to run away or leave melee range?

keshire
11-21-2003, 05:13 AM
I think the general consensus is that it onlyhappens in a saber lock.

And on another note. We're not even half way through with discussing the whole system and we're almost 3 pages full.

This is alot of thread to sift through.

razorace
11-21-2003, 06:13 AM
a real time meeting is an interesting idea but I don't think it's going to work out. There's too many of us in varying time zones. Plus, I'm going on vacation tomorrow for a week so this next week is shot.

BloodRiot
11-21-2003, 09:21 AM
Ok then we'll wait 'till next week for razor to return.

I'll read up on the character interlock system razor and ytmh talked about and learn more about it... i didn't notice this kinda of stuff was already being discussed. A SoulCalibur targeting system would work too. Not a problem for there either.

The locks could be broken by any of the intervinients. The attacker by simply stop attacking or jumping/dodging out, and the defender by dodging/jumping out.

As far as multiple opponents go... the lock only happens while engaged in combo/defending... if attacked by 2 enemies, if one only performs normal un comboed attacks, they wont be locked for long or at all.

Another way of doing it is if you somehow engage autotarget. Meaning you aim the crosshair at an enemy and then engage a autotarget for as long as u want... having autotarget as a togglable new function is a nice way to go cuz there you'd have full control. And in this case, there isn't the need to force both players simultaneously into a interlock. Like when engaging in a private duel in FFA except the other doesnt have to accept... one ca be autotargeting the enemy while the other is in normal mode.

keshire made a valid point... we are already at 3 pages i nthis thread. we should be organizing the info cuz in a few days this page will probably be twice as long and there will be old ideas repeated and new ideas... the point is that it's gonna be hard to organize and take everything into account soon. We should keep a record of ideas. they dont need to be fully explained..we just need to catalog them so we can think about them and how they work from a simple title and small description than having to look around in a 10 pages long thread later to gather the ideas.

razorace
11-21-2003, 09:52 AM
There's no need for that. From my year of work on MotF, I've found that new ideas for the saber system come up often enough that making a written plan of things is just a waste of time. I just store everything in the best place possible, my own head. :)

Plus, things often change while you do coding work as well.

You can write everything down if you want to; just don't expect it to be the end all of things while I'm coding the system. :)

keshire
11-21-2003, 09:56 AM
Like Razorace said writing it down is useless. But some non essential posts should be trimmed/deleted. Which I'll be doing to my own here in a few minutes.

razorace
11-21-2003, 10:06 AM
I wouldn't do that either. It will screw up the context of the thread. Just leave it the way it is please.

Thanks.

BloodRiot
11-21-2003, 10:07 AM
Heh now worries man... I dont intend to run the show or anything not related to 3d which is my main field. :)

Well if you feel that way then it's ok. However... eventho wedont have to list every idea we've discussed here.. i still feel we should meet in real time chat... by debating with renegade in forums and chat.. it's pretty obvious that forum comunication is a bit limited in terms of understanding.

But if you prefer i'll leave that up to you when you get back from vacation if you want.

cheers :)

keshire
11-21-2003, 10:14 AM
Ha. 3D. I've seen that Multimedia Authoring degree get very little use over the past few years. Now I'm an AS/400 Admin. Graphics are just a hobby that cost a lot of money to acquire.

BloodRiot
11-21-2003, 10:24 AM
heh.. of course u dont know, but im the 3d team coordinator at df2 mod.

I'd like to work professionally in 3d art, both modeling and animating... but i also have backup plans ;)

JediLiberator
11-21-2003, 08:31 PM
I found an interesting page on saber dueling in the OT movies. I figured it might give people a better idea of what Im talking about. The address is http://www.angelfire.com/rpg/jks/saber/saberfighting.html

hope this helps people get some inspiration.

razorace
11-22-2003, 10:04 PM
It's an interesting analysis but I don't put too much faith into it. It was written before Episode 1 and while real world techniques apply to some degree, it's very hard to translate real world techniques to involve sabers and Force powers.

Kurgan
11-23-2003, 12:17 AM
What did you think of the ProMod system for JK2?

Btw, that "Art of Saber Fighting" page is copied VERBATIM from Robert B. Brown (aka "B Squared")'s Star Wars page (he did a ton of in-depth pages on the Millennium Falcon and Lightsabers, lots of technical research and speculation... he didn't take the EU for granted, though he became dissillusioned with Star Wars after Episode II came out, so his info only covered up to Episode I).

Still, considering Brown's page is no longer around, I suppose he wouldn't mind too much he's being plagiarized... (?)

razorace
11-23-2003, 07:30 PM
While the ProMod system is an interesting idea, it's too lag dependant and simply not realistic.

Plus, I don't like rock-paper-scissors style balancing, it's too simplistic and annoying.

keshire
11-25-2003, 07:29 AM
Rock paper Scissors is how the current balancing is done in regards to the saber styles. And I for one strongly dislike it. The styles should be used for visual, and technical (ie, one-handed, two-handed, dual sabers, staff, etc.)

At least a little control should be given to the saberists in everything they do.

From the swing, the block, the parry and parry break, the locks, everything.

I'd also like to see more context sentive actions like the dual saber stab while surrounded.

BloodRiot
11-25-2003, 09:31 AM
I agree with you both. Stances essencially for style.
Keshire made a good point on the context stuff... there is already a few of those as you know... so maybe we can explore that a bit more. ~Just to throw an example... imagine playing powerduel, the player has both enemies in front of him, one at 2 o'clock and the other at 10 o'clock... and you are probably backtracking to keep them from coming from oposite sides... maybe if you press attack and kick you'd defend or parry one as you kick the other... or if playing with the staff or duels, one blade would go for one and the other blade for the other... something like that.

The split kick for staff and the sideways stab are examples very alike this one except for the dynamic of what you can do.

Cheers.

keshire
11-25-2003, 09:40 AM
Yes and those are just context sensitive attacks. Like Bloodriot said, what about context sensitive blocking? Whats the feasability of coding that in? This would definately help when being ganged up on which is a current problem. Though I could see lag being a problem.

razorace
11-25-2003, 07:23 PM
Give an example of context senstive blocking.

Gotaiken
11-25-2003, 09:59 PM
is there anything that we can do to stop strafe running and such

razorace
11-25-2003, 10:05 PM
Yep. Actually that's something that we haven't talked about yet.

I'm thinking that the walk speed needs to be boosted to something more approprate for combat and the full strafe speed for running needs to either be slowed down or balanced with reduced accuracy or something.

keshire
11-26-2003, 04:42 AM
Context senstive blocking example.

If surrounded and attacked at same time cue alternate blocking anim, and maybe counter attack on one of opposing attackers (to free up some space).

And yes there really needs to be some type of check on strafing. I say slow it down AND reduce the turning motion when using a saber. Strafing would then be replaced by the side flip and roll. Which I wouldn't mind all that much. As long as checks were put on those as well.

I don't know how this would affect gunners though. They really like their circle strafe.

Chairwalker
11-26-2003, 05:46 AM
I'd say dont restrict the speed at all, just make it cost lots of stamina.
That way, you COULD run/strafe like a madman,
but you'd get tired soon and any adversary would finish you off really fast.

BloodRiot
11-26-2003, 10:00 AM
The idea to use a soulcalibur like autofacing would work towards reducing straff running.

Also I think Stamina draining is the way to go to stop people from running... I would tone down running speed a bit tho...not much but definetly a bit.

razorace
11-26-2003, 05:39 PM
I can understand strafe running costing more stamina and accuracy but I don't beleive that should apply to walk strafing. You need that for combat manovering.

Gotaiken
11-27-2003, 01:05 AM
razor can you tell me what your way of controlling the saber is???

Ytmh
11-27-2003, 01:19 AM
Hold on one second, Strafing shouldn't cost anymore stamina than running or walking, since it's nothing more than running or walking.

It doesn't take JEDI REFLEXES or incredible ammounts of coordination and dexterity to strafe. Or even to run-strafe.

So, you know. I think the whole thing can easily be adjusted by simply messing with the speed values.

Say, if you need to get out of the way real fast, you can use a special move, and if you simply want to circle around the opponent you can just strafe as usual. Strafing is a very important part of any sort of combat tactic, you can't charge people excessively for using it since they'll be using it as much as regular walking (because strafing IS regular walking, just in different directions while facing the same target).

razorace
11-27-2003, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by Gotaiken
razor can you tell me what your way of controlling the saber is???

Read the rest of the thread. It should be in there somewhere.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-27-2003, 10:42 PM
Wehey - the SDK is here. Now we can start realising these ideas... :)


So far, I've been stressing the importance of making sure you know what your aims are before you set out making the saber system...

...but actually, I've been thinking about it. And in the case of the OJP, I think I've changed my mind. IMO, I think each of us who are thinking off adding new features into the OJP should just go ahead and add them. Of course we need to be aware of what other people are working on and try and avoid overlap as much as possible...

Then, after all these features have been added, and we can see them in action, THEN we can decide which features will / will not make it into the eventually released mod.

So - I guess what I'm trying to say is, we don't all need to have the same aims in mind to contribute to the OJP, we can decide those details later - just contribute whatever you want to (within reason). And then we will either decide to use it in the OJP release mod, or it may well get used in other mods built from the OJP...

razorace
11-28-2003, 01:33 AM
This isn't exactly the place to discuss this but the thread of these threads is to maintain some design coordination between the coders. If everyone can be comfortable with a set idea and person doing it, there's no need for overlapping work.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 09:24 AM
If everyone can be comfortable with a set idea and person doing it, there's no need for overlapping work.


OK - that would be ideal. But I have a feeling that by the time we agreed on the 'set' idea, JK IV would already be on the shelves.. ;)

I think each person's visions of saber combat is going to have to be realised in seperate mods. The OJP system is undoubedly going to be a compromise between all our ideas.

..anyway, just getting my point of view across. Of course let's still discuss the individual features and how they would work together and who's doing them - but what I'm saying is, if feature A doesn't work with feature B, but could work quite well with features C and D, let's just add all of them and sort it out later - with the significant advantage of seeing these features in action...

keshire
11-28-2003, 09:26 AM
I'll enjoy watching the mass chaos when decision time rolls around. I got a nice stash of popcorn ready. ;)

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 09:42 AM
I'll enjoy watching the mass chaos when decision time rolls around. I got a nice stash of popcorn ready.


heh :D

BloodRiot
11-28-2003, 09:50 AM
I'm afraid u may be right on this one Keshire.

Well, I believe it would be best if we all worked for the same, instead of a fruit salad since we dont know if certain feature works with the other.

If it was up to me...i'd make the codders all work on the stamina system, since it was agreed by most here, and we pretty much know we want it in.

Make it work with the current base saber system. After it's set in, you start working on the new combat system in terms of functionality. And finally after the functional part is done... you work on the visual appeal.

This is a somewhat simplistic view... but i'm sure everyone understands what i mean.

Well even if my way isn't the right way... one thing is for sure... we do need some order or this mod is going straight to hell.

Cheers.

keshire
11-28-2003, 10:01 AM
I agree. We need some sort of feature tree based on what everyone wants sorted by popularity. The farther down the tree you go the more varients in ideas you can have.

Then you have the plug and play type features that don't rely on the entire system. Such as disarming when a thrown saber is blocked. (I think thats already a game feature but an example none-the-less) Or disabling the normal saber return.

These would be higher up on the tree and should be cvar on/off.

Then you basically have

OJP Basic
OJP Enhanced
and now OJP Varient :Sequel Enhanced ;)

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 10:31 AM
What EVENTUALLY get's into the released OJP mod - sure - shoudl be decided by majority (at least in my opinion).

...BUT, what I'm trying to say is, let's not harshly restrict what features get added to the code base at this stage just because we can't quite picture how the feature would look.

A feature that you dismissed at this stage, you might suddenly decide when you see it in action 'Ahhh - actually, that works really well, as long as we slightly adjust feature A and B to match it...'

..let's not limit ourselves at this early stage. The OJP is not your normal developemnt project, and I don't think it can be treated as such...

keshire
11-28-2003, 10:42 AM
The OJP is not your normal developemnt project, and I don't think it can be treated as such...

Oh of course not. And I'd never assume as much either.

But still, there needs to be some type of order to it all.

We could divide things into categories like we've been doing and outline what we propose.

Working on an entire system is all well and good. But keep in mind people will want to pick and choose which parts they want.

*cough*Renegade and Razor*cough*

so divide your work into modules like how the entire OJP as a whole works now.

Basic
Skins
Vehicles

then you'd have subsets.
basic
--saber locking module 1
--saber parry module
--saber thrown modification
--gun tweaking
--movement tweaking
--etc etc etc.

of course these would be all included I'm just outlining an orderly submission system.

of course you could always revert to a medieval bartering system. ;)

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 11:05 AM
then you'd have subsets.
basic
--saber locking module 1
--saber parry module
--saber thrown modification
--gun tweaking
--movement tweaking
--etc etc etc.


Yeap - I agree. These kind of catagorisations would be helpful.

But as Razor mentioned, this is becoming an overall discussion on how OJP works rather than specifically the saber system. I think we may need a seperate thread.

In any case, since it's only Razor and I who are planning to contribute code-wise to this new saber system at the moment (as far as i'm aware), I'm sure we can organise these various features between us easiely enough.
It's only our visions which clash (often and hard!). Once we've got it in our heads what we are actually trying to do, we work together pretty well actually imo... :)

So let me get things back on track by listing what I can see as the main features listed so far:

* Stamina system
* Mouse Sabering (does this include directional block as well?)
* Dodge
* Pre-scrpited sequences (PT combat - my suggestion)
* Dynamic combos (Razors idea)
* Lock players together when in a chained combo (BR's extension of Razor's idea)
* ztargeting concept

...are there any big ones I've missed?

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 11:13 AM
btw - can I just clarify something about this dynamic combos idea.

You can que up your attacking moves, I get that. But each move is still slowed down enough so that the defending Jedi can manually block them - right?

keshire
11-28-2003, 11:13 AM
* Mouse Sabering (does this include directional block as well?)

VSIM ala Die by the Sword? I don't think that will go over well. Unless you mean a modified version. Would freelook be disabled?

Technically the direction buttons do the same thing. At least animation wise. But with the combo system as it is now its less pronounced. You can kill the current combo system and build a new one.

current
right=right, then downright=stupid spinning combo.

proposed
right=right, then downright=start to spin, then down=continue spin etc etc.

keshire
11-28-2003, 11:17 AM
You can que up your attacking moves, I get that. But each move is still slowed down enough so that the defending Jedi can manually block them - right?

in order to add both movie quality and blocking ability. How about making them progressively slower. Start fast get slow. Not too slow of course, just enough.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 11:23 AM
Die by the Sword?


No - it's not full-on Die By The Sword stylie. I wouldn't want to go that way either. That's a perfect example of 'realism' at the total expense of an enjoyable, fun game.

Although it's worth pointing out (as I have done earlier) that those people who want the skill factor of this system to ALWAYS be DIRECTLY related to saber movement, you are effectively asking for a Die By The Sword system.

(..I actually dont' think anybody involved in this thread wants that kind of system. But what I think a few may not realise is that their proposed system is not actually so tied DIRECTLY to saber movement as they think it is. You onyl ahve to compare to DBTS and it becomes obvious)

You'll have to wait for Razor to reply for an authoritive re-explination, but as far as I understand it, you hit attack and briefly swing the mouse a certain way. Whether free-view is still active during this swing, I'm not positive. (I would argue it shoudln't be), but anyway, I don't think you have to make a long mouse movement (timewise). THe important detail is in the distance you move the mouse.

Slight movement = quicker, weaker attack.
Large movement = slower, stronger attack.

This basically means you don't need seperate 'styles' anymore - all the moves of all the styles are accessable at the same time.

...was all that correct Razor?

keshire
11-28-2003, 11:35 AM
I see. So he's tieing mouse movement and speed to directional keys and saberanimspeed? Would that be a good comparison?

What kind of new animations if any are we looking at with type of system? I'm sure the current combo system dynamic or not will work with something like that.

RenegadeOfPhunk
11-28-2003, 11:39 AM
I see. So he's tieing mouse movement and speed to directional keys and saberanimspeed? Would that be a good comparison?


I don't think directional keys would have any influence on the direction of the saber attack - that would be decided on which way you move the mouse.
I think that's one of the advantages, you don't ahve to be moving left to perform an attack to the left...


What kind of new animations if any are we looking at with type of system? I'm sure the current combo system dynamic or not will work with something like that


I think all the features could potentially benfift from new anims, but by far the one which would befefit the most would be my pre-determines sequences.

...those would be a REAL chance to show off some anim skillz :)

keshire
11-28-2003, 11:53 AM
I don't think directional keys would have any influence on the direction of the saber attack - that would be decided on which way you move the mouse.

My bad I meant replace. Currently you do move the saber in corrolation to the direction keys but of course you also move too.

Which gives me an idea, if you don't go with the mouse sabering idea the least you could do is limit movement while the attack button is held down. This means the only way to move forward back and strafe is to let go of the attack button for a brief moment.

BloodRiot
11-28-2003, 03:44 PM
Obviously the ideal is to make it modular so that whatever you do, you only need to add.

I have an idea on how we can make this (I hope it's possible)

Im gonna keep it simple and use the stamina example once again.

So let's say you got the stamina feature and the dynamic saber combos modules complete.

So you create a feature whose only purpose is to interlink the many other features. Call it a Module List if you will. So the list will contain the various modules added to date...in my example, only stamina and dynamic saber combos. Besdies listing it, it says what interlinks with what and how (or maybe the how is inherent to the module itself and in that case you only need to say what links with what).

Module list:
1 - Stamina "2"
2 - Dynamic Combos "1"


Then let's say you complete the dodge module. You edit the Module List and specify if it interacts with this or that... i suppose it will only interact with stamina as well.

Module list:
1 - Stamina "2;3"
2 - Dynamic Combos "1"
3 - Dodge "1"

Then you add the autofacing targeting system and maybe the position lock for duels too. It doesnt strike me that stamina needs to play a part here... but as an example let's say the dynamic combos need this new one as in: you can only perform combos while autofacing and position loocked.

Module list:
1 - Stamina "2;3"
2 - Dynamic Combos "1;4"
3 - Dodge "1"
4 - Autofacelock "2"

This example is assuming the HOW the module affects the other is inherent to the module itself. So, stamina for instance, is besides a meter, an efficiency modifier... everything u link it with well be affected by the current level of stamian in a positive way if high, or negative way if low.

If the HOW it affects has to be delcared on the list, then you could probably specify it some other way. Like:

Module list:
1 - Stamina "2" "1 affects 2 - 1 levels = 2 Effectiveness"
2 - Dynamic Combos "1" "2 is affected by 1 - 1 levels = 2 Effectiveness"

Well I may be talking about stuff i know nothing about... but maybe you codder boys can figure something out. ;)

Cheers

razorace
11-28-2003, 08:09 PM
If you're interested in the Mouse Sabering system, I suggest you check out the Masters of the Force website (motf.jk2files.com). It's all explained in there.

Anyway, I think people are over thinking the modularity of OJP. I can understand clearly marking everything and doing some documentation but physically creating a truely modular code system would be a pain in the ass and a waste of time.

This applies to cvars as well. We will not be turning OJP into a cvarfest, people are already complaining of too many cvars. If a individual person wants to disable a particular feature, they can download the source and remove it manually, use OJP Basic, or (if a lot of people are against it) patition for it to be disabled by default in OJP.

I'll remind everyone that it's the contributors that have the final say on all this stuff. If you're not willing to contribute something, you don't get a real vote.

And lastly, the whole point of OJP is to save time by allowing common features to be shared between mods. If Phunk doesn't want to use the OJP implimentation of the saber system, he's feel to modify the system for his mod or completely rewrite if he wants.

BloodRiot
11-28-2003, 08:51 PM
No worries there mate.

I dont have anything reagarding code to do... that's your court...your rules ;)

I'm here for the 3d stuff. When it's needed... I'm there. I was just throwing out sugestions :)

Phunk also said that since there are so few codders, that you guyz can just agree between yourselves without the need of a true modular build.

So... just make the best of it.

cheers.

keshire
11-29-2003, 04:31 AM
I'm just a clone of Bloodriot. Opinions and all. ;)

RenegadeOfPhunk
12-01-2003, 12:50 PM
OK - so to continue from the post where I listed the features I had noticed in this thread:

* Stamina system
* Mouse Sabering (does this include directional block as well?)
* Dodge
* Pre-scrpited sequences (PT combat - my suggestion)
* Dynamic combos (Razors idea)
* Lock players together when in a chained combo (BR's extension of Razor's idea)
* ztargeting concept

THe only one I know I am going to be working on is Pre-scripted sequences. I believe the rest you are working on Razor - correct? (I think you probably catagorise the dodge / stamina system as the same thing - not sure).

What about this idea of locking players together during a chained combo? Are you planning on doing this?

...just trying to determine who's working on what and if there are any of the features listed above which aren't planned to be worked on...

Vile
12-01-2003, 01:14 PM
hmm I think a way of making blocking more like a fighting game (ie: Soul Caliber 2) would be really nice have like a block button and have it that you have to block high and low and if possible add in guard impact and parry :p, I will start looking into the .c code myself to see if I can try and do what I said above (you can add me to the coders :)) If you dont like that idea than ok...but a more fighting game like blocking system would be nice. Maby even have a side block like left side and right side for more block types, that could work nice. I think for a block system it be an animation that just moves the saber to a certain posistion (as if blocking) and should act to deflect and attack, that way you can use low, high, left, and right block (say you press block+down for low block and block+left for block left and so on), that would add more dynamic fighting to duels and such. But if this is all a bad idea just tell me so, I have other ideas. I also have some ideas on completely new force powers (if the OJP is doing that).

Also about the mouse sabering does this cover blocking completely or not? and razorace could you explane mouse sabering better than it is on the MotF site?

razorace
12-01-2003, 06:25 PM
Yes, Mouse Sabering should work for attacking and blocking.

And I'm not sure I can explain it any more than what's on the site, you probably didn't look bad enough.

Vile
12-01-2003, 09:01 PM
ok so blocking is covered, great now about my new force powers, I have an idea for Force Levitate and for Force Blast.

Force levitate will allow you to levitate and obejct (if possible) or yourself (not fly but allow you to jump from very high places and not get hurt at all (unless you run out of force energy) and for other things, the Force Blast can be like a big bubble or force energy that pushes everything around you away like a massive force push to all around you, and than the level of it (1-3) can change how powerful of a puch it is and the radius of effect :) and ofcourse it should take like 80-100 force energy to use. (I say 100 but less is ok too) So if those are good ideas I can try and work on code for it and the animations (I think I can get the animations done) Also razorace you have a IM so we can talk about stuff I can do for the OJP?

btw this is what you say on the site:
Mouse Sabering:

Use your mouse to perform standard, special, and defensive moves and combos from all 3 stances at once! This will include several HUD additions including a fading crosshair trail and new crosshairs to make this as fun as possible. For traditional players, you can still do things the old fashion way with the addition of a defensive position system.

soo what you saying is that you move the saber with the mouse to attack and block? hows that supposed to work ?

razorace
12-01-2003, 10:08 PM
Try reading the italian interview that's on the site, I beleive that goes more in depth.

And Force powers charges are a completely different subject. Start a new thread please.

Vile
12-01-2003, 10:43 PM
ok I will look for the interview and sorry will make new thread.

so what about the IM? :D

So on topic any already plans for new styles? or moves?

razorace
12-01-2003, 10:46 PM
IM? What IM?

At this stage, I'm still just digging thru things to figure things out and get back in the swing of things. New Stances and stuff will come later.

Baby steps. Baby steps.

Gotaiken
12-01-2003, 11:16 PM
i like the way the blocking and dodging is done, for anyone who doesnt understand mouse sabering go here http://motf.jk2files.com/motf.cgi?action=interview

i had an idea but they pretty much got it covered

Gotaiken
12-02-2003, 06:31 AM
is this going to have force powers???

razorace
12-02-2003, 06:58 AM
We will see, it depends on someone actually working on it and then submitting it to OJP.

Anyway, I've added in the head lock grapple move of kyle's to the game but I'm not sure how I should handle things.

Should the grapple/kick/melee moves be availible when the saber is turned off or sure there be quick commands that directly do certain moves? I'm concerned about balance, realism, and the possibility that the quick commands will lag the game/be too slow to respond. Any feedback on this would be great.

Also, I think I have an idea on how to make melee moves vs sabers realistic and balanced. I'm thinking that the defender's saber (even in idle or a block) should cause damage to the attacker if he touches it at all. Is should force the attacker to dodge, take damage, fall down ("ARGH! I just burned my foot!"), etc. Since this will be based on the actual position of the defender's blade, an attacker can still make melee attacks if he's careful.

Plus, to make this worth it for the attacker, I'm thinking that melee damage should bypass Dodge (assuming that the defender is using a saber; melee vs melee should probably have Dodging) and/or cause knockback/Fatigue.

keshire
12-02-2003, 07:03 AM
Sounds good to me.

But, how about shortening the headlock move and making it only work if hit from behind? Lower the damage and have the attacker drop his saber? And really, is the grabbing the foot and swinging them around realistic? Maybe if done by a Jedi.

razorace
12-02-2003, 07:05 AM
Oh yeah, I'm also thinking that everyone should have melee as a "weapon" that is linked to some Force skill (I'm not sure which yet).

Pressing your weapon 1 button would switch between saber on and melee mode (instead of just turning the saber off) and using the buttons without the saber on will do melee moves instead of saber moves.

keshire
12-02-2003, 07:05 AM
I also think Melee damage should scale inversly with saber attack level? But thats just me.

keshire
12-02-2003, 07:08 AM
How about applying it to an acrobatics force level, with selectable flips, and cart wheels based on level?

razorace
12-02-2003, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by keshire
Sounds good to me.

But, how about shortening the headlock move and making it only work if hit from behind? Lower the damage and have the attacker drop his saber? And really, is the grabbing the foot and swinging them around realistic? Maybe if done by a Jedi.

I beleive the animation is set up to be entered from the front.

Yes, the possibility of the defender dropping their saber is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. :)

And the move you describe would require new animations. Doable, but I'm not going to do them personally. :D If someone does the animations, I'll put them in the game as long as they were reasonable and don't suck.

razorace
12-02-2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by keshire
I also think Melee damage should scale inversly with saber attack level? But thats just me.

Why? The point isn't to allow mercs to beat the living crap out of Jedi. :)

How about applying it to an acrobatics force level, with selectable flips, and cart wheels based on level?

Well, I consider new force skills/player attributes to be a seperate part of the project, I can mess with them laster. I just need something quick and dirty to link it to.

razorace
12-02-2003, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by keshire
I also think Melee damage should scale inversly with saber attack level? But thats just me.

Why? The point isn't to allow mercs to beat the living crap out of Jedi. :)

How about applying it to an acrobatics force level, with selectable flips, and cart wheels based on level?

Well, I consider new force skills/player attributes to be a seperate part of the project, I can mess with them later. I just need something quick and dirty to link it to.

keshire
12-02-2003, 07:24 AM
And the move you describe would require new animations. Doable, but I'm not going to do them personally. If someone does the animations, I'll put them in the game as long as they were reasonable and don't suck.

Some fiddling with the animation.cfg should do the trick. start it at the point where the victim gets turned around?


Why? The point isn't to allow mercs to beat the living crap out of Jedi

Very true. But it shouldn't be tied to sabering. I'm thinking poeple specialized in martial arts here.

razorace
12-02-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by keshire
Some fiddling with the animation.cfg should do the trick. start it at the point where the victim gets turned around?

That might work, but there's a concern over animation skipping.

Very true. But it shouldn't be tied to sabering. I'm thinking poeple specialized in martial arts here.

I think so too. Maybe Force Push/Pull?

keshire
12-02-2003, 10:05 AM
What about jedi vs merc servers?

Only jedi get melee? Thats the problem with tying it to a force power.

razorace
12-02-2003, 10:15 AM
Well, I was referring to the Force enhanced grapple moves. Most of them simply wouldn't be possible without using the Force.

keshire
12-02-2003, 10:17 AM
looking at the anims the grab can be left the same. Skip the first few frames of the being grabbed in the animation.cfg and can you code it so it starts a little late to sync them up? Not to mention adding if attacking from behind? Is that even possible? Haven't seen it done yet anywhere in the code.

keshire
12-02-2003, 10:17 AM
Well, I was referring to the Force enhanced grapple moves. Most of them simply wouldn't be possible without using the Force.

Ahh, so true, and yes that would make sense attached to push pull.

keshire
12-03-2003, 05:55 AM
I'd like to follow up on the idea I proposed about making saber throw single use.

I found this saber flag that isn't helpful. since ALL the code related to it was taken out. q_shared.h

//#define SFL_STICK_ON_IMPACT (1<<?)//if set, the saber will stick in the wall when thrown and hits solid architecture (good for sabers that are meant to be thrown).

But I'm sure it can be re-implemented. Is it possible to also make it stick "in" players ala the AOTC cartoon? Then have force pull bring it back? And add some of that expensive physics mentioned in the source ;)

Also while I'm on the subject of sticking in players. What about the rolling stabs? can we do the same. stick in player, lose saber.

expanded use of the force powers (pull in this case) are always a good thing.

razorace
12-03-2003, 06:33 AM
That's a good idea. However, I'm not exactly sure how we'll impliment it for player models since attaching something to the model usually requires it to be attached to a "bolt".

keshire
12-03-2003, 06:39 AM
Can't attach it to closest bolt upon attack? You got plenty to choose from :)

razorace
12-03-2003, 07:01 AM
Well, you could but that would require a pretty length bolt position scan function. Plus, models are bolted to bolts by their model origins. There's probably some function to get around that but I don't know about it yet.

keshire
12-03-2003, 07:23 AM
Would this be helpful for bolt detection? Its located in the expensive physics source. g_exphysics.c Obviously I'm not a coder but I have taken a few classes here and there.

if (hasFirstCollision)
{ //at least one bolt collided
//We'll get the offset between the collided bolt and endpos, then trace there
//from the origin so that our desired position becomes that point.
VectorSubtract(collisionRootPos, bestCollision.endpos, trajDif);

VectorAdd(ent->r.currentOrigin, trajDif, projectedOrigin);
}
}

//If we didn't collide with any bolts projectedOrigin will still be the original desired
//projected position so all is well. If we did then projectedOrigin will be modified
//to provide us with a relative position which does not place the bolt in a solid.
trap_Trace(&tr, ent->r.currentOrigin, ent->r.mins, ent->r.maxs, projectedOrigin, ent->s.number, ent->clipmask);

keshire
12-03-2003, 07:30 AM
Also maybe something ripped from the locational damage? As long as the saber kept the direction it pointed in when it collides I don't think there'd be a problem.

razorace
12-03-2003, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by keshire
Would this be helpful for bolt detection? Its located in the expensive physics source. g_exphysics.c Obviously I'm not a coder but I have taken a few classes here and there.

if (hasFirstCollision)
{ //at least one bolt collided
//We'll get the offset between the collided bolt and endpos, then trace there
//from the origin so that our desired position becomes that point.
VectorSubtract(collisionRootPos, bestCollision.endpos, trajDif);

VectorAdd(ent->r.currentOrigin, trajDif, projectedOrigin);
}
}

//If we didn't collide with any bolts projectedOrigin will still be the original desired
//projected position so all is well. If we did then projectedOrigin will be modified
//to provide us with a relative position which does not place the bolt in a solid.
trap_Trace(&tr, ent->r.currentOrigin, ent->r.mins, ent->r.maxs, projectedOrigin, ent->s.number, ent->clipmask);

That sounds like it's something used for part of the rag doll physics. That won't help with what we're looking for.

Vile
12-03-2003, 11:49 AM
having the saber get stuck in the person when you throw it at them before you pull it back would be wicked!

Also about model dismemberment.....Could we get it to work in multiplayer (if it isnt already, as I never get to see someone cut up in multiplayer) maby my problem but so far I have only seen a arm cut off and what not in single player.

razorace
12-03-2003, 12:37 PM
Actually we were discussing fixing that issue over here. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=118927)

Vile
12-03-2003, 01:11 PM
looks more like some sorta broken arm deal...I want to be able to cut people in half and stuff online. :D

MasterSidious
12-04-2003, 01:47 AM
Now, this is an idea which I'm pretty sure would be very hard/ time consumming to code, but here it goes:

A saber system in which you could toggle from being able to control the saber to being able to move about. When you would press this toggle key, lets call it a, your ability to be mobile is disabled and you can completely move your saber freely around using the arrow keys and mouse. For example, the up arrow key will make the saber go out more and arc down in the frontal direction or the direction away from the player. The right key for example would make the same arc movement only in the right direction and so on. The mouse is used as a complete control of the saber around following the main arc pattern of the arrow keys. Of course the other saber code will still be available when you're mobile. Now, I know this might make an embalance in the game, so we or I will have to think more about how to balance. But, this is the general gist of my idea. What do you think? Do you think this is even possible?

This would in essence give the shall we say real jedis out there a chance to really show their skill. Not how you can move about, of course the old code as I said before would be in there too so everyone would like it. :D Well?

razorace
12-04-2003, 02:46 AM
I don't think that will be nessicary since Mouse Sabering will allow you to be able to move and swing at the same time.

Besides, that would cause a lack of control issue.

MasterSidious
12-04-2003, 03:19 AM
Yes, this is the problem. I guess there could be more special moves implemented. There could be some enhanced movements, movements so that you could hurt/control easier, that would be concentrated in more of the same place in realation to the character. A kata type animation for example could be made so that you could control where all the rotations or attacks happen in relation to your body. Adding another special move so that you could use it and know where most of the attacks would occur, like on the right side of the character for example. This would give more of an assortment of specials that could be done, adding to the already long list, making the player more easily able to hit things on different sides, and implement different types of attacks depending on the situations. But agreed, players need to be able to control the saber and at the same time be mobile for a better experience. This would give both, more versatility and still give the same amount of mobility.

MasterSidious
12-04-2003, 11:33 PM
Also something possibly a bit more realistic. The saber movements done with the strafe keys especially could use a little help getting over the randomness. to be able to ALWAYS do a right attack for example. Am I just a noob here or are other people starting to find its sometimes hard? Just another thought

razorace
12-05-2003, 01:04 AM
Well, it normally does what you tell it to do unless you're in a bounce, combo, or special move.

keshire
12-05-2003, 08:09 AM
If I wanted to code the saber wall sticking back in I'd need to use:

entityStates right?

entityState_t->eType and eFlags

ET_MISSLE //To turn saber into missle? Does saberInFlight already do this?
EF_MISSILE_STICK //when touches wall?

and maybe EV_MISSILE_STICK //for a nice sound.

Or am I simplifying it too much?

Also can I just add a saber deactivate when the throw button is let go to cause it to not come back? So I could later add force pull to cuase the same effect?

razorace
12-05-2003, 08:00 PM
Uh, this thread is for brainstorming, not technical issues. I suggest you keep it to the JA Coding forum. Thanks.

And I imagine that doing what you suggested will take quite a bit of coding effect.

JediLiberator
12-09-2003, 03:56 AM
Is it possible to slow down the overall speed of movement? I was wondering if there is a setting to slow down how a person on screen attacks(not just how fast you run). On a brainstorming note I was thinking including a dual phase saber might be a good idea. This would allow single blade users to switch to a longer blade length that does less damage but gives a single saber user added range to their strikes.

razorace
12-09-2003, 05:11 AM
It's possible but not without coding changes.

A dual phase saber is interesting but it would probably not be worth the coding effort.

jheriko
12-12-2003, 01:36 PM
I only have one suggestion for your project but I have a few questions about the code side of things out of curiosity since I toyed with the q3 vm source a few years ago (I never finished a decent mod, the only one I made is lost, not that I care cos it was crap but it was called fnf, then escape q3). Anyway...

Are button4 and button5 still broken or do they do something in JA? Have they been removed since q3? Or have you just used all 5 buttons? You could use button3 at least... I used it for something ages ago in q3 and it worked fine...

'There weren't any free data slots so I could improve the animation system.... ' I know this problem is resolved but what did they do exactly to make their animation system limited? Even with MD2 (way before skeletal animation and slerp and such) pretty much limitless animations were possible, or is it just not possible to call an animation routine of whatever kind from the mod source? eg. modelclass->animate(delta_time) or whatever.. i guess things like that just get left in the binary. I never really got into q3 modding enough to need something like that but it would make tremendous sense to include it (or equivalent) for modders.

My suggestion is to model 'real' dismemberment if you have access to the model data. You should be able to calculate the plane in which the saber (approximately) moves quite easily and use it to split the model down in to two (or more) seperate models. Triangle splitting isn't as hard as some people make out, neither is capping a 'planar hole' in an object since you already have the plane and the vertices lying on it. Checking if a model is in seperate pieces and then splitting it into them shouldn't be too hard either provided that you have the triangle data, you just need to write a recursive algorithm that traverses triangles by adjacency by doing some clever vertex picking and dealing with the cases where you have to go through a triangle twice to go over the whole thing and such... and complains if it finishes before it has traversed the entire model then makes the complete traversal a seperate model and deducts it from the rest. This way you can make it so that you could slice through an arm and the chest and have three seperate pieces fall to the ground independantly. On the downside it would probably take a lot of physics code since you would have to deal with the physics thats already there for dealing with dead bodies. Thinking about it all together... its a bit ambitious, but hey.

'Is it possible to slow down the overall speed of movement?'

Well there was a cvar in q3 that wasn't very well known which had to be set from the ui - timescale. I've just checked that its in JO, unfortunately I have no copy of JA to check it out with but try setting it to 0.8 or 0.7 or something from the console in the menu before you play... then everything will be slower. Probably not quite what you wanted but it will make it easier for you to beat those SP enemies that are just too fast for you. ;) If its too easy try timescale 1.5, I used to use timescale to make the q3 bots into a real challenge, very handy to improve your skills.

razorace
12-12-2003, 09:03 PM
That's a good question about the buttons. I think they have been removed or changed to the force power commands.

Your real dismemberment idea is interesting but I don't think that it would possible to do that sort of direct model manipulation without the engine code. Plus, it would be a lot of hard work for a relatively small payoff.

And lastly, the animation system for JKA is majorly different than Q3, and it doesn't allow things like frozen animations, starttimes accounted for lag, and dynamic animation speeds.

keshire
12-13-2003, 06:36 AM
Saber Stick in Wall ;)

Hit wall, walk around it. It won't come back unless manually grabbed. Due to looped sabermoveback statement.

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/200312121295422724517322.jpg

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/200312124911928966278922.jpg

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/200312121327384883136469.jpg

Thrown high, ran up wall grabbing it. I'm especially proud of these.

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/200312121253800910685928.jpg

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/200312123170486087685237.jpg

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Dec/200312124926454470993892.jpg

babywax
12-13-2003, 06:43 PM
That's really cool, does the player do an animation when retrieving the saber? Could you possibly give single saberists the ability to pick up sabers that are stuck in walls etc...? That would be very interesting...

razorace
12-13-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by keshire
Saber Stick in Wall ;)

If you're planning on submitting this to OJP, please post about it in the "what's new?" thread.

Otherwise, get your whorin' ass off my property! :D

Marker0077
12-17-2003, 12:37 AM
This is about the blocking system with returning blaster fire.

#1 I think that if the person is not holding the block button, then blaster fire should hit the person.

#2 The person has to wait for the opponent to fire & then press the block button in order to return blaster fire to the person that fired it.

#3 If the block button is held down before the person fired, it blocks the shot but returns it in a random direction.

This is how the returning blaster fire with a lightsaber works in most SW SP games & a variety of other SP games as well, like I was playing a DragonBall Z game with my cousin & one person throws small fireball at another, the person has to block right before the fireball hits him in order to return it, otherwise it's just a standard block.

razorace
12-17-2003, 01:27 AM
I like that idea, but I see there being a problem with the way the manual blocking will work. You can't simply hold down the button to block.

However, it could work based on when you last set a blocking position or something.

keshire
12-17-2003, 04:36 AM
Just have the auto-block when the block button is held down for gunfire only (psuedo-manual). Otherwise its manual-directional for saber vs saber. I thought this was the plan anyway?

razorace
12-17-2003, 04:40 AM
The problem with that would be that you couldn't move while doing that. I don't think it's a good idea.

keshire
12-17-2003, 04:43 AM
Are we disabling certain movements while blocking? I must have missed that.

keshire
12-17-2003, 06:23 AM
Since I'm moving off focus I don't know if this should go in a different thread. If so Feel free to move it into a saber system -saber throw thread.

anyways.

As I said I'm working on changing saber throw into a single use action. By single use I mean it won't come back and has to be manually retrieved. Either by force pull or picking it up like any normal item.

I want this to be able to mesh well with Razor or Renegade's system's. So I'd like to pull this away from the alt attack. (which will be used for block).

I'm also trying to make it as realistic as possible. So far I've (beta) implemented wall sticking.

With that out of the way here is a list from RazorAce that he came across that still needs changing and my thoughts on them as well. Most were code problems so I'll skip to the actual thought(s).

Ok I testing things out and it's looking pretty good but it needs some additional work before I'll think it's ready:

5. When the saber sticks into something, I suggest you make it act like a fallen saber, that way the player can do other things and it should hopefully fix issue 1.

6. While you're at it, it might be a good idea to fix the rest of the saber throw behavior...

Please note that I'm listing so much because you made great progress and I think it will be great when you're done. :)

Razor Ace


I think the force levels should be changed to reflect a new realistic system.

Take out the "follow view" that force throw 3 gives you.

And make it like so.

force level one.:
basic throw (ie use force to keep it on while in air)

vertical spin (ie easily dodgeable)

I plan on making a new throw animation to occompany the spin.
--------------------
Force level two:
Goes an amount of distance equal to how long the throw button is held or 3 seconds whichever comes first.

Diagonal spin

I plan on making a new throw animation to occompany the spin.
--------------------
force level three:
amount held or full 6 seconds that is the current coded limit.
damage * 1.5

current horizontal spin
-----------------------
I also want to impale oponents if a thrown saber hits someone before the full force level time is expired. Ala AOTC cartoon.

any other suggestions?

RenegadeOfPhunk
12-17-2003, 11:15 AM
The problem with that would be that you couldn't move while doing that. I don't think it's a good idea.


Could you clarify at which points you can and can't move? I am also a bit confused by this statement...

Marker0077
12-17-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by razorace
I like that idea, but I see there being a problem with the way the manual blocking will work. You can't simply hold down the button to block.

However, it could work based on when you last set a blocking position or something. Why can't you hold down the blocking button? Keep in mind, it's only going to return the fire accurately after the round(s) has/have been fired, then the block button was pressed. All rounds that fired after the block button is pressed would go in random directions.Originally posted by razorace
The problem with that would be that you couldn't move while doing that. I don't think it's a good idea. Ahhh, answered my question already.

If you check out the movies, no one runs & blocks incoming fire ever. This would be the same thing here.

You could make it so that you just can not accurately return fire via blocking while running. I think this needs to be held back in another way for running & blocking tbh, like the running speed is nerfed a bit or you can only block whichever side your saber is on. Not sure how that would work out with the staff.

RenegadeOfPhunk
12-17-2003, 05:17 PM
If you check out the movies, no one runs & blocks incoming fire ever. This would be the same thing here.


Well, you rarely see a Jedi run and block fire, this is true. But it does happen a few times.
Look carefully at the Battle of Geonosis. Near the beginning, you can see a whole group of Jedi running into a group of battle droids - blocking fire as they run

Also, there is a section where Mace Windu very clearly blocks a shot while running. Not only this, it's from behind, AND he directs it back at his attacker!


What I've done for Movie Battles to try and represent this is the following:

* Forced to walking speed when the block button is held

* Made a 'sprint' button, which will temporarily increase normal running speed AND allow blocking while running. (You run slightly slower then normal when holding block while sprinting, but that's still a lot faster than walking...)
You can only sprint for 20 secs. max. Once you've finished sprinting, you have to rest (walk only) for half the time you were sprinting. (10 secs sprint = 5 secs walk).

...this system works well gameplay-wise, and makes the resulting combat pretty accurate to the movies...

Marker0077
12-18-2003, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
Also, there is a section where Mace Windu very clearly blocks a shot while running. Not only this, it's from behind, AND he directs it back at his attacker!You see alot of things in the movies, I wouldn't make things that unrealistic.

For something like this to happen, it should take force mana because the reality is you are running so your body is jumping in all sorts of different directions, therefore, your aim isn't going to be as good because of this. Force mana should be used for accurate aiming while running IMO.Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
Made a 'sprint' button, which will temporarily increase normal running speed AND allow blocking while running. (You run slightly slower then normal when holding block while sprinting, but that's still a lot faster than walking...)
You can only sprint for 20 secs. max. Once you've finished sprinting, you have to rest (walk only) for half the time you were sprinting. (10 secs sprint = 5 secs walk).I made a sprint button for MoH as well but not like this. You just ran faster while your weapon was holstered.

TBH, I'm impressed with the concept design with that. It's refreshing to see someone come up with their own stuff & not jumping on someone elses bandwagon. I like this concept but I still think that force mana should be used while running & accurately blocking.

Another thing you should keep in mind (which I just chatted with RA about) is you don't want to add too many new buttons. Most people do not use the cycling force system because using force powers just takes too long via that, people need that stuff "on the fly" in MP. With no/neutral force power users, it's not that big of a deal because there are other buttons open for use but that's not the case with Full Force users. Again, this is just something to keep in mind.

razorace
12-18-2003, 04:59 AM
We're moving into the implimentation phase. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120027)

I don't know about this sprinting idea. It would be nice to have have full out run vs. a troting run, but I'm worried about having two seperate buttons for running control.

RenegadeOfPhunk
12-18-2003, 12:44 PM
You see alot of things in the movies, I wouldn't make things that unrealistic.


I understand the point you are trying to make, and you are correct, if Jedi's could block this well ALL THE TIME, it wouldn't be a good thing! Not only from a 'movie' realism standpoint, but also gamplay.

...the trick is to get the right 'ratio' between what is commonly seen, and what is 'sometimes' seen in the movies. MOST of the time, Jedi's don't block when they are moving quicker than walking (or perhaps slow jog) speed. So this should be the 'norm' in gameplay.
..but SOMETIMES, they CAN run and block. So this should at least be possible too - using systems like the one you've described:


For something like this to happen, it should take force mana because the reality is you are running so your body is jumping in all sorts of different directions, therefore, your aim isn't going to be as good because of this.


At the moment, I have this concept in Movie Battles too. Basically, there are 2 ways to run and block.

The first way is to NOT use the sprint button, and just run as normal (without the block button held). You can still block, but your blocking angle is decreased, and every blocked shot reduces your manna. So, it can be effective when chasing down one lone gunman who's fairly close, but you won't live long if you try and run into a large barrage of fire like that...

The second way is to use the sprint button, which works as I have described previously. This DOES allow you to run and block wiuthout losing manna - but of course the dis-advantage is you have to rest after sprinting.

Now, while you may consider the second option a bit unrealistic and possibly too powerful, what you have to take into account is that in Movie Battles, the Jedi class does not have access to any normal weaponry - ONLY lightsaber and force powers - ever.
In this situation, when a Jedi is facing a large number of gunner enemies, the Jedi simply NEEDS the second option to have a realistic chance. So really, the second option is a gameplay nessesity rather than something which is trying to make the game more 'movie-realistic'. (Although I would question how 'unrealistic' it is comparatively...)


Another thing you should keep in mind (which I just chatted with RA about) is you don't want to add too many new buttons.


Yes - I agree - button overload is bad.

In Movie Battles, this isn't a problem, since by removing all force powers not referenced in the movies, I have reduced the overall button count fairly significantly. Also factor in the no-other-weapons thing for Jedi's and they no longer have to worry about weapon changing either.
...so one extra sprint button is no big deal for MB.

..for the OJP though - yeah - this does need to be considered...

Marker0077
12-19-2003, 07:59 PM
Well I don't really think your running & blocking system is the best way to go but I have been wrong in the past, on occasion :). Either way, this gives the community an opportunity to try out 2 different ways of figuring out what the best running & blocking system might be. Trial & error ya know. Good show anyway you look at it.

Right now, I think the way CM is going to go is in packs. Not just .pk3 type packs but installer packs. Originally I had a "main" pack in mind but now I think it's a little lame & will probably end up going with a "Client Mods" pack & a "Server Mods" pack but I think I need to rename the pack a little differently. The "Client Mods" pack name is a little misleading & it is also for servers (pure or unpure). This is required for certain hilts to function properly like real-sword hilts to not go through walls but actually bounce off of them or the reverse blades to do damage where the actual blade is, etc; etc.

Anyways, the point is I want to add OJP into the "Server Mods" installer pack, as well as JAR. If you want, I may add MB as well. There is still a bit of figuring out to do but this is what I currently have in mind. I don't mean to get off topic but I would appreciate any feedback on this.

The way I see it, most mods out there are crap & the stuff in CM blows at least 90% of it out of the water. Once I pimp it off enough & a name is established, people will probably download whatever is in the pack just because it has the CM name on it. This is a good way to promote the non-admin-abusable mods out there in hopes to create a friendlier community.

RenegadeOfPhunk
12-20-2003, 11:33 AM
Anyways, the point is I want to add OJP into the "Server Mods" installer pack, as well as JAR. If you want, I may add MB as well.


Sounds like a good idea. I'll talk to you about this at some point in ICQ...

razorace
12-23-2003, 10:41 AM
Ok, we're starting to have design issues pop up for the saber system. I suggest everyone go over to the WIP thread (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=120027) and give me some betatesting feedback. The more I get, the better the system will be. :)