How responsive is the new melee?

[vegetaspride]

I fail to see your point.

You do know that a player is represented as a box right. That means you can only use side of attack. And thats allready in since 1.0

IF you used a sphere as a representation for the player that wouldnt really work well since a box can mimic the shape better than a spheare. And if you used the characters hitboxes as the representation then youd never be able to hit anyone.

Since it is easier for you to stick with the hitboxes increasing the quantization(here this means increasing the noumber of hitboxes you have) will lead to much better results.

You see a simple example. looking at the player from above, now there are cases where player can block some attacks from the side(but will have more damage etc.) or he can block perfectly (front side). The other boxes are unblockable.

 

[Grega]

You see a simple example. looking at the player from above, now there are cases where player can block some attacks from the side .

That is incorrect. If an attack is not made on the front side of the box it doesnt get blocked.

Thats the precise reason why angle hit is possible.

 

[vegetaspride]

That is incorrect. If an attack is not made on the front side of the box it doesnt get blocked.

Thats the precise reason why angle hit is possible.

What is incorrect? Did you understand what I'm saying?

I am saying that by increasing the number of hitboxes you have more variety in results. The new hitboxes allow you to define blockable or unblockable side hits.


BTW can you see the picture I have posted? I somehow can not see it...

 

[Grega]

Ahh a missunderstanding. And no i cant see the pic. I had to use the direct URL i got from quoting your post.

This is what you need -> http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5883/blockableu.jpg



In any case while i see you point let me ask you. Wouldnt taht make blocking kinda well unstopable or useless.

Fact is if the side blocks deal more damage it would make blocking preety useless since the front side would end up smaller than it allready is. And if the block ended up with little damage youd basically be giving block 1.5 times the angle of what it has now making it preety much impossible to not block when the blocker is looking somewhere in your direction.

But thats just theory. On the other hand we have a cold fact. The difference betwean a box and your idea in code is gigantic.

a box is a lot easier to determine in 3D space than other objects with more sides. That allso means less processing power is used up for the calculations of the exact bounding boxes. Change the shape you increase the load on the program by the amount of sides the new box has and the workload on the coders gets even bigger.

Simply cause its that much harder to implement an object with more sides than 4.


BTW this is how your idea would affect the block area.

Everything abbove the red line is the successfull block area. Whats over the line can be considdered a hit providing the blocker doesnt change direction.

See the point of impenetrable block?

 

[vegetaspride]

Thanks for taking time and looking at the drawing.

As I stated this is an example to show the result of increasing hitboxes.

About the impenetrable blocking region, I know that the hexagon results in the attacks from the frontiel half space to be blocked but that was just to show that you will be able to implement 3 different (actually two since the sides are symmetric) outcomes of the block.

Instead of using the hexagon let me add two more boxes.

http://img22.imageshack.us/i/octablock.png/

As you see the blockable region is no longer the half space and you have open unblockable side hits.


The side blocks here are transition for blocking. It should be worse then a frontial block but better then an unblockable side hit for the defender. Lets say when the defender is blocked this way he can continue blocking but takes damage and can NOT attack for a small amount of time hence the attacker can hit again. Again we are brainstorming here so nothing is absolute the important thing is now we have transition regions and more variable, smooth outcome in blocking.


Let me give an example of its advantage over the current boxy model.

http://img24.imageshack.us/i/blockdiff.png/

As you can see there are two cases which are very close to each other. In the first case attacker hits the frontial plane and blocked fully but in the second case where attacker is in a slightly shifted position but the defender just gets kicked away.

This is a very very drastic difference for a very slight change.

In the more quantized model the attacker hits side and the defender somehow blocks the attack for both cases. Even if the slight shift changes planes the difference between somehow blockable to blockable or somehow blockable to unbockable states is not as drastic as the change between a totally blockable state to unblockable state.

So far we've talked about the idea.


I aggree that this may need good amount of change in the code. I think there maybe solutions for implementing similar idea with a less amount of code.

In terms of computational power, even computers of 4-5 years of age should handle the additional load quite easily. Afterall the graphical enchantments I have seen so far are computationally much more complex then this.


I think we will talk about on this more.

 

[Disguise]

Hey Vegetaspride, I'm glad I came across your posts. It's timely because I've been making suggestions where one of them may come into play here to make this work out better.

Essentially you propose increasing the block radius but creating two outcomes depending on how accurate your block is. This is a great idea, but the greatest problem, aside from coding, is that players are limited in close combat maneuvering. A player would have to either pivot around the block with flying to attempt to strike from the unblocked side, or swoop and re-swoop in again. Both are easy to follow with the mouse and may be blocked easier with this increase in radius.

I've suggested that short teleports be considered for that very same reason. It changes points of origin instantly and keeps the players close enough to swoop/fly in from a completely random side to attack.

There would be 4 outcomes from a Short Teleport around an initial Block:

The Attacker teleports to the defender's side and strikes him...

1} Unaware with a flying melee hit, knocking him a short distance back. Easy follow-up with more melee.

2} Unaware with a swoop melee hit, knocking him a long distance back. Easier follow-up with Ki attacks.



The Defender turns...

3} Partly into the blow, reducing the damage and knockback, but still taking some damage nonetheless. Situation repeats itself.

4} Completely towards the blow, giving him a chance to counter attack with a Short Teleport and/or Flying/Swoop Melee. Since he completely blocked, he may also escape.​

Ki/Stamina consumption could be reduced on a perfect block and in full effect on a poor one. The better you block, the more often you can do it.

Lets keep the ball rollin!

 

[Grega]

And here i go again.

There is no close quarters combat. The entire melee system is based off Sinple melee. And that meaning a mixture of 1.1s and 1.2s simple melee systems.

No matter what melee you use the end will allways be a blowback.

 

[Disguise]

And here i go again.

There is no close quarters combat. The entire melee system is based off Sinple melee. And that meaning a mixture of 1.1s and 1.2s simple melee systems.

No matter what melee you use the end will allways be a blowback.

I'm not trying to come across as "I'm right you're wrong," because I always respect and value what you say. But I don't like how absolute you are about some things. I do appreciate the devil's advocate and what it brings out in a conversation, but when it becomes absolute without reason, it seems more based on your opinion, and we all have opinions. You obviously know better than me what's currently planned, but why are you so against leaving things open? Is the innovation behind this game already cut off, or is the team still brainstorming and implementing new ideas?

Close combat could be put into the game with minor changes and balances. It's also based off of simple melee; the part that doesn't use swoop and results in shorter blow backs. It allows teleporting to be used offensively. If a player blocks, there are no knockbacks. So what you're saying about "always being a blowback" is wrong as far as I understand. What you end up with are two players right next to each other with the ability to maneuver and fight. There are openings for close combat to be expanded on under the current system in many places, not just the ones I've mentioned with low stamina.

I don't see why you're so set against the possibility of it being worked on. It doesn't take away from any other aspects of the game, it just adds to them. Maybe I'm missing something here.

 

[Darth Revan]

how responsive you say well its as responsive as me trying to urinate while beaing drunk

 

[Disguise]

how responsive you say well its as responsive as me trying to urinate while beaing drunk

So it happens before you even know it then. That's pretty responsive.

 

[KarrdeKNR]

We wrote tons of ideas for CQC. None of them worked out without drastically altering what ESF is. Trust me, the current ideas will work fine.

 

[Grega]

Cause Melee is preety much in the game allready and we have ****loads of other stuff we need to finish. The basic gist of melee is allready set in stone. Sinply because the system acomodates the use of all 4 melee types along with beams and tier attacks into 1 entity.

Meaning you can do any chain you want with those seperate systems.

But in order to do so some rules have to be folowed. The end rule to be precise. The exit of a system has to be the same for all meleee types. Or else you cant link them in any way you want.

If we change the melee type exits then we make it probe to bigass laming. While they all act as simple melee itself does it makes it less prone to cheap tricks like using a different system to reset the blowback.

 

[Disguise]

Cause Melee is preety much in the game allready and we have ****loads of other stuff we need to finish. The basic gist of melee is allready set in stone. Sinply because the system acomodates the use of all 4 melee types along with beams and tier attacks into 1 entity.

Meaning you can do any chain you want with those seperate systems.

But in order to do so some rules have to be folowed. The end rule to be precise. The exit of a system has to be the same for all meleee types. Or else you cant link them in any way you want.

If we change the melee type exits then we make it probe to bigass laming. While they all act as simple melee itself does it makes it less prone to cheap tricks like using a different system to reset the blowback.

I can understand the point you're making, but since we can't talk specifics, I don't really have an answer or a solid response opinion.

By saying they all exist as one entity, I assume you mean that they can be used interchangably at the same time, like using a Ki attack during a Combo. However, can you use a combo during a Ki attack? I would bet there are differences in how these systems interact which, if acknowledged, may allow balancing in how they end as to not allow them to be abused.

I'm assuming you mean that Combo can be reused again and again if the last simple melee hit doesn't send them away from you.

I can see why Combo Melee and possibly the new Throw system might complicate a close combat though, since it seems both can be used instantly at any time within range, and it completely disrupts the scenario after the block I mentioned before.

You would have to make circumstances where Combo Melee and Throw could be used to not allow it to influence that situation. Like Throws can only be used on players with low stamina, and Combo Melee needs to be charged with SAM or something. That way it's neither overused or initiated instantaneously.

I suppose I can't really disagree with you since I really don't know. Thanks for explaining it to me.

 

[Damaera]

Oh, boy. I really need to update the Overview thread.

 

[KarrdeKNR]

I think so too

 

[Disguise]

As do I. It'd save me a lot of assuming.

 

[hleV]

Don't. Otherwise Disguise will come back with ten more threads with boring articles to read.

 

[Damaera]

So update the Overview thread? Thanks, hleV.

 

[Disguise]

Don't. Otherwise Disguise will come back with ten more threads with boring articles to read.

:laff: lmao!

I thought I kept you in suspense the entire time! :shocked:

They're definitely not the most exciting things to read, but in game you'd be singing a different tune.

Everything in life begins with imagination.

 

[Grega]

Let me explain 2 things for you ^^

Simple melee: This is your primary source of damage. Its soule pourpouse is to make people feel pain.

Combo melee: This is what you want to get your SAM bar up. It doesnt do much in HP damage but it adds more points to the SAM bar.

So get the idea of draining the SAM bar for combo melee out of your head XD