Guru George on 18/6/2004 at 00:55
Fascinating thread!
I think the essential point was made by somebody when they said about the FPS convention - move line of sight, point, click. Totally intuitive. Melee weapons have yet to develop this intuitiveness. I think it could be attained by connecting the mouse movement to some point in the body (or possibly the balance point of the weapon? not sure).
The cursor could move (e.g.) the "dantien" (belly - this would give a very "whippy" effect), or the heart area (less "whippy"), or the "balance point" of the weapon (a more direct and "flat" feel, but not as "flat" feeling as just moving the point of the blade). I'm not sure which would be the best, but in all cases (and I guess the heavier the weapon, the more towards the belly the point would have to be), the idea would be that you get as instinctive a feel for the momentum and swing of a weapon as possible just by moving the mouse.
This would require some kind of physics/skeletal/muscle modelling system to effectively model the "play" between the "centre point" and rest of the body/weapon.
Freelancer might seem like a totally unrelated game, but if anybody's played "turret mode" in Freelancer, they'll know what I mean by sense of momentum and swing (I believe Homeworld has something similar, though I haven't played it). The camera movement in "turret mode" in Freelancer has just the right "swingey" feel.
This would give a real feel that you were handling a weapon. Skill increase would then be based partly on enemies getting better, partly on incrementally raising damage per hit, etc., partly on weapon stats, partly on a calculation based on how you'd been doing, how well you were actually improving.
So basically, you'd have an "arm" modal keypress that would take you out of your line of sight being controlled by the mouse (also out of other uses of LMB/RMB), to this hypothetical "balance point" being controlled by the mouse.
Add to this system a good blocking system as outlined about re. LMB/RMB, then I reckon this would be about right, and would become the standard.
Don't know if this makes any sense to anyone, but I thought I'd toss it into the mix.
BeyondZork on 29/7/2004 at 06:07
I believe ultimately that combat in a CRPG like Arx should reflect both the atmosphere and theme of the game as well as the overall pace and style of gameplay intended by the developer.
For instance, if I was playing a game like say "Fencer 2004" I'd appreciate as real a fencing experience as possible, a fencing "sim." I'd enjoy a whole interface designed around motion sensitive anatomy through the mouse, multiple stance variations through, say, the mouse wheel, timing and pressure sensitive mouse button manipulations, a whole computer art form devoted to fencing.
I'd bet, while rewarding to the fencer, this kind of gaming experince, in order to be fully realized and undertaken, would be quite tedious.
- I.E. scroll the mouse wheel .7" forward to draw your left foot slightly forward, draw the mouse 2.4" down on the mouse pad to bend the left knee inward, while simultaneously holding the left mouse button and clicking the right mouse button 3 quick consecutive taps to indicate one of your (current *number of choices* due to close combat skill rating) 47 attack choices, time the movement of your character's pelvis forward with the 'WASD' keys exactly to the point when your opponent has slightly adjusted their stance, raised their sword, and angled their shoulders in such a manner as to make their left pectoral muscle the most vulnerable to your impending attack, and then strike, etc.
I know this is extreme, but the point here is: how exact a science should combat in a CRPG be? My answer is "to the point when it is challenging yet still inherently *fun* in a game-like fashion." Heck, if I want to fence I'll don the equipment and grab an epee (is that how it's spelled?).
Personally, I like the exaggerated - while still challenging mind you - experience of saying "BOOYAH!" as I blast an ogre with my 2H Greatsword over its dome. I love bringing down the HAMMA! :joke:
Really, in a computer game, I want the combat to be exaggerated, context sensitive, fast paced, and fun! If this can be achieved, while still challenging the player not only in terms of physical dexterity with the mouse but also technical understanding, You've got it good.
SneaksieDave on 29/7/2004 at 19:33
Because I am compelled to speak up whenever I see it mentioned - DBTS is very challenging movement and combat to learn (mouse-VSIM, in particular) but once you do, you'll never be satisfied with anything less again. For anyone who wants to give it a try, or has and gave up, I say the following: Give it about a week (or two) of daily ARENA practice with mouse VSIM before you give up, hopeless. After that "extended" (in game terms) period of time, you'll be guiding the blade toward necks with relative ease.
As a bit of proof, if you will - one of the things that happens to new players is, they always finding themselves swinging in circles at their feet or head. After you learn to control the blade, that doesn't happen anymore at all.
Shadowcat on 4/8/2005 at 02:48
As noted at the top, the previous replies in this thread come from "The Scoop on Arx 2". This reply is mainly here to bump this thread to the top of the forum, but can serve as a division between copied and new replies as well.
I'm sure that games like TES4:Oblivion, Arx 2, and Mount & Blade will all provide useful contributions to the topic.
James Sterrett on 12/8/2005 at 00:14
Having been reminded of it:
In part due the the aemma link, my wife and I have become rather more skilled with a 2-handed longsword. :)
And he's right - there are definitely overhead holds, and, to our great surprise, this position offers significant defensive opportunities along with the more obvious offensive opportunities. :D
What's more confusing to fit into any game is the winding & binding - movement of the blades while in contact to keep your oppoent's blade out of the way while twisting yours into position for a killing thrust. It's highly dependent on feeling the pressure of your opponent's blade and knowing which part of your blade is in contact with which part of the opponent's - and it happens very, very fast.
I have *no clue* how to translate that into a computer game. :)
Shadowcat on 12/8/2005 at 04:24
Although I've never even touched a two-handed sword, I know what you mean by the last bit (it's applicable to most every sword/staff/spear type of weapon, I would think), and although quite frankly I wouldn't expect to see that level of detail in a game, if it were to be implemented I would again suggest that some degree of automation based on combat stats might control this sort of thing. I know some people dislike this idea, but I'm rather taken with it (at least until I get to try it and it turns out to be a really bad idea ;)
If your stats are sky-high, then the computer gives you a helping hand... your opponent counters your thrust, but your character is good enough to automatically redirect the movement and score the hit regardless.
Likewise if your stats are low and for some reason you're facing someone who (if we are to take the game world and your character seriously) is so much more powerful than you that they should be able to kill you with both hands tied behind their back, then maybe they'll get past your blocks even if you execute them well.
Obviously there's plenty of grey area inbetween those examples, when the stat difference isn't quite so extreme, and for opponents with similar abilities (on paper) this shouldn't have any notable effect on the outcome.
That would be a lot of added simulation for perhaps minimal practical gain, but it would certainly be cool to watch and take part in :)
James Sterrett on 14/8/2005 at 19:41
... As we all sit here with impatient curiosity to see how various designers have solved it this time around. :)
