<!--quoteo(post=1756107:date=Feb 28 2010, 08:27 PM:name=Zek)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Zek @ Feb 28 2010, 08:27 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1756107"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Tutorials are good, but how would you explain to a new player why turning when you're in mid-air makes you go faster? And not just turning, but arcing your trajectory by holding left(but not forward) while turning left. This is an incredibly weird concept to most people, and for good reason - frankly it makes zero sense. I don't believe that stuff like this is necessary for a video game to have competitive depth. Movement skill should come from movement abilities IMO. For example, the jetpack: using the jetpack at its best takes a lot of practice in making the best use of its fuel and momentum, and that's something that makes sense with experience without really having to be told the specifics.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You're mixing up strafejumping and bhopping/air curve
Strafejumping only requires you to hold forward and the direction you're moving your mouse while landing a jump. It's quite a bit more logical than the bunnyhop. Not in any way perfect or even completely reasonable, but it's far better than the present system. If necessary, it probably could be explained as a natural 'gallop' movement that skulks use to gain speed. With some proper animations it could look relatively natural and intentional, I think.
As for the air curve I don't know. The mechanic can be explained easily and practising gets pretty natural after 5 minutes, but the physic itself isn't anything from this world. Still, I can't even picture a melee vs ranged FPS without some kind of air curving. Tremulous is probably the most serious attempt of that and its fights were a mess if anything.
Like <a href="http://www.quakelive.com" target="_blank">this.</a> Make an account, go to "practice", see how they teach you how to move. I learned how to strafe jump well enough in a few days. Considering they're trying to make "the best competitive game since Starcraft", this doesn't seem like setting the bar unreasonably high.
Really, it's not that hard. Just tell people how the game works. Yes, it might not make perfect sense, but in multiplayer gameplay trumps atmosphere.
Ehm. I can jump to the left or right when a meattrain charges me. dont know bout you guys, but its quite stupid to stand in its trails while its boiler is at full pressure ;)
I'm all for integration within gameplay. Gameplay integrated movement IS engine based movement.
The developers have full reign over their game, meaning they can manipulate movement to be just as deep as the last game, without having to break atmospheric feel, since they're not constricted to an engine of another make.
well.. im all for skill based movement, actaully not many other games have tried that out. but really? by doing impossible mid air turns and somehow moving faster doing so? why not just make your sprint require some mousework similar to bhop or something else.. and focused wolf has a point. when i first started playing it felt so stupid when i shot a man sized beast (fade) right in the chest with a shotgun and it zipped off ina split second and gone... repeatedly doing that, it felt like aliens were impossible to kill. then as an alien it felt like marines were impossible to get near, those people who do a split second turn jump backwards etc shoot you.
See like that last thing, we could still keep the skill in that while making it a realistic thing, what if a marine does ad ive backwards but it really stuffs up his aim so its a all or nothing move? cos he'll have to get back. all with the press of a button but it still keeps the skill in by shifting it to both turning around diving backwards and making it harder to aim?
See in aliens vs predator the skill of being an alien is dealing with the movement system.. climbing up walls and navigating is one of the biggest skills and requirements of being an alien. not the actual killing(quite easy actually just the problem is getting close to a marine.) its actaully quite easy it will take half a second for you to close the gap between a marine just sprinting but in a straight line towards his feet you will die almost always, one of the factors is the marine kills you relatively quickly but its really hard to actually shoot an alien twisting his body and theres a slight recoil system where for the first second it will kick up abit then it will spread abit more after yo hold down the trigger but it wont keep kicking up after that too much.
Its so much fun in eg. veil to kill a few skulks, jump around the rails, maybe switch to another lying sg, jump on top the node, and when the lerk tries to get to you, turn around and bam, lerky down.
What is this whine about it being hard. Cmon, most console fighting games are a lot harder. Its never really what's "hard", but its really about having equally skilled teams not about game mechanics. Better players dominate, if not with their movement, then with their aim and gamesense.
I agree with the french man huhuh, movement is 1/3 of the game. New games have boring physics, please not NS2 aswell. Look even most sports are hard to learn. I've played tennis a lot, and at start its hard, but its worth it. Not to mention golf.
Anyway, I do think NS needs to more accessible and when it comes to games, tutorials work only to some extent, and best tutorials are the ones you dont read off the web but which you play through. I remember ns_training to be a very fun to go through.
I think having most features explained in the game is the way. but look at RTS games like Starcraft. You shouldn't have to read about the basics from some 3rd party website, but in any game with depth, you'll have to dig up some information from external sources to master the game and there's nothing wrong with that.
About FocusedWofl: I think he (or she) is a typical player who enjoys pubfests. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that NS is like a public resource and you have two very different philosophies how to play this game. To some extent, I think this is a zero-sum game. If you appeal to competitive with arcade like features, you lose new players and vice versa.
I don't know but maybe it'd be good idea to develop two different modes of NS2, to start with. If there was public and competitive mode, I couldn't care less if there're siege maps or whatnot in public if competitive mode would be awesome. Names could be something different and competitive shouldn't have to be limited to private servers. Altho this reminds me of combat which is fun warm-up, but I don't know if it was really a good idea, overall probably not. But before anyone gets to that, there should be a big reason for it.
I can also give you an economical analysis of this. Suppose there's a downward sloping demand curve. The demand curve is a function of price. The price means the "hardness" of the game. The harder it is, less there're players. A clever company sells different priced products for either different group of people (like student discount) to maximize profits (if you try to integrate the demand curve you get the point). Just like there's a special edition and normal edition of NS2.
Anyway, as ad infinitum, it really doesn't matter if there's a bhop or strafe jumping in the game, for the new players. Look anyone can tons of fun in Super Smash Bros Melee. There's wave dashing and all kinds of clever tricks that you have to look up from the web but it doesn't matter for the casual players, because if a casual player plays with another casual player (teams are even) neither will have a clue about this, but its still accessible for the more experienced. You just have to keep the basics easy to learn, hard to master and then you can still have lots of tricks for the veterans.
Take Starcraft as the example. You start playing starcraf with your friends when it's released, and you rush to scouts and builds ten of them and then attacks. Because scouts are air units and they counter zerglings and zealots and vultures and tanks which are ground attack only units. And you win. A week later, or two I dont know, some players start to understand that hey that's a pretty stupid idea, because I'll just take my zerglings or zealots and attack before the scouts are out. Or perhaps I'll build hydralisks or dragoons instead which attack air. And you lose. Or do you? No, because you still play with your friends who havent figured this out.
Ten years later starcraft is still as easy to pick up as it was before, but all your friends have now played for years so the only way to get into it and have fun is to look up the wiki on teamliquid.net and learn to play the game theoretically while practicing.
How well a game plays causually and competitively and whether or not those are mutually exclusive has very very little to do with either how 'difficult' the game seems to be to start with or what philosophy the game designers had when they created the game.
Hell one of the most difficult to learn games in the entire world, Go, is just placing black and white stones on a board to capture the opponents stones. And now three thousand years later it's still nowhere near optimized while still requiring ten plus years of it being your full time profession before you can compete with the best.
To apply this to the whole bunnyhopping or air movement issue - if you include this then in effect you are building 'maturity' into the game. Those who have played the genre before will have an advantage over those who haven't, the same way some considered the inclusion of mouse look being a barrier to new players when quake came out. Whether this is a problem or not doesn't matter for this post, just keep in mind that it's still only a case of whether your friends or playmates have had as much or more practice than you have.
Yeah it is now, but it wasn't during the first two weeks after Starcraft release. Then most players had zero experience with rts games, and most who did (Warcraft 2 players) played on their own multiplayer network.
Compare this to starcraft 2, which I'd consider being a prime example of a game with built-in 'maturity', where most if not all beta players have former experiences of rts games and how far the meta game has come already after just over two weeks.
On NS2, I'm pretty sure there will be FAR more beginning players in NS 2 than in NS 1 that will come to the game with the knowledge of how to do cool fps-game related stuff. In that sense NS 2 is already partially matured. I'm not entirely sure why movement can't be treated the same way.
Comments
You're mixing up strafejumping and bhopping/air curve
Strafejumping only requires you to hold forward and the direction you're moving your mouse while landing a jump. It's quite a bit more logical than the bunnyhop. Not in any way perfect or even completely reasonable, but it's far better than the present system. If necessary, it probably could be explained as a natural 'gallop' movement that skulks use to gain speed. With some proper animations it could look relatively natural and intentional, I think.
As for the air curve I don't know. The mechanic can be explained easily and practising gets pretty natural after 5 minutes, but the physic itself isn't anything from this world. Still, I can't even picture a melee vs ranged FPS without some kind of air curving. Tremulous is probably the most serious attempt of that and its fights were a mess if anything.
Really, it's not that hard. Just tell people how the game works. Yes, it might not make perfect sense, but in multiplayer gameplay trumps atmosphere.
dont know bout you guys, but its quite stupid to stand in its trails while its boiler is at full pressure ;)
The developers have full reign over their game, meaning they can manipulate movement to be just as deep as the last game, without having to break atmospheric feel, since they're not constricted to an engine of another make.
See like that last thing, we could still keep the skill in that while making it a realistic thing, what if a marine does ad ive backwards but it really stuffs up his aim so its a all or nothing move? cos he'll have to get back. all with the press of a button but it still keeps the skill in by shifting it to both turning around diving backwards and making it harder to aim?
See in aliens vs predator the skill of being an alien is dealing with the movement system.. climbing up walls and navigating is one of the biggest skills and requirements of being an alien. not the actual killing(quite easy actually just the problem is getting close to a marine.) its actaully quite easy it will take half a second for you to close the gap between a marine just sprinting but in a straight line towards his feet you will die almost always, one of the factors is the marine kills you relatively quickly but its really hard to actually shoot an alien twisting his body and theres a slight recoil system where for the first second it will kick up abit then it will spread abit more after yo hold down the trigger but it wont keep kicking up after that too much.
What is this whine about it being hard. Cmon, most console fighting games are a lot harder. Its never really what's "hard", but its really about having equally skilled teams not about game mechanics. Better players dominate, if not with their movement, then with their aim and gamesense.
I agree with the french man huhuh, movement is 1/3 of the game. New games have boring physics, please not NS2 aswell. Look even most sports are hard to learn. I've played tennis a lot, and at start its hard, but its worth it. Not to mention golf.
Anyway, I do think NS needs to more accessible and when it comes to games, tutorials work only to some extent, and best tutorials are the ones you dont read off the web but which you play through. I remember ns_training to be a very fun to go through.
I think having most features explained in the game is the way. but look at RTS games like Starcraft. You shouldn't have to read about the basics from some 3rd party website, but in any game with depth, you'll have to dig up some information from external sources to master the game and there's nothing wrong with that.
About FocusedWofl: I think he (or she) is a typical player who enjoys pubfests. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that NS is like a public resource and you have two very different philosophies how to play this game. To some extent, I think this is a zero-sum game. If you appeal to competitive with arcade like features, you lose new players and vice versa.
I don't know but maybe it'd be good idea to develop two different modes of NS2, to start with. If there was public and competitive mode, I couldn't care less if there're siege maps or whatnot in public if competitive mode would be awesome. Names could be something different and competitive shouldn't have to be limited to private servers. Altho this reminds me of combat which is fun warm-up, but I don't know if it was really a good idea, overall probably not. But before anyone gets to that, there should be a big reason for it.
I can also give you an economical analysis of this. Suppose there's a downward sloping demand curve. The demand curve is a function of price. The price means the "hardness" of the game. The harder it is, less there're players. A clever company sells different priced products for either different group of people (like student discount) to maximize profits (if you try to integrate the demand curve you get the point). Just like there's a special edition and normal edition of NS2.
Anyway, as ad infinitum, it really doesn't matter if there's a bhop or strafe jumping in the game, for the new players. Look anyone can tons of fun in Super Smash Bros Melee. There's wave dashing and all kinds of clever tricks that you have to look up from the web but it doesn't matter for the casual players, because if a casual player plays with another casual player (teams are even) neither will have a clue about this, but its still accessible for the more experienced. You just have to keep the basics easy to learn, hard to master and then you can still have lots of tricks for the veterans.
Take Starcraft as the example. You start playing starcraf with your friends when it's released, and you rush to scouts and builds ten of them and then attacks. Because scouts are air units and they counter zerglings and zealots and vultures and tanks which are ground attack only units. And you win. A week later, or two I dont know, some players start to understand that hey that's a pretty stupid idea, because I'll just take my zerglings or zealots and attack before the scouts are out. Or perhaps I'll build hydralisks or dragoons instead which attack air. And you lose. Or do you? No, because you still play with your friends who havent figured this out.
Ten years later starcraft is still as easy to pick up as it was before, but all your friends have now played for years so the only way to get into it and have fun is to look up the wiki on teamliquid.net and learn to play the game theoretically while practicing.
How well a game plays causually and competitively and whether or not those are mutually exclusive has very very little to do with either how 'difficult' the game seems to be to start with or what philosophy the game designers had when they created the game.
Hell one of the most difficult to learn games in the entire world, Go, is just placing black and white stones on a board to capture the opponents stones. And now three thousand years later it's still nowhere near optimized while still requiring ten plus years of it being your full time profession before you can compete with the best.
To apply this to the whole bunnyhopping or air movement issue - if you include this then in effect you are building 'maturity' into the game. Those who have played the genre before will have an advantage over those who haven't, the same way some considered the inclusion of mouse look being a barrier to new players when quake came out. Whether this is a problem or not doesn't matter for this post, just keep in mind that it's still only a case of whether your friends or playmates have had as much or more practice than you have.
Compare this to starcraft 2, which I'd consider being a prime example of a game with built-in 'maturity', where most if not all beta players have former experiences of rts games and how far the meta game has come already after just over two weeks.
On NS2, I'm pretty sure there will be FAR more beginning players in NS 2 than in NS 1 that will come to the game with the knowledge of how to do cool fps-game related stuff. In that sense NS 2 is already partially matured. I'm not entirely sure why movement can't be treated the same way.