razorace Posted November 27, 2003 Author Share Posted November 27, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted November 28, 2003 Author Share Posted November 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I'll enjoy watching the mass chaos when decision time rolls around. I got a nice stash of popcorn ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 I'll enjoy watching the mass chaos when decision time rolls around. I got a nice stash of popcorn ready. heh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRiot Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 * 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRiot Posted November 28, 2003 Share Posted November 28, 2003 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted November 29, 2003 Author Share Posted November 29, 2003 If you're interested in the Mouse Sabering system, I suggest you check out the Masters of the Force website. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRiot Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keshire Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 I'm just a clone of Bloodriot. Opinions and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vile Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 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 , 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
razorace Posted December 1, 2003 Author Share Posted December 1, 2003 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.