Saber system suggestions

[razorace]

Hmm, this might be a good idea. Unasnwered comboing leading to mishaps would probably give the game more depth. Although we have to be very careful about how we implement this because it can easilly lead to "over priming." We might want to restrict the number of primers that can be done in a row and make it so that causing a mishap requires at least two normal swings in conjunction with the primers in a single combo. Keep thinking about it, we might be on to something here.

I don't think it would make sense to restrict the number of moves you can do in a row. I'll keep thinking about the concept.

 

Quick suggestion: I noticed that conversions dont seem to be used very much because theyre hard to do, you can use force powers or kick instead, and they don't offer that much benefit compared to just quickly blasting them with lightning. The thing is, theyre such a cool thing to do!! I would recomment making their benefit greater by making the mishap they cause be only a Disarming Knockdown. This way, it will take the victim longer to recover getting up and getting his saebr and maybe this would make it worth it.

I think the conversions sometimes happen without players realising. I'm a bit worried that boosting the power of the conversions will just make them overused and too powerful.

[JRHockney*]

I think the conversions sometimes happen without players realising. I'm a bit worried that boosting the power of the conversions will just make them overused and too powerful.

 

Well, at the moment, they are very hard to do right and they don't offer as much of a benefit that they should have to warrant using them over force powers of kick in that situation. Besides, a knockdown disarm is not the end of the world, just takes a bit longer to recover. As rare as the heavy bounces even happen in a real fight, I find its' less practical to even try and hit the saber over hitting them or using a quick lightning blast. This might give me and other players a bit more incentive to try and use them.

[Grey Raven]

Not absolutely sure if this is pertenant, but would putting manual-blocking in be possible? I admit, I've been playing alot of MBII lately, but I greatly prefer its blocking system to OJP. Just as a suggestion, manual-blocking could simply serve as a back-up system to auto-blocking. If your skilled enough to be able to manually parry your opponents attack, I think it would only be reasonable to allow those players to do it, and NOT have it drain DP, since they would be "relying" on the Force. It would still be difficult enough to do, so there shouldn't be a high probability of spamming. I can't speak for others, but this jedi would surely appreciate just a little more control over his saber.

 

Again, if manual-blocking is available in OJP, I'm sorry for the rant. But if it is, could someone fill me in on how to do it?

[Grey Raven]

6. View switching

This is a minor annoyance. If you are in 3rd person view with guns and switch to saber, it puts you in 1st person saber mode. Wouldn't it be better if it left you in 3rd person saber mode?

 

If I understand what you're asking for. cg_trueinvertsaber is all that's been done. What you're asking for would be uneven in terms of how the interface works. IE, it wouldn't make sense to preserve the view setting from guns->saber but not vis-versa.

 

I noticed this too. It seems that when Trueview is active, and you're in first-person with your saber, switcher to a blaster puts you in third person. Inversely, when Trueview is not active, and you're in third-person with your saber, switching to a blaster puts you in first-person mode. Is there any way to make the first- and third-person views consistent for all the weapons? If you've lost my meaning, make Trueview put you in first person for every weapon, saber included, and make deactivating Trueview put you back to default where the saber is third-person and the gun perspectives are toggleable?

[JRHockney*]

Not absolutely sure if this is pertenant, but would putting manual-blocking in be possible? I admit, I've been playing alot of MBII lately, but I greatly prefer its blocking system to OJP. Just as a suggestion, manual-blocking could simply serve as a back-up system to auto-blocking. If your skilled enough to be able to manually parry your opponents attack, I think it would only be reasonable to allow those players to do it, and NOT have it drain DP, since they would be "relying" on the Force. It would still be difficult enough to do, so there shouldn't be a high probability of spamming. I can't speak for others, but this jedi would surely appreciate just a little more control over his saber.

 

Again, if manual-blocking is available in OJP, I'm sorry for the rant. But if it is, could someone fill me in on how to do it?

 

No there is no manual blocking in ojp. Razor got rid of it along time ago because the block button was spammed too much or something like that (he'll explain it better). Parrying is the closest thing to manual blocking in OJP enhanced.

 

MB2 is very different in its combat dynamics and it all about very careful swings, positioning, hitting eachother in the back, and, sadly, bug exploits. The advantage of having it the way. OJP is alot more about faster, and more intense combat with more frequent swings, toe-to-toe tactics and a good eye. Adding a manual block button would slow things down too much in he swing/blocking department and make it less movie realistic. If one were to be added, it would have to avoid this to be considered.

 

So many have searched for God, truth, and the meaning of life. The truth is that life doesn't require meaning and God is reading this quote right now.

 

And stop calling me God! LOL!

[Sushi_CW]

I like the Jon's idea about making attack fakes parryable but causing a slowbounce on successful hit. I very, very rarely counter an attack fake with a normal swing on purpose. It happens on accident all the time though. Usually, I can't tell if it was an attack fake or not until it hits me. So, for the sake of avoiding frustration if nothing else, attack fakes should be defendable in the same way as normal swings.

 

Side question: Can normal swings be stopped/parried by hitting the saber like attack fakes can?

 

I agree with Razor that conversions work fine how they are- a feature that's a bit rare and hard to use, but fun and effective when it does work. The fact that it happens mostly on accident, IMO, is a bonus.

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of a "primer" swing. It would be hard to control once lag got in the mix, and you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you or your opponent were doing them right or not. However, I do think the idea of certain combos doing special things could be interesting... you could just use normal swings instead of creating a new "primer" swing. You could have a selection of interesting combos that would create a powerful attack, but any combo could be broken by a parry. I imagine most of them would be best simple: something like four successful overhead hits in a row causing a knockdown or three comboed hits in a row followed by a powerfake would make the powerfake unparryable. Or whatever. I LIKE having only a couple of basic attacks and defenses, but making it possible to combine them into more interesting things has potential.

 

And I still think that some of the special moves should do more interesting things, like I mentioned before with making the rollstab unblockable from the back. I don't think this would create any problems, and I don't see it being spammable except as a way to backstab people...which SHOULD be very dangerous if you can pull it off. Visually, it's very annoying to do a rollstab or a lunge into someone facing the opposite direction and have your saber mysteriously deflected by absolutely nothing. The fabled "keshire animations" might help with that though. We'll see.

 

Finally, just say no to manual block! The attack parry should serve this need just fine, and in practice works similarly to the MB2 manual block. You have to block in the right direction by hitting attack at just the right time before the hit lands. The nice thing is that unlike MB2, you don't have to have your right button constantly being pressed.

[razorace]

I like the Jon's idea about making attack fakes parryable but causing a slowbounce on successful hit. I very, very rarely counter an attack fake with a normal swing on purpose.

mmm, the problem is that this puts us back in a position where parry shields are NOT breakable and makes the attack fakes practically useless...again.

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of a "primer" swing. It would be hard to control once lag got in the mix, and you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you or your opponent were doing them right or not. However, I do think the idea of certain combos doing special things could be interesting... you could just use normal swings instead of creating a new "primer" swing.

Primer attacks would basically BE normal attacks, just launched with different button(s) and intended as a saber-on-saber attack rather than one intended to kill. My current line of thinking is that primer attacks are basically the "standard" attack that most jedi use in saber battles.

 

IE, the attacks are very quick and are more intended to maintain attacks since their attack wouldn't hit their opponent even if the opponent didn't block the swing. In game terms, primer attacks would automatically combo after impacts (something that the current swings don't do), but they would do less DP damage and cost NO FP.

 

As for combos causing mishaps, I want to make it clear that I don't believe in static combos setups. It's just not realistic or conductive to dynamic, free-flowing battles. See any arcade fighter to get my drift.

 

Any sort of mishap/attack system would have to be dynamic in nature to have it be acceptable in my eyes.

[razorace]

Maybe "heavy" attacks shouldn't be affected by normal parries and primer attack shouldn't be affected by the attack parries?

[JRHockney*]

mmm, the problem is that this puts us back in a position where parry shields are NOT breakable and makes the attack fakes practically useless...again.

 

Useless?! If an attack fake hits without being parried, it would cause a slowbounce on the person hit. I wouldn't call that useless, it would just make choosing the right fake to hit angle more important and actualy make it fake the way it was originally intended. if you want, you could make it so parrying it doesnt cause a slow bounce, but reduce the hit power. It could stillnot be blockable when low on DP too.

 

I'm not sure I like the idea of a "primer" swing. It would be hard to control once lag got in the mix, and you probably wouldn't even be able to tell if you or your opponent were doing them right or not. However, I do think the idea of certain combos doing special things could be interesting... you could just use normal swings instead of creating a new "primer" swing. You could have a selection of interesting combos that would create a powerful attack, but any combo could be broken by a parry. I imagine most of them would be best simple: something like four successful overhead hits in a row causing a knockdown or three comboed hits in a row followed by a powerfake would make the powerfake unparryable. Or whatever. I LIKE having only a couple of basic attacks and defenses, but making it possible to combine them into more interesting things has potential.

 

Well, the point of the primer attack that I originally intened was to make it replace the attack fake as the "break through a parry" move and have it set up combos. I think the idea would work fine this way if done right.

 

Maybe "heavy" attacks shouldn't be affected by normal parries and primer attack shouldn't be affected by the attack parries?

 

Hmm, thats a little backwards from what I was thinking, but it might work. It would mean that people would have to learn how to do attack parries really well though.

[Sushi_CW]

So, if I understand right, the primer attack would be unparryable, do less damage, and automatically combo. I'm openminded about the idea, but definitely not convinced at this point... I don't really see the need, I guess. So primer attacks would be the normal attack and normal attacks would be heavy attacks?

 

While we're suggesting alternative attacks, how about a "power" attack with a long windup(maybe as long as a second) and faster swing that is unparryable and does double damage? The defending player would be able to counter it by swinging at the attacker, forcing him into a block or bounce and breaking the power attack animation. However, the power attack would be start-fakeable, much like normal attacks are start fakeable, and any time during the windup the attacker could cancel the attack. The windup would be long enough that the defender has time to see it and launch an attack to stop it if he dares to do so... after all, the attacker might be faking it.

 

I guess I'm not in favor of a new "light" attack, because I think the current normal attack serves that role just fine- easy to combo and hard to kill with. I am, however, in favor of a new heavy attack that can break parries. I don't like the idea of powerfakes being that attack, since you often can't tell what it is until it's too late. A power attack that is obviously a power attack, fakeable but counterable, is better suited for the parry-breaking role IMO.

 

So, I'm thinking something like this:

1) normal attacks as-is. Start-fakeable.

2) Powerfakes as-is, but parryable. Activated with left click, followed by right click partway into swing.

3) Power attacks as described above. Activated with simultaneous left and right click. Start-fakeable.

 

And Razor, you're right that static combos are bad for realism. I'd prefer to do without them as well, but I'm open to the idea that they could work in some situations... they are, after all, a proven and effective device.

[JRHockney*]

3) Power attacks as described above. Activated with simultaneous left and right click. Start-fakeable.

 

These power attacks better be much, MUCH slower than a normal swing and very obvious otherwise they will be spammed to death. I mean, think about it, a double damage swing thats faster than an attack fake and unparryable? A second long would probably work as you suggested.

 

While it would work in theory, I'm not sure that I would prefer this idea over a weaker primer swing thats unparryable and sets up combos because a powerswing just sounds too much like a less fancy base JKA kata. I would rather promote the fast back and forth action that we've been shooting for with such a combo starter technique as the primer move than something that takes a second to swing and will most likely result in people backing up to start it and moving in to hit. The attack fake is already like that and kind of makes creates a joisting like part of the gameplay, so I don't think we need another one... yet.

[razorace]

Right, I think of a lot of this is just a matter of wording.

 

While I like the idea of a "power" swing, just I don't think it's realistic. The lightsaber is a very light object so there's no need to build up momentum with a slow, heavy windup.

 

As such, I think the difference is more about the intent of the attack. Some strikes are about "attacking" the opponents saber to prevent him from attacking and create/probe holes in his defense. The other kind of attack is meant to kill/damage the opponents body.

 

In my train of thought, the primer/normal strikes would be modeled after this basic concept. With that in mind, mishaps would be based around causing a imbalance in the defender (or maybe the attacker) by rapidly striking with one type of attack and then suddenly switching things up with the other attack type. MMm, maybe the mishaps should be caused by imbalance on the attacker's side...that would probably be consistant with the movies since most mishaps are caused by the defender doing something to the attacker. I'm still musing on how this would work so I'm open to suggestions.

 

My motivation here is to remove DP levels as the controlling attribute behind mishaps. Right now, I think it's a disruption to have the defender be afraid to attack simply because his DP is low.

 

Hmm, thats a little backwards from what I was thinking, but it might work. It would mean that people would have to learn how to do attack parries really well though.

Perhaps parrying of the wrong "type" would just reduce the DP costs instead of causing a slow bounce? Hopefully that would remove the need for a "parry breaker" in the first place?

[JRHockney*]

Well, my worry is that with only one switch in attacks causeing mishaps, is that mishaps will happen TOO often. I think their should be at least two unanswered switches to cause a mishap in the defender. Maybe the primer swing could also be used to defend against normal attacks by hitting the enemy's air born saber and this would cause a slowbounce in the attacker (or maybe this should be reserved for that disarm move using the saberlock anim). I don't know. I just want to make sure that causing a mishap is well earned and does not take away from the back and forth combat.

 

Perhaps parrying of the wrong "type" would just reduce the DP costs instead of causing a slow bounce? Hopefully that would remove the need for a "parry breaker" in the first place?

 

Hmm, I'm not sure. My worry here is that whatever requires the attack parry will just give over used because attack parries are harder to pull off, which might be ok since its a normal swing in this case so greater damage can be done. Wince the normal swings will get heavy bounced, that might be a fair risk. We might have to give that a try.

 

Whenever we test this, we need to remember to fix the staff and dual so they are no longer a problem. I just noticed that dual seem to do a rediculus about of damage and I would like to recommend that each sabers hit point value gets dropped to 9 or 10.

 

Btw, I still like the idea of making hitting a heavy bounce cause a disarm and knockdown at the same time. Their just too hard to do without wanting to use forcepowers or kick instead.

[razorace]

I just want to make sure that causing a mishap is well earned and does not take away from the back and forth combat.

I agree. If we do this, mishaps would require multiple hits for this to occur. The speed at which the attack balance is disrupted would depend on the parry/attack match up and how many times the attacker used the same type of attack.

 

For example, lets say that the attacker is just constantly using primers and the defender has consistantly successfully blocked each attack. The defender then blocks the next attack with an attack parry and causes the attacker to mishap.

 

Hmm, I'm not sure. My worry here is that whatever requires the attack parry will just give over used because attack parries are harder to pull off, which might be ok since its a normal swing in this case so greater damage can be done. Wince the normal swings will get heavy bounced, that might be a fair risk. We might have to give that a try.

Maybe primers would cause slow bounces in normal attacks like you suggested?

[JRHockney*]

Maybe primers would cause slow bounces in normal attacks like you suggested?

 

Maybe, but for a primer to actually hit a normal attack in midair would be more of a fluke than anything because of the speed of the normal attack vs a primer and reaction time in general. It would be hard to use this as an adequate defense because of this factor. I'm also thinking ahead to the disarm move using the saberlock anim and this might be the best way to do it so I'm not sure I want to use this for something else.

 

Aonther worry about this is the fact that if your opponent hits you with a normal attack and your forced into a block, you may not be able to activate the start fake and parry in time to counter the next normal attack because of how long the block anim takes. Maybe with having the primer as an option and its faster bounce, we won't need the pause in the blocking anim to allow combos anymore.. or we should fix the attack parries so they can be pulled off more easily somehow.

 

I just thought of another possible situation for that disarm with saberlock anim move: If you see your opponent slowbounced, target his body rather than his saber with a primer and you both enter that anim. As stated in the past, your opponent will have until the end of the arc to press alt attack or something. The lower you opponents DP, the faster the arc.

[razorace]

I don't think the primer swings would be much different than the normals swings, so I don't think it will be much of a problem with them hitting each other.

 

Aonther worry about this is the fact that if your opponent hits you with a normal attack and your forced into a block, you may not be able to activate the start fake and parry in time to counter the next normal attack because of how long the block anim takes.

Point taken. Hopefully with the better comboing of the primer swings, we'll be able to reduce the hold time of the blocks.

I just thought of another possible situation for that disarm with saberlock anim move: If you see your opponent slowbounced, target his body rather than his saber with a primer and you both enter that anim. As stated in the past, your opponent will have until the end of the arc to press alt attack or something. The lower you opponents DP, the faster the arc.

Good idea.

[JRHockney*]

I don't think the primer swings would be much different than the normals swings, so I don't think it will be much of a problem with them hitting each other.

 

Well I sure they'll hit eachother from time to time anyways, but I'm not sure how purpose full it will be. It's already very hard to hit an attack fake on purpose, and normal swings are much faster. Anyways...

 

We're going to have to come up with a good time to work on this and test this before you can no longer access the code server. This primer idea is going to need alot of play testing before we actually make it apart of Enhanced.

[Sushi_CW]

I think it could be argued that the current system needs a lot more playtesting too. Any chance of putting out a new version of Enhanced with the latest updates before we try something totally new?

[JRHockney*]

I think it could be argued that the current system needs a lot more playtesting too. Any chance of putting out a new version of Enhanced with the latest updates before we try something totally new?

 

Hmm, I think we need to fix a few more things before a new version, such as the dual and staff abilities (both are practically unstoppable unless they run out of FP) and a few other things. With the amazing changes we made on the last version and because this much time has gone by since its release, I would prefer the next release to be the greatest and most balanced yet; which will take a little more work.

[Sushi_CW]

Agreed. I think a lot of the "trouble" with dual and staff is simply that they have two blades. That means twice as much saber-saber contact, intentional or unintentional.

 

Question: If the attacker's saber hits the defender's saber when the defender's saber is basically idle, what happens? Is the defender forced to block? If not, maybe he should be?

 

Thinking more about the DP regen delay... we should try something Jon was suggesting and see how things go if DP regen also pauses during block animations. It sounds like a good idea to me, and it would definitely help shorten fights. The current system is very good as it is and is getting better... the biggest problem IMO is that it takes so darn long to batter through someone's defenses. Pausing DP regen while blocking would help fix that.

[JRHockney*]

Agreed. I think a lot of the "trouble" with dual and staff is simply that they have two blades. That means twice as much saber-saber contact, intentional or unintentional.

 

The two blades hitting problem is much more a problem with dual than iut is with staff. Staff is still just too hard to break through its defense. I have already suggested some fixes to razor and they should help alot:

 

Duals per hit damage should be dropped from 12 to 9 or 10. That way it will still be the strongest when both blades hit but not overpowered.

 

Staff will no longer have the 75% hit damage, but it will gain the ability to lessen the damage of back hits or have no extra cost.

 

Quick idea: Since the back kick is never used, but it is used in the movies (by count dooku), maybe we should make it so it knocks people back really far (like it did do anakin in the ep3) and it cant be flip absorbed. We also might want to increase the damage of back hits just a bit if we add this.

 

Agreed. I think a lot of the "trouble" with dual and staff is simply that they have two blades. That means twice as much saber-saber contact, intentional or unintentional.

 

Question: If the attacker's saber hits the defender's saber when the defender's saber is basically idle, what happens? Is the defender forced to block? If not, maybe he should be?

 

To my knowledge, it goes into a block if the saber is hit when idle. I've never seen it happen otherwise.

 

Thinking more about the DP regen delay... we should try something Jon was suggesting and see how things go if DP regen also pauses during block animations. It sounds like a good idea to me, and it would definitely help shorten fights. The current system is very good as it is and is getting better... the biggest problem IMO is that it takes so darn long to batter through someone's defenses. Pausing DP regen while blocking would help fix that.

 

Might be a good idea.

[razorace]

FYI, staff sabers already have no extra cost for blocking back attacks.

 

Agreed. I think a lot of the "trouble" with dual and staff is simply that they have two blades. That means twice as much saber-saber contact, intentional or unintentional.

I also agree, I think that's why we're having so many problems balancing them.

 

Quick idea: Since the back kick is never used, but it is used in the movies (by count dooku), maybe we should make it so it knocks people back really far (like it did do anakin in the ep3) and it cant be flip absorbed. We also might want to increase the damage of back hits just a bit if we add this.

I'd rather not. I just see the JKO backstab abuse of the JKO era when I read this.

[JRHockney*]

I'd rather not. I just see the JKO backstab abuse of the JKO era when I read this.

 

I wasn't around for the back stab problems of JKO. Your probably right about abusing it if it knocks people back too far , but I'm not sure that making it not able to be kick absorbed is such a bad idea. It would help in two on one fights alot, but still be a risk. Maybe it should only work when their swinging?

[razorace]

mmm, not sure. Maybe we should do that for all kicks?

[Maxstate]

Finally a break from my busy schedule of being surrounded by exam books

 

I think kicks should be there to give the defender a short rest after a good beating, not enough to get his dp back fully but not enough to save him from death everytime he does it, think about that one

 

Also, instead of doing it the MB way and WEAKENING important and fun elements of gameplay, i suggest we take Duals, singles and staves and all give them their own perks and cons.

 

Staves for example should keep the extra dp drain, with a staff you can deliver good strong slashes equally with both sides. As a con, staff users should be extra vulnerable to kick in some way.

 

Duals have almost always worked like this; 1 saber is used for defense and the other one for offense. Following that rule, duals should lose the bigger dp drain (if thats possible) but dual users (being ambidextrous) shouldnt get bigger dp loss for back hits

 

Single sabers are fine the way they are IMHO, but an extra feat or 2 couldnt hurt now could it JKA has always put single sabers on a lower step of prestige than duals or staves, i never liked it and i still dont understand why.

Doesnt matter what we saw in the movies, i think if anyone can train his saber type and form well enough that he can be unbeatable, ignoring saber type. Dooku pwned anakin, who tried to use Duals. Obi annihilated maul, who used a staff. Exar Kun however Pwned with a capital P using his dual sabers, and Maul did kill one of the only Jedi that could´ve beaten Mace Windu in his early years; Qui gon Jinn. I think what Lucas was trying to say is that saber type doesnt matter, and i fully agree with him.

 

I dont know what should be added to singles, ill come back on that later.