Saber system suggestions

[JRHockney*]

They slowed down the transition speed for the waist rotation? And that's something you guys would like? It's doable I think.

 

yeah I would like that done as well, although the superbreak needs attention first.

 

While we are sort of talking about MB2 features, I have an idea for how we might add the MB2 saber melee (slap) and make it fair and hard to spam. It would be used in two different fashions:

 

1. It would be the alt attack when your just standing still and it would only knock people down when the opponent is swing and is VERY close (like touching). If the opponent is not in both of these situtions, they would just get knocked back a tiny bit and any swing would get canceled if it hasnt hit you yet. In slap, you would be as vulnerable as kick. This way of adding this would also help prevent those really close and almost unparryable hits (borderline lightning strikes) from happening. If the opponent is in a slowbounce, he can block them the same way, or perhaps differently then a kick (one of my old idea was to be able to autoblock it if the dont press anything, but not block it if they hold crouch, so it would be backwards from how the kick is blocked). Oh yeah, and the bots are should only attempt superbreak 1/3 of the time.

 

2. If you try to superbreak a person who isnt in the DP red zone, They automatically do a the slap on you and put you into a mishap. What mishap do you guys think would be most appropriate?

 

Also I was wondering if it is possible to make a feature where if two different sabers hit you, all hits against you only do 2/3 of there normal damage for about 5 or 10 seconds. This would help in a two on one situation. i doubt this is possible given what I know about the code, but I need an experts opinion.

 

Finally, I want to see what the community has to say about this. The random saberlocks still exist in the game; however, the just like the attack fake saberlocks where you cant fight them. They are won basically by whoever swung first. I'm not entirely sure this is a good idea, but what does everybody think?

[Sushi_CW]

I like the random saberlocks. Who wins is more or less based on random chance, slightly affected by who started pushing in the right direction first. Even though they're random, I like them better than the attack-fake saberlocks.

 

As far as 2v1 where 2 sabers hit at once, I would actually lean in the opposite direction: why not make it so that the defender is forced to dodge if two sabers hit him at once from different directions? Tougher for the single duelist, but more realistic and intuitive, especially visually. It's a pet peeve of mine (and of many new players) that the player is able to magically block in all directions simultaneously. Even if the sum cost of the block+dodge was the same as the cost of two blocks, the visual effect would be a lot more satisfying.

[JRHockney*]

I like the random saberlocks. Who wins is more or less based on random chance, slightly affected by who started pushing in the right direction first. Even though they're random, I like them better than the attack-fake saberlocks.

 

I don't know. Having a random event (which is automatic without pushing anything now) that is decided by who swings first that can decide the outcome of a fight is a very dangerous thing to have in a sabersystem that your trying to make based on skill. If I was a new player and lost because of some random saberlock that someone swing spammed to start, I not sure I'd even want to play this system anymore. I would much rather this system to be based 100% in skill, and leave luck out of the equation. I dont want to have things I can blame losing a fight on. If we do keep the random this way, I would prefer it be just visual effect that cant do damage.

 

The attack fake lock is mainly just to make fighting more movie realistic visually since there are alot of quick locks in the movies, and to create a the possiblity of finishing moves. The fact that the superbreak is badly bugged atm doesnt mean the whole thing is a bad idea, it just means that its a very new feature that is still being worked on.

 

As far as 2v1 where 2 sabers hit at once, I would actually lean in the opposite direction: why not make it so that the defender is forced to dodge if two sabers hit him at once from different directions? Tougher for the single duelist, but more realistic and intuitive, especially visually. It's a pet peeve of mine (and of many new players) that the player is able to magically block in all directions simultaneously. Even if the sum cost of the block+dodge was the same as the cost of two blocks, the visual effect would be a lot more satisfying.

 

Perhaps at the same time would be more realistic to dodge, but isnt two on one hard enough already in this system? This could potentially make it near impossible to win against two people, depending on how "at once" you mean. The person facing two people should have some advantage, or he wont stand a chance. Heck, I use to take on 2 people in MB2 all the time and often win. Here, because of the way our system is set up, its ALOT harder.

[razorace]

well, we could have the alt + direction control system work for the random locks and only have the auto-win apply to the attack fake saberlocks.

[Maxstate]

Don't let teh system get too random now ya hear =)

[UDM]

tbh I'm not so fond of superbreaks because they are exploitable. Just hold down attack button all the time during saber lock and you'll insta-kill the guy. Even with a low DP, manually fighting could still bring the potential loser up again, but with a low DP, all I have to do is to alt fake attack and super break and he's a confirmed goner. Hocks suggested that any attempts to superbreak when the enemy has high DP will cause me to get thrown on to the floor instead, but now the problem is, that really reduces the incentive to saberlock. Why would I risk getting myself knocked back when I can do more damage to him using manual fighting?

 

Instead, I think all who lose the saber lock should just be thrown on to the floor

 

To do this, saberlocks could dependent entirely on the mishap. Thus, one would need a high mishap to be pushed down. It could work as such: the mishap system could be split into 3 segments. At the lower segment, any attempts to alt fake attack will not cause a lock. At the mid segment, there's a 30% chance. At the upper segment, any attack fake will cause a saber lock for sure. I think the saber lock should then push the person down. This is so that his mishap system will then reset, so the enemy doesnt quickly go in for another saber lock again. This system of saberlocking imho also encourages people not to get their mishap too high. ATM any mishap that is slightly above mid level is still relatively harmless, so they'd need to be more cautious about keeping it lower

 

On the sidenote, I feel that having players fully resetting their mishap meter upon falling down is not a good idea. It encourages too much complacency ie. oh I just have to fall down and roll away. It could even be exploited by players who dont want to spend too much time getting their mishap down through parrying. Instead, why not let the mishap system just go down a slight bit, enough to give players with a super high mishap the leeway to carry on fighting, but not enough to totally become an exploit on its own

[JRHockney*]

tbh I'm not so fond of superbreaks because they are exploitable. Just hold down attack button all the time during saber lock and you'll insta-kill the guy. Even with a low DP, manually fighting could still bring the potential loser up again, but with a low DP, all I have to do is to alt fake attack and super break and he's a confirmed goner. Hocks suggested that any attempts to superbreak when the enemy has high DP will cause me to get thrown on to the floor instead, but now the problem is, that really reduces the incentive to saberlock. Why would I risk getting myself knocked back when I can do more damage to him using manual fighting?

 

Ok, let me clear a few things up here. The superbreaks are only exploitable because they are bugged and they are only one of two options that have to do with the attack fake saberlock. They are only suppose to work when your opponent is low on DP, but sadly this isnt the case at the moment. There are several ways to cheat with it. I think my "knockdown when opponents not low on DP idea" is plenty fair since its really not that hard to tell when they are low on DP (and it will make sense if the opponent does the MB2 slap anim like I described before). If they get even slightly HPed, you know there vulnerable. Also, if the first part of my idea to add MB2 slap is in there, low DP people will have another defense aside from parrying since it would be alot easier to hit a person in an attack fake with the slap.[/end shameless idea promotion]

 

To do this, saberlocks could dependent entirely on the mishap. Thus, one would need a high mishap to be pushed down.

 

Thats the other option! LOL..Well, kind of. Yeah, if you dont hold attack, your saberlock effects are based entirely on your opponents Mishap bar and it works very similar to how you just described, except unless there mishap bar is above 90% they wont get knocked down.

 

On the sidenote, I feel that having players fully resetting their mishap meter upon falling down is not a good idea. It encourages too much complacency ie. oh I just have to fall down and roll away. It could even be exploited by players who dont want to spend too much time getting their mishap down through parrying. Instead, why not let the mishap system just go down a slight bit, enough to give players with a super high mishap the leeway to carry on fighting, but not enough to totally become an exploit on its own

 

I agree, although I think it should be reset halfway or back down to a third. If it was just a little bit, it would be too hard to get back down from it for most people.

 

well, we could have the alt + direction control system work for the random locks and only have the auto-win apply to the attack fake saberlocks.

 

That would be preferable over the random one for me at least, although its randomness still frustrates me a bit. At least it would be fightable. I'm starting to see why the original JKA coders made the old saberlocks "spaz tap" based. Too bad they didnt code it very well. I know that keshire had plans to make distance based random saberlocks that dont do anything but look pretty and space out the players a bit, but Im not certain if that would work here or not.

[UDM]

That actually gave me an idea. What about having the saber lock winner execute a kick animation, and the loser flipping backwards? Then it would be entirely for visual purposes. Alt attack fake will inflict more dp damage like it does now. Thus, saber locks are actually just purely visual, to show that the enemy was unable to block your alt attack fake

[JRHockney*]

That actually gave me an idea. What about having the saber lock winner execute a kick animation, and the loser flipping backwards? Then it would be entirely for visual purposes. Alt attack fake will inflict more dp damage like it does now. Thus, saber locks are actually just purely visual, to show that the enemy was unable to block your alt attack fake

 

hmm, I'm not sure it that would be good for the normal attack fakes just because the saberlocks themselves are already added and enlongate the attack fake. If we added this, that might make the attack fakes a little too long and make the animation seem a bit redundant.

 

However, for the random locks, thats not a bad idea. If the random locks are just visual, that might add to it and it wouldnt really matter who wins. Thus, we could just keep the random lock the way they are with that exception. Also, the random locks are fairly rare, so an enlongated animation would be a interesting visual addition. It would also show the defender whether or not it was a random lock or attack fake.

[JRHockney*]

I just had an interesting idea that is a bit extreme, but it could potentially improve the look of Enhanced combat greatly. Basically, it would work like this:

 

Within a certain proximity to your opponent with your saber out, you can't strafe while walking. This way, up close the fights would be very movie realistic with more solid and less side to side movement, but you could still circle them at a distance.

 

There are a few potential problems with this idea though. Lunge could become alot more spammable or even the yellow dfa with out being able to move side ways so we may have to increase the penalties for parrying those, like maybe making parrying them cause a heavy bounce or something. Or maybe we could make a requirement that you have to run for a half second before you can use those. That would at least give the defender a chance to prepare with a forward parry or maybe a running strafe.

 

I guess the other downside is that it would be a pain to get use to for all of us, but it could potentially help the look of the combat greatly.

[UDM]

Wow ouch that is extreme. It'd also cause a lot of exploits too, like fighting on a bridge and stuff like that. Naw hocks, I'm very against this idea

[JRHockney*]

Wow ouch that is extreme. It'd also cause a lot of exploits too, like fighting on a bridge and stuff like that. Naw hocks, I'm very against this idea

 

Yeah you might be right. Although It would be nice to somehow cut back on the side to side movement without lessoning parrying. Any ideas.

 

I did just have another idea. What if we made a key that stopped or slowed down all side to side and forward and back movement, but allowed for all parries and all swings while held down? The trade off would be for a lesser cost of parrying (Maybe /4 rather than /3) while in it. This would allow players to have standing toe to toe fights without moving like on the lava boat when Obi and Anakin fought.

[UDM]

Nah I'm still against it, sorry man. I think the system is already complex enough as it is. Having said feature would be overkill. IMHO the final main feature that should be added in, if razor ever considers it, is the keypad combat. Other than that...I think it's just unnecessarily bloating up the game

[Maxstate]

Hockney's idea is good, but some people prefer freedom to move, jump and dodge over steady toe to toe combat. I'll fully support your idea if it was cvar/toggle-able Hocks

[UDM]

Hmm maybe it'll be better if it's just an option with no added benefits. Something like keypad attacks

[razorace]

I just watched the highlights of Episode 3 and I gathered the following thoughts:

* Most kicks seem to result in stumbles instead of pure knockdowns. Maybe successful kicks should result in stun mishaps rather than full knockdowns. We could make a major change and make stuns a melee only mishap, and boost kick by allowing mid-kick saber blocks. Therefore turning the melee moves into a more valuable tool as a rythm reverser and great tool in 2-on-1 situation.

* As for knockdowns, all the characters in the movie never recover from a knockdown quickly unless someone is directly attacking them. As such, I think we really need to increase the amount of time that a player has to lay on the ground before recovering. Granted, this will make knockdowns more powerful, but on the other hand, I think the full mishaps need to be bulked up anyway.

 

On other topics, me and Hocky have been debating how to make differences between the various saber styles. One major issue seems to be the question of weither or not we should use the basic DP cost for saber blocking as a variable. We do already use variable base DP damage for different styles, but on the other hand, using different base amounts could prove to be too complicated for players. What do you guys think?

[UDM]

I agree with mishaps, atm there's no point in keeping it low since I can just fall down and quickly jump up again

 

As for saber styles, I still think the animations have to be different in some way. I know that it could be unstable online, but at the moment, Tavion's is almost similar to Blue's, and Red and Desann are very similar to Yellow. Besides, I think Tavion's style is very weak right now

 

On the note of changing the DP, I think it should be left as is. You're right, changing DP amounts will overcomplicate things. I suggest we work on saber speeds and DP damage etc

 

Btw razor is the code for the main menu done?

[razorace]

Should we maybe standardize the DP damage costs as well then? They seem to make a bigger difference than we planned.

 

As for saber styles, I still think the animations have to be different in some way. I know that it could be unstable online, but at the moment, Tavion's is almost similar to Blue's, and Red and Desann are very similar to Yellow. Besides, I think Tavion's style is very weak right now.

The difference is mainly how many hands the player has on their saber while attacking. I know it's subtle, but it's pretty obvious to the experienced players.

[Maxstate]

I want the pull-stab and pull-slash move back, done by pulling an enemy and pressing attack right after. Could prove useful for many things.

[Sushi_CW]

Those would definitely make ideal finishing moves, usable only on severely weakened targets. It would be pretty annoying to get a clean stab on someone and NOT kill them.

[JRHockney*]

I have a bug report to post:

 

Max and I were doing at Jasks server and he noticed that when he attacked my yellow DFA when I hit the ground with an attack fake, he lost a ton of DP. I tried the same thing and the same thing happened to me. Max said that this is also a bug in MB2 were if you do the same thing with any power move against a yellow dfa.

 

Then he mentioned that there is a similar bug for hitting the roll stabs with any swing. We tested that and occationally, the same thing happened. Another important one for the To Do List:

[razorace]

mmm, you're going to have to show that one to me.

[Sushi_CW]

I just played the latest CVS version, and I'm impressed. It looks like most of the nasty bugs have been fixed. Good work Razor!

 

The auto-saberlock thing has gotten much nicer, I like it much better now. I'm still slightly bugged by the way it breaks up the animation (a swing from one direction sometimes suddenly becomes a saberlock from the other) but other than that it's looking very good.

 

That said, I still like the game better with the mishap bar tweaks I made. The version I have with those tweaks merged with the latest CVS is, IMHO, a total blast to play.

[razorace]

Try talking to me on IM sometime. Hocky's got his personal settings as well. We can tinker with them ingame.

[Sushi_CW]

For anyone who cares, a fresh version of my experimental pk3 is available at http://students.cs.byu.edu/~sushi/ojp_enhanceddlls_009sushi.pk3

 

Enjoy.