Saber blocking, manual, or automatic?

[Khier]

Well I'm used to automatic blocking, but if Raven decides to change it to manual, I can always adapt, it may take a little while to get used to after playing JO for some time, but like Silent_Thunder said it'll be like a second nature.

[Iodius]

I would definately say manual.

 

One of the things that irked me about JO was the fact that the saber fighting in SP (I never liked MP, hrmm) felt a bit detached. Sure I could use my force powers and swing pretty accurately, but I couldn't control half of the fight: that is reactional blocking, not automatic blocking.

 

It may slow saber fights down a bit, but they would be much more intense as one must trust ones own skill to win, and not a computers number crunching. I think it would make the game a tighter package, more well rounded and just more fun/enjoyable.

 

I won't be singin' the blues if automatic is left out: I see it as more of a stepping stone to better things, more precisely reactional blocking.

[toms]

the problem (from my very limited experience of JK2) was that the blocking animation was so short.... meaning you could block anything that flew at you.

 

in JK (which wasn't perfect either) at least the blocking animation took a few frames, so if you blocked a shot it took half a second before you could block another one. (making repeaters or multiple enemies more deadly).

 

I think the time taken to block should depend on the angle the shooter is away from straight ahead... so you could block almost anything from directly infronto of you, 20 degrees to the side and it takes a second or so, 90 degrees to the side and it takes 3 seconds or so.

Also each successive block should increase the time it takes to block... so if you keep blocking then it will eventually let people get through your attack... not blocking would allow the block speed to go back up... attacking would instantly reset the block speed (making block, attack, block a good way to go).

 

This would also increase the usefullness of the quicker saber styles as you could get through defences easier.

 

Another option would be to have a very narrow autoblock cone (45 degrees) and have a block button to increase this to about 270 degrees.

 

Sending shots back at enemies should definately reduce your force meter.

[boinga1]

auto- why? because it's easier for me, a not-very coordinated guy, and i'm almost out of keys to use on my keyboard

[Prime]

Originally posted by Matariel

If there were a hold button for 'defensive' mode, it would allow for better blocking and countering and make a much more exciting game.

 

I hate quick deaths in saber fights, since when have you known a jedi duel to last less that 10 seconds? Every duel in the movies lasts at least more than 5 minutes, and the hits are few and far between.

Why would this make for better blocking and countering? Having a block button would make for even quicker fights than we have now, because they would rely on people's slower reflexes to block. The auto-blocking is what makes JO saber fights take longer, not shorter.

 

Originally posted by toms

I think the time taken to block should depend on the angle the shooter is away from straight ahead... so you could block almost anything from directly in front of you, 20 degrees to the side and it takes a second or so, 90 degrees to the side and it takes 3 seconds or so.

I don't really agree with the increased time with blocking something from the side. But I do agree with having the angle help determine the blocking success. Attacks from the side should be a little harder to defend against than attacks from directly in front.

[t3rr0r]

Originally posted by Prime

Why would this make for better blocking and countering? Having a block button would make for even quicker fights than we have now, because they would rely on people's slower reflexes to block. The auto-blocking is what makes JO saber fights take longer, not shorter.

word... right now, all you have to do is not attack, if you want to block a great deal of the hits...

[Solo4114]

I voted for "new system" and have tried to work out a system that, I think, would both reward skill and allow new players the ability to learn to play effectively. Hopefully there would be a learning curve, without there being a real barrier to becoming reasonably proficient. Essentially, the system I propose is a hybrid of autoblocking and manual blocking, though it rewards the manual blocker more (as pointed out, the force controls your actions, but also obeys your commands -- having more "command" over the force, therefore, is rewarded) So, here goes.

 

(get comfy -- this could take a bit to explain) I've revised this from a post in a different thread, so bear with me.

 

Ok for starters, toss out your traditional notions of JO sabre combat, including how you gain access to sabre moves.

 

For this system, everyone starts with access to all of the basic three single-sabre stances, and can perform all moves. Essentially, if you pick level 1 of sabre offense, you immediately gain the ability to use blue, yellow, and red stances, including all the various special moves (DFA, lunge, etc.). Furthermore, sabres are now truly lethal: 1 to 3 hits (maybe 1 to 2) and the enemy is toast. This alone allows for gametypes like CTF and FFA to be MUCH faster, since it requires significantly fewer hits to actually kill the player. Essentially, every swing operates at the lethality of red stance from JO. Sabres are also unaffected by shields -- they cut right through and affect health. (Sure, Maul's sabre was stopped by shields, but those are massive industrial strength shields, not the weaker personal shield belts we see in the DF series.) Blue stance will also no longer be able to infinitely chain moves -- it now has an upper cap of 8 chainable attacks. Red and yellow remain the same (3 chainable attacks for red, five for yellow). Each stance still has differences still, but the key differences are how each of the stances interact with each other. Here's where things get tricky.

 

Similar to what was intended by JO, each stance can trump another stance for purposes of offense or defense. Each stance is assigned an offensive value and a defensive value. When attacking, you look to the attack value of the attacker's stance as compared to the defense value of the defender's stance. The basic three stances break down in the following manner:

 

Red = 3 on O, 1 on D.

Yellow = 2 on O, 2 on D.

Blue = 1 on O, 3 on D.

 

Thus,

 

Red O > Red D and Yellow D; Red O = Blue D.

Yellow O > Red D; Yellow O = Yellow D; Yellow O < Blue D.

Blue O = Red D; Blue O <Yellow D and Blue D.

 

When your O rating is higher than the defender's D rating, you will batter their defenses aside only if you have a 2 point advantage over them. When your D rating is higher than the attacker's O rating, you will perform an automatic parryif you have a 2 point margin. Thus, a single red attack will batter aside red D in one blow, whereas a blue defender will automatically parry against a blue attacker using basic attacks. When either a parry is performed or you batter through defenses, the visual result is essentially that animation where you're sabre has been knocked aside and you'er standing with your arms spread, open to attack or counter-attack -- it wouldn't necessarily have to be this animation, but something along those lines. When there is no 2 point margin, you will simply perform automatic blocks -- manual blocks will have no effect (EXCEPT when you break even).

 

When you break even (Blue O v. Red D; Yellow O v. Yellow D; Red O v. Blue D), the following system kicks in. In these situations, the defender is given the option of the following: they can choose to "let the force take over" and perform a series of automatic blocks, OR they can use the force to a limited degree and then begin "controlling the force" by executing manual blocks. If you choose to sit back and let the computer block for you, you will block fewer attacks, whereas if you use the manual block, you can block more moves.

 

So, the following system would be set up:

 

- Blue O v. Red D - Red D is given 4 automatic blocks. Red D may then manually block 4 further moves.

- Yellow O v. Yellow D - Yellow D is given 3 automatic blocks, and may then perform 2 manual blocks.

- Red O v. Blue D - Blue D is given 2 automatic blocks and one manual block.

 

Thus, if you can effectively block in time, you will be able to hold your attacker at bay through a chain of attacks, ASSUMING all things are equal.

 

However, in this system, all things need not be equal.

 

Combos will have the additional advantage of being able to break through all but the strongest defenses (IE: you can't combo your way through a blue on blue confrontation or a red on red confrontation). When you attack with a one point advantage (IE: Yellow O v. Red D), you will perform the abovementioned number of automatic blocks ONLY. After that, it is your job to get the hell out of the way or get hit (and possibly die -- remember, every hit will do AT A MINIMUM 1/3 of your health bar's damage), since you will not manually block these moves any differently from automatically blocking them. (You could still activate the manual blocking, but it'll just have the same effect as the auto block against that particular stance, so there's really no point.)

 

When in a break-even situation, you CAN still break through the defenses, even after you've performed your maximum number of chainable attacks. Each successful combo will be given an attack bonus. Combos, moreover, are NOT necessarily chained identical moves. Hitting attack+back+right 8 times in a row in blue stance is not an 8 move combo. A combo would have at least one different move interspersed between identical moves. So, you'd have to do alternating attack+back+right, followed by attack+back+left to get a two move combo.

 

Combos for each stance would be given the following sliding-scale value. Each time you successfully perform a combo, the bonus number applies to a calculation of the NUMBER of the attacks, not the VALUE of the attacks.

 

Legend: # of moves in combo/+ # of attacks added as bonus

 

Blue stance: 2/+.25, 3/+.375, 4/+.5, 5/+.625, 6/+.75, 7/+.875, 8/+1.

Yellow stance: 2/+.4, 3/+.6, 4/+.8, 5/+1.

Red stance: 2/+.67, 3/+1

 

To batter through defenses using combos in a break-even situation, you would have to have a clear 1 attack advantage. To make the above moves worthwhile (why have the scaled bonus, if you can only break through D with that last move), the defender's blocking status will reset within a specified number of seconds, depending on the particular stance being used against them. This, however, would be dependent upon what Raven would consider a combo for purposes of the game. Personally, I'd make each stance different in terms of the number of different consecutive moves you'd have to execute before you could start throwing in moves you'd already done -- IE: Blue stance would require four different moves in a row before you could recycle moves (and even then, they'd have to come in a different sequence), whereas yellow would require only 2 moves. Because red only can chain 3 moves at a time, you could have identical 2-move combos and not screw up the balance (though the third move would have to be different to provide the defense-breaking combo). You'd still let the player chain the full number of moves (combo or otherwise) before they'd be stopped and have to start attacking again, and if the player switched stances, the defender's auto/manual block would reset (so you couldn't perform a 2 move red combo, then switch to

 

To prevent against the repeated spamming of a particular move, each stance would also have a sliding scale to represent a decline in the total NUMBER of attacks (again, not the VALUE) if you repeat the same move over and over. Each time you repeated a single move, you'd subtract the penalty from the number of attacks. This, however, would only kick in at the point where the autoblocking stops working. This would break down in the following manner:

 

Legend: # of repeated identical moves/ - # of attacks for purposes of blocking calculation.

 

Blue: 5/-1.125, 6/-1.25, 7/-1.375, 8/-1.5.

Yellow: 3/-1.2, 4/-1.4, 5/-1.6.

Red: 3/-1.

 

The net effect of this would be that if, for example, you attack with red against a blue defender, and you performed three identical strikes in a row, all three would be autoblocked. You wouldn't be parried, but none of your attacks would break through the defenses. With yellow on yellow, if you performed three identical moves in a row, for blocking purposes, you'd only be credited with 1.8 attacks. So, for purposes of autoblocking, you'd still have 2.2 attacks left that would be autoblocked.

 

The actual mechanism of manual blocking would have to occur with split-second timing, too. It would be an actual button that would be pressed and held, but you'd have to press it at just the right moment in BETWEEN attacks during a combo. So, in the midst of an 8 move blue combo, you'd have to hit red's manual block button at the perfect moment (whenever Raven determined that to be) between swings 4 and 5. Otherwise, you'd have to evade, rather than autoblock.

 

You could make things more complex by factoring in respective levels of sabre offense vs. sabre defense. Each time you picked a higher level, you'd essentially shift the VALUE of your stances up by one point for purposes of attack or defense, respectively. So, a person with level 3 attack would use blue's attack at a value of 4, whereas a person with level 3 defense would use blue's defense at a value of 6 (see? still maintains the 2 point margin, all things being equal). The number of attacks would still be the same, but for purposes of trumping or breaking through defenses automatically, the value that you'd check would be one higher per level of offense or defense you took.

 

Where things would get REALLY interesting is when you factor in the "specialty" stances. Once you'd picked level 3 saber offense or sabre defense, you'd be given the ability to assign further points to a new stance, either the double-bladed sabre (for offense) or dual sabres (for defense). These stances would operate in the following way (for purposes of both stances, assume that the calculations are applied to level 1 opposition);

 

Double-Bladed sabre:

 

- Attacks at a base of 7, defends at 2-3, depending on the stance attacking it.

- Chains up to 5 attacks.

- Combo bonuses: 2/+.4, 3/+.6, 4/+.8, 5/+1

- Against Yellow O, defends as if Yellow D (for block calculations). Against Red O, defends as if blue D. Thus, it can break even with both yellow attacks and red attacks, but is truly dominant on the attack (if you go up against a lvl 1 defender with this, you have an attack value of 7 -- no way they can block you).

- Decline rate for identical chained attacks: 3/-1.2, 4/-1.4, 5/-1.6.

- Can switch to single-bladed mode and operate as a normal single-bladed sabre at any time.

 

Dual Sabres:

 

- Attack at a base of 2-3, depending on the stance it is attacking, defends at a base of 7.

- Chains up to 12 attacks.

- Combo bonuses: 2/+.16, 3/+.25, 4/+.33, 5/+.42, 6/+.5, 7/+.58, 8/+.67, 9/+.75, 10/+.83, 11/+.92, 12/+1

- Against both yellow and blue D, the stance breaks even, BUT the defender is given 6 autoblocks and 5 manual blocks.

- Decline rate for identical chained attacks: 6/-1.08, 7/-1.16, 8/-1.25, 9/-1.33, 10/-1.42, 11/-1.5, 12/-1.58.

- At any time, can turn off the second sabre and holster it, to function as single bladed sabre.

 

Ok, so, great. I've now come up with a rather complex system with a crapload of numbers that make my eyes hurt to look at. What's the end result?

 

Well, the system I'm proposing would actually reward skill. You'd really have to become facile with the various stances to learn the combinations in order to effectively break defenses. On D, you'd really have to learn when to properly time your manual block -- it wouldn't just be up to the computer. Moreover, you wouldn't just be able to sit back with blue defense, walk away from the computer, and let it infinitely autoblock for you -- there'd actually be an upper limit to the number of attacks you could block. Ultimately, the skilled players would be rewarded, but at the same time, a newbie (not a n00b) who knows when discretion is the better part of valor would still be able to let the computer handle SOME of the blocking, but not ALL of the blocking. And finally, you wouldn't be able to just spam a single move over and over in a chain and call it a "combo." You'd actually have to do more than just button mashing or the old "headless chicken" dance in blue stance in order to win. Thus, there'd be a learning curve, but not an insurmountable one, and at the same time, the skilled would be rewarded for playing smart and knowing the subtleties of the game.

 

Now, I know Raven isn't going to adopt this system, not at the start at least. But it is a system that, while complicated, could work well in practice. All those numbers would be handled by the engine itself. All the player would have to know how to do is perform the combos, and what stance is better against another on O or D (and when to block or when to cut and run).

 

Another system could be the blocking "bar" suggested above, where you can block for X amount of time or against Y number of attacks.

 

Finally, a third option for auto vs. manual blocking would be that you leave autoblocking the way it is in JO (albeit making it less random), but have a PARRY button instead of a block button. Thus, you could sit on your duff and do nothing, and let the autoblocking protect you, but you'd never get in an attack. The real skill would come in when you press the parry button, which would allow you to move from the defensive to the offensive without breaking stride or running away. It would also leave the enemy open to counter attack. The parry button would also be used to direct blaster fire or other similar projectiles back at enemy gunners (so you couldn't sit there and let them kill themselves -- you'd actually have to take an active role in that). You could also still implement the trump system I described above (IE: which stance has a higher "value" over other stances), even if the stances themselves don't operate the way I described 'em (IE: the caps on chains, combo bonuses, spam decline, etc.). The stuff I suggested might make a nice addition to a mod (IE: promod or something like it), rather than the full game.

 

Assuming they leave out much of the stuff I suggested, I'd say that a parry button (rather than a block button -- let the blocking be automatic) would be the perfect blend of the two worlds.

 

Anyway, sorry for that Russian novel of a post there. I had a complicated system in mind and wanted to get it written down somewhere before I forgot. Plus, I'm curious as to what people who actually want to bother to read the whole damn thing think about it.

[Rad Blackrose]

Solo, you make Dostoevsky look like an average person. =p

 

Nice post.

 

When swordfighting in any style, there are specific offensive and defensive moves. But in jk2 right now, its just all offensive, (except in SP but thats automatic) it just looks silly to watch.

If there were a hold button for 'defensive' mode, it would allow for better blocking and countering and make a much more exciting game. I hate quick deaths in saber fights, since when have you known a jedi duel to last less that 10 seconds? Every duel in the movies lasts at least more than 5 minutes, and the hits are few and far between.

 

The one thing I have yet to see people attempt to rectify here is the bandwidth/latency that is incorporated into both offense and defense. Everything may look good on paper here, but that is assuming it is a constant 0 ping interface.

 

We have to be realistic. Not everyone is going to have an uber connection.

 

That's why I am for autoblocking.

[Hekx]

Originally posted by eastcoast2895

i'm just saying alt fire may not work cuz it probably be binded to saber throw

Saber Throw shall begone! I hope.

[Solo4114]

Originally posted by Rad Blackrose

Solo, you make Dostoevsky look like an average person. =p

 

Nice post.

 

Yeah, I suppose reading it could be considered crime and punishment. Thanks, though.

 

I just wanted to explain what was a fairly complex idea for me to come up with. I didn't want there to be details left out.

 

The more I look at it, though, and compare it to what Raven's said will happen with the dual sabres and double-bladed sabres, the less likely I think it is that the style I proposed will be used.

 

I still think it'd make a good mod, but Raven sure won't be the ones making it.

 

So, I guess as far as the auto vs. manual blocking goes, I'm going to reiterate that I support autoblocking, but manual parrying using a separate "parry" button (not simply attacking when the enemy attacks). Whatever system is incorporated should be balanced such that no one stance is able to trump all others in all aspects (IE: red is awesome for O, but crap for D, blue is the opposite, and yellow is a mix. Dual blades give you awesome D and somewhere between blue and yellow on O. Double-bladed sabres give you awesome O and somewhere between red and yellow on D). While the double-blade and dual sabres should be powerful (especially if you have to spend beaucoup points to get 'em, and I bet we'll have to do just that), they should not be all-powerful in any sense.

 

For example, dual sabres may be fast, but they are weaker in terms of breaking through defenses (since you're only attacking with one hand, as opposed to two). Double-bladed sabres provide fantastic range, but are cumbersome and unwieldy, and require wide swings to use. Thus, they leave you open to being parried more easily. Something like that.

 

I think my trump system would work well there, and that's something that Raven could still use, especially with regards to the offense/defense points that you assign and how they relate to all the other stances.

[t3rr0r]

Originally posted by Rad Blackrose

The one thing I have yet to see people attempt to rectify here is the bandwidth/latency that is incorporated into both offense and defense. Everything may look good on paper here, but that is assuming it is a constant 0 ping interface.

the latency would be exactly the same with defence as it is with offense... it really wouldn't be that huge of a problem.

[Echuu Shen-Jon]

I don't really know about the sabre blocking, but I think, that the laser blocking should be more realistic. Because, sometimes, in JO Kyle is justto the left, an holding his saber d he's blocking a shot over his head at the same time! If there's going to be manual sabere blocking, I think, that you could go into something like "the-force-is-now-controling-your-blocking", or a better force-speed!

[Prime]

Originally posted by t3rr0r

the latency would be exactly the same with defence as it is with offense... it really wouldn't be that huge of a problem.

I think the problem arises because of the combination of the two. Currently, there is only the latency of the attack swings. Since the defence is always "on" there is not latency for the game to know that you are defending. However, if you add a block button, the game no longer knows automatically that you are defending when your not attacking. There would be the added latency for you defense command. So the latency would potentially be attack + defend.

[t3rr0r]

Originally posted by Prime

So the latency would potentially be attack + defend.

no, it wouldn't add onto the latency... the code would just have one additional latency dependant action. hell, the guns are more dependant on latency than the saber is.

[toms]

saber throw on the second mouse button did get a bit OTT didnt it?

 

making the second button a counterattack/reversal button would be better than making a manual block. HOlding it would just attempt to block... but pressing it at the right time would perform knock the attacking saber away and counterattack... a devastating move, but risky as you would have to remain open.

[Prime]

Originally posted by t3rr0r

no, it wouldn't add onto the latency... the code would just have one additional latency dependant action. hell, the guns are more dependant on latency than the saber is.

That's true. My thinking was a bit screwy I guess

 

I agree that guns are much more affected by latency, but I am only considering duels here. But do not agree that the overall latency of the game will be increased by adding a blocking button? I guess I don't see what the blocking button really gives you that makes it worth adding more latency.

[Spider AL]

Manual blocking would be better. It should consist of a button that activates the normal blocking code, that currently automatically comes into effect in JO when one is not attacking.

 

Therefore, it wouldn't add any lag at all, as the transition from blocking to attacking goes on throughout a duel anyway. It would merely put it under the control of the player.

[Solo4114]

See, I think the existing blocking code needs some tweaking, though it may be the hit detection, and not the blocking itself.

 

Al, assuming that we implemented a system where blocking was left the same, but activated by a button, how would you handle the apparent ability to block ad infinitum using particular stances? Would you change this or leave it the same and trust to people's reflexes to be the ultimate determination of when a hit is scored? I'll admit, your system would be a relatively simple thing to fix (or so it seems -- again, no knowledge of how to code here). But wouldn't you also have the problem of people just running around holding block all the time? That would end up being not all that much different from the current system.

 

I think you'd need to have some sort of decline in blocking ability, the longer you try to block for. Otherwise, people will just basically spam blocking.

 

On a different note, one alternative for autoblocking would be to have the success percentage depend on the angle of attack. The closer to straight on the attack comes from, the more likely you are to block it. Your defense arc could be tied directly to the level of sabre defense you pick -- lvl 1 has a 90 degree arc from the player's center, lvl 2 has a 135 degree arc, and lvl 3 has a 180 degree arc. But, even within those arcs, you'd still have a decline in blocking success, the farther away you are from center. The one problem I foresee with this system is that it would reduce sabre fights to people constantly using side attacks,which would get old after a while.

[t3rr0r]

Originally posted by Solo4114

But wouldn't you also have the problem of people just running around holding block all the time? That would end up being not all that much different from the current system.

 

I think you'd need to have some sort of decline in blocking ability, the longer you try to block for. Otherwise, people will just basically spam blocking.

they could make it that you could block 75% (these are just numbers i'm putting out there) holding defence while standing still, 50% while walking, and 25% while running... imo, something along the lines of that could work...

[Solo4114]

Do you mean that you'd have, for example, a 75% chance of blocking, or that when being attacked by yellow stance, you'd block the first 4 and the 5th would get through?

[t3rr0r]

Originally posted by Solo4114

Do you mean that you'd have, for example, a 75% chance of blocking

yes, there'd be a 25% chance that you'd be hit, which only increases with movement.

[Prime]

Originally posted by Spider AL

Therefore, it wouldn't add any lag at all, as the transition from blocking to attacking goes on throughout a duel anyway. It would merely put it under the control of the player.

But wouldn't there be lag when the player hits the block button? Maybe I can explain what I'm thinking.

 

When a player hits the attack button, there is lag from when this happens to when the swing starts. We have that now, so no problem. When the swing completes, now the player wants to defend. Currently, the game knows that if the player isn't attacking, they are defending. There is no lag here because the game automatically defends.

 

Now for manual blocking. When the player's attack swing finishes, he wants to defend so he hits the block button. Isn't there lag from the time the button is pressed to when the game turns on blocking mode?

 

Just trying to clear tis up for myself

 

Originally posted by t3rr0r

they could make it that you could block 75% (these are just numbers i'm putting out there) holding defence while standing still, 50% while walking, and 25% while running... imo, something along the lines of that could work...

Would this mean that players would become very reluctant to move around, because they would be automatically opening themselves up? Don't we want to keep the game active and free-flowing? I don't think you really want to penalize movement too much.

 

Not to bring the movies into it, but aren't the lightsaber fights we know have quick moves with lots of flips, rolls, and so on?

[t3rr0r]

Originally posted by Prime

Would this mean that players would become very reluctant to move around, because they would be automatically opening themselves up? Don't we want to keep the game active and free-flowing? I don't think you really want to penalize movement too much.

well, i was just giving some numbers for examples... they could be as different as 10% (chance not blocking), 20%, and 30%...

[Sivy]

Originally posted by Silent_Thunder

Thanks, but it's actually pretty much the way that old PS1 game... Jedi Power Battles (note; I'm not advocating buying it) did it. So the accuracy thing isn't really my idea .

 

i like jedi power battles and i agree that a similar style would be good for JA.

but i think that blocking laser blasts should be automatic. whereas in a duel you have to manually block sabers.

when you watch saber duels in the films, one will be on the defensive while the other offensive and then vice versa. that would be alot better than just hacking away at each other.

[Orangina_Rouge]

Personnally i want Promod Saber blocking : It s not manual nor it s random ...... it s totally dependent on your aiming skill wich is what a FPS is and should be about.