Found a way to enable follow camera in combat

[Tony]

Thanks for reply, I haven't thought about 3D cursor/camera problem. I am slowly getting used to controls, yeah, its somewhat unique, remind me one ancient game - Landerer, flier with most insane controls I have ever seen. Game where you start hardly getting from A to B in open space and finish charging full speed through narrow labyrinth.

I've mentioned this exact problem previously in this thread and in other threads. I even made a short video which clearly demonstrates this problem and posted it in a different thread. I'll link it here just for clarification purposes:

 

[Soren]

Not to beat a dead horse, but there is an option three, namely a camera locked to a moving object, while the character orientation locked to the cursor.

And with all due respect, Madoc, I think you are overestimating how much a camera orientation locked to an opponent would hamper the ability to control your movements - and in particular your attacks (this applies to the video you post too Tony). First of all because in the moment of attack, you would rarely have the opponent moving any significant distance relative to you, but even if the target did, it would only help targeting as your cursors position in game world space would adjust to the target's movements (assuming a non-changed cursor movement trajectory on screen).

This image exemplifies what I'm trying to convey, assuming camera locked on the enemy:

 

[Crayfish]

And with all due respect, Madoc, I think you are overestimating how much a camera orientation locked to an opponent would hamper the ability to control your movements

In my experience, developers very rarely overestimate the difficulties they will face when developing software. Underestimation on the other hand.. that's a different story.

 

[ErlKing]

There is one more variant that could be helpful if devs consider any camera related experimentations.

Hotkey to center camera on enemy, that would work at same principle as [space] (center camera on mouse cursor), but focus on opponent. Hold it and you can circle around keeping enemy in sight, release - you can charge without fear of camera wildly yanking and such.

I don't think devs overestimating camera lock on problems, but from our side we can only give feedback and requests as we see it, without knowing how hard or easy it is to implement in code (or if devs already tried that thing and vetted it).

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

@ErlKing With more than one enemy, you will only end up juggling perspective which is very bad with the physics here. We already know it takes time to turn, so now you have unnatural, slow jerking between enemies which will result in a lot of missed blocks/parries. I think everyone complaining is seriously underestimating the problems they would create.

@Soren What if the enemy moves off screen, would this effectively place the player off screen instead?

 

[Murf]

*removed by me*

 

[Soren]

@Soren What if the enemy moves off screen, would this effectively place the player off screen instead?

No. It's a matter of controlling orientation alone, not position.

 

[TwoPumpWarrior]

camera locked to a moving object, while the character orientation locked to the cursor.

Would this put the enemy at the center of the screen? If it does, there is a problem. The enemy can move away from the player, cause the player to drift further and further towards the screen border until they are no longer on screen. From what I'm reading, you seem to be saying that "camera locked to a moving object" =/= "camera centered on enemy" but I think that is exactly what would happen.

 

[Soren]

Would this put the enemy at the center of the screen? If it does, there is a problem. The enemy can move away from the player, cause the player to drift further and further towards the screen border until they are no longer on screen. From what I'm reading, you seem to be saying that "camera locked to a moving object" =/= "camera centered on enemy" but I think that is exactly what would happen.

I don't want to derail this topic further than I already have, but I made a lengthy post about it here: http://www.baremettle.com/forums/index.php?threads/suggestion-camera-locking.1885/

 

[Madoc]

I'm not estimating at all, I'm just stating some facts. It's like asking for a drinking vessel that isn't concave and refusing to aknowledge that it won't hold liquid. So you can argue that if you were in space it wouldn't need to hold the liquid anyway but you're not and you're just skirting around the problem. Unless we want to argue hypotheticals without a practical aim then there's not that much to debate here.

I'm not trying to be funny or rude, just trying to convey something. You can imagine an idiot AI that's just standing there waiting for you to hit it and you trying to do something really simple and specific but the game just isn't like that. Skilled opponents dance circles around you and multiple opponents are a real thing. You absolutely need the level of control this system offers, for many, many reasons. It might be confusing and unfamiliar when you're hard wired to play games in a certain way but it's really not that weird, it makes a lot of sense. When games weren't all first person, character relative movement was not at all uncommon and nobody thought it was weird.

If you want to play this particular game then this is how you're going to have to do it. It's not because we want to do things differently from say Skyrim and be quirky, but because it's a fundamental requirement. We're not reluctant to do it, it just cannot be done. If there are ways to improve the controls and make them more intuitive we'll definitely look into them but so far we've only been talking about ways to completely destroy them. We're also definitely not going to dumb down and simplify the game to make the controls more familiar to people used to playing a different type of game entirely. That would be a perhaps more realistic 3rd option but it's not going to happen.

 

[Soren]

But how is it different than me constantly hitting space to focus the camera on the opponent? That works perfectly fine even when fighting multiple opponents, and there's no logic that prevents it from working. Pardon the pun, but your drinking vessel analogy simply doesn't hold water

And why confine yourself to considering only the two classic control schemes as viable - isn't this Sui Generis?

I'm not saying that the option I propose is inherently better. It might be a matter of preference. But I have done a very patient effort fighting from all camera angles, but whenever the going gets tough, I focus on having the camera (not necessarily the character) aligned toward the foe I want to fight because it's still by far how I get the best result (and have no issues completing the expert arena that way). But it feels a bit counter-intuitive to constantly hit the space bar.

 

[Murf]

The space-bar brings the camera around so it is at your back. it is not focusing on the opponent.

 

[Soren]

Well, true, I acknowledge some ambiguity by what I mean by 'focus' then (it's better explained in the topic I linked above). The focal point is always on the player character and I'm not arguing against that, but what I mean is best described as camera orientation (as I mentioned above), with the position of the camera always focusing on the player, but the camera orientation rotating to face toward the selected opponent.

 

[Murf]

You can rotate the camera using MMB.

 

[JoshWaldron]

But how is it different than me constantly hitting space to focus the camera on the opponent? That works perfectly fine even when fighting multiple opponents, and there's no logic that prevents it from working. Pardon the pun, but your drinking vessel analogy simply doesn't hold water

And why confine yourself to considering only the two classic control schemes as viable - isn't this Sui Generis?

I'm not saying that the option I propose is inherently better. It might be a matter of preference. But I have done a very patient effort fighting from all camera angles, but whenever the going gets tough, I focus on having the camera (not necessarily the character) aligned toward the foe I want to fight because it's still by far how I get the best result (and have no issues completing the expert arena that way). But it feels a bit counter-intuitive to constantly hit the space bar.

I would say don't. It's my understanding that players should become competent fighting regardless of your character's or the enemy's positioning without having to move the camera. (unless it's because an obstacle is blocking the view or something) But rather than trying push through and become comfortable with and unfamiliar system alot of players are sticking to a "bad technique" that hampers them.

A parallel is teaching soccer to someone new; the proper "controls" of soccer are unfamiliar and feel very uncomfortable to start with. When you pass it's supposed to be with the inside of your foot, that's the proper form and offers the highest level of control, but opening up your foot to strike the ball with the insole is way less comfortable and familiar at first than just kicking it with your toe (which is crazy unreliable and sloppy) so that's what new players try to do and it can be hell to break them of that habit, sometimes (usually the kids) complain about it and ask "why can't i just do it this way, I don't like the other way!". Maybe Madoc can say whether I'm in the right ballpark here but my impression is that that's what is happening with alot of players in Exanima. The "correct" ways of using the controls are less familiar and more uncomfortable (WASD relying on character position, camera controls, etc.) but more effective when you get used to it, and alot of players are preferring to stick with what is initially more comfortable or what they're used to with other games and fighting the Exanima controls rather than learning them.

Anyone else?

 

[Tony]

@JoshWaldron is correct: if you're constantly pressing space in an attempt to always have the camera at your back then you're doing it wrong; this is not how the devs designed the control scheme to operate. Of course you can do so but you're just making it more difficult on yourself. This would be comparable to trying to operate a vehicle while steering with your feet and pushing the pedals with your hands... sure, the vehicle might move but it's not the proper way to drive and it's less efficient than using the proper method.

So far a better or more efficient control scheme has not been suggested. Every new control scheme suggested (so far) would break the game by limiting what is possible with the current control scheme. Madoc has pointed this out numerous times and unless someone offers a suggestion that improves (instead of restricts) the control scheme then further discussion is just wasting developer's time.

 

[Soren]

I love all these creative analogies, but I'm not sure whether they really contribute with anything new. It comes down to saying that people are too conservative - which is a strange accusation when the proposal is also considered to be impossible because it goes against the conventional control schemes of games. Not to mention that it does seem a bit arrogant to just brush off input with that - and equally so by simply saying that it's "doing it wrong", that it would dumb down the game or it is a symptom of not understanding what the game is about. That's not a constructive way of discussing and giving feedback.

Not to mention that it's slightly frustrating to have repetitively and quite elaborative explained why it would not limit the possibilities of character control, but the counter-argument seems to be no more than a "no", ignoring all the specifics of the argumentation. So long as the user retains full control of character facing, of angle and force of attack, no limitations would arise. If you have an argument that refutes that, I would love to have my claim about this challenged and even disproved, but that video Tony linked doesn't say the slightest about that.

My role here is not to just bash the game or calling it fundamentally flawed (an approach some sadly have resorted to when being frustrated by the mechanics) - that I go into the discussion is a symptom of a faith in and admiration of the fundamentals of the game so far. And I - contrary to the opposition it seems - do not hold any illusions of knowing the 'right' answer. But I wish the debate could be more to the point and focused on the concrete argument rather than the many generalising ("it won't work", "it would ruin the game", "it goes against all what the game is about") and ad hominem ("you are too set in the conventional ways of playing a game", "you don't understand this game") arguments that tend to dominate here. This is about camera control - and about at most adding an optional feature - not reinventing the game.

 

[Holy.Death]

I'm not saying that the option I propose is inherently better. It might be a matter of preference. But I have done a very patient effort fighting from all camera angles, but whenever the going gets tough, I focus on having the camera (not necessarily the character) aligned toward the foe I want to fight because it's still by far how I get the best result (and have no issues completing the expert arena that way). But it feels a bit counter-intuitive to constantly hit the space bar.

I thought so myself at first, but after some time I got used to how controls work in relation to the camera and it stopped being counter-intuitive or a problem. In fact, I find camera rotating around the opponent more confusing to me, because everything moves when I move.

 

[tiny lampe]

it's slightly frustrating to have repetitively and quite elaborative explained why it would not limit the possibilities of character control, but the counter-argument seems to be no more than a "no". If you have an argument that refutes that, I would love to have my claim about this challenged and even disproved

So let me get this straight: you propose an idea. It gets turned down by the Devs. And now you expect the Devs to convince you why it wouldn't work?

Sorry to be blunt but I think you got this 'feedback' business a bit backwards. It's you who has to convince the Devs why your idea is worth implementing. If you can't, either because the arguments are not good or simply because the Devs don't like the idea, then the most reasonable thing to do is to give up and move on. Else you are simply beating a dead horse.

 

[Soren]

So let me get this straight: you propose an idea. It gets turned down by the Devs. And now you expect the Devs to convince you why it wouldn't work?

Sorry to be blunt but I think you got this 'feedback' business a bit backwards. It's you who has to convince the Devs why your idea is worth implementing. If you can't, either because the arguments are not good or simply because the Devs don't like the idea, then the most reasonable thing to do is to give up and move on. Else you are simply beating a dead horse.

I don't demand to be convinced why it shouldn't be implemented. I fully respect the integrity of the developers' choice to pursue their own intuition, their own preference, their vision for how the game is to be played etc. That's not what's at issue here. It's solely a matter of how it's debated when it is addressed. I'm all fine with it being left as just an idea, but I feel it's perfectly fine too that when someone calls it impossible, game ruining, limiting control or otherwise, that I enter that discussion, and that I ask the criticism aspires to be well funded and to the point.

Plus, I don't think I only speak on my own behalf when remarking it's non-constructive to brush off feedback (provided it's itself constructive) by saying the speaker is just being too set in conventional ideas - this might have relevancy at times, but it is a sentiment that's very frequently used as argument around here to a point that it is hampering the discussion. Moreso, the frequency and tendency to make it the central and win-all argument, it really comes off as simply being derogatory. I'm not conservative nor haven't I given it a good chance.