Found a way to enable follow camera in combat

[Tony]

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.
...
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.

Character rotation/orientation is already locked to the cursor (your character always attempts to face the cursor). Keeping the camera locked to a moving target would still cause the cursor to change location by itself every time the camera adjusted in order to stay focused on the target. This would constantly require directional mouse adjustments every time the camera auto-adjusted (as I mentioned in the video). And if the cursor did not maintain its current position relative to your character when the camera auto-adjusted then this would cause your character to take steps and pivot when the camera auto-adjusted. Both of these scenarios are detrimental to precise character control.

Since you requested specific examples about why it would mess up gameplay here are a few; it would: mess up your footwork (pressing W,A,S,D to take a step when the camera was also making you take steps would be conflicting inputs causing undesirable movement behavior), make left-to-right strikes very difficult to execute, make it hard to aim overhand strikes, make it hard to aim thrusts, make it difficult to aim ranged attacks, make it difficult to fight multiple opponents simultaneously. These are just a few of the main issues but there are many more.

I'm not attempting to win an argument and neither is Madoc. Pointing out flaws with feedback and stating why it would not work only to have people continue to argue about why they'd still like to try it... is not constructive. If Madoc says something will not work then it will not. He's written every line of code himself and he knows the mechanics inside and out. Not only that, he is open-minded and willing to try new ideas if they will actually improve upon what they currently have.

 

[JonU]

A camera/control locked to the follow perspective is no doubt less efficient overall, as it limit what you can do. But it is completely playable. It is simply not game-breaking at all. I progressed through many of the arena foes with constantly space-centering the camera behind myself, before forcing myself to stop. I still struggle when the controls are reversed and have particular angles I favor.

That said, a few observations:

Devs being too wedded to their unusual design can cause problems. A potential indicator of this is when a LOT of players are determinedly saying they are having problems. I watched the Oovee dev continue to insist his quirky camera system for Spintires was actually superior, and the forum defenders insist people just didn't understand it. The general response was: No, we understand how to use the camera. We just don't like it. And it's negatively affecting an otherwise great game.

I've been a creator in film and theater. I've fallen into the trap of insisting some element is completely necessary while others question it repeatedly. It can be very, very difficult at times as a creator to step outside your vision to take a hard look at your own choices. To see what is actually working, and what is not. Not even that you necessarily end up agreeing with the responses, but just doing it can be very tough. Sometimes the vision can be stuck with. Sometimes the vision simply isn't working for many. Just make sure you're not getting stuck in the trap of seeing the beauty in your vision others cannot grasp, when it actually may be that things are misfiring. (And I've cut things I still thought were necessary, but as a compromise to the audience. It hurts me and my vision, but sometimes it helps overall).

This debate is likely only going to increase in magnitude as the game gains a wider and wider audience. Anyone not reacting with immense patience towards the brand new players isn't going to help it go away. Nor retain those players. Neither does insisting they're "playing it improperly" when you're essentially asking them to reprogram their brains. This can be far more difficult for some than others (I still struggle with it regularly myself). Insisting those players don't get it and just need to "reprogram" isn't going to work well. Not all brains work the same way.

I sincerely hope the devs, and the forums vets, figure out positive strategies to interact with the likely unending requests for these features. Whether it's video tutorials, written explanations or just forum tone and attitude. I think we're likely to face this particular question a lot.

And I'll offer up one potential strategy/compromise: Enabling the existing camera follow again. It is indeed less efficient. But it also does work. I used it for a while myself, until I was ready to break out of it. Consider the potential that instead of insisting players reprogram their brains from the get-go, letting them choose to do so when they have played the game a bit and become familiarized (and addicted ) is a more comprehensive approach to a wider variety of players/brains. If it doesn't actually interfere with the overall functioning of the game, but does allow some more players a path to acclimatize at their own pace, the downsides of a slower learning curve might be outweighed by the upsides of a more welcoming learning curve.

There is also the pragmatic reality that sometimes simply giving someone what they they want and letting them realize it doesn't work as well is sometimes far more effective than having to repeatedly explain why it doesn't work as well. Ask any parent.

 

[Murf]

Neither does insisting they're "playing it improperly" when you're essentially asking them to reprogram their brains.

And yet this is the core of what BareMettle wanted to do, they were tired of the same old rpg and combat style and mechanics. So yes, people will have to re-think and unlearn what they have come to expect from an RPG. Oh the horror.

If it doesn't actually interfere with the overall functioning of the game,

Yet Madoc has said repeatedly, that it WILL interfere with the functioning of the game. How can someone who has not created it say it will not?

There is also the pragmatic reality that sometimes simply giving someone what they they want and letting them realize it doesn't work as well is sometimes far more effective than having to repeatedly explain why it doesn't work as well.

Pragmatic? I don't think that word means what you think it means. You are suggesting that they redesign the combat system in order to implement this idea. Yes, recreate the combat system, is what it would take since Madoc has already stated that the idea suggested simply will not work with the current system, so have this small team of 2 programmers, redesign the entire core of their project, so someone can try an idea they suggested and say 'oh yeah, guess it doesn't work.' That is is not practical at all.

 

[Soren]

Character rotation/orientation is already locked to the cursor (your character always attempts to face the cursor). Keeping the camera locked to a moving target would still cause the cursor to change location by itself every time the camera adjusted in order to stay focused on the target. This would constantly require mouse directional adjustments every time the camera auto-adjusted (as I mentioned in the video). And if the cursor did not maintain its current position when the camera auto-adjusted then this would cause your character to take steps and pivot when the camera auto-adjusted. Both of these scenarios are detrimental to precise character control.

Since you requested specific examples about why it would mess up gameplay here are a few; it would: mess up your footwork (pressing W,A,S,D to take a step when the camera was also making you take steps would be conflicting inputs causing undesirable movement behavior), make left-to right strikes very difficult to execute, make it hard to aim overhand strikes, make it hard to aim thrusts, make it difficult to aim ranged attacks, make it difficult to fight multiple opponents simultaneously. These are just a few of the main issues but there are many more.

If you notice the image I posted earlier, it explains exactly why in each of the situations you mention, the auto-adjusting camera would only help you target right. If you make an overhead swing and the target moves, it would simply adjust the swing trajectory to compensate for the opponents movements. One could argue that this might actually make it too easy, but in the end, I don't personally think it would have that significant impact either way as attacks are done quickly, meaning the amount of camera rotation that can occur during the mouse stroke would be very minor. Additionally, the idea has always been to make it optional.

I'm not attempting to win an argument and neither is Madoc. Pointing out flaws with feedback and stating why it would not work only to have people continue to argue about why they'd still like to try it... is not constructive. If Madoc says something will not work then it will not. He's written every line of code himself and he knows the mechanics inside and out. Not only that, he is open-minded and willing to try new ideas if they will actually improve upon what they currently have.

And as I just stated in my previous post, the point is that the supposed "flaws" are either ad hominem or simply off. I don't want to continue to beat this dead horse, but when someone calls the proposal flawed with a flawed argument, it demands some sort of response to not let the idea die due to miscommunication. Dislike the idea, turn it down to due to preference or even ignore it outright is all fine - I don't have any claim to anyone's time here - but if you choose to try to undermine it, don't be shocked that I reply to that criticism. That's only fair.

(A bit of a side point, but interestingly, Conan just proposed more or less the same thing as I here: http://www.baremettle.com/forums/index.php?threads/controls-etc.1162/page-12 )

 

[Murf]

Dislike the idea, turn it down to due to preference or even ignore it outright is all fine

How do you get that from "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."

The guy who created it all, coded it all, would know if something can be done or not wouldn't you think?

 

[Tony]

If you notice the image I posted earlier, it explains exactly why in each of the situations you mention, the auto-adjusting camera would only help you target right. If you make an overhead swing and the target moves, it would simply adjust the swing trajectory to compensate for the opponents movements. One could argue that this might actually make it too easy, but in the end, I don't personally think it would have that significant impact either way as attacks are done quickly, meaning the amount of camera rotation that can occur during the mouse stroke would be very minor. Additionally, the idea has always been to make it optional.

Except this is incorrect. It would not help you since it would force your cursor towards whatever direction your opponent was moving. Sometimes the cursor needs to be far to the right or the left of where your opponent is facing, not centered on them. For example, leading a moving target that you are attempting to shoot with a ranged weapon. Another example is turning your body to add more force to a strike requires the cursor to be either far to the right or the left of the opponent (depending on what direction the strike originates from). Yet another example is when facing multiple opponents. It would also cause issues when using your cursor to backpedal and navigate your surroundings. And another issue would be with parrying with a shield since you need to turn your character to the side in order to place your shield between you and the opponent's weapon. These are very real limitations and flaws with your proposed idea which the current control scheme does not have.

And as I just stated in my previous post, the point is that the supposed "flaws" are either ad hominem or simply off. I don't want to continue to beat this dead horse, but when someone calls the proposal flawed with a flawed argument, it demands some sort of response to not let the idea die due to miscommunication. Dislike the idea, turn it down to due to preference or even ignore it outright is all fine - I don't have any claim to anyone's time here - but if you choose to try to undermine it, don't be shocked that I reply to that criticism. That's only fair.

So you're claiming to know the mechanics better than Madoc himself? I find this hard to believe.

 

[Soren]

Except this is incorrect. It would not help you since it would force your cursor towards whatever direction your opponent was moving. Sometimes the cursor needs to be far to the right or the left of where your opponent is facing, not centered on them.

The cursor isn't locked to the centre of the screen. Providing the camera orientation was locked to your opponent and your cursor was, say, 100 pixels right of your opponent, then the opponent moves, the camera rotates, and the cursor would still be roughly 100 pixels right of your opponent.

For example, leading a moving target that you are attempting to shoot with a ranged weapon.

This is an occurance where you might choose to not fixate camera rotation on the opponent to make your arrow intercept at just the right point - but it could conversely also help you there to have target locked camera rotation as you would simply position your cursor enough in front of the opponent to compensate for arrow flight time and when the target moves, it'll readjust for you.

Another example is turning your body to add more force to a strike requires the cursor to be either far to the right or the left of the opponent (depending on what direction the strike originates from).

Again, the cursor isn't locked to the centre of the screen.

Yet another example is when facing multiple opponents.

Where you either disable it or focus on one enemy, but since it's only the camera orientation that's rotating toward the selected opponent, it doesn't prevent you from doing actions toward other opponents (such as doing a quick "thaumaturgical" force push).

It would also cause issues when using your cursor to backpedal and navigate your surroundings.

It would mean that if you backpedal to get away from your opponent and the opponent tries to flank or similar, you would still backpedal away from your opponent. That would probably usually be the desired intend, but if not, you hit a key, release the camera lock and you are all free again.

And another issue would be with parrying with a shield since you need to turn your character to the side in order to place your shield between you and the opponent's weapon.

Again, the cursor isn't locked to the centre of the screen. If you want to turn your side to the opponent, just move the cursor on either side of the opponent.

So you're claiming to know the mechanics better than Madoc himself? I find this hard to believe.

How do you get that from "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."

The guy who created it all, coded it all, would know if something can be done or not wouldn't you think?

Well, I was a bit surprised by that statement as well. I am not new to programming, and though I've never written things for 3D rendering, I'm also familiar with the fundamentals of it. Unless Sui Generis is basing itself on some existing game engine putting some very peculiar limits on it, there's no technical reason that camera rotation can't be set to follow an object in the world. And after all, it already does if you hold down the space bar - namely the cursor. Still, if that is what it comes down to, then all fine by me too. When I state certain claims of the proposal being flawed are flawed, I'm only pointing to things like the above.

 

[Tony]

The cursor isn't locked to the centre of the screen. Providing the camera orientation was locked to your opponent and your cursor was, say, 100 pixels right of your opponent, then the opponent moves, the camera rotates, and the cursor would still be roughly 100 pixels right of your opponent.

Okay, I was addressing both variations (cursor does and does not stay relative to the character when the camera rotates). If you're saying the cursor should stay relative to the character then the issue is directional mouse input. The only way for the mouse cursor to stay relative to the character during camera rotation is to also rotate the cursor; every time this occurs it messes with directional mouse inputs so all my previous examples remain true.

 

[Soren]

Okay, I was addressing both variations (cursor does and does not stay relative to the character when the camera rotates). If you're saying the cursor should stay relative to the character then the issue is directional mouse input. The only way for the mouse cursor to stay relative to the character during camera rotation is to also rotate the cursor; every time this occurs it messes with directional mouse inputs so all my previous examples remain true.

It "messes" with the directional mouse input only in the sense that it compensates for the potential movements of your opponent - which in far the most cases is what you want anyway. You make an overhead swing, and in the movement, your opponent moves to the right and since your camera rotates but the cursor has a constant trajectory on screen, you also turn slightly to the right, which would assist in compensate for the opponents movements.

In fact, whether it'll make it too easy is perhaps the most relevant criticism I can think of. I don't feel capable of judging that myself, both because I don't know the desired difficulty BareMettle has for the game but equally so because I find it very hard to assess without having tried it in practice. One way to moderate it is to introduce some slight lag perhaps, but that's all details that probably aren't relevant anyway.

 

[Murf]

there's no technical reason that camera rotation can't be set to follow an object in the world.

I do recall it being stated quite a few times now, that because of the system he created, this is not a possibility. The way the camera is behaving is a fundamental requirement to how his combat system, that he created, works. You are basically telling him he is wrong when he says it cannot be done.

It was also stated "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."

Either one or both address your suggestions to change the way the combat/camera system is currently.

 

[Tony]

It "messes" with the directional mouse input only in the sense that it compensates for the potential movements of your opponent - which in far the most cases is what you want anyway. You make an overhead swing, and in the movement, your opponent moves to the right and since your camera rotates but the cursor has a constant trajectory on screen, you also turn slightly to the right, which would assist in compensate for the opponents movements.

It messes with it because it changes the angle of mouse movement required to make the mouse cursor move as intended; in other words, it makes control of your character less precise (again, I demonstrated this in the video). If the camera auto-adjusted when you were attempting to perform a precise mouse movement it would result in undesired behavior. An example of this: I'm attempting to backpedal away from an opponent while simultaneously avoiding a chair that is behind me. Suddenly the camera angle changes causing my mouse input to be incorrect and instead of backpeddling around the chair I stumble over it and proceed to get chopped to bits by the opponent.

 

[Blodetsprutar]

This is the system soren proposes with a fixed cursor relative to screen:

Spoiler

screen capture software

This is the system soren proposes with a fixed cursor relative to world:

Spoiler

upload pic

EDIT* Changed cursor relative to cursor to character *facepalm*
EDIT*2 Changed character to screen.

 

[Holy.Death]

What the pink dot signifies?

 

[Tony]

This is the system soren proposes with a fixed cursor relative to world:

Spoiler

This is the system soren proposes with a fixed cursor relative to character:

Spoiler

Can't see either image... hmm. Can you upload them to a different site instead of to the forums and then link them here?

 

[Blodetsprutar]

What the pink dot signifies?

Nothing really, the red circle is the cursor. May be a bit easier to see the grid rotating, it is hastily made in paint

Is it fixed now?

 

[Tony]

Nothing really, the red circle is the cursor. May be a bit easier to see the grid rotating, it is hastly made in paint

Is it fixed now?

Yes, working now. Thanks!

 

[Soren]

Thanks for making that, Blodetsprutar. It's actually option one that I'm myself in favour of (I'd call it "fixed cursor relative to screen"), even if I can see option two as having some advantages in certain situations.

 

[Madoc]

What I've been saying is that it's "not possible" to control a cursor and rotate a camera at the same time. I said that controlling a cursor which is a point on a fixed screen mapping into a 3D space that is not fixed doesn't work. That is just a fact. It has nothing to do with programming or anything else, it should be self evident to anyone without any qualifications.

By having a (clever) follow camera you are turning precise cursor control into a sort of springy yaw control and that's just not precise enough for an advanced level of play. Your argument seems to be based on the premise that the cursor should always be relatively near your opponent and that the relative orientation of you and your opponent on screen doesn't change rapidly. That premise is rather obviously incorrect. If you don't think it is then you must have an extremely limited experience of the game and also play it in a very basic way which defeats the entire purpose of the combat system.

I'm also not saying that the current system is perfect and part of some sort of vision that we're not willing to let go of. It's not immediately intuitive and in some situations the camera is awkward to control but there's some very real and difficult constraints we're trying to work with. We're just trying to make the best of a bad situation, the combat system has some great merits but they come with a price. We've gone through this argument many times, I even implemented a follow camera to the best of my ability so that people could try it! The result is something that makes the combat extremely clunky and basic and it has other inevitable and fundamental flaws. It doesn't matter what the camera is following, the issue is trying to use a cursor (properly!) in a shifting space. Really, it just doesn't work.

Oh, and I find it quite offensive that my response should be considered somehow inappropriate. I've invested a lot of time in trying to explain the issues and difficulties. This is not a new argument and as I mentioned I even went as far as implementing the damn thing. I'm making some valid points and trying to explain why they are valid, something you might want to give a little more consideration to because it seems like they're just being dismissed.

 

[Soren]

What I've been saying is that it's "not possible" to control a cursor and rotate a camera at the same time. I said that controlling a cursor which is a point on a fixed screen mapping into a 3D space that is not fixed doesn't work.

... but that it's not possible to control a cursor and rotate a camera at the same time is the entire point in that the game would take over camera rotation for you (until you tell it to stop doing it again). And I don't feel it's fair to compare the clunkiness of a camera rotating with the character facing to a camera rotating toward an opponent, as the result is significantly different. The issue with the former (as I've experienced it) is that you have to move the cursor to add force to swing left and right, which rotates the character and thus rotates the follow camera, but that wouldn't be an issue with the latter.

Now I appreciate you take the time to respond and I am sorry if you are offended (though I am admittedly puzzled as to why). I will say though that remarks such as:

If you don't think it is then you must have an extremely limited experience of the game and also play it in a very basic way which defeats the entire purpose of the combat system.

... especially when it's been stated that "I have done a very patient effort fighting from all camera angles", could seem derogatory to some people, though I take no offence. But as JonU, I have some slight worry that some people might be turned away.

Beyond that, I'm done beating this poor horse.

 

[Tony]

I said that controlling a cursor which is a point on a fixed screen mapping into a 3D space that is not fixed doesn't work. That is just a fact. It has nothing to do with programming or anything else, it should be self evident to anyone without any qualifications.

... but that it's not possible to control a cursor and rotate a camera at the same time is the entire point in that the game would take over camera rotation for you (until you tell it to stop doing it again).

I think you misunderstood what he was trying to convey. He's saying cursor movements become less precise with a moving camera. Yes, you can do both simultaneously but doing so is undesirable because of this lack of precision. This is also the same point I've been repeating endlessly.