How to Improve Bunny Hop
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">An extension of the initial Bhop Thread</div>This isn't a discussion on the merits of Bunnyhop or Airspeed Control - if you're interested in discussing that, or if you don't agree with the premise of this thread, please consider this one instead: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104580" target="_blank">Bunny Hop and Airspeed Control</a>
<!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->This thread is a forward-looking attempt at improving an admittedly clunky gameplay mechanic.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Despite the thread's scope, I'd like to recap several points about bunnyhop that are commonly mentioned, so they don't need to be reiterated, and so they can be easily referenced. This is not an exhaustive list, and if you'd like to set up a thread just for that purpose, that would be great, it's just not what I'm going for here. Again, there are more, but that's the job of another thread:
- Has a slick interface without any complex key mashing once the fundamentals are understood
- It allows anyone who does understand the basics to incorporate a degree of finesse into the game akin to playing a musical instrument, which is highly rewarding for many people
- A fairly unique compromise between movement and aim, in that pressing sideways will necessarily interfere with aiming, as will the concentration needed to maintain the movement skill
- Scripting or hardware macros are all but required, creating a tremendous barrier to entry
- Pressing left and right to go forward is not intuitive to absolute novices who have never played a quake-engine based game before, but who would be interested in playing Natural-Selection 2
- Some people feel that bunny hop interferes with the atmosphere and immersion of a game
- Bunny hop creates controversy, if, for no other reason, because it is a highly skill oriented task, and that requires discipline, which can create frustration, and after all - this is only a game
- The fact that it isn't hugely unbalancing, but it offers a real and practical way for competitive players to get the last bit of power out of the gameplay skill curve, investing hundreds or thousands of hours perfecting their approach, creating immense replay value and adding the revenue potential of a competitively viable game
========================
Some solutions and extensions that were suggested:
- Keep bhop in along with air control. Make holding down spacebar = jump on contact with ground (ala quake), and add some documentation on how to bhop.
- Improve the animations to capitalize on the skill while maintaining atmosphere
- Create a mildly powerful "nub hob" charged jump to allow newbies a little extra push at the cost of a lot of energy, but which wouldn't be able to be improved by airspeed control (otherwise it would merely become another form of bhop and further the frustration for new players)
- Utilize advanced patterning of mouse movement to extend the bhop system past mere air control into even more ways of handling fast and deep movement, "Why take a step backward when we can take a step forward?"
===========================
So in summary, on the assumption that a game would benefit from bunny hop, and that it's a feature worth implementing in the primary gameplay experience, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->what should be done to <b>extend</b> and <b>improve</b> its functionality?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
<!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->This thread is a forward-looking attempt at improving an admittedly clunky gameplay mechanic.<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Despite the thread's scope, I'd like to recap several points about bunnyhop that are commonly mentioned, so they don't need to be reiterated, and so they can be easily referenced. This is not an exhaustive list, and if you'd like to set up a thread just for that purpose, that would be great, it's just not what I'm going for here. Again, there are more, but that's the job of another thread:
- Has a slick interface without any complex key mashing once the fundamentals are understood
- It allows anyone who does understand the basics to incorporate a degree of finesse into the game akin to playing a musical instrument, which is highly rewarding for many people
- A fairly unique compromise between movement and aim, in that pressing sideways will necessarily interfere with aiming, as will the concentration needed to maintain the movement skill
- Scripting or hardware macros are all but required, creating a tremendous barrier to entry
- Pressing left and right to go forward is not intuitive to absolute novices who have never played a quake-engine based game before, but who would be interested in playing Natural-Selection 2
- Some people feel that bunny hop interferes with the atmosphere and immersion of a game
- Bunny hop creates controversy, if, for no other reason, because it is a highly skill oriented task, and that requires discipline, which can create frustration, and after all - this is only a game
- The fact that it isn't hugely unbalancing, but it offers a real and practical way for competitive players to get the last bit of power out of the gameplay skill curve, investing hundreds or thousands of hours perfecting their approach, creating immense replay value and adding the revenue potential of a competitively viable game
========================
Some solutions and extensions that were suggested:
- Keep bhop in along with air control. Make holding down spacebar = jump on contact with ground (ala quake), and add some documentation on how to bhop.
- Improve the animations to capitalize on the skill while maintaining atmosphere
- Create a mildly powerful "nub hob" charged jump to allow newbies a little extra push at the cost of a lot of energy, but which wouldn't be able to be improved by airspeed control (otherwise it would merely become another form of bhop and further the frustration for new players)
- Utilize advanced patterning of mouse movement to extend the bhop system past mere air control into even more ways of handling fast and deep movement, "Why take a step backward when we can take a step forward?"
===========================
So in summary, on the assumption that a game would benefit from bunny hop, and that it's a feature worth implementing in the primary gameplay experience, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->what should be done to <b>extend</b> and <b>improve</b> its functionality?<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Comments
I honestly can't think of any improvements to the current bunny hop system. Unlike one of the points you mentioned, it doesn't require a macro to pull off... in fact truly mastering bunny hopping allows the person to be more versatile with it than someone who is using a macro.
I doubt we'd be able to come up with something as intuitive, easy to learn/hard to master, and fun as bunny hopping.
Assuming there's a tutorial, maybe bunny hopping should have it's own section?
Changes to movement skill is the one thing I don't look forward to in NS2, mainly because it's probably going to be dumbed down, as suggestions 1, 3, and possibly 4 (whatever that is) show.
Let's look at the physiology of the skulk to accomodate and explain their movements. I'll ignore the other classes because bunnyhopping shouldn't play a part with them. (A discussion for the other thread, as you mentioned.)
First, let's look at the skulk.
<img src="http://www.hot.ee/naturalselection/images/aliens/skulk.jpg" border="0" class="linked-image" />
This model makes the whole act of bunny hopping sensible if you look at this thing like it's a small deer.
<img src="http://i.pbase.com/o6/05/693105/1/73753263.4dbDF51p.Deerrunning.gif" border="0" class="linked-image" />
It just so happens to have the goat-like ability to also climb up into stupid places that they have no business climbing into. Like my nice clean ducting for example. Stupid goats.
So, okay, it can fit the creature. But does moving side to side really make any sense in the speed boost? No. The skill here is the fact that the side to side that skilled players will learn will help by making them harder to hit. Now the thing is, the movement is a set speed, and the normal hop is somewhat predictable.
Here's where I get tricky, but almost think it's intuitive. Holding down the spacebar lets us go hop, hop, hooray. Now, just at about the height of a hop, I let go of the space bar. Then just before landing I hit the spacebar again and all of a sudden I've done a double jump thing that sends me higher, when I land I can do it again a third time, though when I land this time all bonus speed or height is lost and I'm back at the same speed as before.
Okay, so I just put Mario 64 into NS. Great. Nubified to the max. But people could figure this out. Whether they can figure out how to make it useful in a combat situation will be where it could become part of the skillset.
Let's have some fun with this and keep going. I'm going back and forth, still fairly predictable movement pattern and going higher only results in me moving in a very predictable arch. So holding down the spacebar does an auto bunny hop, well, to be done properly we can't be "sticking" to walls, right? Okay, but let's exploit this and mix it with my double jump. At the peak of the jump when near a wall, if I let go of the spacebar and tap it again I should be able to do a bounce off the wall just like it was the floor. It's gotta be intuitive and smooth though. Looking up a bit causes me to bounce up into the air a bit higher, looking straight ahead should launch me out sideways just a bit like it was a bunny hop on the floor but gravity was temporarily sideways. But if I quickley turn perpendicular to the wall I'm launching off, my forward momentum stops and I should suddenly launch in the direction I'm looking. Done properly, I could leap from one side of the hallway to a ledge or vent on the other side very quickly. It's the sort of "turn" on a dime move that would make sense and used sensibly could allow for some tricky movement patterns, but is still advanced enough that new players won't catch on to it right away (nor is it critical enough to stand a chance.) Mix in celerity and it could be nuts.
End Rambling;
Cl_showspeed 1 should be allowed without sv_cheats 1.
Or, hell, you can make it so that there are upgrades available that allow the BHopping mechanic to respond in different ways, that'd be interesting.
That is so true. Bunny hopping took a lot of practice, and im still improving. But its not something i think about, i just do it automatically. It feels so good to bunny hop, its so fluid and enjoyable. Often i will be happy to just bunny hop around a map on my own for a fair while.
I'm just going to say now, I think nearly everyone who thinks bunny hopping should be removed, cannot bunny hop. If am i wrong, feel free to upload a video of you bunny hopping around.... say.... ns_lost.
Now, I think we should take a lesson from the 2nd most popular Third Party Mod for Half-Life (after NS) which is The Specialists (TS). It was an amazingly good game, and it hit its peak at TS 2.1, in which there was a fluid kung fu combat system (with a number of small glitches which made it even more enjoyable). Exciting stunts, bunny hopping, and boosting.
After TS 2.1, a massive update was announced, it would be the final version of TS... The Specialists 3.0.
As in every game, the good players are usually in the minority <b>and they are the ones who usually just play games instead of rambling on in forums voicing their opinions</b>. Now, so many suggestions were made for TS 3.0, which resulted in the final release of the game being absolute trash, influenced mainly by people who weren't very good at the game, and complained a lot.
As a result of this;
- Bunny Hopping was removed.
- Kung Fu lost its 'feel' and became a LOT less enjoyable.
- Stunting was changed to make it more skill capped.
- Many of the weapons used by the better players, namely pistols, were lowered in damage.
- Many of the newbie weapons, such as automatic spam rifles, were raised in damage.
- Most weapons became retardedly inaccurate (again, removing skill and adding luck)
- Body Armor was added (slowing you down, but making you take a lot less damage)
Now, basically every single one of these changes, was against the good players. Before the release of TS 3.0, Australia had a very vibrant and enjoyable TS community (which was also a very professional community, having dozens of excellent players).
Within a week of the release of TS 3.0, the game completely died. People stopped, because everything they loved about the game was gone. Then as a result of that, the newbie players also stopped playing, because all the good players didn't enjoy the game anymore, hence noone was on.
I don't want to see this happen to NS, and i think a lesson should be taken from The Specialists.
Sure a _LOT_ of newbie players want bunny hopping and other elements changed. But, have you noticed the forums are flooded with badly though out, ridiculous ideas for weapons, aliens, armors, items, game elements and so on? I'd say less than one in every 20 threads is even worth reading, let alone considering for implementation.
Yes, listen to your community, but also learn to ignore them. Otherwise NS2 <i>will</i> suffer.
...
End Rambling;<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Let me summarize BigD's suggestion as "<!--coloro:Lime--><span style="color:Lime"><!--/coloro-->Pong"-like options<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. This would apply to the skulk only.
Put simply, this means(if you take away the Mario 64 inspired stuff) improved walljumping with momentum conservation. It adds the ability to <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->bounce<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> off walls and ceilings and floors, gaining speed or opening up new options for dodging and escape.
This suggestion is notable because it could be implemented independent of the core air control mechanic. However, it would interact with bunny hop significantly, and so could be seen as an improvement to bunny hop. Interesting scenarios may arise from this combination. Consider building speed with bunny hop and then hopping off a rail and from there purposely running into a wall to reverse direction at the height of the jump to gain more height while retaining the speed. (Gummy bears theme plays in the background.) Of course, you would have to be able to control when you bounce and when you don't.
But, as I said, this mechanic is independent of the actual bunny hop and airspeed mechanic, so maybe it is better discussed in its own thread. The core issues still need to be addressed here.
Or, hell, you can make it so that there are upgrades available that allow the BHopping mechanic to respond in different ways, that'd be interesting.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Basically skulk is the lifeform that uses the bhop. The rest of the lifeforms won't most likely need any limits. You can prevent fade from gaining speed by the movement, but that affects quite little. If you limit the pure jump by cs styled slowdown, it heavily affects the mobility.
As for the skulk, the painkiller style is fine as long as it can be balanced for both low and high skill (basically faster skulks mean more problems for the low skill marines). I don't really care which buttons you have to press, but the air control and curves should remain unless somebody comes up with new ways of dodging.
But besides my predictions, I expect gameplay balancing will be required for even the most subtle changes.
So what you're saying is that in addition to regular bhop (which would function by holding down spacebar, instead of by quake jumping) you would be able to "charge" a series of 3 jumps, but you wouldn't actually be required to do it if you just wanted the speed boost without the extra "air"?
Or are you suggesting that bhop would only function for 3 jumps no matter what? If that's the case, you should be aware that the primary purpose of bhop used in any serious faculty is for map navigation - it wouldn't really serve its true purpose (and would be pretty boring as a movement corollary to aim) if that was all that was possible.
<!--quoteo(post=1684945:date=Jul 31 2008, 01:24 PM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bacillus @ Jul 31 2008, 01:24 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684945"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Basically skulk is the lifeform that uses the bhop.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually gorges need bhop at least as much as skulks if they're going to be scouting, and fades multiply their blink with blink-hop which is the same as bhop but using blink in place of jump. You can actually hold blink down and combine it with air acceleration to get a massive speed boost fairly quickly (that is, after all, what fades are for). Although if you made lerks the speed demons of NS2 and made fades teleport you would kill 2 birds with one stone.
Let's examine the basics of how air acceleration works from the player's perspective. (For the purposes of simplification, the details of orthogonality and discrete summation etc. will be left out and I would direct you to Soylent_Green's post in the other Bunny Hop thread.)
-------------------- <!--coloro:fuchsia--><span style="color:fuchsia"><!--/coloro-->(skip down to the next division line if you just want to see my suggestions)<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
Essentially, it is this: <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->mouselooking while strafing creates additional acceleration<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. We need not consider wiggly lines, or figure eights, or jumping scripts, or anything else. Those are simply derivatives of this most fundamental feature.
You strafe to one side as you rotate your view to that same side. The speed at which you rotate your view determines your acceleration, and there is an optimum rotation speed. So we have two elements of control, the <!--coloro:slateblue--><span style="color:slateblue"><!--/coloro-->fluid element<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which is the mouse, and the <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->direction element<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, which is a strafe key.
The complexity of bunny hop then arises from <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->movement path generation<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. You must navigate geometry and therefore must plan your path, in terms of where you touch the ground and when you change view rotation direction (and when you bite a marine). But you can also purposely temper your speed by degenerating to a suboptimum rotation speed which is actually necessary to optimize your path. This value-weighted pathfinding process is something AI cannot do well, which tells us it is potentially interesting for gameplay.
In fact, the premise of the curving bunny hop motion itself is the same because the actual path is longer, but optimization occurs because of the additional gain in speed. So you give up something to get something even greater over all.
The fluid element of control underlying air acceleration must retain sufficient resolution in order to exhibit this ability to optimize, so <!--coloro:slateblue--><span style="color:slateblue"><!--/coloro-->mouse motion must be used<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. Keys on the keyboard will not suffice. This is why it takes finesse, which is why it is fun and why it has a desirable skill curve. <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->The role of the mouse in air acceleration cannot be simplified<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
What about <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->other elements of air speed control<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->?
Well, <!--coloro:yellow--><span style="color:yellow"><!--/coloro-->the only other element is the strafing<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. But the direction of strafing specifies the direction in which the additional acceleration is applied. One option is to eliminate backwards air acceleration by automatically (and artificially) applying additional acceleration associated with the same side of view rotation when the forward key or any strafe key is held down. Of course, this eliminates the backwards glide dodge, a good marine's mainstay, as well as removing backward-hop-parasiting and trick hopping-spinning etc. It also could potentially confuse new players who must contend with strange accelerations when all they want to do is run and turn and jump and bite the silly marine. <!--coloro:red--><span style="color:red"><!--/coloro-->I would argue that it is not worth the sacrifice<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
In conclusion, the control mechanism for air acceleration cannot be simplified, and so <!--coloro:lightskyblue--><span style="color:lightskyblue"><!--/coloro-->cannot be improved upon by reducing the demands on the player<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
--------------------
So, based on this understanding, <!--coloro:fuchsia--><span style="color:fuchsia"><!--/coloro-->how might air acceleration be improved or enhanced<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->? Of course, we could further couple motion to movement.
One way to do it is to make the optimization more dynamic by creating a dependency of the optimum view rotation speed on movement speed. This simple mechanism sets up a <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->dynamic equilibrium<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> which must be maintained for optimization. Perhaps, the higher the movement speed, the lower the optimum view rotation speed, making it harder to resolve without additional attention to motor skill. With additional gameplay demands placed on the player with regard to timing and direction change, the dynamic equilibrium must be rebalanced constantly.
However, because optimization of geometry navigation is already a complex task, this might be too much to handle. We would have to see how it feels.
To me, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->the natural evolution of air acceleration is to fully utilize the other axis of mouse motion. Give the control dynamics of air acceleration a full 2 dimensions<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
Now the above discussion of options for limiting strafe keys becomes useful. For an analogous <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->vertical wave motion<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> based on the analogous controls, we would need swim up and swim down. This is not practical. So, for vertical acceleration, there would need to be an automatically chosen acceleration added in the appropriate direction, which is forward plus down/up. This would naturally be in proportion to vertical view rotation speed, with an optimum.
An interesting result would be that the <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->jump height could increase<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, as would the vertical speed, and the vertical position/time curve would change. Additionally, this would give a player the ability to <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->dodge using height<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> while bunny hopping, or create more advanced skill techniques which require the vertical control in order to better position to hit a rail, or avoid an obstacle, hop over a marine's head or field of view, etc.
Following the theme of orthogonal motion adding inordinate acceleration, perhaps the additional vertical and additional horizontal acceleration <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->would combine nonlinearly<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, so that coinciding them would create more benefit than the sum of each alone. Naturally, this would involve the additional acceleration of one altering the optimum rotation speed of the other. But that might be too complex. Maybe if vertical only affected horizontal in order to avoid psycho positive feedback, it could work.
While airspeed is used extensively with skulk bunny hopping, other classes would benefit too. Lerks would become crazy acrobatic wave-motion fighter pilots (actually they would corkscrew) under this system (pancakes 2.0! lol). If you want to go all out with the skulk flying squirrel idea then you could make it so enough speed coupled to upward motion and an optimum upward view rotation speed would let a skulk glide far distances. Not to mention fades.
In summary, this is a suggestion for <!--coloro:slateblue--><span style="color:slateblue"><!--/coloro-->interdependent horizontal and vertical air acceleration<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, so more complex patterns of motion could emerge.
I forgot the gorge mobility really. As for the fade I meant that it doesn't rely that much on the bhop mechanics. Anybody able to hit something with the blink can do it, it doesn't necessarily take the skill to gain rapid speed by bhop. I guess I've misjudged the effect of the curving though. I do it quite a lot by the nature, but haven't really considered how big the effect really is.
PS: Shout out for a goat skulk skin for NS2.
I honestly can't think of any improvements to the current bunny hop system. Unlike one of the points you mentioned, it doesn't require a macro to pull off... in fact truly mastering bunny hopping allows the person to be more versatile with it than someone who is using a macro.
I doubt we'd be able to come up with something as intuitive, easy to learn/hard to master, and fun as bunny hopping.
Assuming there's a tutorial, maybe bunny hopping should have it's own section?
Changes to movement skill is the one thing I don't look forward to in NS2, mainly because it's probably going to be dumbed down, as suggestions 1, 3, and possibly 4 (whatever that is) show.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->I'm surprised to hear you say that bunnyhopping is <u>intuitive</u>. Can be learned quickly with the right information, yes. But it's certainly not intuitive.
Let's look at the facts here, <b>the following aspects are completely unintuitive</b>:
1. Pressing forward when attempting bunnyhopping does not increase speed, in fact when bunnyhopping it prevents you from increasing speed (breaking an almost universal game convention)
2. Pressing crouch and jump at the precise moment you hit the floor retains a lot of momentum, pressing jump on its own does not retain the same amount of momentum (there is no equivalent to this in the physical world we live in, this is entirely an inaccuracy of the physics code)
3. Strafing (or to a newcomer 'side-stepping') while your feet are not on the ground can increase speed
None of that is intuitive and there is nothing in the game that indicates these conventions exist. The only thing in the game that indicates this is even possible is the breakneck speeds you'll see some players going at (166% of normal running speed).
<b>Things that are generally intuitive</b> (imo):
1. Turning tightly can be seen to increase momentum (akin to the centrifugal effect)
2. Spending a minimum amount of time on the ground minimalises the effects of surface friction and therefore maximises retention of momentum (i.e. bouncing along the ground keeps your speed up)
Now, if you take the above two points and re-design bunnhyopping in NS to eliminate the unintuitive aspects, I think the game will be much improved and there won't be this divide between people who are bunnyhopping and people who just don't know how to.
<b>My proposals:</b>
1. Queued-up jump system like Quake 3 Arena (press jump in the air and if you hit the ground within X seconds you will automatically perform a second jump)
2. Chaining jumps (a.k.a. bunnyhopping) retains momentum
3. Pressing forward during bhop has no effect (one way or the other)
4. Turning the view smoothly from left to right (using what some have referred to as 'the infinity motion' of the mouse) during forward motion increases momentum slightly. The tighter the completed turn (provided rate of turning is constant, and the rate itself is not too severe), the more momentum gained.
5. Strafing in the direction of the turn may or may not be necessary to perform, but if it is it must be explained in an official tutorial (preferably in-game).
6. Jumping up slopes has the same effect on momentum in NS2 as in NS.
Intuitive may have been the wrong word for most people. It's natural for myself to try bunnyhopping out in every game I play. I don't use real world examples to try to rationalize video game code, especially sci-fi based games like Quake/UT/NS. I learn from example, specifically from the people who are better than me. If a player has that mind set, I don't think bunny hopping basics are difficult to figure out. Is bunny hopping intuitive? For myself and most of the people I play with it is, it's a natural part of our gameplay that is done without us even realizing it. I assume this the case for most people who have played online FPS's before. If it's someones first time I can certainly see how they wouldn't be able to figure it out on their own.
It seems like your suggestions intrude upon player skill the least, I specifically wouldn't mind points 2 and 4.
It's not BHopping I have something against, it's how NS BHopping works with this left/right zigzagging. What I'd like done is keep the BHop as is, but also allow people to BHop by holding the forward key. This actually makes a shred of sense from a gameplay and design perspective, to allow the forward key to make you move forward just as well (if not better) than left/right.
<!--quoteo(post=1685062:date=Aug 1 2008, 09:55 AM:name=NovusAnimus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NovusAnimus @ Aug 1 2008, 09:55 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685062"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I'd like done is keep the BHop as is, but also allow people to BHop by holding the forward key.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I actually already addressed this in my previous post... you may want to (re)read it for context.
<!--quoteo(post=1684978:date=Jul 31 2008, 07:29 PM:name=juice)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(juice @ Jul 31 2008, 07:29 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1684978"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One option is to eliminate backwards air acceleration by automatically (and artificially) applying additional acceleration associated with the same side of view rotation when the forward key or any strafe key is held down. Of course, this eliminates the backwards glide dodge, a good marine's mainstay, as well as removing backward-hop-parasiting and trick hopping-spinning etc. It also could potentially confuse new players who must contend with strange accelerations when all they want to do is run and turn and jump and bite the silly marine. I would argue that it is not worth the sacrifice.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But, what about making it an option? You could enable "easy" air accel, and all you would have to do is hold forward. It would not be as effective nor would it be as versatile. And it would always be on, and so it would actually be a handicap in some places. Maybe you could have a toggle for it. But it would address concerns from NovusAnimus-type casual gamers.
Also, now that I think about it, <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->you could actually retain backward hop as well<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, if you apply the reversed additional rotation when holding down the backward key. For clarification, <!--coloro:fuchsia--><span style="color:fuchsia"><!--/coloro-->this is essentially equivalent to automatically pressing a certain strafe key depending on view rotation direction if you are not touching the ground<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
To me, this does not improve or extend bunny hop. But it might make it more accessible to some players. I guess it is possible to simplify it after all. (Again, see my <!--coloro:lightskyblue--><span style="color:lightskyblue"><!--/coloro-->NS2 PhD thesis<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> above)
EDIT: @crispy: I don't enjoy quake style airspeed control physics nearly as much, simply because you can't get as responsive a result from them. I can see the arguments against the unintutive "clunky" aspects of bhop, quake style airspeed control (I'm not talking about the queued jumping, just the mouse motions themselves) is inferior to HL's system.
The option would not be a server setting, it would be an individual control choice, like fastswitch.
I'm not sure how you would give it enough of a penalty to its effectiveness though if it truly is that much easier to do. I would probably script it - ironically much like fastswitch - so that I could use both at any time, which encourages advanced players to use a fairly clunky interface, and I've noticed by previous podcasts that Flayra wants to encourage advanced play as much as intuition - which is the reason I stick around these forums.
Could you explain further how you would go about making it less effective while making it more accessible and intuitive?
PS: You might also run into the problem that, once a player got used to the simpler version, they would have a hard time migrating, which could still create some division or at least a great deal of headache especially among competitive leagues.
I don't really have an answer to the bimodal skill distribution (chasm) that would develop, nor the same clunky interface for advanced players. And as for making the easy mode less effective, all I had in mind was making the effect less than what could reasonably be accomplished with a high level of skill without it.
So, what could we do? Well, we could just make "easy"(no strafe clicky-clack) air acceleration apply to everyone, which solves the clunkiness problem. Then it's just a matter of moving the mouse. But that's really too simple, isn't it? It would tend to chop off the higher end of the skill spectrum. The solution is to implement one or both of my 2 suggestions above for mouse motion coupled to movement.
The result is that instead of requiring the player to press strafe keys back and forth, more attention would need to be paid to mouse-based finesse. The interface is slicker, but it retains the skill scaleability. I think the "intuitiveness" issues would fade away if you didn't have to keep pressing strafe keys just to make it work at the most basic level.
Also, I think it is possible to make <!--coloro:slateblue--><span style="color:slateblue"><!--/coloro-->an advanced mouse motion patterning system based on fairly simple rules which is as complex and difficult to master as you could ever conceivably want<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. That is, if you do it right, the skill ceiling can be incredibly high. Also, with the strafe keys independent from air accel, they may be open to other purposes or interactions with the advanced mouse motion.
Naturally, there must be a greater range of speeds and patterns available than in NS1 in order to accomodate greater participation in air accel by more casual players and still retain significant skill differences across the population.
It would be dwarfed by bhop but it would let new players who don't understand it, at least a little leeway in their time to learn it - something that couldn't be effected by airspeed control, so that it would be explicitly for new players.
I disagree; and having played both CS, NS and Quake to a decently high competetive level, I think my opinion probably carries more weight than most of the forumers here who mostly don't have the same firsthand experience that I do of the two engines at hand and their respective pros and cons as regards aircontrol and the bunnyhop mechanic.
The QW method (Quakeworld / CPMA / Warsow) of aircontrol and airacceleration is basically identical to the HL implementation. The left-right bunnyhop movements can be carried out the same, the queued hopping is in place, but there's also the mechanic to bhop in a relatively straight line and increase speed by holding <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->foward+strafe<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> whilst 'bhopping'. That is the original strafejump, which the HL mechanic is a derivative of. The combination of aircontrol (air control at the expense of speed) and strafejumping (speed at the expense of air control) makes the <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->Quakeworld method incredibly versatile<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, much <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->moreso than the HL method<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->.
In my personal opinion, there are a couple of things which need to happen as regards for air control/bunnyhopping if it is implemented in NS2. I'm working on the assumption here that bhopping won't be substituted for something else, because let's face it in the last 15 years of game development, there has been <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->ONE<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> alternative skill-based movement system (<!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->dodge-jumping<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> from the Unreal Tournament series) which was atrociously bad for a whole bunch of reasons which I don't want to elaborate on here because it's rather offtopic.
1) There needs to be an in-depth tutorial to explain bhopping and how it works. If the developers don't have the experience/knowledge to make a comprehensive tutorial about it, then someone with that knowledge from the community needs to be asked to do it. Hell, I'll do it if it's what's needed.
2) It needs to be a <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro--><u>documented feature</u><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> of the game, otherwise we'll get the same "OMG BHOP EXPLOIT" crap that we've seen here every other day for the last 5 years.
3) Queued jump commands <u>need to be implemented</u>, as the current method of timing the jumpspam using a 3jump script or mousewheel spam is just an <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->unnecessary barrier-to-entry<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. If it was removed by the inclusion of queued jump commands, a lot more people would pick it up a lot faster.
I don't believe the mechanic of bhop/strafejumping itself is inherently flawed. It has worked fine for multiple generations of games and I honestly believe that it will continue to do so for a good number of years yet. No, it isn't an intuitive skill, but that just means that more effort needs to be put into helping people understand it.
After having played 5 years of Jedi Outcast (which had another alternate movement system from the Quake engine that did actually work), several of which was spent in what was arguably the game's best clan at the time, followed by (going on) 5 years of NS, I agree with most of your post but I don't think this portion makes sense.
My initial statement was that HL's system allows for more responsiveness, the implication being that the <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->greater level of responsiveness<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> allows for a more engaging gameplay experience <strike>because you can continue to go fast without having to put on "air brakes" to increase your mobility, and that <!--coloro:#88FF88--><span style="color:#88FF88"><!--/coloro-->this is strikingly better gameplay than Quake's implementation because it allows a greater sense of freedom to the player<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. This system is also more intuitive because you will always have an easier time controlling your player model, even at breakneck speeds. When a new player somehow randomly "clicks" their bunnyhop in quake for the first time, it's unlikely they will be able to keep it up for very long, due to the way you lose control as you increase in velocity. This mechanic makes realistic sense, but I don't personally find it as enjoyable as the HL implementation, because it feels like going from a Lamborghini to an overloaded SUV</strike>.
With that said, the other elements you've mentioned, such as <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->focusing your speed by holding forward<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, would be good to have in the game.
My initial statement was that HL's system allows for more responsiveness, the implication being that the <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->greater level of responsiveness<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> allows for a more engaging gameplay experience because you can continue to go fast without having to put on "air brakes" to increase your mobility, and that <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->this is strikingly better gameplay than Quake's implementation because it allows a greater sense of freedom to the player<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. This system is also more intuitive because you will always have an easier time controlling your player model, even at breakneck speeds. When a new player somehow randomly "clicks" their bunnyhop in quake for the first time, it's unlikely they will be able to keep it up for very long, due to the way you lose control as you increase in velocity. This mechanic makes realistic sense, but I don't personally find it as enjoyable as the HL implementation, because it feels like going from a Lamborghini to an overloaded SUV.
With that said, the other elements you've mentioned, such as <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->focusing your speed by holding forward<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, would be good to have in the game.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your post is flawed because you wrongly assume that you lose speed in Quake when using air control - you don't. It doesn't slow you down, you just don't accelerate as quickly. The air control functions exactly the same in Quake as it does in HL, the only difference is that if you us strafejumps aswell (forward+strafe + mouse motion) you can gain speed faster, at the expense of having less air control. You can interchange the two techniques from one jump to the next. It essentially allows a way to rapidly gain speed when you're moving in a relatively straight line and don't need to turn corners etc and when you do need to turn corners, you stop pressing your forward key and revert back to using just air control ala the HL method.
I've used both for a good number of years now and the Quake implementation is undoubtedly more versatile due to there being two separate techniques as opposed to HL's one.
You misread my assumptions - I'm not saying that <i>you lose speed in Quake when using air control</i>. I'm saying that <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->Quake's airspeed implementation is less responsive, which leads to less engaging gameplay by nerfing a good player's ability to maneuver - which reduces the fun level of the game by inhibiting the exhillaration and/or freedom-sense garnered by a more open-ended movement implementation<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->, and that as a result, the entire purpose of a game (to be fun) is impacted negatively.
<strike>I understand your point of view, in that you value the versatility of being forced to choose between speed and the ability to position your character freely. This is a valid viewpoint, but</strike> I think that objectively Quake's implementation results in less engaging gameplay on the whole, <strike>and instead more time spent making tactical decisions about "which penalty do I want more" (similar to the change in speed from Super Smash Bros Melee to Super Smash Bros Brawl")</strike>.
I definitely agree with your argument on the versatility of being able to focus your velocity forward by holding forward while you hop, but the inhibitory properties of Quake style air control seem inferior to me, <strike>I guess you don't share this opinion and would prefer to be required to take "pit stops" at sharp turns every time you were trying to maneuver?</strike>
I understand your point of view, in that you value the versatility of being forced to choose between speed and the ability to position your character freely. This is a valid viewpoint, but I think that objectively Quake's implementation results in less engaging gameplay on the whole...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While you're entitled to your opinion and I won't take that away from you, I believe <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->your opinion is based on a much less complete knowledge of the mechanics of Quake<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> than you could have. That isn't to say your opinion is any less valid, just that it could be a lot better informed; however I wouldn't expect you to put in the time to learn the mechanics of how the game works in a competetive environment just for this discussion.
Below is part of a statement issued by the E-Sports World Cup organisation after they took the unprecedented move of using Quake3 CPMA in this year's tournament, as opposed to Quake4 which is a much slower and less agile game.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We have made the choice to keep a fast FPS game in ESWC in spite of the fact that the community of players is reduced and that the challenge is reserved to an elite. In a word, this family of games offers the most obvious demonstration of what a cyber athlete is and what electronic sports should be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Evidently they disagree with you ("Quake's airspeed...less engaging gameplay"), having made that choice at the expense of some of their sponsors and beyond that, even making the choice to use the CPMA mod specifically (which is precisely the Quake movement mechanic we are debating over <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />)
I would also refer you here in regards to learning a little more about Quake movement if you like:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeFRaG" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeFRaG</a>
And I'm gonna finish this post by reminding you that the <!--coloro:#00FF00--><span style="color:#00FF00"><!--/coloro-->implementation of air-control in Quake is almost identical to the implementation in the Half-Life engine<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> as that seems to be a large part of your argument.
<!--quoteo(post=1685515:date=Aug 8 2008, 09:13 PM:name=)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE( @ Aug 8 2008, 09:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I definitely agree with your argument on the versatility of being able to focus your velocity forward by holding forward while you hop, but the inhibitory properties of Quake style air control seem inferior to me, I guess you don't share this opinion and would prefer to be required to take "pit stops" at sharp turns every time you were trying to maneuver?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The air control techniques are the same <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> Hopefully we can just end this discussion now as it's not really helping us improve the bunnyhop mechanic in NS2.
However, with that said, this is the last time I will be pointing out this issue barring something completely unexpected (because as you said, it's not getting us anywhere if you won't address the argument I'm making).
<!--quoteo(post=1685515:date=Aug 8 2008, 04:13 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Aug 8 2008, 04:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685515"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->("Quake's airspeed...less engaging gameplay"),<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Followed by:
<!--quoteo(post=1685550:date=Aug 9 2008, 10:06 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marks @ Aug 9 2008, 10:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Evidently they disagree with you [in choosing Q3 over Q4 for gameplay]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is a complete fabrication of a straw man. Saying that "Quake 3 is better than Quake 4" is not the same as saying "Quake 3 is better than Half-Life." and arguing that because they made that first decision, that it necessitates the second, is a complete class mistake and invalidates your appeal to a third party.
Furthermore, <!--quoteo(post=1685550:date=Aug 9 2008, 10:06 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marks @ Aug 9 2008, 10:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->the implementation of air-control in Quake is <b>almost</b> identical to the implementation in the Half-Life engine<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->followed by<!--quoteo(post=1685550:date=Aug 9 2008, 10:06 AM:name=marks)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(marks @ Aug 9 2008, 10:06 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685550"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The air control techniques <b>are the same</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Is a complete contradiction. Which is it?
<strike>The issue here (the one you keep avoiding) is the fact that <!--coloro:#88FF88--><span style="color:#88FF88"><!--/coloro-->in Quake's implementation you have to decelerate to maintain mobility<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->. As I previously stated, this is not good gameplay compared to Half-Life's implementation where <!--coloro:#88FF88--><span style="color:#88FF88"><!--/coloro-->you remain agile at high speeds<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc--> despite the fact that it doesn't include the realism element of "fast objects are harder to control than slow objects assuming a constant steering force", nor does it require you to make the decision of "speed vs mobility"</strike> it is better gameplay, and that's based on my many years of playing games based on Quake 3 (such as Warsow) and my resulting experiential understanding of its bunny-hop mechanics.
Please consider <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104609&view=findpost&p=1685515" target="_blank">the point I've made about this several times now</a> if you intend to keep making arguments around it, or move the topic in a different direction.
Secondly, the point you claim I am avoiding, is completely moot anyway.
<!--quoteo(post=1685563:date=Aug 9 2008, 07:06 PM:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix @ Aug 9 2008, 07:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1685563"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The issue here (the one you keep avoiding) is the fact that in Quake's implementation you have to decelerate to maintain mobility. As I previously stated, this is not good gameplay compared to Half-Life's implementation where you remain agile at high speeds...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is simply untrue.
In Quake, you do not need to decelerate in order to maintain air control or as you put it, mobility. Without access to the source code for both physics systems it is impossible for me to say whether they are identical or not; however from my personal experience of playing regularly on both for a multitude of years it is my conclusion that the two systems are so similar that whatever arbitrary code differences there are between them make little difference.
The difference is simply that Quake gives you another mechanic which you can use to accelerate faster (StrafeJumping) at the expensive of air control which isn't available in Half-Life. If you wanted to, you could play Quake using the exact same air control as you would do in HL, my point is that there is an extra mechanic that you can use if you so wish.
Your previous post which you linked to said, and I quote:
<!--quoteo(post=0:date=:name=Radix)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Radix)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Quake's airspeed implementation is less responsive, which leads to less engaging gameplay by nerfing a good player's ability to maneuver<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is just flat out wrong.
If you actually read my posts, you would understand that as regards aircontrol and bunnyhopping, everything which you can do in HL you can also do in Quake just the same. Quake also gives you another mechanic (StrafeJumping) which you can use aswell if you want to. As a result of the ability to combine two separate movement techniques (Quake has like 10+ but we'll limit the discussion to just these 2 for arguments sake) gives a player <b>more</b> ability to manouver in Quake than in Half-Life.
Have I addressed the point clearly enough for you?