Picking Up Swords...

[obscurus]

I was wondering what people thought about being able to pick up dropped swords, hammers, etc and using them as weapons? Even if the thief does not normally carry a sword, I think it would be nice if could pick up weapons that have been dropped or are otherwise lying around, for circumstances where there is no choice but to fight. .. Or weapons that wear out after a period of use, and you have to steal/find/buy a new one?

[Ishtvan]

We've discussed it a little but I don't think came to a conclusion. I'm usually for adding in realistic options to make the game more "immersive," even if those options are useless (for example, in a game with guns, pulling the trigger on an empty gun and seeing the hand model pull the trigger, the hammer go back and hearing an empty click when it dry fires).

 

Our thief tries to avoid direct combat, so he doesn't spend much time training in weapons other than the shortsword. As such, when he picked up one of these weapons, he would have very little skill with it and we would have to reflect that ingame somehow (slow or out of control swing with it, nearly impossible to parry with it, etc). This would probably make picking up these items useless for all intents and purposes except perhaps stabbing/braining someone who's back is to you if you somehow lost your shortsword.

 

But there is no logical reason why the player should not be able to pick up these items and see for themselves that they're useless, which I think adds a lot to the believability of the game. On the other hand, it requires new animations for using the weapons and extra coding to simulate our lack of skill when using them.

 

IMO, this is one of those things that doesn't have too high a priority but that we should think about doing once we get the core gameplay code done.

[Darkness_Falls]

I lied here, so I removed what I wrote

Edited May 17, 2005 by Darkness_Falls

[obscurus]

I would understand if no one could be bothered doing the extra work for something that doesn't add much directly to gameplay, but being able to do stupid silly things with objects lying around really does add to the immersion within the game. Actually, it seems to be becoming more of a problem in games - the more graphically realistic games get, the more people notice things that are inconsisted with their reality. Peoples brains can cope with wierd rules when the game is simple and crude, but when it looks visually real, but behaves unlike reality, many people find it very disconcerting. I find T1 much more immersive than T3, I think because the level of visual realism is better matched to gameplay realism.

So doom 3 renders more visually realistic environments, you need to ramp up gameplay realism to match, or it stuffs in-game immersion...

Does that make sense to you?

[Ishtvan]

It does make sense. Now we just need 10 more programmers to meet all the realistic options demands and still release before 2008

[Maximius]

Would it take a full fledged programmer to do such work, or could lowly newbie editors try their hands at some simple knick knacks?

[Darkness_Falls]

I agree that it adds to my immersion. I think I read within we're looking into the idea of being able to pick up that kind've stuff, but not being able to add it to your inventory. You'd be able to swing the stuff around by moving your body around; and the faster you turn the harder the swing -- so, you'd get partial use where you could do some damage with it... but not so much use that you're somehow an expert with a battle axe or hammer, etc. I dunno, I could be dreaming this up, but I'm pretty sure this was proposed and/or something that's seriously being considered. I feel this would be a nice "meet in the middle" sort of thing.

[Springheel]

It's a side-effect of the new object handling, DF. We won't have to code a separate system for weapons. Players can pick them up and swing them if they want...it will just be clumsy and rather pointless, the way it would be in real life for an untrained thief.

[FishFace]

So does that mean you'll be handling them a little like HL2, where they were actually in the world, and if you walked into a wall holding it, then it'd scrape against the wall and maybe you'd drop it?

[Springheel]

That's our intention at the moment.

[Ishtvan]

I dunno, I think swinging your whole view to swing the sword could get rather annoying. Even a clumsy thief can move their arms independently of their whole body. If we don't have time to do actual clumsy swing animations and coding though I guess it's a good fallback.

[Fingernail]

uh? you'll have a short sword of your own that won't be subject to such ridicule.

[Ishtvan]

Yeah, so if you can swing the shortsword without moving your whole entire body & head, why can't you do so for other weapons? I think the swinging your view around works great for random items you'd pick up like a vase or something, but it seems really awkward for a weapon. I know we want it to be awkward, but I would rather we do awkward in a believable way if we have end up having time (like slow and out of control swings) than awkward as in you hold out a longsword straight in front of you like a robot and get motion sickness while trying to hit things.

 

Also, that system would have no inertia involved in swinging a big heavy sword. You can swing the sword as fast as you can look, which might make it easier than you think to use these in combat. Hell, people could get faster at combat that way by increasing their mouse sensitivity. You could swing a big heavy hammer or greatsword faster than the shortsword this way, which is kind've the opposite of what we want.

 

That's why I'm more in favor of a first person animation for the weapons. In a pinch we could take the short sword swing & parry animations and just slow them down. I remember Oddity saying that we could re-use a lot of the same animations this way.

 

Sorry to carry on an internal discussion in the public boards but I guess it's too late now.

[obscurus]

Well, I don't think the idea of moving the whole screen around is such a good idea, I mean, I don't know about you, I have had no training in using broad swords etc, but I have picked them up and swung them around (at a local mediaeval club exhibition), and while it was a bit awkward, it wasn't that hard to do (mind you, I am reasonably well built and strong, so it might have been a fair bit harder fo someone half my weight).

 

The real problem with an untrained swordsman is that they will likely make lots of mistakes that leave them open to a competent swordsman getting a swing in while your guard is down.

 

So if it is possible to code and animate, it would be better to make it so that if you pick up a broadsword or hammer, you will sing it a bit slower than the guards will, and you will not be able to block attacks as well. If you can simulate the inertia of a sword in a way that is playable and realistic, all the better.

 

Oh, real swords also vibrate a LOT when you hit them against another sword, and if you aren't prepared for it, you might drop the sword when you block or are blocked... maybe you can use a sword, but if the guard blocks you, or you try blocking the guard, the sword falls out of your hands...

[Springheel]

Well, the swinging using the cursor system will already be implemented as a natural consequence of our object use. So we could code a second awkward way to do something most players won't bother doing, but having a workable method already drops it so far down the list of things to do that it almost falls off the bottom, IMO.

[Darkness_Falls]

Things like this are always touchy subjects. If we don't implement a full-on "you're-no-expert-with-this-weapon-so-don't-even-bother" system, complete with slow swinging animations and ineffective blows and occasional weapon drops, then we're somehow no good; even though it's an admitted improvement to even be able to pick up the wespon in the first place.

 

[obscurus]

I am not an animator, so tell me if this is not going to work, but is it possible to make a generic animation of the players hands swinging a sword/stick etc, then bind other objects into the players grip, that way, you can put any weapon in them players hands they want - sword, umbrella, stick whatever, you just have to model a new weapon that way. Presumably you will be making animations for guards wielding swords etc, can you extract the relevant animation data and use it for player, or am I being too hopeful?

 

I mean Garret had a proper sword in T1/T2, and while it isn't realistic for a thief to carry one, it does NOT mean that the thief has not been trained in its use, not by a long shot. Remember Garret was trained by Keepers, and part of that training was combat (not just how to avoid it). Many people learn martial arts in the hope that they may never have to use them... I am a diehard realism fanatic as you have probably all guessed by now, but I also beleieve in maximising flexibility, so FM authors aren't restricted to one-dimensional gameplay ideas or rehashing stuff...

 

But I know this is a vast amount of work and time involved, so I know there will be limitations that I will have to get over.. ...or learn how to code and animate :lol:

[Darkness_Falls]

I am a diehard realism fanatic

So is oDDity. I bet he's more die-hard than you

[Ishtvan]

I wouldn't call the "pick up and move around weapons with your view to do damage with them" system "workable," because it allows you to attack with a huge heavy object like a warhammer faster than you can attack with the short sword.

 

Also just to be clear: Guards train at swordplay every day. Our thief trains at hiding every day. Our thief is not Garrett and did not go thru some hardcore training regimen, so it's not that surprising that he/she would not be adept at fighting with a warhamer. Having our thief be a closeted weapons-master who only uses that skill when cornered would really stretch believability for me. (Of course that's not stopping anyone from adding new weapons in themselves for their FMs)

[Darkness_Falls]

Ishtvan wrote: I would rather we do awkward in a believable way if we have end up having time (like slow and out of control swings)

Sorry for not being clear earlier, but this is what I was referring to with my full-on "you're-no-expert-with-this-weapon-so-don't-even-bother" system.

[Springheel]

I wouldn't call the "pick up and move around weapons with your view to do damage with them" system "workable," because it allows you to attack with a huge heavy object like a warhammer faster than you can attack with the short sword.

 

Well, this is going to happen with anything a player picks up. Currently he could swing a big crate unrealistically quickly too. So either we'll have to come up with a method to avoid exploiting this with all objects (which will cover swords too), or we'll have to live with it. I suspect we'll come up with something to deal with combat situations, to keep players from clocking guards with barrels, or using them as inpenetrable shields.

 

Anyway, no one is arguing that this is waaaaay down near the bottom of our priority list. We just differ on how far, I guess.

[obscurus]

I guess what I am getting at is, OK you are aiming for a purist thief who doesn't train for combat (which I think is good), but I also think there should be the flexibility to have the player be an assassin (like Riddick in Pitch Black) - meaner than a simple thief, more like a mediaeval special ops guy. I am thinking of amaking a game where you can customise your character a bit before you start - you can choose whether you are a weedy little thief who will throw sand in your eyes and run away if caught, or a highly trained master of combat who (ab)uses his stealth and combat skills to commit a few crimes to pay a few bills.

Or anywhere in between.

 

My goal is to give the player choices on how to approach missions, and they will have to suffer the consequences of their choices - a big strong assassin type will not be able to hide as well as the thiefy type, will make a bit more noise, and will be too big to access some parts of the level, but will be able to take care of himself better in combat, while the thief will be able to hide and sneak much more effectively, and can get into some tight spaces no one else can get to, but will be absolutely stuffed if he gets cornered (he might have a flashbomb or salt to throw in a guards eyes though, so he can run away). Thus there will be different rewards for different choices - some loot will require brute force to get, some will require agility and cunning.

 

I don't know how close you guys will come to what I am aiming for, but hopefully there will be a decent base I can build on, anyway, keep up the fantastic work, I am looking forward to the toolset being released!

[Springheel]

but I also think there should be the flexibility to have the player be an assassin (like Riddick in Pitch Black)

 

There is. You already have several different kinds of killing arrows, not to mention a sword.

[obscurus]

Also just to be clear: Guards train at swordplay every day. Our thief trains at hiding every day. Our thief is not Garrett and did not go thru some hardcore training regimen, so it's not that surprising that he/she would not be adept at fighting with a warhamer. Having our thief be a closeted weapons-master who only uses that skill when cornered would really stretch believability for me. (Of course that's not stopping anyone from adding new weapons in themselves for their FMs)

I don't think it necessarily stretches believability that much, after all Ninjas trained extensively in a wide range of combat techniques, and were able to master the use of a ridiculous number of different weapons, but their objective on a mission was usually to get so close to their target unseen that they would not need to fight - a good ninja was rarely seen and never caught, but if they did get caught it would take more than a few highly trained samurai to kill them, which is why they had the reputation (probably a bit exagerated) that they did (ninjas also carried shorter swords than Samurai, and held them in way that it was difficult for their opponent to tell just how long the sword was, and were masters of close quarter fighting, while samurai needed a bit of room, so a thief might have the upper hand in a tight corridor against one guard, but will be better off running away in open spaces). So I can see it as quite reasonable that a thief would practice combat skills as well as lockpicking etc, as it is always better to be prepared for something unexpected going wrong, and having to fight at least well enough that you can bugger off down a sewer with a few wounds.

 

But I suppose in a gameplay situation, it can be better to force the player down a certain path. I find it quite tempting to just kill everyone on Thief missions rather than ghost them, purely because I have loads of arrows and a dagger, and it is all too easy to use them. I don't usually give into that temptation, but if I had no weapons the temptation would be removed, so I do concede that in allowing the player to use weapons effectively, you will have to adjust other areas of gameplay and level design to make combat undesirable.

[Ishtvan]

We don't want to force the player into any action. My motto is: realistic options with realistic consequences. You want to engage in a little swordplay, go ahead, but it's going to be noisy, and the guard's going to swing faster, hit harder and block better than you. The clash of sword on sword will make a loud noise, also if the guard yells for help in a fairly small mansion, you might get 5 other guards coming down on you. So combat is possible, and you might even manage to kill a guard one on one, but you'd better be ready to get the hell out of there afterwards.

 

Allowing the thief to pick up a greatsword off the wall and swing it around in great arcs like a toothpick doesn't really promote the whole "combat is difficult" idea.

 

I think it's safe to say that combat is not the primary focus of our mod, but D3 scripting should allow FM authors to add new weapons and attacks if they want.