Jumping forward momentum loss

(Anti) #61

That clearly wasn’t what I said, but sure, well done :rolleyes: :wink:

(Seanza) #62

I must admit, I am a little concerned that more than 86% of the people who have voted, have voted for the “No” option yet the development team don’t seem to be open to favouring that. Yes I read the reply on the previous page but what’s the point in asking for feedback right now if it’s not going to even be considered?

What gives?

(iwound) #63

[QUOTE=Violator;458680]Following on from the ‘why is the jump height so low’ topic, another issue is the fact that after jumping and running forward you gradually lose forward speed to the point that after 3 jumps you come to a complete halt and just jump straight up in the air.

So the question is are we happy with this or do players want a more fluid bunny hopping style?[/QUOTE]

i havent seen one valid reason to change it. give me some reasons why i would need to jump thrice or more, that you can not do already. the only argument ive seen is sd bashing, oh the majority says change it so change.
you need valid reasons and examples.

also sorry vio but your poll is loaded towards change. to say yes to no change and no to change.
my first intention was to vote no as i disagreed, but changed when i re-checked.
do a new poll to get a proper result.

someone said there wont be jumping everywhere,
but that’s the point of this thread to not lose momentum so you can continually jump.
its not about increased momentum or anything else.

if you change this. DB becomes a completely different game.
hey why not double jumps and low grav oh! thats what messed up et.

as a crazy separate gametype maybe but not in the core game.
and before you bash anti, respect his experience. (takes fiver)

so new poll

  • change to continuous jumping no degrade in forward speed. / bunny hopping
    or
  • no stay as it is.

/shenanigans

(Evil-Doer) #64

So what exactly is your argument for NOT changing it? I’m curious, you keep mentioning how nobody has gave you reason, but from what I’ve seen is people give you reason and you completely ignore it. My assumption is that you probably don’t want it, because you might struggle at throwing the Frisbee around at players more, because you wouldn’t be able to catch up with them.

(iwound) #65

ive already said twice now. because people will be continually jumping everywhere.
now your your turn the defence rests. :tongue:

(ImageOmega) #66

[QUOTE=Anti;459055]Part of the problem we have is the ‘majority’ right now is the vocal, active forum users of a very small player base, a player base that found this game with no advertising, enthusiasts for what we do or might do. That means we have to apply our own judgement to how we act on feedback right now, and what we think the wider community will want for the game when it comes to release.

As we go through closed beta and open beta, as more people start to play the game, it’ll become much clearer what is best for the game and the whole player base. If that ends up being conserved or increased momentum when bunny-hopping then I’m sure well look into it.[/QUOTE]

I understand that you’re worried that you’re appealing to a niche crowd, Anti, but, don’t you believe that this is a crowd that understands what fun gameplay is?

I think playing the “wait and see” game is detrimental to the current state of alpha and the rest of the progress for Dirty Bomb. First, I’d like to point out that if anyone is “bunny hopping” then they clearly won’t be shooting, but also would be an EASIER target to hit. In Quake (a much faster game) I sometimes wait for people to jump so I can nail them. Think about the rocket launcher’s “Splash Damage” (see what I did there) and where you’d place your next rocket if you noticed your opponent jumping around. This applies to crazy, frantic fights as well as 1v1 or 2v2 engagements.

Secondly, I’m no longer talking about an increase in forward momentum at this point which is a much more drastic of a change. I’m talking about two things, one (and most important), to increase the base jump height, and two, to sustain forward momentum (not increase) when chaining jumps. I believe these will provide players with appropriate in-game feedback regarding movement. When they jump, they will feel like they are able to clear obstacles they believe they are jump-able. That is a common theme I hear from older and newer alpha players alike: that they get tripped up on items they thought their player should be able to jump over. Hell, there are A LOT of deaths from players blamed on being tripped up because they couldn’t quite jump over a ledge such as if they were slightly downhill. That alone should be enough to warrant an increase in jump height as to not frustrate your ENTIRE playerbase.

Playing the “wait and see” game also drastically hinders your development process. As of now, maps are going to be designed around the current gameplay mechanics as they should be. But, when you do decide (and when the out cries for change begin to deafen your ears) that jumping needs to be altered, your current maps will now need to be re-tweaked for the change. Doesn’t that create more work? Also, doesn’t this philosophy stymie creativity of the map designers and thwart your goal of adding more trick jumps? Wouldn’t maps be created with better flow if jump heights were higher, meaning, obstacles would also appear higher to player view, but jumpable for player movement? Makes much more sense than the occasional placement of an object for a boost or restructuring of a wall so that players can jump over it (Whitechapel and Waterloo come to mind to where this has been done).

And, Anti, when the game hits open beta aren’t you worried that people’s first impression will be off putting since I’m sure they will already agree with the “masses” that is the current alpha community? Your playerbase, your fans, your gamers, your testing and feedback giving alpha community is telling you that something is wrong here and it needs a change. But, you’d rather “wait and see” until more people tell you differently. Your echo feedback won’t show you that jumping needs a change because players are forced to take longer routes, run to different areas, or traverse another direction. Instead, I think you should listen to the voice of the community you have now and take things into high consideration instead of dismissing it into the “wait and see” game. Plus, I know that us posting at length on the boards are a smaller percentage of the alpha community. And, I’ve always been taught that if one person is voicing their opinion over something there are at least 3 more who think the same thing, but aren’t vocal about it.

(Evil-Doer) #67

[QUOTE=iwound;459068]ive already said twice now. because people will be continually jumping everywhere.
now your your turn the defence rests. :tongue:[/QUOTE]

Read this…Puts it into great words.

[QUOTE=ImageOmega;458777]Your argument? Haha, you mean when you stated an opinion that is not widely shared by evidence of the poll for this very thread? Sorry, I didn’t rebuke your opinion and tell you that something doesn’t look “ridiculous”.

The truth is that jumping all around does not happen like your claim would be. People don’t always hold down space while playing any game. Sure, you use strafe-jumping to get places faster, but if that is all that happened, you’d have a lot of piss poor performance from every single player. Also, at no juncture has anyone ever accused Quake or Unreal Tournament of being ridiculous for its jumping mechanics. Never was there a question of how often people jump. The same applies for Battlefield 3 and the Call of Duty series as people effortlessly jump over insanely high obstacles by pressing the same space button that vaults them aerially.

And, what the hell does ladders have to do with anything? I bring up games that have the capability of consistently jumping and bring up another game mechanic? Is that your way of backing up your opinion or is that more evidence that my reply thread should have been directed towards berating your subjective post?

Then again bringing up Sonic the Hedgehog…what? We are simply talking about not being limited in movement, not having super sonic Nikes or wild blue hair as we drift across green meadows and collect golden rings. Don’t even bother trying to enlighten me of what great forethought you put into bringing up a 2D platformer as a comparison to any first person shooter.

Then to tell me that if chaining jumps was not subject to decreased forward momentum that it’d be a clone of another game. Really? What game? Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory? Quake Wars? I think it’d be just the same as those two games you have so blatantly touted in your signature that you care enough about to create custom maps for. Gee, do those games allow chaining jumps together?

The subject is that there should not be a decrease in forward momentum because you’re chaining jumps. That doesn’t intrinsically mean that there should be an increase in forward momentum. Regardless, I enjoy Dirty Bomb the same, but I’m welcome to state my opinion and suggest that jumping multiple times not decrease momentum as well as my other thread suggesting that the base jump height should be increased. I apologize if I ruffled your feathers because I don’t agree that a lot of jumping makes gameplay look ridiculous. However, next time you call me out, please understand that I will give you as thorough of a post as you need and also be able to demonstrate how to do such things in game too.[/QUOTE]

(Anti) #68

[QUOTE=ImageOmega;459069]I understand that you’re worried that you’re appealing to a niche crowd, Anti, but, don’t you believe that this is a crowd that understands what fun gameplay is?
[/QUOTE]

I believe ‘fun gameplay’ is subjective, it’d be hard to argue that it’s not. Players of Call of Duty believe that is fun gameplay, players of Tribes think it has fun gameplay, players of Arma think it has fun gameplay. They’re all right and they’re all wrong, it just depends on who is doing the judging.

In the case of DB, I think we’re taking the right course for now and the feedback we’ve gotten so far from the wider alpha community (not just the less than 5% who have replied to this poll) is that that approach is reasonable. Might it cause us issues later? Maybe, but we’ll cross that bridge when/if we come to it.

(Anti) #69

[QUOTE=Seanza;459064]I must admit, I am a little concerned that more than 86% of the people who have voted, have voted for the “No” option yet the development team don’t seem to be open to favouring that. Yes I read the reply on the previous page but what’s the point in asking for feedback right now if it’s not going to even be considered?

What gives?[/QUOTE]

I’ve said this a lot and I’ll say it again, all feedback is considered, but it’s unlikely we’ll agree with you on 100% issues.

(iwound) #70

so youve nothing to say yourself evil. just copy and paste.
at least ImageOmega tried and put some effort in. thats whats needed a decent discussion.
with examples and reasons, even if i still disagree.

and ImageOmega you didnt ruffle my feathers the subject did as ive been through this before
and im tired of it. there are better things to discuss that will improve the game and this wont improve the game.

(Evil-Doer) #71

[QUOTE=iwound;459074]so youve nothing to say yourself evil. just copy and paste.
at least ImageOmega tried and put some effort in. thats whats needed a decent discussion.
with examples and reasons, even if i still disagree.

and ImageOmega you didnt ruffle my feathers the subject did as ive been through this before
and im tired of it. there are better things to discuss that will improve the game and this wont improve the game.[/QUOTE]

Why won’t it improve the game? My reason is quick an simple it makes for a higher skill cap an for better game play in general. (For obvious reasons)

(DarkangelUK) #72

Just curious iwound, was ETQW destroyed because people were ‘continually jumping everywhere’?

(iwound) #73

nope but there is a big difference between qw and db ie gameplay , engine and map design.
its something i feel strongly about because i want this to be something different.
and i feel it will take something away from the game.
but if you remember im not averse to to an increase in momentum in particular situations.
and the possibility sd may make in changes in jumping. i just dont feel continuous fits db.

(Nail) #74

thank you, now we won’t be playing on textureless maps with everyone strafejumping around doing headshots with a sten

(Dragonji) #75

I want some free in-game stuff when the majority of a “larger” community says the same thing.

And feedback from “larger” community often look like this:


http://www.oxm.co.uk/58939/activision-slams-black-ops-2-death-threats-this-is-why-gamers-are-assumed-to-be-immature-whiny-assholes

(Seanza) #76

[QUOTE=Anti;459072]I believe ‘fun gameplay’ is subjective, it’d be hard to argue that it’s not. Players of Call of Duty believe that is fun gameplay, players of Tribes think it has fun gameplay, players of Arma think it has fun gameplay. They’re all right and they’re all wrong, it just depends on who is doing the judging.

In the case of DB, I think we’re taking the right course for now and the feedback we’ve gotten so far from the wider alpha community (not just the less than 5% who have replied to this poll) is that that approach is reasonable. Might it cause us issues later? Maybe, but we’ll cross that bridge when/if we come to it.[/QUOTE]

Call of Duty enthusiasts (both console and PC players) have always stated that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was the best in the series (Often Call of Duty 2 is given that title too). A lot of that is down to the movement of those games. People who play Quake love the way it feels, people who play ET love the way it feels, people who play ET:QW love the way it feels, people like to play games that feel good.

I can appreciate that you will want DB to appeal to the masses, any company who wants to support a niche risks shooting themselves in the foot. The thing is, Splash Damage have a history - perhaps a legacy - of their games having a great feel to them. People who play Splash Damage games aren’t just players, they’re avid fans.

You guys have kindly invited those avid fans to test your new game knowing full well where their gaming experience comes from and what their expectations of a Splash Damage game carries. If you had a pre-conceived vision on how you wanted movement to be, wouldn’t you have been better off inviting players from the communities of games with similar movement? Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad you didn’t and I feel extremely privileged to have been part of this alpha since the first wave of testers.

I know you’ve said it a lot, but I just can’t get it through my head why it’s not wise to follow the majority feedback for your game. I feel comfortable enough to discuss this with you (and other SD staff) candidly knowing that you will take it on board and not as somebody just whining. Make me understand how not going with the majority of your testers is a good idea. Essentially, prove me wrong.

(rookie1) #77

Gaining the equivalent of 2 steps when I run jump its a most! imo

(DarkangelUK) #78

[QUOTE=iwound;459078]nope but there is a big difference between qw and db ie gameplay , engine and map design.
its something i feel strongly about because i want this to be something different.
and i feel it will take something away from the game.
but if you remember im not averse to to an increase in momentum in particular situations.
and the possibility sd may make in changes in jumping. i just dont feel continuous fits db.[/QUOTE]

I guess we both feel strongly then but also disagree on what’s classed as ‘something different’. At the moment, DB is bringing nothing new to the table and is removing what I perceive to be a major factor in what made RtCW, ET and ETQW ‘something different’ in a sea of shooters. The movement in those games was a beast all on its own that players fought to tame a conquer and relished having an additional factor to master beyond the standard point and click affair. As those past games have shown, players will not be ‘continually jumping everywhere’ and those that don’t want anything to do with it will be absolutely fine and won’t be alienated at all… but those that do want it can choose to spend time and effort learning it… if it’s left out then a bunch of people will not be fine and will be alienated.

(ailmanki) #79

tbh, while I don’t want the same level of strafe jumping from quake3… lol, the current movement in DB does not feel fun and seems very restricted. if it stays like this, or like bf3, cod, whatever crap - I guess I will be back playing ET.
As the (old) et is still superior to all these games in my opinion.

(MrFunkyFunk) #80

[QUOTE=Seanza;459081]
You guys have kindly invited those avid fans to test your new game knowing full well where their gaming experience comes from and what their expectations of a Splash Damage game carries. If you had a pre-conceived vision on how you wanted movement to be, wouldn’t you have been better off inviting players from the communities of games with similar movement? [/QUOTE]

This.

I feel there has been some sort of misunderstanding/miscommunication around the alpha.
Since we’re a “niche”, why has this been advertised in many ways to target your previous titles audience?

I understand you try to break away from a mold and want to appeal to other players but isn’t it a bit weird to come and say “we need the opinions of people from other backgrounds” when much of the new comers into the alpha still join expecting the good old same?

I somehow think it should clearly be stated that “SD wants to make things different from what they did to take a step into the future of fps” because so far I don’t know if it’s worth it to have “just a little bit of everything”. Because “just” won’t be enough to not alienate your old fanbase, and what they loved in the previous titles, and the players you try to appeal to, who won’t like the little bits of old gameplay you keep next to the things you took from other games.

I hope that the only “SD legacy” that will make it into db won’t be resumed to a class system and a vehicle escort type of game mode.

Again I’m sorry if some of this doesn’t make sense, my english skills are limited.