No, I remember this, about the AI. I think it's a good thing.

Be Well!
Fireheart

I think it makes sense for them to run. Especially the last few.
The only problem I had was having no way to stop them.
You can't grab or trip.
WHY can't we grab or trip?!

Also why don't runners ever shoot? or grab a hostage?
Make it interesting.

GrazerCoH wrote:

Thanks for the correction. But a cool idea in my eyes anyway.

NP. I just wanted to point out that, as implemented, it created a downside to being helpful.

Rigel wrote:

...I guess people would blow a fuse if the runner went and hid somewhere.

I wouldn't, as long as I was not counted as being in combat until I found and defeated it. ^_^

When it comes to the subject of runners, I think it really depends on the situation. A low-level street thug running away when he is low on health and all his buddies are defeated makes sense. An individual in power armor with 75% of his health remaining taking off does not (I'm looking at you Crey Tanks). What really annoyed me was when street sweeping a mob would flee by super jumping onto the electric wires and taking the highway to safety. Running away is one thing, "cheating" to get away is another.

Personally I think running makes perfect sense for a mob of grey, green and blue bad guys and often wondered why there was always only one that ran. You'd think they'd all scatter at the sight of a well known superhero. In real life they usually all run when a few cops show up.
Often that's all it takes to defuse a situation.
With that said, chasing them down shouldn't be as hard as it was.
And we shouldn't get hung up about making sure we catch them all.
Catching the leader, or the particular suspect you're after, should be enough to get the reward.
We need ways to stop a fleeing felon, like grabbing and tripping, or ranged attacks that stop them in their tracks.
And some bad guys should slow themselves down by turning to shoot, taking hostages, or just plane tripping, over their own feet.
How about a bad guy who rounds a corner and waits to ambush us? Or leads us to some other trap and waits.

Actually I don't think there is a conflict with realism and game play in this case.
Just make sure we have objectives that don't require us to chase down every member of a mob.
Also there will be many types of opponents that would stand their ground,
and as I said runners can slow themselves by turning to shoot etc...

Also the attacks you're talking about were not the sort of thing a low level melee fighter could do and that's all I as talking about.

It's just the age old conundrum of fleeing mobs are more problematic for melee to deal with than range. With ranged attacks, you can keep attacking without necessarily needing to move to keep up, while with melee you HAVE TO move if you want to catch them.

This is what we call a "First World Problem" since it isn't always a hassle for everyone.

One of the solutions built into the Scrapper and Tanker ATs in City of Heroes was ... Taunt. It was a ranged attack that would cause runners to turn around and come back to attack. Additionally, all Scrappers had an Immobilize melee ranged attack (which often came at a late Tier, so no help early on) which could prevent Runners. Tankers, of course, had their Taunt Aura [i]in addition to[/i] their Taunt attack (and Gauntlet for Punchvoke), so Running was less of a problem for them.

Sounds to me like the easiest solution comes at the AI level. Basically, you'd want to rig things such that every mob has a threshold below which they're going to Run, but above which they will "frenzy" and fanatically attack without wanting to Run. Think of it as "Taunt Overflow" if it helps with the concept any, in which excess Taunt is not "wasted" but rather used as insurance to prevent Runners. That way, overstacking Taunt is not a worthless endeavor at the character build level, since it would have a purpose and a use.

A 'Lunge' Power could also partially solve this problem. Opponent turns to run and your distance-closing power automatically recharges, so you can take them down before they get away.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Realism only matters if the game is attempting to simulate reality. Most games are not attempting to simulate reality. Most games take elements of what is 'real enough' for the game world and leave actual reality out of it.

I've lived in some very tough places, been in some very nasty places, and seen both bravery and cowardice. There is no hard rule to reality when it comes to the Flight, Fright, or Flight response. There are a number of psychological factors involved. Saying that "runners" are how it would work in reality is as much as a fallacy as to say that no one would run, or as much as requiring a video game designed around what is essentially a a modern day fantasy attempt to always accurately depict depict reality.

When. It comes to determining if a particular NPC should or shouldn't run, comes down to a number of factors. Certain NPCs may be "dumb", brainless, automatons, while others may be careless, or tactics driven, or cowardly. Some may be built with a sense of morale while others may be very independent and don't care about fallen comrades.

Runners in the early game or late game (which is not necessarily an issue of levels as any game can have an early and later portions of play), is more of an issue of asking, "is this intended behavior?" And then, "Does it work properly?" And then "Is this fun?"

The argument that level designed games are problematic because waiting for higher levels to have more capabilities can be just as much of an issue of free-form point based progression systems, or even in staged-progression games where new abilities are doled out over different stages of the game. The only option to void this is to remove forms of character progression.

There is truth in that no matter what is going on in the game, or at what point in the game, that the player has options at their disposal to negotiate the obstacle. This includes when an NPC runs away. Taking into consideration that we will attempt to avoid rooted combat, chasing down a runner can be a viable option. The point behind "later levels" really boils down to the fact that character progression will afford more opportunities for the player to build their character to deal with a variety of situations,mor tailor their build to opperate efficiently foe their desired play style. It does not mean that player will build their character for every contingency, but it does require the design allows the player the opportunity to gain a variety of tools to use during play.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Just add Grab and Trip attacks.
Then you can have improved versions of those basic abilities that we can take as powers, IF you want to, but you don't have to.

"Grabbing" and "tripping" would be animations for the effects of a Hold and Knockdown. The grabbing animation is a bit trickier to pull off for a number of reasons when it comes to avatars of different sizes, though not impossible to resolve thankfully. But that's something else entirely.

The mechanics of the effect are the same. And there will be some melee offense with control effects in them. Plus, there will be Tertiary sets to choose from. Certainly, as the character progresses, there will be plenty of options at the player's disposal.

sarcasm/Wouldn't it be better if the mobs just ran straight at the hero as soon as they see him, then hand over their swag just before dropping dead of their own accord? I feel like that would save me a lot more time and energy than all this annoying "fight the badguys" stuff. /sarcasm

Island
The post I called stupid was not a serious attempt at discussion.
You deliberately misrepresented what I said and then mocked your straw man.
There's no way to respond to that.

If you try harder so will I.

OK Surprise:

islandtrevor72 wrote:

You want foes just to run away at the mere sight of you and want ways to stop them from running but ignore how a low level melee character just does not have the reputation to invoke this terror. And the limited capabilities that low level character has would hardly strike the fear of god in most foes of a superhero filled world. By the time your character does have the reputation and capabilities they now have the tools to deal with runners.
Or as I put it....this is a non-problem with an overkill solution. Realism.... heh....its funny how the realism argument seldom gets used to support hindering a character. I mean inspirations, instantaneous self heals and the like are not really rallied against yet those don't exactly fall in the realm of 'realism'.

This is misrepresenting my position.

I clearly pointed out that ordinary criminals in real life will often run away at the sight of ordinary policemen. I also pointed out that some criminals would be expected NOT to run.
Level never entered my argument until you brought it up because frankly it doesn't figure into my arguments, but I DID mention criminals running AFTER you've trashed their allies, which is the kind of thing they can actually see, unlike levels.

Next, as I've pointed out, the level of realism I'm asking for (Being able to grab or trip which any human being can and will do when the need arises, even with no combat training at all) is a level that I think a lot of other people would also like.

I know this is an unrealistic game and I do sometimes suggest limits on characters in the name of realism, also in the name of maintaining the feel of the game or in the name of game balance.

Also I don't see melee characters as a small subset of characters but as one of the most common types of characters.
And the change that I suggested would help everyone not just melee characters, because others might try to do something different while their controlling powers are cooling down or when the foes are resistant to the type of blast they're using.

Finally you misrepresented my proposal by leaving 2 big parts of it out:
1) Villains who flee can slow themselves down by shooting as they run, which also means they have a chance to bump into things or trip because they're not looking where they're going. Some might even stop completely to take hostages or wait in ambush.
2) We should be a ble to get a big reward by catching the boss or the suspect we're after, without having to chase down every runner.

I would also like to add now that they might even have a limit to how far they can run before they stop to catch their breath. Criminals are often not in the excellent shape heroes are. They have a lot of unhealthy habits.

OK I made a mistake and I apologize.

But your claim that I'm offering an overkill solution to a non problem is still completely wrong.

And your claim that trip and grab are effectively mez powers is so wrong it makes me angry just reading it.

Also (and this is totally my fault) I realized later, and I failed to mention it, that this problem is Not limited to low level characters.
The Devs have promised that I will be able to have street level adventures at any level which is exactly what some of my characters will do. So punks running away will always be a problem since I'm still never going to use taunts.

and that's example of me suggesting limits on characters in the name of realism, the fact that in this very thread I already pointed out my own self imposed limit of never using taunts because I find them unrealistic, (also out of character for any character I would play).
I don't agree with your characterization of taunt as a vague power that could be anything you imagine. But something must has distracted me while I was reading your first comment the first time because I really don't remember reading that until this morning.
I honestly have a lot more experience suggesting limits when designing my own game than in making suggestions for this one. But I do want a certain level of realism and frankly that's part of why I hate levels again. They always and without any hope of an exception lead to unrealistic game play because levels are inherently unrealistic, especially at the lowest and highest extremes.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

BUT there is a very important difference that you mentioned without seeming to realize how important it is.
Melee Range!
That means you still have to chase them, this just give you a way to end the chase once you catch them, instead of them taking a little damage and continuing to run.

So what you refer to as a "grab" and "trip" are not in the sense melee applications but ranged applications. Sorry about the misunderstanding as I interpreted both in the context of melee actions, grabbing someone or tripping someone.

The mechanics are still the same, a hold effect and a vector changing effect.

This goes back to character progression. The character doesn't start out immediately capable of negotiating a majority of combat scenarios. Part of the growth of the character and learning curve of the player would be recognizing strengths and weaknesses of their character build for their desired play style and optimizing accordingly.

For the theorhetical melee centric character where the player wants some ranged capability for certain scenarios like opponents that run away, using Tertiary powers with ranged controls (highly customizable with our system to fit a variety of themes) may fit that gap. Or, taking combat mobility Tertiary powers that prove a lunge attack or a target vector attack to pull the target in. These are options that be me available through the character progression and as the player's knowledge of the game progresses.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

You could also add another difference by allowing the victim to do some other actions while grabbed or tripped that they couldn't while mezzed,

Creating a grappling system separate from the control mechanics yet also simulates similar results would be a major investment of resources.the implication here is creating a layer of combat mechanics that every character would have immediate access to, increasing the complexity of character design from a development standpoint. Every layer of combat mechanics added takes more time to code and test. And honestly, is not necessary since the ultimate results are replicable by mechanics already present within the game.
Tripping a target, under the hood, is an effect that changes the target's vector, and effects their movement. Any collision, such as with hitting the ground, would require an animated state up in collision, and a sequence to return to a ready state.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

And you can't trip someone who's flying!So it's a major difference.

Yes you can, if the power had sufficient range and was a vector changing attack such as a knockdown.

Or you could have a ranged power with an appropriate movement type debuff that reduces the target's flight state, causing the, to slow down and possibly not fly at all bringing them down to the ground.

It may not be set to loot like a melee "trip" but the mechanics are the same.

Tannim you misunderstood me again.
I Am asking for a [size=30]0![/size] range attack, not a ranged attack,
I was saying that that's part of what makes grab and trip attacks different from any mez power.
At least part of it.

Further more, zero range is something that is centered on the caster. If there is soemthing with zero range and a radius, this it is an area effect.
In theory, we could build a zero range, area effect power and limit the number of targets to 1 and require a selected target. But that would be pointless as the result is the same as making the power operate at melee range.

To put this another way, the standard reachable distance between two avatars is considered melee range.

We can require this distance to be bone-on-bone, that is one avaratar must actually 'connect' with the other. But we're not going that route for melee combat because we will have situations where there will be multiple melee combatants attacking the same target with limited actual spacing between avatars. As such, melee will have a standard range between opposing avatars. Where as bone-on-bone connecting would be prohitive to multiple players attacking a target and allow players to use collision detection between avatars to effectively prevent another player from using a melee attack on the same target. Seems silly, but some people...

Again I reiterate, mechanically speaking, the actions of tripping are the result of an attack that changes the target's vector, forcing them downward.

Grabbing, in the context of a hand-to-hand combat, is typically used for a couple of actions: placing your opponent in a hold, usually pertaining to a particular limb, the head, or multiple limbs (see any form of various submission holds in wrestling), or the grab is an attempt to perform a throw or takedown (takedowns usually are done as a lead-in for a submission), or you may grab at sometime simply to try and stop them from running (if not the clothing, and let's not get into grabbing clothing in context of the game), it'll be a limb - typically a shoulder or arm.

Any grab that is an attempt at preventing actions is mechanically (for the purpose of this game) no different than a hold. Unless you want to create a "grab" that doesn't prevent actions but attempts to stop any motion, than we're looking at a melee ranged debuff to movement.

OMG So the whole problem is that you guys can't speak freeking english and have to confuse everything with some damn game speak!?

This was a total waste of freeking time

But will there be 0 range attacks that stop foes in their tracks, that can use grab or trip animations?

Also, 'zero range' means that two characters are Merged, body-space to body-space. 'Melee range' means within the 3-6 foot reach of arms and weapons.

You appear to be stuck on your own words/terms and trying to force the game reality (and the rest of us posters) to conform to to those terms.

Here's what we are saying:
Range = Melee (hand-to-hand weapons)
Grapple = No
Effect = Mez-category
Animation = Trip-maybe, Grab-no

Please don't allow yourself to become upset about this. We ARE speaking clear English. You may not be hearing us clearly.

Be Well!
Fireheart

islandtrevor72 wrote:

I think Fire and Tannim are missing what Paladin meant by zero range. I don't think he means center mass to center mass (or hit box or skeleton) ...he means direct contact between models. As in one models hand directly touching the other model.

In Arms Reach? Or Kick? :)

[img]http://i.imgur.com/1Ow1LA0.png[/img]

Its probably more like the 2nd one. Like Action Stars in a movie! ;D
You don't want players to be Exactly a certain distance, because you would get tired of being Out Of Range most of the time and needing to move up. Well, thats why Foes are so Nice to players and get up in your face so you dont have to move at all. ;D

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

This was a total waste of freeking time

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement.

In the English that I'm accustomed to:
0 range or no range can mean either the power only effects the person who has it or he has to touch the target.
That's why we call some attacks "ranged" and some attacks melee, or hand to hand. (I prefer to say hand to hand myself)
Ranged means it has a range.
Melee attacks and most defenses have no range.
An area attack may have a range, or it could be centered on the attacker, it has a radius to tell how big an area it effects.

By the way, it occurred to me that there is another big difference between a Grab and most of what I would call mental attacks (Mez). A Grab will immobilize the attacker as well as the target.
That obviously doesn't apply to Trips.

I admit I don't anything about the programming but a grab or trip really shouldn't stop you from doing anything except move.
The attacker and victim should still be able to attack each other. As Bruce Lee said "If someone grabs you, hit him".
Looking at it that way might make it easier to program ??????

Previously I've been given the impression that the biggest barrier to making grapling attacks of any kind is the difficulty of making the animations work when toons may come on many different sizes. The concept of having to create a whole new category of attacks was never mentioned before. (At least not that I'm aware of) I was going to suggest that grabs and wrestling moves be given 2 or even 3 sets of animations so they could automatically use a different one when there is a big size difference. It makes sense. You use different moves on opponents of different sizes, and different moves means different animations.
With that said I was not even hoping to see a real wrestling power set until long after launch but it would probably be easier to make than nunchaku, and I still want that too.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

Yup, trying to help someone understand something is always a bad idea.....kinda like non-contributory smart alec remarks.

I don't think "non-contributory" is a real word. Stop making stuff up. :)

I have little tolerance for pure stupidity.

All I did was say the exact same thing everyone else did with more emphasis on hammering the point through his thick skull with repetition.

Everything that was said previously was 100% clearly stated. I just needed to beat him over the head with a clue-by-four so that his IQ of 2 could finally understand it.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

In the English that I'm accustomed to:
0 range or no range can mean either the power only effects the person who has it or he has to touch the target.
That's why we call some attacks "ranged" and some attacks melee, or hand to hand. (I prefer to say hand to hand myself)
Ranged means it has a range.
Melee attacks and most defenses have no range.
An area attack may have a range, or it could be centered on the attacker, it has a radius to tell how big an area it effects.

islandtrevor72 summarized this in post #70 and I went over this as well. But even without referencing typical game mechanics (which is the context we are using this being a video game and all) the basis for understanding what "range" is comes from the fundamental fact that distance is the space between two or more points. Any distance between to combatants is the "range" between them. This is part of why in boxing and other fighting competitions, a fighter's reach is important.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

By the way, it occurred to me that there is another big difference between a Grab and most of what I would call mental attacks (Mez). A Grab will immobilize the attacker as well as the target.9

That is relatively simple to accomplish. Rooting (the term typically used when calling for an animation to halt any movement of the avatar) is already planned to be used in key powers throughout the game. I don't know if typical powers would use animations that forced rooting, especially if we're talking in context of stopping a runner - if the attacker was rooted and missed, the runner still out runs the attacker. Rooting in this context then ends up being a further hinderance to the player wanting to avoid having to chase down a runner.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

That obviously doesn't apply to Trips. I admit I don't anything about the programming but a grab or trip really shouldn't stop you from doing anything except move.
The attacker and victim should still be able to attack each other. As Bruce Lee said "If someone grabs you, hit him".
Looking at it that way might make it easier to program???

Sure, the effect is calling for an immoblization status. An immobilized target can't move but is free to use other attacks (it can also teleport since teleports alter the target's - or in this case the caster's - vector to place the avatar at the designated location).
However, none of our status effects in this game will be binary. Everything has a scaling effect of some sort. An attempt to immoblize a target would hinder the target's movement speed for example. If the power's effect is sufficient enough to debuff all movement, then the target would be immobilized.

TheMightyPaladin wrote:

Previously I've been given the impression that the biggest barrier to making grapling attacks of any kind is the difficulty of making the animations work when toons may come on many different sizes. The concept of having to create a whole new category of attacks was never mentioned before. (At least not that I'm aware of) I was going to suggest that grabs and wrestling moves be given 2 or even 3 sets of animations so they could automatically use a different one when there is a big size difference. It makes sense. You use different moves on opponents of different sizes, and different moves means different animations.
With that said I was not even hoping to see a real wrestling power set until long after launch but it would probably be easier to make than nunchaku, and I still want that too.

There are several hurdles when it comes to creating an actual wrestling powerset. The first is setting all the animations to work with different sized avatars of bipedal shape. Possible, but lengthy time in coding and testing. Especially when speaking in context of a 4' tall avatar vs a 20' tall avatar.

Next is setting up a system of alternate animations that will actually work and look good based on all the possible size differentiations. While it is possible to design an array to trigger off specific animations referencing different arrays between caster and target size scale, it is getting everything to actually work and look good that can be problematic.

Then there is the concept resolving the concepts of joint-locks and submissions seen in wrestling combined with all of the above. Taking it a step further is the nonbinary control system we are using which would limit how effective attempting to place a status effect of a Hold on a target using a melee attack meant to look like say, a full-nelson-lock and it only partially working (mechanically speaking).

Another problem is resolving the multiplayer aspect and what occurs when multiple players attempt to use these 'wrestling' animations on the same target. One my jump to the conclusion of "first come, first to use the power", of which case we need to head back to the automatic alternate animations and force a change of animation on other attacking characters to something other than the wrestling animation because someone else got to use a wreslting animation first. On the surface this may seem "fair", but in the context that animations are meant to be decoupled from aesthetics, allowing players to decide the look of their character down to the powers, but then have that concept overrided because another player has the same concept and got to hit the target first.

Then there is the target's animations requiring alternate animations for every possible action when being affected by various 'wrestling' moves - at least in the grappling sense.

Then there are alternate animations for various movement powers, what happens when a wrestling move is used in flight for the attacker, for the target? What happens when super-speeding? One character wall crawling, the other not? - This reversed for who is attacking and who is the target. Flying on an object (like a disc / flying carpet, etc...). Then all of these if it is possible for non-bipedal characters.

Every animation in the game is actually more than "An" animation, it is muliple, and if a concept for a power set demands that there are alternate animations based on many factors like avaratar size differential, bipedal vs non-bipedal and more, the greater the complexity to resolve so everything works and looks right in every possible scenario.

That being said, it may be possible for 'simple wrestling' animations, if you want to count tripping (leg sweeps, oblique kicks) for knockdown effects, or throws (hip toss, pitch, shot-put) for knock-up or knock-back. Heck, knockdowns could be animated as choke-slams and body slams. The immediate issue that was brought up about this internally was the issue of auto-triggering alternate animations in the case of multiple players attempting to play the same animation on the same target. While it is possible to do, if it happens it won't be later until it does.

I was not wrong at all. As far as the game is concerned, range is a measurement of distance. Anything within 'melee range' is within a certain distance of the user, and this distance is the same for everyone.

A range of 0 means the attack is centered on the user. If it is an attack it is an AOE because that is the only way for it to deal damage. Fire Sword Circle had 0 range, because it was a Point-Blank Area of Effect. Most activated defensive powers also have 0 range, but these are not attacks.

Facts, so misleading.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

When you say this do you mean to imply that characters will able to be 4-20' tall or do you mean that some foes will reach that height. Cause I gotta say, having a team of 20' tall allies while I am 6' tall might be problematic.

The former.

Why would they be confusing?

Range versus area. If it is an attack it must have at least one of the two. If it has no range then it is an area attack, like foot stomp, combustion, mud pots, quills, all of the 'Nova'-style nukes. Those are all attacks with no range at all. They affect an area.

All other attacks have a range. For melee, this is about 4-6 feet. Fire breath, flurry, ice sword, total focus, haymaker, stone hammer, energy transfer, bash, kick, punch, air superiority...all melee attacks, all with a maximum range that stays the same for every character. If an enemy is within melee range, they can be attacked.

This is very basic stuff, really. Asking for an attack that has 0 range and doesn't have AoE is asking for a power where you punch yourself in the face. It's that simple.

islandtrevor72 wrote:

If you want an example of what '0 range' can mean in relation to combat take a peek at this video (its funny as well, especially later in the video)....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1_cKlPIUI8<

I didn't stay with it to the end, but the 8-man rumbles at the beginning were hilarious!

Be Well!
Fireheart

Actually despite the fact that for PROGRAMMING purposes you have to allow melee attacks to reach like 6 to 10 ft, I still think of them as having no range or 0 range because in actual game PLAY it's always implied that you actually touch the target. I've always thought that if the animation failed to actually show contact it was just a limitation to the graphics capability that I'm perfectly willing to ignore. It's not immersion breaking to see my character throw a punch that clearly doesn't connect but still causes damage and might even knock the foe down. For me hand to hand attacks are and always will be 0 or no range. I'm not a programmer and I have no reason to see them otherwise.
Seriously guys you SHOULD have known what I meant, and responded in english because anyone who wasn't stuck so deep in his programming problems would have with no problem. You're a bit out of touch, sorry.

Island
Jargon is not standard english.

Fire
0 range means you touch that's standard english
Mez is definitely NOT standard english
Your responses were defiantly Jargon

And my responses were based entirely on what had been said previously by people trying to communicate with the inbred moron insisting that we use his terms and definitions instead.

I wasn't imposing my own limited understanding on the conversation. I was very much trying to clarify the exact terms and realities that had been previously stated.

If I were to impose my own terms on the conversation, I would have started off talking about Dungeons and Dragons 3.5 edition and how melee range is determined there along with the specific scales used to determine creature size, occupied space, inherent reach at larger sizes, and how two characters occupying adjacent spaces and hitting each other in combat could still be nearly 9 feet apart since each and every space is 25 square feet of surface area. Coming along with that would be a long discussion of how range is determined with regards to spells, which would be the closest thing in D&D to the powers system involved in this game since everything in D&D4 is complete garbage. That would have brought up things like melee attack rolls, resolving touch spells as melee attacks, spells that form weapons requiring a melee attack to deal damage...

I was using the established reality, not my interpretation of it.