Goblin Squad Member
|
I figured it was time to start a new conversation on this given that we have a lot more information to work with now. The two major things we've been let in on that have a lot of bearing on this discussion are the stealth mechanic and this video.
For me, the biggest thing to consider, is stealth just plain won't work if the camera can be zoomed too far out. We know that if you have a maxed stealth character going up against someone with no perception, that your character becomes perceivable at 10% of their normal view range. (More information on stealth found here.)
Anyone skilled at playing a stealth character should be able to get of some great ambushes (provided their footsteps aren't audible in stealth) if people are playing from this perspective. There just won't be enough time to react by the point you can see someone behind you.
However this perspective is practically a melee ambush immunity mode. They'll still get the element of surprise but rogues will never get in close enough to land their first blow without being spotted. Not only does that nerf melee based rogues, but it pretty much forces everyone wanting to play competitively to use that perspective. There is a greater disparity in possible performance between the first perspective shown and the second perspective shown than there is between the first perspective shown and a full on first person view.
So my conclusion, give us third person but set the camera so the max you can zoom out is this far and your camera is forced to stay behind you unless you are standing near a mirrior.
Side-note:
You might consider making blindsense offer the ability to zoom out further and adjust the angle of the camera as desired once oracles or other ways of achieving it are implemented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think "melee ambush immunity" is a long stretch, especially when you factor in that a melee rogue can (probably, though not definitely confirmed yet) get some gap-closing charge-type abilities. Granted, it won't be easy to close to melee without them noticing you, especially if they're moving, but I wouldn't yet write it off as impossible.
But I still don't see the need of specifically getting in the first swing before they can notice you. Your actions are limited by the 6-second stamina timer, so you'll likely get off a maximum of one or two attacks (barring some crowd-control that stops them from targeting you for longer). Do we expect that sneak damage for one or two rogue attacks will be such a critical difference to make or break the role, or is it something else?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we know that perception will work 360 degrees, it should just work 180 towards the front . So camera distance and being able to rotate the view to "look" behind you should not help at all with perceiving someone behind you. You would need to spin around constantly to use perception behind you and most people wont be doing that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we know that perception will work 360 degrees, it should just work 180 towards the front .
While I strongly agree that it "should" be, Ryan has addressed the technical limitations of basing anything on "facing".
How far can you turn around in 6 seconds?
For virtually everyone the answer is "all the way around". So there's no such thing as facing in a game with a resolution of 6 seconds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh, I dislike that distance. I'm a far out camera type of person. It'd be a disappointment to play with inferior camera systems just so we can make stealth more effective. I'd rather see them change the view range to 5% for completely untrained and skew the evenly matched portion to be 25% normal range as opposed to 45%-50%
If we're worried about stealth distance, let us fix stealth distance, not artificially restrict our cameras.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you have the current stealth system with WoW style camera perspectives you run into a whole slew of issues:
1. That player you are approaching from behind could actually be staring right at you, and you have know way of knowing that.
2. You're going to have to start learning how far you need to be from a player to avoid detection if zoomed out. This will be a much less intuitive process than learning "They can't see me when I'm coming from behind unless I'm spooning with them."
3. Perception makes the distance at which you may be revealed variable. Exactally how much ground should these gap closers allow you to cover, and how fast? Even at max stealth you won't know if your target can see you, no matter which direction they are facing, after you get closer than half of the visiblity distance.
If you go with a more standard system you run into even bigger problems:
1. If players have to be within about 5 meters of you before you even have a chance to spot them then stealthed players will be able to effectively avoid 99%+ of unwanted PvP.
2. Ambushes will almost always succeed because by the time they are close enough to risk being revealed, it's too damn late to react. I've never once failed to get the jump on someone using a stealth class in Open World PvP, and I almost never fail to kill them once I do either. Themepark stealth is god mode in a title like this.
Final Point: I really hate the second perspective and consider it to be an "inferior camera system." Infact my favorite perspective is first person, and I would love if this game forced everyone to first person. If the perspective you want is in the game it presents such an obvious tactical advantage that you might as well be forcing me to use it. Why shouldn't you have to compromise a little?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually I have one compromise I think could work, though I doubt anyone would go for it. Slotting perception skills should force your camera to the first style of view, and your stealth detection range should be restricted to 3 meters if you zoom out beyond that point.
Considering all the advantages that perspective offers, I think it's a fair trade off. You could call them "focused mode" and "rubberneck mode". ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Concider a person who is on guard and turning his head from left to right, even when the torso remains immobile this provides 360 degrees of vision.
Do I as a player want to keep turning my character left and right all the time? No. Would I like to have my character doing it for me constantly? Yes.
Since first person perspective in games usually provide 90 degrees of vision while IRL you get something like 180. This can be very frustrating in games where spatial awareness is important.
Neither 360 degrees nor 90 degrees provides the same degrees of vision as an immobile head IRL but add in the head turning and I think it speaks for the 360 case.
If that wasn't enough of an argument, many people simply don't like to play first person perspective so I think it would be a bad decision to force it (to anyone, no matter what skills they slot).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We aren't talking forced first person here. I'm talking close-in third person like the video I posted.
Anyway.
1. You seriously have to crane your neck to get a clear 360 degree view without turning your torso.
2. Nobody is constantly looking all directions while walking or doing anything other than stopping to examine their surroundings. Even then they only see what's infront of their eyes as they scan. Just look at people walking down the street and notice how many are scanning 180 degrees, how many are scanning 360 degrees, and how many are scanning very little if at all.
3. When you are performing neck yoga or rotating like a satalite dish this is clearly visible to everyone observing you. You do not appear to be facing forward with your neck straight.
I get that many people don't like first person or a close in view. Many love those perspectives and hate when games force them to zoom way out if they want to play competitively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. You seriously have to crane your neck to get a clear 360 degree view without turning your torso.
With decent peripheral vision, one can, with ease, cover 315-330 degrees, though. That's enough reduce the range at which one can be completely unaware of an approach; perhaps some of our colleagues with military experience can speak to the subject as well.
2. Nobody is constantly looking all directions while walking or doing anything other than stopping to examine their surroundings.
Two things: 1) if one's concerned about, or even expecting, attack (which is going to be all of PFO from the sound of things), one'll be at least attempting to be at that level of hyper-perception as much as one can before needing rest, and 2) one also has sound, smell, touch, and other meta-clues working in one's favour while out in the world that can't be replicated in a computer game with today's technology. The necessary answer, in my mind, is to give enough additional visual support to at least partially compensate for the loss of our other senses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Limiting the camera view , or choices people have to what camera view they use , doesn't seem like a good way make stealth attacks work. It should be almost impossible to sneak up on someone who is just standing there on guard ,unless your stealth if way better than their perception. The whole point of training perception is to make it impossible to be stealth attacked by someone with a lower skill. To simulate it being easier to sneak attack from behind the rogue could get a leap forward type skill if they are lined up behind someone, so they can engage a sneak attack at 10 or 15 feet distance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. That player you are approaching from behind could actually be staring right at you, and you have know way of knowing that.
You know I'm not a big fan of constraining the UI as a kludge around constraining the character, so I'm not going to harp on it much, but I do want to point out that you won't reliably know if someone is looking your way or not anyway.
This is one of those places where the "illusion" of realtime interferes with people's expectations of how they'll be playing - you might think your opponent isn't looking at you, but that's just because your client and your opponent's client are slightly out of synch.
What happens when lag interferes? Now the heartbeat might have lag spikes. What happens in that situation?
These are the reasons that most MMOs don't use "Facing" as a reliably indicator of the opportunity for one character to act against another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personaly,
I think given the technological limitations that have previously been discussed concerning stealth, the best way to handle it from a tactical/mechanical perspective would be to impliment it as a form of cover buff. So you know the character is there, you just can't clearly "spot" them to target them well. You could then give other characters a Perception based ability that they could ACTIVELY used to remove the buff.
So for example, Andius and I are walking down a road. Bluddwolf is "stealthed" 30 yards up the road. We both know he's there...or maybe we know someone is there, the game can mask his name from us but haven't "spotted" him. He gets a good cover buff if we try to attack him unspotted. Andius, since he's got good perception skill, takes an action to try to "spot" him. This causes a test of Andius perception versus Bludd's stealth skills. If Andius is successfull he reveals Bluddwolf (pointing him out to everyone present) and removing Bludd's cover buff.
My primary preference would be the kind of real player hiding/spotting that occurs in FPS games like the Battlefield series...but I think the Dev's have already discovered the difficulty of that in PFO context. Absent that I'd vastly prefer this sort of system over the near perfect invisabilty outside of 5 yds that you see most MMO's impliment for stealth. Perhaps that could be reserved for actual invisability spells, etc.
If any of you have spent much time hunting or out in the woods, you know it's pretty common to be aware of the presence of something (noise, movement, bushes moving, etc) and it's general location without having clearly spotted and identified it. This kinda represents stealth in that context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think I also like the idea of a close 3rd person. Enough to where I can see my whole character model (I like to see how cool I look) but not necessarily what is several feet behind me. My biggest concern is always peripheral vision, which a lot of first-person games lack. I don't want to feel like I'm running around with horse-blinders on because then even regular-not-stealth melee becomes almost unplayable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyway, I could see allowing a camera rotation of about 90 degrees to either side once they have time to make the animations for it. That would allow for any scanning someone would realistically do in real life, and as Salazzar stated, that 3rd person perspective compensates for any lost peripheral. We can keep the realism that if you aren't watching where you are going you'll walk straight out into traffic or off a cliff. The idea that anyone would realistically be scanning 360 degrees all at once though is... wishful thinking mixed with exaggeration IMO. That doesn't happen.
You should still have 360 degrees of audio. And if anyone can smell their attackers well... they either have a much keener sense of smell than I do, or their attackers seriously need a bath. Outside wolf form I don't think anyone is losing much by not being able to smell their attackers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My personal "wish list" for camera perspective involves being able to zoom the character away from my character enough that I can get a feel for what's going on around me even when I've got close walls, so the camera could actually be behind a wall but still show me what my character sees.
I really, really hated the forced close-in perspective in Darkfall...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't like Darkfall's perspective as much as Mortal Online's or Skyrim's but it's an acceptable compromise. At least I feel more like I am my character than when I'm pulling the strings of my puppet from half a mile a way like in WoW.
I feel like there is ground for compromise. Preferably one that allows us a viable non-themepark stealth system. How much will a close in 3rd person perspective really hurt your enjoyment of the game? How much will it ruin the game for you if choosing your preferred perspective means you can't play a scout/spotter role effectively?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't even desire distant cameras for the 'tactical advantage', I just like having a lot to look at, especially when I am in idle chatter. Give me this over this any day.
That may be so but unfortunately the reason you want it doesn't change the huge advantage it presents.
My roleplay style is that I'll make small sacrifices in performance to enhance my immersion and/or connection with the character, but if anything will majorly effect my performance I'll adapt my roleplay to fit it because I'm primarily concerned with the role I play in the world, and not the backstory I give the man pretending to be a girl in a tavern.
For instance I generally flew from cockpit view in Freelancer even though this was the standard view or I go with a specific race or skill even though I could get a slight edge with another because it fits my character concept better. The decreases in performance are small enough that they don't really mean much.
However, in Mortal where race effects potential movement speed I ended up min-maxing a race I didn't want to play in order to remain competitive. In WoW, LotRO, SWTOR etc I always play with my camera zoomed all the way out even though I prefer a closer in view.
The advantage is not theoretical. If you play close in while you can zoom out if will have a very noticeable affect in your performance. Closer in views will not even be viable unless there is a trade off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, distant camera view is advantageous compared to close-up view. To be fair towards those who prefer close-up view we shouldn't allow distant view?
The other side of the argument: close-up view ruins the fun for many, thus it shouldn't be forced.
Whether they allow distant view or not (which they currently do), some people will be unhappy about it. For one camp, distant view is non-negotiable. For the other, close-up view being suboptimal is a concern.
I can think of two ways forward from this position: either somehow provide a mechanical advantage to close-up view to balance the two or accept that distant view will be in the game (it already is). I don't see how it should be balanced so I think the second option is preferable.
It won't make everyone happy but it seems like the best choice to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whether they allow distant view or not (which they currently do), some people will be unhappy about it. For one camp, distant view is non-negotiable. For the other, close-up view being suboptimal is a concern.
So we should cave to one sides demands and give them everything they want because they are unwilling to negotiate? How is that a reasonable argument?
Whether they allow distant view or not (which they currently do), some people will be unhappy about it. For one camp, distant view is non-negotiable. For the other, close-up view being suboptimal is a concern.So we should cave to one sides demands and give them everything they want because they are unwilling to negotiate? How is that a reasonable argument?
Viewpoint is something that can easily turn people off a game, for example if they implemented an FPS style view as the only option in game there are a huge number of people who would try the game and drop it like a hot potato.
People are used to the wide out view traditionally available in most mmo's and they like it. Restricting that view just gives them something to dislike about PfO. Given how sparse both EE and OE are going to be in terms of what has been coded frankly I don't think they can afford to give the user any more reasons to go meh.
This viewpoint only affects those that want to do stealth. Don't like it then the answer is presumably don't do a stealth character. Given Ryan was aware of this issue when they set the distances you can spot a stealth character seems to me that they intended a stealth character cant get right up behind someone in an open field without being seen
This viewpoint only affects those that want to do stealth.And people who find closer in viewpoints to be more significantly more enjoyable.
The people who prefer closer in viewpoints can still have them by not zooming further out. That is their choice. What they shouldn't do is argue no one else should be able to zoom further out because their choice puts them at a disadvantage
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The people who prefer closer in viewpoints can still have them by not zooming further out. That is their choice. What they shouldn't do is argue no one else should be able to zoom further out because their choice puts them at a disadvantage
Yes and if they put a slot in your inventory that can only be filled with a free non-hideable tutu of +50% damage I suppose you would have the option not to slot that if your character isn't the type who would wear a tutu.
And if this game didn't have PvP I might even consider not slotting it. However it does, and you would be an idiot not to, so if you don't like the tutu and you want to play a character who doesn't lose constantly, you're SOL.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whether they allow distant view or not (which they currently do), some people will be unhappy about it. For one camp, distant view is non-negotiable. For the other, close-up view being suboptimal is a concern.So we should cave to one sides demands and give them everything they want because they are unwilling to negotiate? How is that a reasonable argument?
Depends on the circumstances, what is being negotiated and how important it is to make either party happy.
In this case, is it worth possibly losing part of the "distant view-crowd" to appease the "close up-crowd"? Pros and cons from decision making point of view to choosing one or the other? I think keeping the option to use distant view makes most sense.
Anyone is free to express their wishes and opinions, I'm not telling anyone to "cave in" or shut up. I'm just trying to explain why I think this idea won't fly.
The people who prefer closer in viewpoints can still have them by not zooming further out. That is their choice. What they shouldn't do is argue no one else should be able to zoom further out because their choice puts them at a disadvantageYes and if they put a slot in your inventory that can only be filled with a non-hideable tutu of +50% damage I suppose you would have the option not to slot that if you're character isn't the type who would wear a tutu.
And if this game didn't have PvP I might even consider not slotting it. However it does, and you would be an idiot not to, so if you don't like the tutu and you want to play a character who doesn't lose constantly, you're SOL.
Well I will humour your ridiculous examples
The answer is simple....yes people would mostly wear the tutu because to most people winning is more important, most people aren't rpers. The point you are missing though is the majority wouldn't be happy about the Tutu. There is a minority upset about a zoomed out third party view
What you are asking for though is not the same as this mythical tutu what you are asking for is that the majority of MMO players who are used to a zoomed far out mode of viewing are restricted to the view you prefer so that you aren't put at a disadvantage. You are a minority group GW would be unwise to annoy the majority when they are wanting to sell a sub for a sparse EE environment.
In terms of your example it is more like you demanding the tutu be introduced and therefore forcing people to wear it. The status quo in MMO's is to use a zoomed out third party view. It is what people are used to and people generally like.The only people I have seen ever argue for anything else is the tiny subset that doesn't like it, now aided and abetted by the 3d viewing crowd who want to use their gadgets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The status quo in MMOs is to have a game based on grinding levels through questing until you reach max level and then do the same raids over and over in hopes of finding the gear you want.
Also let's look outside at see other extremely successful titles. Forcing you to choose between a close in 3rd person or 1st person perspective didn't hurt the sales of Skyrim very much and Star Citizen seems to be doing pretty well focusing their game design around the deepest level of immersion possible. Well, if 34 million dollars raised with nothing more than a program that let's you preview your ships and check out the cockpit view from the forced first person viewpoint of your avatar can be counted as success.
As Ryan stated somewhere else, I think there are a lot of things people think they won't enjoy that might surprise them. I have the feeling those whose experience will be ruined by a close in view is much smaller than the crowd coming in from more traditional MMO's realizes.
Edit: I'm not going to sit there in each thread and say "If I don't get my way I'll quit!" or "This issue is non-negotiable!"
The only non-negotiable thing is I want a game with open world non-faction based PvP and a detailed/interesting economy. Of the games delivering that package Star Citizen and Pathfinder Online are the most appealing to me. I will try each when they come out, and if either is significantly more fun than the other it will become my primary and perhaps even sole title.
As a PvPer the combat systems may very well be the deciding factor and perspective and targeting are probably the most important parts to my enjoyment of a good combat system. I happen to know most of the people posting that they can't stand close in perspectives are less interested in the combat aspects of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...because they are unwilling to negotiate?How does one negotiate with one's vestibulocochlear nerve? Motion sickness in games can be relieved--in many cases--by allowing choices of camera views.
This. I cannot play any FPS, Skyrim, Mass Effect, or Fallout 3/New Vegas because of the locked camera making me physically ill after 20 minutes of game play. Hell, I can't even watch movies with shaky cam. Blair Witch, Cloverfield, even Hunger Games made be sick.
I am taking a gamble on Star Citizen because I expect to be spending most of my time in the cockpit, and it helps immensely to be able to look at something fixed. It doesn't help in skyrim/fallout though, because the camera still shakes when you walk to simulate your head moving.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Off-topic for here, but I'd hate you to miss out on Skyrim. Try Plynxs No Motion Sickness mod; perhaps it'll do you a good job.
Some quick googling will help you find ways to change your field-of-view (FOV)--which can trigger my motion sickness sometimes--in all Bethesda games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Should we also be limiting screen resolution sizes so that people with better video cards and monitors do not get a mechanical advantage over those who cannot afford them? I have a good friend with 3 monitors and the ability to use all of them, his field of vision in the newest Bioshock with 3 monitors is just insane.
As for mechanical advantage, this is also an area where folks could potentially use a client hack to display information about players being behind them - essentially stripping the opportunity for such details from honest players and reserving it for dishonest ones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really just hope 1st person persepective is an OPTION. I'm the reverse of most people. I have a terrible time trying to play in 3rd person....so much so that I often don't play games where that is the only option. I'll be fine if they allow a zoom all the way in to 1st person or zoom out to whatever you prefer like LOTRO. I prefer true FPS...but as long as 1st person is an option, I'm fine. If not, I may actualy end up not playing PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think we know that perception will work 360 degrees, it should just work 180 towards the front . So camera distance and being able to rotate the view to "look" behind you should not help at all with perceiving someone behind you. You would need to spin around constantly to use perception behind you and most people wont be doing that.
With eye movement alone, the human field of view is about 270°. I think most people can comfortably turn their head at least 45° in either direction, so 360° isn't far-fetched in terms of peripheral vision to detect movement. Plus, hearing is often poorly represented in games and other, subtler senses are missing altogether. We're pretty vision-dependent, but our species didn't survive by being oblivious to other cues. If they play with facing & field of view, they'd need to scale the field with perception scores and impose a huge penalty for wearing a helm with more coverage than a skullcap.
I think it's fine, and the scenario assuming one stealther vs. one target may not be common enough to design game systems around anyway. Pairing up with another rogue is a much better idea; the targeted partner fights defensively and the other maximizes sneak attacks until the target turns and the rogues switch styles.