Re-useable fighting stance

Doubi · Post by **Doubi** » 10 Feb 2008, 01:18

Morning all!

I've been thinking that it looks pretty odd when the player is fighting, and returns to an unarmed standing pose between each stab / swing / shot. So I've had a go at creating a fighting stance pose.

Of course, the big challenge here is to make a single stance that can be at least passable for the multitude of different weapons we're working towards including.

Here's what I've come up with so far. I realise the left arm looks a bit strange a lot of the time, but as you can see, I was thinking of shields...

With thanks to DimitriLove for his weapon sprites. Of course, the angle of some of of the above weapons could be tweaked to make them sit in the hands a little better.

I think two-handed sword / axe weapons are a particular problem. Holding the bow like that looks crazy too. Although possibly better than reverting to standing as it currently does?

What do y'all think? Is an all-weapon fighting stance sprite even an achieveable goal?

For, anyone wanting to tinker and help, the sprites are here:
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh14 ... s_used.png

Pauan · Post by **Pauan** » 10 Feb 2008, 02:06

No.

In a more serious tone, I think it's a good idea, but obviously needs a lot of work. If we really wanted to be technical, we could make two poses.. but that'd be an awful lot of work. With some tweaks I think this could work out fine.

Also... I think the best place to use this would be after attacking, not before. If we had it before it would affect the gameplay far too much. However, an idea that might be good to implement is one found in MapleStory: after attacking or being hit, for a short time (about 10 seconds) the player cannot equip items.

This animation could easily be used to indicate to the player when the character is in an aggressive state and thus unable to change gear. Just a thought.

Falcata · Post by **Falcata** » 10 Feb 2008, 02:39

I would say that there should be a little less motion. Maybe make the sprite bounce one pixel width less.

Pauan · Post by **Pauan** » 10 Feb 2008, 03:12

Falcata wrote:I would say that there should be a little less motion. Maybe make the sprite bounce one pixel width less.

Actually, the problem is mostly that the ONLY thing that moves is the legs. The feet remain the same, as does the body. I agree it is a bit extraneous, however this can be easily remedied with making the entire body move rather than just the legs. Hrm... whenever I decide to tackle that I'll try both approaches.

Doubi · Post by **Doubi** » 10 Feb 2008, 03:34

I accept the arms should move a bit, but the feet?

As it is, the upper body only moves three pixels in the three frames, except the head moves an extra one in the second one (at the lowest point).

Pauan, I agree with what you said about this being used after attacking. I was thinking that when a player has targeted an enemy and attacks, this pose could be used until the enemy is defeated.

Pauan · Post by **Pauan** » 10 Feb 2008, 03:39

Doubi wrote:I accept the arms should move a bit, but the feet?

As it is, the upper body only moves three pixels in the three frames, except the head moves an extra one in the second one (at the lowest point).

Pauan, I agree with what you said about this being used after attacking. I was thinking that when a player has targeted an enemy and attacks, this pose could be used until the enemy is defeated.

I didn't mean moving the pixels, I meant the shading. When you bend your legs like that, certain parts of your feet move a tiny bit. The shading should change subtly change as a result.

Also, that doesn't make much sense, what you said. In that case we might as well use a Seiken Densutsu 3 model where anytime you are near an enemy you move into an attack mode. In essence, what I proposed has the same effect: if an enemy is near it will attack, and hopefully you attack as well. As such once the enemy is defeated you will no longer be in attack stance.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's mostly a repeat of what I already said.

Plus, it'd be a LOT easier to code my suggestion, than it would be to have to check constantly if the enemy is dead or not. And what about multiple enemies? It's just too complicated.

Post by **Dave** » 10 Feb 2008, 06:53

I think idle animations like this are only proper when they're made to depict heavy breathing. ..and because that is such a hard thing to make look right, I'd vote that we not bother. When the breathing isn't portrayed, the character looks like he's got the shakes or the heebiejeebies.. maybe instead of that arsenal, you should make a version where he's holding a crack pipe and has baggy eyes.

But seriously, I don't see bouncy idle animations happening. Whether or not to reuse a frame for multiple weapon types though.. I'm not sure. I'd say probably not, just because intuitively, you don't hold weapon A like weapon B.. that's one of the things that makes weapons different. In a less graphical sense, it's sort of like why we aren't just having weapon skills like.. "Melee" and "Ranged" .. it's more specific about the weapon type, because they're fundamentally different techniques.

Pauan · Post by **Pauan** » 10 Feb 2008, 07:01

dabe wrote:I think idle animations like this are only proper when they're made to depict heavy breathing. ..and because that is such a hard thing to make look right, I'd vote that we not bother. When the breathing isn't portrayed, the character looks like he's got the shakes or the heebiejeebies.. maybe instead of that arsenal, you should make a version where he's holding a crack pipe and has baggy eyes.

But seriously, I don't see bouncy idle animations happening.

It isn't an idle animation. It's used only during battle, specifically immediately after battle. After a very short time (read: a few seconds), the player goes back to normal. It's meant to show aggressiveness and "I'm ready to fight!" It isn't there to show breathing or anything else. If you look at it that way, it seems far better, ne?

I agree with you about idle animations, but this is NOT an idle animation.

Post by **Dave** » 10 Feb 2008, 07:18

Doubi wrote:and returns to an unarmed standing pose between each stab / swing / shot. So I've had a go at creating a fighting stance pose.

..that doesn't sound like something that is only going to be used "immediately after battle" .. it sounds like when the character is in the area of an enemy, this stance will replace their normal IDLE stance. Whether you're going with the guy's initial idea or not, that's how I gathered it.

I suppose I should've expected hairs to be split.. fine, it's not an "idle animation" .. it's a "battle stance" .. I still don't think it'll look good unless the movement is ceased, or at least made to appear more natural (like the above mentioned appearance of respiration).. I'm not opposed to weapons being automatically drawn near an enemy, but the character doesn't have to move around at all.

Pauan · Post by **Pauan** » 10 Feb 2008, 07:21

I agree with you on that. More subtle and natural movements are indeed needed. As I pointed out, it could have a very practical purpose, if used properly. The main question is if we're going to implement my idea or not. If not, this sprite has very little purpose. But if we decide you cannot equip items immediately after attacking/being attacked (which makes sense), then this sprite would be useful, nay maybe even necessary.

P.S. No matter the original idea, if a better idea is proposed, then chances are good the team will go with the better idea.

Doubi · Post by **Doubi** » 10 Feb 2008, 07:25

Well, that's fair enough. And if you only used one, static frame of weapon-drawn-battle-readiness, it might be a lot more practical to have a different pose for each weapon type (because I mean, there'll be a lot, but surely no more than twenty or so?)

But you see my original gripe, right? It's the stab an enemy -> stand like you're waiting for a bus thing that's going on at the minute. Especially since the enemy is usually not yet dead. If I'd just stabbed a guy I'd look a bit more ready for him to retaliate

Post by **Dave** » 10 Feb 2008, 07:32

I'd say let people try to change their equipment around while they're in the middle of a battle.. often enough, it'll end up getting them beat up or killed and it'll serve em right for being careless. ..just in general, I don't like the notion of an equipment menu that is sporadically unavailable. ..and what about when you (for whatever ungodly reason) have an abnormal weapon equipped and run in to some bad guys. You're going to have to totally flee the scene just to be allowed to dig through your stuff? That sounds potentially frustrating.

I understand where you guys are coming from with this idea. Mainly, I think that the functionality of the idea (to disable the equipment interface during battle) is pretty pointless. Why is it that we don't want people changing equipment around during battle?

Pauan · Post by **Pauan** » 10 Feb 2008, 07:36

dabe wrote:I'd say let people try to change their equipment around while they're in the middle of a battle.. often enough, it'll end up getting them beat up or killed and it'll serve em right for being careless. ..just in general, I don't like the notion of an equipment menu that is sporadically unavailable. ..and what about when you (for whatever ungodly reason) have an abnormal weapon equipped and run in to some bad guys. You're going to have to totally flee the scene just to be allowed to dig through your stuff? That sounds potentially frustrating.

Ah but you see, if you are not attacked and do not attack, you can change at whim. Also, don't you think it's a bit unrealistic to change your entire armor at the same time as you're swinging a great big sword? I'm not saying realism is the end-all, but in this case it's just plain silly. There really isn't a reason not to include this, but there is a very practical reason to include it. Besides, after a few seconds you revert back to normal, so you'd only have to flee a tiny bit. And that's assuming you even get hit at all. What you're saying is, if somebody is stupid enough to have bad equipment and goes running into enemies, he should be able to casually change gear while being slaughtered. Sounds pretty silly to me.

Post by **Dave** » 10 Feb 2008, 08:01

You won't be able to change your armor and swing your sword at the same time, but it's because swinging your sword will require pressing a button on the keyboard, while changing your equipment will probably still require you to move your hand to the mouse and fiddle around with dragging and dropping..
How fast are you going to be able to change "your entire armor".. if you have multiple pieces of equipment to move around?.. removing what you're wearing and replacing it will take atleast a couple or few seconds.. and in that time, you'll probably have taken a bit of damage.

I just don't see that amount of time ever allowing anyone to really exploit any sort of unfair advantage that they may have with some secondary set of equipment.

..and yes, I think we should let people change gear while they're "being slaughtered" ..No matter how well its done, I don't imagine anyone will ever say, "Hey, good job disabling the equipment menu during battle, that's super realistic!" ..but I can totally imagine some whiney line such as, "Why can't I change my equipment?!

waaaah..."

To me, this is less a matter of realism (since this will never be anything close to a simulation of real-life) and more a matter of preference. It comes back to the problem that you can't please everyone.. If you can get the graphics squared away and get someone to do a good job with the code/script/whatever, have at it. I'll just leave this one be .. just remember that like all of the other frames of the existing human playerset, these will probably need to be done for up to 9 other races.

Post by **Rotonen** » 10 Feb 2008, 09:46

The main problem here is that no one has yet made the "list of everything what could be in the playerset". Out of that it's rather easy to pick out the things we really need and on top of that take a few sugary things we just want to be in there.

Someone should make the initiative in a separate thread.