Author Topic: Player Movement test (Read 7738 times)

TinDragon · « **on:** March 11, 2007 »

Hi folks,

Would like some feedback on this shooter player movement to see if it has the right sort of feel to it. It's kind of like asteroids style movement were you can rotate the ship while travelling in the direction of thrust and it has a very basic inertia. Controls are left/right cursor keys to rotate and cursor up to thrust. Oh and left control to fire.

What I am after is some feedback on how controlable you feel the movement is, if you think rotation speed is to slow/fast, if the thrust and slowdown are to slow/fast etc.

Cheers
Jon

rdc · « **Reply #1 on:** March 11, 2007 »

It looks good except for the change in direction. The thrust should slow down the ship before moving in the new direction. You would want to set up a vector in the current direction then and then when thrust is applied, the ship's movement would slow based on the percentage of thrust applied , which will slow the ship and then move it in the new direction.

TinDragon · « **Reply #2 on:** March 11, 2007 »

Hmm so what your saying is you expect the thrust to work exactly like asteroids does ?

You see I am not aiming for it to be asteroids, I want it to feel quick when changing direction as the game will have alot going on and require quick direction changes. But I also wanted some inertia so that you dont go from standstill to full speed straight away and vice versa. But is seems by doing that everyone expects the ship to behave like asteroids does. I guess thats because everyone has played it and it's become the way we expect ships to behave in games, But if thats the only thing you are seeing as wrong then I guess it is behaving as I wanted lol

rdc · « **Reply #3 on:** March 11, 2007 »

Sure I see where you are coming from here. It is just, from my point of view, that inertia should work both ways. If you have inertia in one direction, it feels off to not have it in the other direction. For me at least, it gives a lopsided feel for the ship.

However, I am not trying to tell you have to make your game. You need to do what you feel is best.

TinDragon · « **Reply #4 on:** March 11, 2007 »

I do get your point about the inertia, will have to see how it feels once i start adding in some test enemies. Might have to reconsider the whole control method. I can see in my head how it should work but getting it in code tends to end up different. Atleast messing about with this has gotten me coding again, even caused a spin off idea to form which I am currently working out on paper so i dont forget it

Shockwave · « **Reply #5 on:** March 11, 2007 »

I agree with rick for what it's worth , but it seems like you don't seem to want feedback if you aren't going to change anything anyway.

It moves smooth, it just doesn't move as you'd expect, it's not bad and most people would probably get used to it.

I'd say that the control was more like time pilot than asteroids, only with a touch of acceleration and deceleration. Hope that helped, keep us up to date, your games are cool. Control systems are tricky to get right, this one is 80% there I'd say.

You could still have a fast direction change, it should not happen immediately though, there should be some sort of slowdown and speedup.

Paul · « **Reply #6 on:** March 11, 2007 »

I agree with rdc, it's nice and smoth but the direction change is to fast. you could make it feel better and still keep the sharp turns by slowing the player down faster when he lets go of the controls.

Tetra · « **Reply #7 on:** March 11, 2007 »

Same here i'm affraid. Tbh is not asteroids that makes everyone feel that way, it just real life

hehe
Basically what you got there is a hovercraft, and the neck breaking turns just dont fit.

Although games most of the time are made up worlds with made up dynamics, most games try to stay true to real life physics.

Heres an idea for you that will satisfy the rl physics and your desire for neck breaking turns. I'm not sure what this game will be but perhaps, what you can do is get the inertia right, and then have an additional key that someone can press the generates like a forcefield or wall of somesort that bounces you off at those neck braking angles. That way you can stay true to physics and satisfy the player because it more of a feature that the player can choose to use

The inertia can be trickey to make that is true, but i'm pretty sure quite a fe of use have made them, including my self and will be more than willing to help you out with some examples.

Hope this is something you mite consider, and I look forward to what you make

TinDragon · « **Reply #8 on:** March 12, 2007 »

Quote

Basically what you got there is a hovercraft, and the neck breaking turns just dont fit.

Well the movement I was going for is more like a hover craft in a sense, I think the problem is when you have thrust off in a direction, then turn and thrust again eveyone is not expecting it to speed off in that direction straight away but more slide in the old direction a bit while the new thrust direction takes hold, and due to how I am storing the thrust it can be almost max when you re-apply thrust and not do that. One solution is to remove the inertia completely but then people will say it should have inertia or I have full inertia. Thats why I think I will reconsider the entire control system as there are games out there that use a mouse control method which works really well and for some reason people then dont seem to compare to real life and expect any physics modelling at all, it would also suit my idea for the game so is a viable option.

rdc · « **Reply #9 on:** March 12, 2007 »

It isn't so much that you have to be realistic, but you have to be consistent. Having written a boat load of games in all genres, I can tell you from experience that a player will expect a consistent set of rules. The rules don't need to be based on reality, but they need to be self-consistent. If you introduce inconsistent behaviors, then you need to make the inconsistencies make sense to the player.

You can do the slow-to-start and turn-on-a-dime-at-speed, as long as you are consistent in this behavior, and you have come up with a good reason for this type of behavior. The goal is to get the player to buy into the game and you have to give them reasons why they should buy into the game. Without giving the player a good reason for the ship's behavior, they will think it is either bad programming, or inconsistent rules and both will cause the player to hit the escape key.

In this situation you could have an inertia meter displayed on the screen. When the inertia meter hits zero, you can spin on a dime. By showing the player that inertia only effects the ship at low speed you have explained the reason for the behavior and also enhanced the game play by giving the player a goal to achieve: keep the ship going at high speed.

You might be interested in a book I am writing. I have a rough-draft of the first chapter here where I talk about about these types of issues.

No one is trying to talk you out of your game design, we are just trying to help.

Clanky · « **Reply #10 on:** March 14, 2007 »

That's a great little demo! Reminds me of some yabasic games...

Like most people have said - the way the ship turns is abit odd... although you have explained the reasons, and other people have given great advice on the issue (the force field thingie and the inertia bar)... I guess it is really up to you to decide what control system you implement - but considering that the poeple who will be playing will consist of people like this board, I think that it would be best to have a think about the way you do make the controls.

And, you dont need to re-design the controls... they work great! All you would have to do is think of a way to graphically show why the ship is doing the sharp turns, or have a really fast, but noticable, slow down effect to have the feeling that the ships speed has changed because you have turned?

Although acceleration increases as you turn a corner!? haha! That's physics for you!!!

Hope you the best with your game, it looks like your onto a winner - which ever way you go!

combatking0 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 03, 2007 »

Hi Tin Dragon,

The vector() method of my custom sprite javascript object works in a similar way.
I'm using it for my up-coming online tank game.

I like your style.
I wish I could make exes.

Shockwave · « **Reply #12 on:** April 04, 2007 »

Quote from: combatking0 on April 03, 2007

I like your style.
I wish I could make exes.

There's no reason that you can't learn another language CK

Why code using just one language anyway?
You could have a chance of winning a copy of Cobra when I launch the next compo.

combatking0 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2007 »

Cool.

I'll certainly have a go.

Jim · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2007 »

Why not try a bit of C or C++ with us CK? You know some Java - it's not all that different...

Jim

Shockwave · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2007 »

I read that it's about 90% the same isn't it Jim?

combatking0 · « **Reply #16 on:** April 12, 2007 »

I'll have a look, but I don't have a compiler.

Can you reccomend one?

Jim · « **Reply #17 on:** April 12, 2007 »

There's a Getting Started guide in the C++ forum.

Some obvious differences between C++ and Java but some very obvious similarities. The syntax is basically the same.

Jim

Clyde · « **Reply #18 on:** April 12, 2007 »

Hows progress Tin Dragon dude?

combatking0 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 18, 2007 »

Cool, I'll have a look.