View Full Version : Unrealistic movement and remedy?

SpUnKy FuNk
6th Sep 1999, 02:06 AM
A big thing that bugs me about these games is the unrealistic movement, ie zigzagging left, right, back and forth, constantly hopping up and down while running constantly.

I think it would be amusing to have players trip from excessive movement like this. Perhaps a cumulative percent chance of stumbling the longer you consistantly and frequently are shifting directions, and especially moving backwards, multiplied by higher speeds.

This would still allow you to jump to the side quickly, sidestep slowly, and move backwards carefully; and perhaps this could in turn be offset somewhat by the player class. I think this would help greatly in making players more cautious and gameplay more realistic, especially in conjunction with the other new features in 3.0

Mr. McFeely
6th Sep 1999, 10:44 AM
That has the capability of becoming very annoying, but in brings to mind another big problem with Unreal in general. Despite what gaming magazines etc. say, the AI in Unreal is really pathetic, esp. the Bot AI. The only thing bots can do is strafe side to side and shoot when they are engaging an enemy. Turning up the bot difficulty only makes them do this faster. In real life, people do not trot back and forth while shooting. Hopefully in Unreal tournament, the "improvements" on the bot AI, which is said to be "even better than the original Unreal AI" (hooray) will actually include some realism.
Mr. McFeely

6th Sep 1999, 05:03 PM
I believe that Warren and Catalyst are going to solve this problem in version 3. I red somewhere that your aim will be reduced drastically when your running around like an idiot. Hopfully that will include AI for the bots that will make them hide behind something or stop to take aim. If not we're in trouble.

6th Sep 1999, 08:27 PM
roger that- it's in our .plan- unless UT forces the bots to worsen their aim as they run and move slowly or stop to make accurate shots (doubtful) then we'll have to step in and make our own modifications. At any rate, bots have enough of an advantage by not being human..

6th Sep 1999, 11:55 PM
Sorry Warren I can't agree on the bots, humans are fare better of. Think about it.
Bots can't snap out of it, never leave, the true prisoner's of Vortex Riker, lost in unreal. What a fate. Fun at Napali?, lets talk after you have been resurrected 1 million times only to die a brutal death again, after untold years on the shelf. No wonder somebody can see bot ghosts all ready. http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~unreal/modcentral/html/cry.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

7th Sep 1999, 12:41 AM
haha- I stand corrected http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~unreal/modcentral/html/teeth.gif

Coca Lola
7th Sep 1999, 01:52 AM
I definately think that realistic walking is a great idea, there are many things in unreal that are not so realistic and I think that if you do realism correctly the player should understand the gameplay directly without any need of documentation or need to learn bind commands for example. I think that the learning curve for Infiltration should be very low, otherwise it will repell new users or people looking for fast and easy frags not wanting to be involved in the extensive parts. The Installation of Unreal itself is a very bad example of how a good game should be, because you have to edit the advanced properties to get OpenGl to work. I think that this should be addressed in the next patch altough i definitaley should have been there when the game shipped.

More realistic walking could be done in a simple way like
1. slowing strafe movement, increase forward speed, slow backward speed greatly, this would people rather easy to hit, and rather easy to predict their movement, as it would be i real life. It would also be more of a challenge to skilled users but still very easy to learn for begginners(like the game Othello) as it reflects real life. It would also FORCE you to think before you do something and to make decisions. Which would increase the fun of the game (at least I think so).

2. increase jumping length forward, jumping forward would be faster than running but more tiring. Imagine making a great leap towards a doorway with incoming grenades around you. Jumping sideways or backwards would not be so tireing but the jumps would be shorter, but pretty fast, thus making an incentive to dodge rockets etc. And people would maybe act less like a train just running forward all the time, and it would look more interesting.

3. increase turn speed in an 50 degree angle in front of you and slow it if you turn more, to reflect head and eye movement. Random stumbling (but without falling and especially when you get tired) would be great as would fatigue if all you did was jump or run.

[This message has been edited by Sigma (edited 09-06-1999).]

[This message has been edited by Sigma (edited 09-06-1999).]

SpUnKy FuNk
7th Sep 1999, 02:56 AM
Perhaps simply slowing movement in these directions would be a quicker fix for it; I do think that the player should stumble after repeatedly making back and forth motions however. The dialating scatter area may discourage this movement in a heavy firefight, but what someone just crossing an open area trying not to get hit by a sniper that "might" be there? People can zigzag while running but enough with the constant hopping and crouching at the same time...

Another thought I have has to do with swinging your weapons around. Instead of having the weapon a seemingly static image on the screen that moves with the view, have them turn independently, affected by their size and weight; the idea here being that it takes longer to bring a large assault rifle or rocket launcher to bare on a target than a shotgun or SMG, a real life factor in close quarters combat.

The difference wouldn't be noticable when turning around slowly, but if you whip the mouse in some direction very quickly, you would see your view shift, then see the weapon swinging into position. Suddenly when you hear that action being worked behind you that pistol may not sound so bad...

7th Sep 1999, 05:21 PM
These are all very good ideas, and ones worth dealing with. Realism is of course a tough act to follow these days with current technology and we'll do our absolute best to duplicate it - or at least fake it enough - to be convincing. Realistic fall damage, getting knocked down, and basic physical real-to-life movements will hopefully all make their way into version 3. We all agree that things should be kept as simple as possible for both the new user and those who don't like to fiddle around before the fun begins. Others like to fiddle and perfect something just before they leap into combat. Finding a happy medium might be tricky, but is certainly doable. Some parts of version 3 will take practice, like having to push a button to pick up an item when you walk over it- then of course a possible solution to this would be when you walk over an item, a small menu quickly appears that lets you pick up the items if your weight/credits allow it, or if you just continue moving forward, the menu quickly disappears. There are a multitude of possibilities for every option we have planned in our Roadmap, so there's certainly no reason to be discouraged. We'll also ensure the defaults set will please almost anyone so there's no need to reconfigure everything if you don't want.

Many things about the basic movement of a player will probably need to be adjusted- even for UT. I totally agree with the frustration of a bot- or player zigzagging left and right without any apparent slowdown. Or moving forward at great speed, then instantaneously backward with no hesitation. We'll see if we can play with the animations/code enough for a more realistic aproach.

I like the idea of being able to jump forward and have the distance vary depending on your current speed. It'd be even better if we could allow the player to dive out of the way to avoid many things. Then it'd take a sec to be able to get back up, but it might save your life.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Adjusting the speed of your turn after a certain degree would be difficult to make realistic. First off this wouldn't really effect you if you were walking or standing still. If we did throw this kind of a feature in it would have to vary on speed and IMO after 80-90 degrees. We'll certainly keep it in mind though.

Making the player stumble or even fall depending on his movements would also be fairly tricky. With so many combinations, it would be difficult to tell what's 'allowed' and what would require a slip up. If we make the movement more realistic though, it should keep people from being able to do a circus act in front of an M16 being fired at them and get away with it. People will be forced to take less chances and rely more on the cover or shadows around them... now if only bots could see shadows too...

The idea on weapons moving at different rates than the player view would be cool, but probably not very possible. My thoughts on this are if a weapon is at the hip, you'd be able to swing it around without much difference in view (except for the AT4), but when you aim a weapon, there would be a huge difference when you turn your body left and right. The fact is, you wouldn't aim your weapon straight out in front of you while you maneuvered through a forest or building- reason being, your eyes would be distracted by your weapon instead of focused on potential targets- not to mention the fact that larger weapons would be harder to keep aimed perfectly in front of you during drastic turns.. As cool as this whole process would be, it's not likely to be possible.. but it doesn't mean we won't try it..!

SpUnKy FuNk
7th Sep 1999, 05:52 PM
Perhaps instead of the weapon moving differently, and although it wouldnt be as realistic, you could apply that scatter area dialation to moving the view around, still as affected by different weapon types?

And a couple last things... bullet holes, footprints, and blood trails. I read these were planned for that cancelled Force Recon mod. Blood trails from wounded players would make it easier to track someone on a large level, ditto for footprints. Any thoughts?

Bullet holes may be simply cosmetic, but if there were some way to define different surface types would it perhaps be possible to allow certain weapons to penetrate certain materials, depending on speed and bullet type?

This came to mind reading about a nice little 5-shot, 15mm flechette sniper that can shoot through 40mm of armor steel at 800m. That may overdo it for this environment of course, but it does kinda suck to not be able to shoot through a thin wooden door with a shotgun...

I promise to slow down if I'm getting ahead of myself here /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

8th Sep 1999, 12:12 AM
It would be nice if Infiltration exploited the tactical part of weapon size.

Shooting the level apart: Very little of an Unreal map is actually intractable, every thing is precalculated based on geometry and textures not building plans and material. Things blown apart will most likely only be prefabricated meshes, remember the pottery and wooden interior in Unreal?

SpUnKy FuNk
8th Sep 1999, 06:02 PM
Objects wouldnt need to be blown apart, you could just have a bullet hole texture appear on either side.

8th Sep 1999, 07:51 PM
The current engine does not handel building materials. Most rounds don't penetrate 1 inch of steel, and 1 inch is equal to the lowest practical unit in unreal maps.

Count me in on the texture thing thou. A single bumpmap or dark pixel would do fine (framerates).

9th Sep 1999, 12:25 AM
It looks like UT already incorporates bullet holes, as well as blood and blast marks so that should save some time already!