Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
POLL: Should there be some type of Player to Player Collision Detection in CU?
Kuldebar
Member UncommonPosts: 67
Butting Heads: Collision Detection in MMOs (source)
Some Different Types of Collision Detection:
Most computer games use a simple type of collision algorithm that responds after it has detected virtual objects trying to occupy the same space. The big differences between games are how the server responds to a collision.
Water
Inanimate objects like walls and buildings are treated as solid and the server quickly resolves any collisions with them to prevent movement. However, there is no server response for players colliding with one another and everyone is treated like they're made out of water. Some people think this method is just the result of lazy programming but there are actually some good reasons for its use. Collision detection for objects that constantly move can require intensive computational power especially in the large player occupied cities seen in World of Warcraft.
Mud
The initial response of the server is to treat every collision as a solid but the rules for collision detection get progressively weaker as two virtual objects press against one another. Classic Everquest was notorious for this style of collision detection which was probably intended to make sure players couldn't physically block off entrances to buildings or dungeons. The side effects were funny though since players could often press against certain walls and other solid objects like they were mud. Often they couldn't pass completely through them but it was easy to switch views and look into rooms. Also some doors and bars were vulnerable to pressing through at a certain point or using other tricks. Often times you would find monks feigning death at doors and getting back up repeatedly to trick the server into pushing them through a door.
Stone
Some PvP games have flirted with absolute collision detection systems which prevent a lot of the line of sight exploits that players can use against one another. However, games that treat everything as solid sometimes have issues with players getting snagged on small inanimate objects or even each other. Also while treating everything as solid fixes jousting and some of the other weird PvP tactics it can also cause other problems. Frankly, people can get in front of you and actually slow you down. Get a group of small players who want to be jerks and you can make it very hard for someone to move by surrounding them. This is why most games recently have avoided collision detection between players all together.
Combination
Warhammer is going with a neat trick of using the Stone method of collision detection between players on opposing factions and the Water method for those on the same side. This way the PvP exploits are fixed without introducing any greifing possibilities. Now there are still problems like enemies blocking doorways but this becomes more of a tactical issue then a design flaw. Most likely we'll see games go for this type of collision system in the future which will put quite a strain on older games. Modifying collision detection isn't a simple task and it will be hard to implement in games where opposing factions often use the same cities/towns.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Comments
I healed Mistwraith and all I got was this stupid tee-shirt!
I like /stick and /face, so no CD is fine with me. OTOH, if there is going to be CD between players, pets need to have CD as well for enemy and other pets. In other words, no 30+ shrooms packed into a single location.
Midranki - To us, Thidranki Faste is not just some center keep, it's our field Guild Hall.
Camelot Unchained's Kickstarter - Warrior Forever
War uses stone for enemies, mud for friendlies, not water
Also modern mmos do use cd. Ps2 and tsw for a start. Ps2 seems most relevant to what can be done with modern tech as it is a rvr game, supports 2000 players per continent (6000 per server) and unlike cu also has to deal with real time combat and bullet tracing. Although one thing is noticeable with ps2, the game features little aoe, which helps with performance a lot.
I just caught that, I pulled the description from a gaming blogger, based on his own descriptions: WAR definitely used the MUD type for friendlies in combat, and "Water: for friendlies when out of combat.
"Stone" for enemies at all times.
But, I also recall that WAR chnaged how CD worked in the game at some point.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
This, if they put it in like Warhammer did then no thanks.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
I had to vote yes. Any game that's going to focus purely on RvR has got to have CD included. If you're defending a keep and the gate is breached your natural 2nd line of defence will be your shield wall. If the enemy can just run through that then what's the fucking point?
What, the gate goes and we're fucked? Nah. Gotta be able to block the opposition or it's just too simplistic. I've seen arguments for and against CD and the word realism gets thrown around a lot. I don't see anything wrong with a more realistic system tbh, but what I don't want it to be is too easy. The ability to slow down your enemy by throwing bodies at them is exactly as it should be.
DAOC Live (inactive): R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R6 Healer
I said maybe. It's not an issue I feel strongly about. No player to player CD was fine in DAoC. WAR had the CD you describe and I thought it was fun also. My only concern is that I got the impression that all of the extra checks that had to be made to perform that level of CD was part of the reason things came to a crawl (or crashed) when too many people got in the same area. I think I would like WAR's version of CD, but it's not worth it if it causes any similar issues.
I'd rather they start with no CD and only go to higher CD if it can be shown through stress testing that it can be done. The only problem I see with that is that this mechanic needs to be known before the RvR world and the structures within it are designed. It also needs to be known before class abilities are designed. If this can't be done as a serial process due to time constraints, I'd rather just see them go with no player to player CD.
Edit: Also, I'd be very hesitant to go to a stone method for the same concerns listed in OP about greifing. Same reasons team damage is probably a bad idea. I wouldn't throw a fit if they wanted to try something like that, but for all of the strategy it might be able to add, I think it would make things too not fun to be worth it.
Here is another Q: you must ask..
CD WILL drop performance/frame rate , that is a fact.
granted it may not be adversely affecting the gameplay. But, would you rather have other things implemented in lieu of CD with the same drop in acceptable FR loss? I.e. crisper graphics, more effects, better landscape, further clipping range?
CD would get abused so quickly it would make your head spin.
I'd say if you want a mass exodus from CU 1-2 months after release, then add CD to the game mechanics.
Provide any example of "abuse" that I cant tell you a ridiculously easy way to solve all mighty oracle.
Yes there should be,i can't stand seeing people standing inside of a creature or wal;king through each other.
There are times when i hate it like when a bunch of people are standing in the way of where i need to go.
However there is so much realism and so much can be done using it.
Example a Paladin has the block skill or protect skill,that mob should have to go around him to get to the current hate target,not through him.
Then we have projctiles and magic.
Projectiles should slow and do less damage when going through MUD or WaTER.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Realism?
you have three human tanks....250ish pounds each.......and they thwart 6+ 1000# trolls charging at full speed.
you need to take yourself away from the rigid principle that there is no movement when they are next to each other!
they twist and turn and move about. Which is why traditional CC and some new skills(grappling) would be more than adequate to give the feel of a wall.
It was no coincidence the best pvp game of all time didn't have CD
Pbaoe was prob the one unique spell that made daoc so great and honestly it just isn't 10% as effective with CD
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
In all of the threads on this subject on MMORPG.com I think it is abundantly clear which "side" of this debate the misinformation and even more often the lack of information is coming from.
And I think the point of the 2D comparison (which should be obivous to anyone that doesn't intentionally misunderstand arguments) is that 2D and "no CD" are both antiquated jokes given the technical capabilities of today. Arguing against CD is like arguing against the horseless carriage. The rest of us are ready for our MMOs to move into the 21st century, why aren't you?
Are you intentionally trolling? These types of absolutes aren't really helpful. Give real reasons other than "You all are stuck in the past!". IMO, we should be focusing on the most enjoyable type of combat that provides the most interesting strategies that will allow more skilled players to succeed. Not just trying to get the most realistic combat possible with current (or near future) technology.
Just because CD is a newer mechanic doesn't make it more enjoyable to play
We will see as I'm sure they will experiment with it for sure and until it gets tested most people won't see the draw backs
Your side of the argument is so hung up in needing CD because its "more realistic" "stupid someone can pass right through me" etc reasons which side track you from alternatives
It's a waste of time trying to explain the other side of the coin to you
To your comment about joining the "21dt century" lol hasn't it been proven this game is a throw back to old school mmo? Why? Because the key components to those old school moms were a major part of their success. CD included IMO
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
YES!... (as long as it is tested with the founders and doesn't hurt gameplay/perfomance). As I posted in the other thread on this topic, I think every effort should be made to implement some type of CD. I wouldnt mind it being an aura or ability that tank or melee type toons can turn on/off at the cost damage output.(just an idea) But most importantly is the fact that if it is in the game it is done the right way and works.
I played and loved DAOC and like most posters that i have read on CU's forum, alot of my favorite/best MMO memories come from RvR and the battlegrounds. However, I believe MJ/CSE are going to have alot of new ideas on combat/gameplay/experience systems and just because they weren't in DAOC doesnt mean they are automatically FAIL. They know what works and hopefully they have learned what doesn't. Most importantly i think that since the launch of the Kickstarted they have shown an unparelled level of communication and implementing not only what the founders have posted , but also what many who are sitting on the fence have asked for as well. I think we all (both fans and haters) need to keep in mind that the release date, Holidays 2015, is a long way off and that there is a lot of work to be done before we say any one concept is either make it or break it...... imho
It's not a coincidence at all that DAOC didnt have CD.
DAOC was made in 2001. Should we use DAOC's graphics too?
People dont want to just play an exact copy of DAOC. If they did, they would be playing DAOC.
People want to play a new game that follows in the same spiritual footsteps by focusing on RPG PvP combat to become this decade's DAOC.
Actually, I'd play a copy of DAoC if they updated the game. Update the animations, controles, graphics and some other goodies and I'd totally play DAoC. The biggest reason I don't play anymore is because the control scheme feels way too slugish and outdated to me. I took a break for a while and played some more modern MMOs, then went back to DAoC and couldn't get used to the movement again.
- - "What if the hokey pokey really is what it's all about?" - -
That's for other posts ...
I also believe to follow in the footsteps of daoc's rpg pvp combat is integral to CU success. Not having CD was an integral part of daoc success and to achieve the long lasting enjoyment of pvp.... not having CD is key
IMO
Time will tell maybe I'm wrong prove me wrong? I hope they don't bother because of performance as wanting CD and not apparently comes down to preference and what class that person plays. As a healer why wouldn't you want the enemy stuck behind your tanks so you can heal at ease ... Poor melee dps going to be bored as shit in keep battles
Eye for an eye I guess
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
Hyperbole is as hyperbole does. Focus on the content of your own posts and everything will fall into place, my son.
I feel like I am intentionally anti-trolling the anti-CD trolls, thanks for asking. I and others (much better than I could) have outlined in detail why PvP with CD is better than without and why older games probably didn't have it (hint: due to technology at the time). I don't think I or the others should have to rehash every single argument in every post in perpetuity to avoid the troll label. Especially, when the only arguments against it so far are either "It will be poorly implemented, I just know it!" or "Waahhhhh!!!! DOaC didn't have it!!!!".
IMO, we should be focusing on the most enjoyable type of combat that provides the most interesting strategies that will allow more skilled players to succeed. Not just trying to get the most realistic combat possible with current (or near future) technology.
I agree. Luckily collision detection allows us to do both. Problem solved. We can move on to the issue of stealth now.
I think we can put the "But WAR implmented it badly and DAoC didn't have it so neither can CU" argument to bed. I will be doing internal testing for this game and I will be the first person to step up and say "I really wanted CD but CSE can't make it work smoothly with their engine, so it's a no go and we will have to rely on CC to simulate it" IF we/they can't get it to a state where it's smoothly integrated into the game.