2.0 Movement inertia: Removed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

[*] Final motion blending animations are not implemented in the alpha.

---

/thread...

I -think- this is something they've stated as aesthetically pleasing but got removed from ARR to make the system work better overall. I'm a -little- sad about it, but I'm happier that they're putting playability first, as much as I like aesthetic touches.

Edit: Although apparently I might be wrong? Awesome. :D

People keep throwing around this blending animations quote. When it turns out to have nothing to do with Inertia, and only to do with the current attack/damage taking animation. I will rofl.

SE said in the past and even Rukki did, they were removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montijin

No one has mentioned pvp in this thread.

I'm not sure how that animation would work for pvp where you will be constantly running and stopping. If there is an animation lock on using abilities while your "stopping" from running that would be really annoying in pvp.

---

Inertia != animation lock.
Besides, YoshiP said PvP is just there for the people who want it, but it's not his main focus. So bringing PvP into the thread is kinda a moot point.

i want backpeddling to stay just so i can insult and call scrubs 'n casuals backpeddlers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryuuji

i want backpeddling to stay just so i can insult and call scrubs 'n casuals backpeddlers.

---

What in the Hells is this? This isn't a fighting game! This isn't "Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm KO'd"!

The proper term is "noob"!! Not "scrub!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Inertia != animation lock.
Besides, YoshiP said PvP is just there for the people who want it, but it's not his main focus. So bringing PvP into the thread is kinda a moot point.

---

Will you marry me, you 3 foot ball of baby fat? :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PotatoSalad

Will you marry me, you 3 foot ball of baby fat? :)

---

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...53/279/e31.jpg
I hope you're not thinking this was from the recent interviews. He's been saying that before, when he first mentioned adding it. Don't remember where he said it :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

[...] Whether "motion blending" animations include inertia or not is yet to be seen though. [...]

---

Exactly. "Animation blending" as a technical term simply means that there is a soft transition between two individual animations. For the movement in 1.0 they don't use simple blending, but separate transition animations. (standing > start running > running > stop running > standing)

Of course we don't know what Yoshi meant exactly, especially since we're only basing assumptions on a translation. But implementing animation blending alone definitely won't give us the smooth movement from 1.0.


Side note: There was actually no blending for battle animations in 1.0, which has been bothering me since release. I hope they'll fix that for ARR.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Inertia != animation lock.
Besides, YoshiP said PvP is just there for the people who want it, but it's not his main focus. So bringing PvP into the thread is kinda a moot point.

---

I'm sure they would just turn of the stop animation for the zones if it was a big deal, actually.

But, I don't think its a moot point. The quality of pvp would obviously take precedent over a movement animation if it came down to one or the other.

PvP sells games/keeps the subs rolling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montijin

The quality of pvp would obviously take precedent over a movement animation if it came down to one or the other.

---

No, it should not. Not in a game that has a high lean on realism, lore, and PvE. PvP is only a bone thrown to those who absolutely want it, which is why it's going to be contained to arena-type events.

Quote:

---

PvP sells games/keeps the subs rolling.

---

Not the case with FFXIV ARR, at least from what we have heard so far.

Don't think allot of people are going do a bunch of pvp but I could be wrong to lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

No, it should not. Not in a game that has a high lean on realism, lore, and PvE. PvP is only a bone thrown to those who absolutely want it, which is why it's going to be contained to arena-type events.

Not the case with FFXIV ARR, at least from what we have heard so far.

---

I'm talking about MMOs in general.

PvP is the biggest part of an MMO for a large amount of people. Obviously that hasn't been the case historically with SE MMOs. If they are however looking to generate that market, which I don't think we can say for sure we know what they are truly trying to establish, then pvp would take priority is what I mean.

You will never see a game with Warcraft-like subscriptions or other big games (GW2, SWTOR) sales numbers without the promise of an engaging pvp system. Are SE's ambitions set that high for ARR? I don't know. I just know that its nearly a priority to have a good pvp system if you want to try and make as much money as those titles.

Edit: Also, where have they said that pvp is on the back burner compared to pve? Its not surprising to me in the slightest if that's the case, I'm just wondering if its been said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kallera

What in the Hells is this? This isn't a fighting game! This isn't "Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm KO'd"!

The proper term is "noob"!! Not "scrub!"

---

Meh, they're all the same. Kids and their terminology lingo. Besides the answers song says "Walk free" alot so it's okay to use fighting game lingo. :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montijin

Also, where have they said that pvp is on the back burner compared to pve? Its not surprising to me in the slightest if that's the case, I'm just wondering if its been said.

---

It was in one of the interviews back when the first chunk of information was released, nothing recent. I don't remember which one it was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Punainen

I hope that its still there in 2.0. I found it to be very aesthetically pleasing to see my character make natural looking starts, stops, and turns.

---

Exaclty the way i feel. Some people might not even really think about it, but will notice something's not right if it's left out.

I hope they add the animations again, atm it looks like the character is sliding around on the surface of the world instead of actually running on it. This seems to be the norm for other MMOs and it's one of the things I really detest about them, lets hope XIV ARR isn't tarred with the same brush.

The animations are not complete. It's already been confirmed. Thread closed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex

The animations are not complete. It's already been confirmed. Thread closed.

---

*Throws a Phoenix Down*

IT LIVES!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PotatoSalad

*Throws a Phoenix Down*

IT LIVES!

---

Whyyyyy ): Why was this thread even necrobumped

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rex

Whyyyyy ): Why was this thread even necrobumped

---

Especially when it was already said that animation blending isn't even finished til open beta.

People love to argue i guess glad yoship clear that one up.

Personally I remain skeptical about this animation blending until we see it, considering how bluntly they told us the good animations were being removed with no real reason to back it up.

More specifics would. But of course we should all just stop talking about it for some reason you guys are right, gotta muzzle the people who actually want to discuss things that will fundamentally chsnge the game right....right?

People skeptical about animation blending should take a look at what it's actually capable of these days in the MMO environment. GW2 and Vindictus both have very good animation blending that is far and about what was in 1.0 and (at least GW2) don't restrict player movement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jynx

Personally I remain skeptical about this animation blending until we see it, considering how bluntly they told us the good animations were being removed with no real reason to back it up.

---

They might not be as good as 1.0, but any sort of blending would round it out nicely.

I expect something superficial, that won't have any effect on actual movement speed, but still gives the appearance of coming to a steady stop.

I'm up for being surprised though *shrugs*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radnar

People skeptical about animation blending should take a look at what it's actually capable of these days in the MMO environment. GW2 and Vindictus both have very good animation blending that is far and about what was in 1.0 and (at least GW2) don't restrict player movement.

---

GW2 looks terrible, it's one of the games I mentioned in my post above, it looks like you're sliding around on the ground instead of actually running on it.

Haven't seen Vindictus yet, will have to check it out.

I hope there will be more inertia in the final version of the game. Adding it as part of the realtime physics might be all right, I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galliano

GW2 looks terrible, it's one of the games I mentioned in my post above, it looks like you're sliding around on the ground instead of actually running on it.

Haven't seen Vindictus yet, will have to check it out.

---

Vindictus has a bit of sliding as well, but that isn't a requirement for their otherwise decent blending animations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roukiz

Perhaps there's a chance it hindered movement responsiveness too much?

---

I think you answered your own question, I hope it stays this way. Even if it doesn't effect the way on paper you move, it still /feels/ sluggish. It's aesthetically pleasing, however I think the practicality is limited, especially in pvp.

Movement shouldn't be "get where you want to be at any time in a split second" that's why most PvP sucks. There should be a bit of "sluggish" to it. Not to mention if you jump up and down repeatedly in PvP it should generate a self debuff from exhaustion. ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Talshara_Blade

Movement shouldn't be "get where you want to be at any time in a split second" that's why most PvP sucks. There should be a bit of "sluggish" to it. Not to mention if you jump up and down repeatedly in PvP it should generate a self debuff from exhaustion. ^^

---

Responsive movement controls (that includes jumping. This isn't real-life; getting caught on game-geometry is a real thing) are a prerequisite for competitive PvP. I don't mean to sound harsh, but you sound like someone who has never PvPed before.

I don't see how realistic inertia animations oppose PvP. If anything, it adds a new dimension of skill, namely playing predicting the delays your body needs to get into position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

I don't see how realistic inertia animations oppose PvP. If anything, it adds a new dimension of skill, namely playing predicting the delays your body needs to get into position.

---

in a game without latency/network lag, sure it will be interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

I don't see how realistic inertia animations oppose PvP. If anything, it adds a new dimension of skill, namely playing predicting the delays your body needs to get into position.

---

I understand why you'd think this, but it does not work that way. Adding in movement inertia does not increase the skill-cap in PvP (it actually decreases it in a sense), and I will try to explain why.

What adding movement inertia does is it adds in a game-enforced lag-time before a player can react properly to new information (in this case, usually substantially longer than a player's reaction time). That means that any player who finds themselves on the defensive side of an encounter (for example, a player is attacked by another while enroute to somewhere else) is at an extreme disadvantage because the time it would take them to react properly to the attack is significantly larger than their personal reaction time.

What this means, in the most basic sense, is that - all other things being equal (skill, gear, class balance) - the defender will lose, always. Forced reaction-lag-time mechanics, like movement inertia, remove the defender from the equation and create binary PvP encounters where everything relies on the successful execution of one player (the attacker), rather than of both players. To elaborate with a brutally simple model:

Consider a world where all players had two HP and one attack, which always dealt one HP damage. In this world we have two players who do not see eachother and are moving at random vectors. Then assume they both see eachother at the same time. Who wins?

The player who had the more advantageous initial movement vector (most likely towards the other player) will always beat the one who had the less advantageous (most likely away from the other player; requiring them to reorient themselves before they can attack) if there is movement inertia involved. They will always get their attack off first, bringing their opponent to 1 HP before they can respond with their own attack.

In a perfect world, the win-rate should be split evenly between the two players 50-50 in a way that ignores their initial movement vector given enough trials. In perfect "Skill Based" PvP, the outcome of a fight should ignore random factors determined before either player was aware of the other, and instead focus on each player's ability to successfully respond to eachother's actions. If random factors are not ignored, then the PvP becomes luck-based, rather than skill-based.

TLDR: Mechanics which cause game-enforced lag-times on player actions induce Binary PvP dynamics that either remove or lessen the impact of indiviual player skill on individual fights. Who lives and dies - all other things being equal (gear, skill, and class balance) - becomes lopsidedly dependant on the proper attack excecution of only one player (or luck), rather than both players.

If you're familiar with competitive Starcraft 2, spells like Fungal Growth and Forcefield have a simliar effect on competitive play (at least in certain matchups): they effectively remove one player's ability to respond properly in fights, leaving the success or failure of individual attacks dependant on the attacker's skill only, rather than both the attacker and the defender. (MouzCCMorrow on this issue: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/7180048170)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Junpei

I would much rather my character stop when I let go of the button than fall an extra step or 2 forward when it could mean life or death.

---

Nobody dies in final fantasy, they become swooned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

I don't see how realistic inertia animations oppose PvP. If anything, it adds a new dimension of skill, namely playing predicting the delays your body needs to get into position.

---

If this was in PvP, I would never play it. Radnar explained it pretty well, it is a big advantage tool for the offensive team and can be used unfairly.

As for inertia, I don't care honestly, all I care about are the game play mechanics overall. I don't care if they have to sacrifice a thing or two to make the game play as smooth as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radnar

What this means, in the most basic sense, is that - all other things being equal (skill, gear, class balance) - the defender will lose, always. Forced reaction-lag-time mechanics, like movement inertia, remove the defender from the equation and create binary PvP encounters where everything relies on the successful execution of one player (the attacker), rather than of both players. To elaborate with a brutally simple model:

Consider a world where all players had two HP and one attack, which always dealt one HP damage. In this world we have two players who do not see eachother and are moving at random vectors. Then assume they both see eachother at the same time. Who wins?

The player who had the more advantageous initial movement vector (most likely towards the other player) will always beat the one who had the less advantageous (most likely away from the other player; requiring them to reorient themselves before they can attack) if there is movement inertia involved. They will always get their attack off first, bringing their opponent to 1 HP before they can respond with their own attack.

In a perfect world, the win-rate should be split evenly between the two players 50-50 in a way that ignores their initial movement vector given enough trials. In perfect "Skill Based" PvP, the outcome of a fight should ignore random factors determined before either player was aware of the other, and instead focus on each player's ability to successfully respond to eachother's actions. If random factors are not ignored, then the PvP becomes luck-based, rather than skill-based.

---

Basically, you are saying that the defender will be at a disadvantage because he gets the handicap of having to turn first. But then, you can also turn it around by moving backwards on your movement vector, making the attacking player miss, thus forcing them to turn instead - nothing stops you from stabbing him while he does that.

This all is assuming the inertia is implemented 100% realistically. Which will not be the case since they're dropping motion captured animations. All they have to do is to start playing the inertia animation the moment you let go off your movement key. Thanks to motion blending, it should still look believable without introducing an actual latency.

Responsive controls and realistic motion are not mutually exclusive. After all the goal of games is to be realistic as possible with things adapted from the real world, while expanding the possibilities with something that isn't. If you only concentrate on good graphics but leave the animation unrealistic, it will just weird the people out.

PvP is not the major focus of the game, this is why I want to have completely separate rulesets. I don't want the realistic movement animations to suffer because it "makes PvP less responsive". This is the old "let's nerf PvE for PvP!" story, and I do not want that, nor the opposite to happen. And I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montijin

I'm talking about MMOs in general.

---

But we're not. We're talking about FFXIV. And FFXIV's audience, like FFXI's audience before (which was much of the same people), is not interested in PvP being a big part of it.

Quote:

---

PvP is the biggest part of an MMO for a large amount of people. Obviously that hasn't been the case historically with SE MMOs. If they are however looking to generate that market, which I don't think we can say for sure we know what they are truly trying to establish, then pvp would take priority is what I mean.

You will never see a game with Warcraft-like subscriptions

---

The sentence needs to stop right there, because there is no "unless". You literally cannot do what Warcraft has done, because Warcraft has mined it out. There's nothing left. The best way to ruin an MMO is by trying to contort it into a Warcraft clone to try to chase their subscription figures. Ask Star Wars Galaxies.

Quote:

---

or other big games (GW2, SWTOR) sales numbers without the promise of an engaging pvp system.

---

GW2 is free-to-play. For a variety of reasons, that's not a good model here. SWTOR got an impressive start, but has already started to fade, and has already declared it's going free-to-play as well. That's not a good sign for the long run.

Quote:

---

Are SE's ambitions set that high for ARR? I don't know. I just know that its nearly a priority to have a good pvp system if you want to try and make as much money as those titles.

Edit: Also, where have they said that pvp is on the back burner compared to pve? Its not surprising to me in the slightest if that's the case, I'm just wondering if its been said.

---

Frankly, I disagree, completely. Imposing a dominant PvP system will *not* attract the PvP crowd, who will continue playing Warcraft and GW2, and will only alienate the existing player-base. It's a recipe for killing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soukyuu

Basically, you are saying that the defender will be at a disadvantage because he gets the handicap of having to turn first. But then, you can also turn it around by moving backwards on your movement vector, making the attacking player miss, thus forcing them to turn instead - nothing stops you from stabbing him while he does that.

---

I have no idea what you just said (or how it would make sense in a PvP context). Could you perhaps explain what you mean a bit clearer?

Quote:

---

This all is assuming the inertia is implemented 100% realistically. Which will not be the case since they're dropping motion captured animations. All they have to do is to start playing the inertia animation the moment you let go off your movement key. Thanks to motion blending, it should still look believable without introducing an actual latency.

---

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by "movement inertia." I was referring to stop/start sequences that locked up character movement for 0.5-1 second(s) after releasing the movement key or changing direction (in addition to carrying your character farther in your original direction). What you just wrote here makes me think you're referring to something else entirely, or perhaps that you just want to see motion blending (eg: players play a "stop" animation when movement keys are released, but player movement isn't locked up / does not continue beyond where the player was when they released their movement key). And hey, I agree with you there - I love motion blending. But if that's not what you mean then, again, I'm lost as to what you're talking about here.

Quote:

---

Responsive controls and realistic motion are not mutually exclusive. After all the goal of games is to be realistic as possible with things adapted from the real world, while expanding the possibilities with something that isn't. If you only concentrate on good graphics but leave the animation unrealistic, it will just weird the people out.

---

Completely agree with you. However, having "movement inertia" like I described above (which I realize now might not have been what you were referring to) is mutually exclusive with competitive and/or fun PvP.

Quote:

---

PvP is not the major focus of the game, this is why I want to have completely separate rulesets. I don't want the realistic movement animations to suffer because it "makes PvP less responsive". This is the old "let's nerf PvE for PvP!" story, and I do not want that, nor the opposite to happen. And I'm sure I'm not alone on this.

---

Hey, you're not alone. I'd love to see separate rulesets too. I'm 100% on-board with that idea, but I'm also not designing the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Radnar

I have no idea what you just said (or how it would make sense in a PvP context). Could you perhaps explain what you mean a bit clearer?

---

That was me trying to understand what you meant by your example. As I understood it, you were saying that the inertia would make it hard for the defender to turn and defend against the attacker. In that case, the defender could simply move without turning to make the attacker run past him because of the inertia, negating his advantage.

Quote:

---

Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by "movement inertia." I was referring to stop/start sequences that locked up character movement for 0.5-1 second(s) after releasing the movement key or changing direction (in addition to carrying your character farther in your original direction). What you just wrote here makes me think you're referring to something else entirely, or perhaps that you just want to see motion blending (eg: players play a "stop" animation when movement keys are released, but player movement isn't locked up / does not continue beyond where the player was when they released their movement key). And hey, I agree with you there - I love motion blending. But if that's not what you mean then, again, I'm lost as to what you're talking about here.

---

I'm for a realistically looking animation blending that might look like inertia but doesn't really lock your character. As long as this looks realistic, it's not a problem. It's just humanly impossible to suddenly make a 90° or even a 180° turn, so that's what I want to be reflected in the animations.

Quote:

---

Completely agree with you. However, having "movement inertia" like I described above (which I realize now might not have been what you were referring to) is mutually exclusive with competitive and/or fun PvP.

---

I'm not a heavy PvP player, nor do I plan to become one, so maybe that's the reason we don't agree on that point.