2.0 Movement inertia: Removed

[Radnar]

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.

[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.

[Aion]

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...

[Radnar]

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)

[Morticous]

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.

[Velhart]

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.

[Soukyuu]

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.

[Conradus]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Radnar]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Soukyuu]

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.

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.

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.