Upwards and onwards.

[Akirai Annuvil]

Movement is the single most core skill in the whole of Guild Wars.

Every class, every character has it in an equal and ever present amount. In Guild Wars 2, movement will be changed. Every character will gain the ability of vertical movement. However I hope this won't be the only change pushed through. One thing I'd love to see added to GW2 is momentum.
Every object is affected by momentum. You don't start out running at max speed - you get a short build up before actually maxing it out. Sharp turns, wild swings and other sudden maneuvers require you to reduce your momentum and slow down for a minute. Having this reflected in game would be a pretty cool effect. PvE, immersion is increased. All movement is simply much more realistic. PvP, the effect would be incredible, allowing lots of cool team maneuvers during an engagement, like approaching a target from two sides, forcing them to take a few hits turning away or quickly running past a teammate so he can collide with your pursueers (obviously causing them to lose momentum).
In practice, there's a million ways to lose momentum during a battle, the obvious ones being attacking and getting hit. If you swing your hammer or sword while moving obviously you'll slow down to base running speed again. Likewise if you're fleeing and get hit, whether mace or axe, you'll lose momentum. As both sides lose momentum, not too much changes in comparison to a fleeing foe in Wars 1. The real effect lies with the ranged weapons, whether bows or spears. A ranged attack stops your momentum too, having you run at base speed till you've regained it. It makes dodging arrows and spears absolutely vital to survival.
Of course only changing the value of bow auto-attacks by making them apply a mini-snare is sorta mean to the entire remaining weaponry. A cool effect to add would be the 'charged' attack. Charging an attack wouldn't take too long, completely nullify your momentum and be interruptable (obviously it needs its downsides). In return, it adds neat effects which work well in-game. Charged sword attacks may apply a bleeding like DoT, charged axes an auto-crit; charged bowshots knock their target back, charged hammers knock their target down and forward. Charged scythes swirl around the wielder, charged daggers hit twice; charged spears daze, charging staves increases your energy regeneration. You can probably think of other (better) possibilities yourself.

Though I could continue on, I've probably provided enough game altering elements for at least some discussion. Keep it intelligent (but provide some drama. Helps keep things interesting).

[Lamuness]

You're dumb, your idea sucks, momentum sucks, what are you some 13 year old?

Just kidding.

I think adding momentum would be a good idea for immersion, but from a dev standpoint, it might be more hassle than it's worth. They have a cool effect when you run into people in Assassin's Creed, but that was tech built specifically for and around that feature. You could possibly fake it when you are making turns and such with your character, but then, running into someone or even autoattacking would be essentially an interrupt, causing balance loss, and breaking a spell.

I'm all for awesome animation and things that make sense movement-wise, but I don't think this is the answer for that. Make the characters swing in a very cool fashion; make them run in a cool run animation; or even have a cool standing pose. That would make me happy.

If anything, add weight to the things the character swings. A big hammer is never going to be swung the same way as a sword. I would like to see wind up, and release when the hammer falls heavily to the floor. Even change movement speed based on equipment would be cool too.

Reference :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUIacdfeOo8

[Derrick the Nomad]

I think it's a bad idea.

It sounds cool and all but I think I'd get pretty frustrated if i direct my character to stop or I direct my character to run and there is a sort of progressive delay to the command. It would basically fell like being snared everytime you start to run or try to stop... or even if you got hit?

Which also kind of wrecks the whole idea of snares... why even have them if this mechanic is introduced -you can slow someone down just by hitting them.

Controls would feel sluggish -almost like a racing simulator where you have to learn not to overcompensate.

In "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight princess" the pony allows you to achieve a higher top speed at the cost of losing some control in the form of building up momentum like your suggestion. I'd be all for implementing it for mounts because it would be a tactical mechanic that the player chose.

[genocide raven]

*puts 2 cents in* >.< if they do have momentum it would render rangers and other mellee type prof's useless as of need greater momentum to deal greater dammage

basicly i don't like it.

u also have to think about the other spell casters in of not needing a this momentum to cast and just needing there own powers to reak havok..thats just what i think.

[Konig Des Todes]

I'm on the fence on this. While it would by far be cool to have this, and it would look more realistic, as said it would render snaring useless as you would just need to attack to snare. However, who said snaring would be a must to implement if this was implemented? This could be the snaring.

I definably want to see the progress of speeding up and slowing down, with the turns and all that that you mentioned, but the hitting causing slowdown is a bit too far.

Not to mention how much different programming would be needed. I'm sure movement and all that was one of the first things done with characters for GW2, and with it being a year now(or is it two? Been so long I forgot), the program has probably been made for this and would be a big hassle to implement if not done so already.


Still like the idea though and would love to see the speeding up and slowing down at least.

[Simply Kedde]

Interesting concept.
Still wanna know more about the game before deciding if I think it's a good or bad idea though.

[Alaris]

It's one of those fenceworthy ideas... it really depends on its implementation.

I sounds cool, but it needs to be balanced properly, and to have enough impact to be worthwhile using while not becoming necessary.

[Vana]

I'm on the fence on this. While it would by far be cool to have this, and it would look more realistic, as said it would render snaring useless as you would just need to attack to snare. However, who said snaring would be a must to implement if this was implemented? This could be the snaring.

I definably want to see the progress of speeding up and slowing down, with the turns and all that that you mentioned, but the hitting causing slowdown is a bit too far.


Wether or not melee characters would be made useless by this is merely a question of balance. Surely, momentum wouldn't mean a 50% difference in movement speed. That's way too much. So I really don't see why it shouldn't be possible to still have snares.



Not to mention how much different programming would be needed. I'm sure movement and all that was one of the first things done with characters for GW2, and with it being a year now(or is it two? Been so long I forgot), the program has probably been made for this and would be a big hassle to implement if not done so already.


Still like the idea though and would love to see the speeding up and slowing down at least.

For an unreleased game, programming should not be a valid excuse for leaving stuff out.




As for the actual idea, I'm not sure what I think. I'm all for a new and innovative combat system, but I don't want it to be too 1st person fighter -ish.

[shawn]

Imagine today's Bull's Strike in a game where people can't stop on a dime. Even bad warriors could land every Bull's.

Now I see why you want this, Akirai!
Yeah that's right, I just called you a bad warrior. /drama

[lavenbb]

It seems like an extra layer of unnecessary complications to me. We have HP and Energy bars instead of injuries and mental state. That isn't because injuries and mental state cannot be scripted to a usable extend, but because it will be confusing to the player.

I read somewhere about some devs talking about their game (was it Aion?) that basically, they could choose to make it so when people touch the ground after jumping, they'll have to stop before they can start moving again, or they could just let them maneuver swiftly. They chose the latter, because while the first option is more realistic, it isn't fun. It feels like lagging.

I tend to agree, there are single player games I played where they have momentum in place, and the controls feels clumsy, precise movements become difficult, and quite frankly, that is what you get when you are lagging. Drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. I didn't even feel any more immersed, and much of my attention was drawn to trying to maneuver my character and less of the bigger environment.

[Lamuness]

I read somewhere about some devs talking about their game (was it Aion?) that basically, they could choose to make it so when people touch the ground after jumping, they'll have to stop before they can start moving again, or they could just let them maneuver swiftly. They chose the latter, because while the first option is more realistic, it isn't fun. It feels like lagging.


Counter-Strike, because too many whiners were complaining the game "wasn't realistic enough" from the bunny hoppers but when you get shot in the *** and you don't die from bleeding profusely to death.

[Konig Des Todes]

Wether or not melee characters would be made useless by this is merely a question of balance. Surely, momentum wouldn't mean a 50% difference in movement speed. That's way too much. So I really don't see why it shouldn't be possible to still have snares. Where did I say melee characters would be made useless? You meant the person above me. I said snaring would be useless, not melee professions. Really, I see no affect on melee professions in comparison to ranged professions. Other then the already present issue of having to travel more.



For an unreleased game, programming should not be a valid excuse for leaving stuff out. Although this is true, with a year being put into the game and hints of the game being nicely progressed (in various places, too lazy to bother searching), I think movement has been programmed. Although it can be reprogrammed prior to release, my point was that there is a good chance of movement being already programmed. And it was a minor point for against the idea.


As for the actual idea, I'm not sure what I think. I'm all for a new and innovative combat system, but I don't want it to be too 1st person fighter -ish.I fail to see how it would be 1st person fighter-ish. Momentum has nothing to deal with 1st person or 3rd person. That's the positioning of the camera (and btw, you can make this game a 1st person game by zooming in all the way, so it kind of is "too 1st person fighter-ish").


They chose the latter, because while the first option is more realistic, it isn't fun. "Fun" is opinion. I personally think making games realistic while not realistic (i.e., has physics and all that, but is not "earthly") is more fun. Unless the game is a "joke game" (i.e., nothing realistic about it).


I tend to agree, there are single player games I played where they have momentum in place, and the controls feels clumsy, precise movements become difficult, and quite frankly, that is what you get when you are lagging. Drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. I didn't even feel any more immersed, and much of my attention was drawn to trying to maneuver my character and less of the bigger environment.To me, that makes it a challenge, which I always welcome.

What is annoying with lag is the slow frames per second issue. Where I can't see things move as they should.

[Simply Kedde]

So you claim that the camera is what makes it a 1st person game?
There's a lot more to it.

[Konig Des Todes]

Err.... first person view, yes. But the basic mechanics of many first person games are not really momentum based (very few first person games I have played actually go with momentum).

But first person means self and first person view is the view you get in GW all the way zoomed in, and is the common view for games like Quake, DOOM, Halo, etc.

But the view isn't the only thing that makes a first person game a first person, but it's the main part that makes it first person. Everything else is just game mechanics and are not limited to just being a first person game.

Or am I just so utterly behind in games because I don't really care about buying all the most recent ones? I doubt the mechanics for all around first person games have changed that much since early 07.

[Rhinala]

I dont realy like the idia, game shuld be all about freedon and fun.
This type of movment system remove the freedom part from the movment.
In GW2 we will have cliff to climb and fall from, with this type of system you will find yourself falling because you didnt stoped in time.

[Akirai Annuvil]

You're dumb, your idea sucks, momentum sucks, what are you some 13 year old?
OMG IMMA 14YO!!!1!

It sounds cool and all but I think I'd get pretty frustrated if i direct my character to stop or I direct my character to run and there is a sort of progressive delay to the command.
I don't see why a character can't stop immediately.

[..] as said it would render snaring useless as you would just need to attack to snare. However, who said snaring would be a must to implement if this was implemented? This could be the snaring.
I don't see how this sould render snaring useless. Look at it this way, if you're in a hurry and running to your local grocery store before it closes you may bump into someone. Doing this causes you to slowdown, noticeably, but it won't take you much more than a second to regain your momentum. However if that person shackles a ball and chain to your left ankle I can guarantuee you'll be walking a lot slower for a lot longer than after just having bumped into him. Snares can still be far more powerful. Plus, unlike hits, snares can't be blocked (and getting blocked would be lol-sucky with this system. Needing to catch up and all that.)

As for the actual idea, I'm not sure what I think. I'm all for a new and innovative combat system, but I don't want it to be too 1st person fighter -ish.
Yeah... I don't see how this affects the camera? Explain more pl0x.

Yeah that's right, I just called you a bad warrior. /drama
That's bad drama.
It's true >.>;

We have HP and Energy bars instead of injuries and mental state.
I wouldn't even want to put a momentum bar in-game. Just have a gradual increase in speed over say a 2 second period starting when you being running (speed up from say a 100-125%).

I tend to agree, there are single player games I played where they have momentum in place, and the controls feels clumsy, precise movements become difficult, and quite frankly, that is what you get when you are lagging.
Pretty much every game which includes acrobatics, parkour or free running includes some form of momentum. They're also wildly popular amongst players and critics.

So you claim that the camera is what makes it a 1st person game?
There's a lot more to it.
Not really. First person quite literally means looking from the 'I''s eyes. It's why you have first person shooters, action games, roleplaying games and even some racing games.

Aaaaand crap it I'm 10 minutes late for work >.> Goddamn guys abbreviate yo replies some moar.

[Erasculio]

Or am I just so utterly behind in games because I don't really care about buying all the most recent ones? I doubt the mechanics for all around first person games have changed that much since early 07.

There are some differences. For example, in FPS aiming is usually very important, and that makes sense since you have a very good view of your targets. In "Third Person Shooters", there's usually some degree of auto-aiming, given how you have, well, your character between you and your target. In other hand, third person games are more suited for acrobatics such as jumping, running and etc, while FPS usually don't work very well with that kind of mechanics.

Compare Tomb Raider with Doom, for an example using old games. And while of course there are exceptions (Spellborn is a MMORPG that plans to make players really take care with aim, despite being in third person, and Mirror's Edge was an acrobatics game in first person), I think those differences often apply.

Erasculio

[Simply Kedde]

^^
Of course I know that akirai.
It was being sarcastic to the above reply.

[Vana]

Yeah... I don't see how this affects the camera? Explain more pl0x.


I didn't know what to call it, so I ended up with "1st person figther"-ish, which is a pretty ****ty description indeed.
What I meant was that the concept of momentum (and jumping for that matter) and advanced movement makes it seem like a game that requires you to micromanage your character a lot. This, for some reason, relates to fighting games in my mind. It really had nothing to do with camera angle.


On further thought, though, I can see momentum being used in traditional rpg style. So you can basically just ignore my response.



@Konig; yea, my quoting sucks. And besides that, I mixed up my reply to you and the other guy and apparently ended up with half of each, while only quoting you. My bad.

[Konig Des Todes]

There are some differences. For example, in FPS aiming is usually very important, and that makes sense since you have a very good view of your targets. In "Third Person Shooters", there's usually some degree of auto-aiming, given how you have, well, your character between you and your target. In other hand, third person games are more suited for acrobatics such as jumping, running and etc, while FPS usually don't work very well with that kind of mechanics.

Compare Tomb Raider with Doom, for an example using old games. And while of course there are exceptions (Spellborn is a MMORPG that plans to make players really take care with aim, despite being in third person, and Mirror's Edge was an acrobatics game in first person), I think those differences often apply.

ErasculioAnd what of that has to do with Momentum? Even with momentum, the game would be auto-attacking (which I personally dislike, BUTTON MASHING FTW! ^^)



What I meant was that the concept of momentum (and jumping for that matter) and advanced movement makes it seem like a game that requires you to micromanage your character a lot. This, for some reason, relates to fighting games in my mind. It really had nothing to do with camera angle. Micromanagement, imo, makes a game more fun because you have to pay more attention. It makes things less and less "press 1 and watch TV" which was my real annoyance with Ursan Blessing.

If we keep dumbing down things like video games, what is one of the biggest forms of entertainment, we dumb down ourselves. I don't want that.


On further thought, though, I can see momentum being used in traditional rpg style. So you can basically just ignore my response.Commencing ignoration.


@Konig; yea, my quoting sucks. And besides that, I mixed up my reply to you and the other guy and apparently ended up with half of each, while only quoting you. My bad.'Tis alright.

[raspberry jam]

A very interesting idea. It would be cool to have, but I do think that it could have adverse effects on the speed of gameplay. It'd be up to the scale and general feel of the rest of the engine.


I don't see why a character can't stop immediately.well,

Let's throw some equations in. Note that my notations and explanations here are simplified but that the reasoning is still correct.

Force: F = m*a
[Newton's second law. Force is equal to mass times acceleration. The greater the mass you want to accelerate is, the greater force you need to achieve acceleration.]

Movement: v1 = v0 + a*dt
[Velocity, which is speed in a direction, is equal to previous velocity plus acceleration times the amount of time that you were under that acceleration.]

Ok let's play around.
F=m*a gives a=F/m
v1=v0+a*dt gives v1=v0+(F*dt)/m gives F*dt = m*(v1-v0)

In other words if you want to change your velocity from v0 to v1 you need to apply a certain force F for a certain time dt. Furthermore when you decrease the force, the time you need to spend increases. When the time decreases, the force needed increases. Now assuming you don't run into a brick wall (which can be treated as if it had an infinite normal force capability, never mind that), you can't ever get infinite force since your legs (which are the things that stop you if you want to stop when walking) can't exert an infinite force. So dt can't become infinitely small, and certainly can't become 0.

tl;dr if you need time to start moving, you need time to stop moving.

[genocide raven]

that is deffinitly true, as I've seen in different mmorpg's that something moving in high speed just suddenly comes to a hault. it doesn't look right.

Especially if they add flying into the game.

But we just have to w8 for them to finally release the game.