Weapon/module/Soccer changes

Phasers are the primary combat weapon. The reason why bursts and mines are useful is because they fill niche roles; bursts bounce and can do damage to several targets within a certain range; mines stay on the field permanently, until they're triggered or destroyed. If you're in an actual fight and want to kill someone, you will naturally resort to phasers.

This obviously means that there isn't much of a role for bouncers and triplers, since triplers are just close-range phasers, and bursts do the same job as bouncers, only better.

I think, instead of trying to get these old, tired second-tier weapons to work, it might be time to just give up and replace them.

With that in mind, how would you feel about adding repulsor and tractor beam weapons to the game? One would knock away objects, ships, and shots in its path, the other, drag them to you. This gives you a greater degree of control over objects and allows for some interesting possibilities that do not currently exist. We could abolish the existing limit on three weapons at a time, and allow you to use all of them, so that the element of choice relates to modules, not weapons.

Additionally, how would you feel if the shields behaved like a stronger, shorter-range repulsor field? It would knock away everything, including shots, around your ship. At long-range, shots would bounce off just like now; if you fire at point-blank, though, the shields wouldn't have time to redirect anything. This has the effect of making them a bit weaker, and maybe more balanced with the other modules, although it may not be necessary, if there's already a repulsor beam weapon.

Finally, what if the soccer ball was a lot smaller -- say, the size of a burst, or a phaser shot? I've noticed that the main difference between it and a real soccer ball, or a hockey puck, or any other ball you care to mention is that it's really, terribly huge; it's larger than the player! In every ball game you care to mention, the player has the option of dribbling the ball, or doing something similar, to maintain control of it. That isn't the case here because it's so huge; you can't easily apply pressure to it on more than one side at a time. If the ball is a lot smaller, your options in that area increase -- though obviously, having tractor and repulsor beams can help there as well.

I'm feeling very jittery tonight, from caffeine, so I'm afraid I haven't expressed myself as well as I'd like. I've had some of these ideas in mind for a while, though, and would like to know what you think. If you want clarification on any point, feel free to ask, and I'll try to do so, when I'm in a better state of mind.

[karamazovapy]

I agree with some of the things you're saying about bouncer and triple. I'd rather see a true passive melee weapon than repulsor and tractor, though.

I also think the real issue with the soccer ball has to do with its physics, as opposed to its size. It moves like a soccer ball on the moon! Maybe that makes sense for a space shooter, but I still think the best fix would be to increase its inertia...make it more difficult to redirect accidentally and less susceptible to uncontrolled deflection. Shrinking the ball without changing its physics would just augment the current problem by making it that much harder to influence intentionally.

I've talked to Fur about passive melee; I'm not sure it would really help all that much, or be as cool as it sounds, though. When it comes down to it, it's basically equivalent to making ship-to-ship collisions do damage -- and that can be more annoying than it is helpful. If it ignores shields, it's overpowered; if not, it's pretty much useless, since phasers can do the same thing, better.

I'm not necessarily opposed to a change to ball inertia, but I'm not sure it would really help either. As opposed to giving you the ability to redirect it more quickly, it just means you have more time before it goes where you don't want it to go. It also could make it harder and more frustrating to stop, if you're trying to prevent someone from scoring on you, and if you hit it the wrong way, it'll be harder to get it to stop -- plus, you still have to go all the way around to the other side of the ball to do that, a correction maneuver that can take two or three seconds. If it was smaller, it wouldn't take so long to apply force on both sides of it, perhaps allowing you more freedom to try a 'dribbling' motion.

[karamazovapy]

As opposed to giving you the ability to redirect it more quickly, it just means you have more time before it goes where you don't want it to go. It also could make it harder and more frustrating to stop, if you're trying to prevent someone from scoring on you, and if you hit it the wrong way, it'll be harder to get it to stop -- plus, you still have to go all the way around to the other side of the ball to do that, a correction maneuver that can take two or three seconds. If it was smaller, it wouldn't take so long to apply force on both sides of it, perhaps allowing you more freedom to try a 'dribbling' motion.

I don't feel like the problem is that it's too hard to influence the direction of the ball, I feel like it's too easy to do it accidentally. It's difficult to make the ball go where you want it to go because it's so easy to send it off in the wrong direction. If it took more directed force to get the ball moving, it wouldn't feel so out of control.

What if the weight was equal to that of a ship? Then if you stood directly in the path of the moving ball, you'd get a newton's cradle effect the way you do when you fire a burst in front of you before hitting a gofast. You'd get sent, but the ball would stop.

edit:
what if the melee weapon had pushback?

I'm not sure I like making the ball mass that large. There's a flip side to every mass change; the larger it gets, while it may become harder to move it to go where you don't want it to, it becomes harder to move it about normally, and to "turn" the ball (push it around corners).

I wonder what it would be like if the ball had some element of friction, so that it would lose speed as it moved; that way, if it went in an undesired direction, it wouldn't do it for long.

Another factor that makes it difficult to maintain control of the ball is the element of phaser/turret fire, which knocks it all about. I wonder what would happen if we got rid of the phaser's ability to move objects; say it does damage, but it doesn't alter a moving object's course.

At the least, it'd be a lot easier to control soccer balls, since the only way to influence it would be by physically bumping into it, or by using burst explosions.

[karamazovapy]

If the ball has a mass equal to a ship, running into it will effectively change its course...and that of your ship... Another bonus would be that turret and phaser fire wouldn't impact it so much.

The idea of friction in space doesn't make as much sense to me as inertia.

[watusimoto]

Well, just to see, because it was really easy, the latest pre-release of 013 has a little bit of friction with the soccer ball, so y'all can see if you like it. Inertia is a bit harder, so I thought we could try this first.

Download at http://bitfighter.org/files/Bitfighter-Installer-013.exe

I can't see it yet, since I'm on OS X, but I'll try to get to the Windows machine sometime today.

Just to be clear, I'm not 100% behind this concept; in fact I'm more intrigued by the idea of having phasers not knock around objects. I just thought it was an interesting concept, and threw it out there.

Got the chance to test it. I'm not entirely enthusiastic about this change. I believe it truly can be easier to move the ball about, but it also goes at a slower pace than it can most of the time, and as a result it can be even harder than it is now to score -- as it is, you can depend on the ball's high speed to score; with the change, that's no longer reliable.

I'm not entirely excited about only being able to move objects by bumping into them. It's already terribly difficult to maintain control on the ball with weapon impact recoil, and when one does use their ship to push the ball, they have virtually no control over it anyway since the direction the ball goes is dependent on what the angle of impact is between the ball and ship. And since the ship is a triangle it makes it horribly difficult to push the ball with one side of your ship and defend yourself from the other team's offense, limiting you to very defined angles to push the ball in. The next best way to control the ball is by using phasers/bursts/bouncers and even then controlling the ball is still decently difficult.
If I were to suggest a Soccer modification, it would be to be able to "carry" the ball like one would in a CTF match, thus making it much easier to control and also be able to pass it to fellow team-mates using the B key. It also allows the player to defend themselves more easily without having to worry which direction they're pushing the ball, and also incorporates more team based strategies within the gametype itself.

[karamazovapy]

^This isn't a bad idea, although I'd be curious about how other players dislodge the ball from the player.^

Simple, just zap them.

[karamazovapy]

Simple, just zap them.

I think shields would make that idea less than awesome.

[watusimoto]

since I'm on OS X

I'm sure it would run fine under VirtualBox or other virtualization software.

I think shields would make that idea less than awesome.

Shields could not work when carrying the ball...

That works.

[karamazovapy]

I like the idea of losing your "grip" on the ball any time you get hit at all.

I proposed basically the same idea at one time, with this topic. So I'm obviously not against it, but I am against this idea that we should make another exception to the rules, just because of people holding the flag. Making a bunch of special-case rules -- "the module does this, except for when someone shoots it with x weapon, or when the person uses module y at the same time, with only half-energy left" -- to balance things out should be a last resort, not the first.

If shields behaved like a 360º repulsor field against shots, deflecting them away, then close-range kills would always work. It doesn't really change how they work, in a lot of cases, but the closer you are to someone, the weaker your shields are. This allows people who come in close to kill a flagholder. This has the double advantage of making the module weaker, but not necessarily obnoxiously so, and of making it so that ships that're outmaneuvered or drastically outgunned can't hold on to the flag/ball/whatever for an obnoxiously long period of time.

I'm not saying that this idea is the end-all fix, just that we should try to apply the principle of making this change to ball handling balance out naturally, instead of tacking on arbitrary rules to do the job for us.

If you can carry the ball, isn't that more or less the same as retrieve with one flag?

Somewhat.

If the changes above were implemented, and you could shoot the flag to score (right now, you have to physically take it into the zone) I don't think I'd have a problem with making soccer maps one-flag retrieve.

Would it work if the only way to score would be to throw/kick/push the ball into the goal zone in such a way that one can not simply just hold the ball and run into the opposing teams goal? So in a way a sort of forcefield that allows the ball through only when it isn't being carried, and when it is such deny access through the field?

[karamazovapy]

Does it matter if you can fly into the goal with the ball?

Yes somewhat, if one could just fly into the goal carrying the ball then the Soccer match will be nothing other than a 1 goal Retrieve match, and I'd rather have some distinguishing details that separate one gametype from another.

I really don't care if it's a one-goal retrieve match or not.

When I proposed the 'flying flag' idea (with the concept that you could shoot it and capture zones, or flags, or put it in the retrieve zone), I figured it'd be optional, not mandatory.

I don't see any reason for that to change. We can get rid of soccer and make the flags more susceptible to being shot at and the like, if that's what it comes down to.

Personally, I think soccer is fine and that the problem doesn't lie in the gametype itself - the problem lies in the maps that are created. Especially the default one. Soccer maps just need to be better made - one of my favorites actually works out pretty well because it has zero turrets and zero forcefields and zero annoying obstacles in the center.

I've made soccer maps, and I've played soccer maps. It's fine, in the sense that it doesn't have to be changed, but it doesn't accurately represent soccer, or soccer-like games.

Some of the most notable differences: the ball's hard enough to control that you can't really pass it (passing being a staple of soccer-like games), and it's larger than you are.

... when one does use their ship to push the ball, they have virtually no control over it anyway since the direction the ball goes is dependent on what the angle of impact is between the ball and ship. And since the ship is a triangle it makes it horribly difficult...

Pro Tip: The ship is actually a square, it's just that the graphic is a triangle .

[karamazovapy]

What if we just renamed it Pinball and all went to bed happy?

What if we just renamed it Pinball and all went to bed happy?

That would be the best map ever made. Of all time. Do you think we could possibly make a pinball Gametype?

[karamazovapy]

What if we just renamed it Pinball and all went to bed happy?

That would be the best map ever made. Of all time. Do you think we could possibly make a pinball Gametype?

I think we already have one. It's called Soccer.

I made a pinball map once. It was awful.

I am also of the opinion that the main problem with soccer is not the gametype itself, but most of the maps made for it.

Also, maybe we should call maps "charts," as in star charts. Good idea, yes? Ok, if you think it's a an awful idea just forget it.

I am also of the opinion that the main problem with soccer is not the gametype itself, but most of the maps made for it.

When people say soccer has a problem, they say that it has a problem, based on what they know of real-world soccer -- that is, that you can't pass, that the ball is too hard to control, etc. All of the things that are problems are only technically problems if you compare them to how controllable/etc. it is in normal soccer-like games, and want it to be like those games. Without anything to compare it to, it's just another game, with its own quirks.

If the goal is not actually to reproduce soccer in BF, then all it takes to change expectations, and thus 'fix' the gametype, is to change the name, into something like "Ballgame", or something similar, that reflects that it's just a ball, and your goal is to knock it into the goalzone, somehow, not that it's supposed to reflect or represent soccer in any way.

[watusimoto]

How about Score-o?

Concerning C. Bob's last post, which I don't want to repost in its entirety, I would agree that the distinction between real soccer and the gametype is notable. People do try to make levels that work like real soccer, and do encounter the difficulties inherent in doing so. The truth is that soccer and the soccer gametype have only the most superficial similarities. That is quite obvious to anyone playing the game. Changing the name of the gametype would discourage emulations, but in the long run it would not result in notably better maps. Soccer gametype maps are simply hard to construct. Even in maps that "work," players will often feel they have little control over the ball. That's what most people will complain about, but that's just how the game works. I have no problem with the anarchy, but maps in which either turrets take away any semblance of control or extensive barriers prevent practically every goal result in frustrating experiences. I do not believe changing the name will solve this, and I do not believe that editing the gametype itself is the best solution. We just need to think about how the game works and how aspects of a map add or detract from it. The default soccer maps are not the best constructed, and this is another cause for the gametype's relative unpopularity. If we can move past this and experiment with building these maps in a more interesting way, then quality soccer games may not be an impossibility. Anyhow, sorry if this post rambles a bit but I felt it was a good idea to expand upon my last, cryptically abbreviated post. Go ahead and change the name if you want, but the main thing is map design.

Yeah, that's right, I just used the phrase "cryptically abbreviated" in a casual forum post.

[karamazovapy]

I think the issue of gametype expectations is a valid one, which is why I half-jokingly suggested we rename it Pinball. The notion of flippers is ridiculous, but the physics resemble pinball more than any other real-world thing I can imagine.

The argument about difficult map design is also valid. I think the two soccer maps I host on kServ (Playable Soccer, Torn) are okay, but the options for design are really limited. The real issue there has already been pointed out - that you have so little control over what actually happens.

If we added in the ball carrying idea, it'd be more like rugby.

[bobdaduck]

I've been suggesting tractor beam for a very long time now. Simply pull in the ball, and run with it. Control issue fixed, new weapon with interesting implications added, and bobdaduck finally gets one of his trillions of game ideas put into the game.

[Skybax]

... when one does use their ship to push the ball, they have virtually no control over it anyway since the direction the ball goes is dependent on what the angle of impact is between the ball and ship. And since the ship is a triangle it makes it horribly difficult...

Pro Tip: The ship is actually a square, it's just that the graphic is a triangle .

Is it a square or is it a circle? Squares can't spin on walls.

[bobdaduck]

I'm very sure its a circle. Easier to draw in. Just put in a radius and center point and you're fine.

[Skybax]

Yeah I thought so.

Maybe you could just be able to change the size of the soccer ball in the level editor. Depending on the map it's made in really makes the size matter.

[watusimoto]

Here's the soccer ball drawing code:

  Code:

drawCircle(pos, SoccerBallItem::radius);