Player Character Collision for PVP

Lunaugh

Greetings fellow forum dwellers!
I'm a recent addition to the PvP population, and I have to say I find the lack of character collision to be awkward.
I'd like to see PvP embrace new collision mechanics within the next 5 years.

I have this model to illustrate my imaginings, using the following variables: Momentum and Inertia.
Scenario:
Player (A) is idle and player (B) is sprinting.
Player (A) has an inertia of 1 and player (B) has a momentum of 4.
Player (B) collides with player (A) and player (A) moves in a new vector with a momentum level of 3 (4-1)

Scenario:
Player (A) is blocking and player (B) is sprinting.
Player (A) has an inertia of 5 and player (B) has a momentum of 4.
Player (B) collides with Player (A) and player (A) remains in one place, while player (B) is knocked out of the sprint/sprint canceled.

Thoughts?

Checkmath

That would be damn hard to implement, since player characters till now never had some kind of substance, normally you just walk through the others. And it would disturb the momentary pvp experience. Every group clash would end in chaos, since the whole group momemtum would be lost. This would need a log of testing and would open up a totally new pvp experience. I bet organized groups wouldnt like that change, since they are based on moving together in one direction, therefore it would create a total new pvp tactics era.

Checkmath

But in your idea also needs to be inplemented what kind of weapons are used to block, right? This would actually give pvp tanks again a reason to be played, since they would be steadfest in blocking and could inhibit a charge of the enemies in your group or into a keep.
But as said, that would be damn hard to implement and to balance too. Imagine you got some tanks shielding a breach, there would be no way around them or through them until they are dead. That was an example of newly formed tactics, tactics which existed in real battles or similar. Would be kind of cool to have more strategy in pvp, but will be hard for the devs to develop.

Lunaugh

Right? I imagine they'd have to rework a bit of everything to include the variables of Inertia and Momentum (as illustrated in this thread).

Lets say theres a tank wall at a breach; give a ballista bolt a momentum greater than the inertia of the tank. If momentum is 6 and inertia is 5, the tank is pushed back several feet. if Momentum is 9 and inertia is 5, the tank is knocked back.

To achieve this would probably require a complete overhaul of combat that would likely result in a separate combat profile than PvE all-together.

ak_pvp

NGL It'll probably kill the server ded, would be cool though.

Checkmath

Yeah vivec would be unplayable lol.
So ballistas and trebuchets would be key again for offense and defense (trebuchets would maybe knock back tanks with sword and shield, meanwhile a ballista would set them back some feet without a knockback). So basically trebuchets would cause an unblockable stun.

Lunaugh

ak_pvp wrote: »

NGL It'll probably kill the server ded, would be cool though.

which brings up another point; in five years time you'll probably have 50 terabyte ss drives the size of a thumbnail and octo-core processors and nitrogen based cooling units.
^
Sci-fi aside, I think it an admirable goal.

BaneOfBattler

No, and no.

Lunaugh

BaneOfBattler wrote: »

No, and no.

Why, and why?

umagon

The server doing additional physics calculations would add to the load more so than just doing a simple check if players’ unit boxes collided or not; and preventing two or more players from sharing the same space. Things zos could do to make player player collision work depending on how they have their server setup:

-Make the starting gate areas with collision disabled so access to the vendors and other interactables are not impeded.

-Change the area around transit shrines for each outpost and fort to be a walled off area with a doorway that has collision turned off inside the room. (Basically, a spawn closet for players.) Then set a trigger boundary around the doorframe to only allow players to leave the area. Then add in a timer where if players do not leave the closet within 60 seconds after their arrival then they are teleported back to their starting gates’ transit shrine. Recalling idle players would help prevent abuse from players intentionally massing in the closet. (There may be some issues with the load screen fade syncing with the 60 second timer but they could put in a check before the timer started)

-Increase the interaction range for doors on outposts, forts and other buildings. If their systems can support it allow for temporary player clipping based on if those players activated an interactable like the doors. So that when two or more players try to use a door at the same time then they would be able to enter.

-Make dodge rolling able to bypass players if the ending point is clear if not then allow the dodge roll to continue but the player dodge rolling would just roll in place. This could cut down on excessive body blocking of pathways, but still allow players to be boxed in if they aren’t paying attention to their surroundings.

BaneOfBattler

Lunaugh wrote: »

BaneOfBattler wrote: »

No, and no.

Why, and why?

Server charging with some sort of physics that would actually make sense (remember that we have backwards jump while sprinting on a horse forward towards a wall) because we lack any sort of physics now; will make the pvp go apesh!t.

It will most likely destroy group fights, also will affect group speeds roaming map.

Collision would be good if the game already had it and had a decent engine. With what we have now we cannot suggest that. Simple.

Berenhir

This would require a system for ESO where you can see the other players at the position where they actually are on their own screen. ESO only has a positioning system that roughly shows you where your opponent has been about 1 to 3 seconds ago in a radius of about 8m, so a collision system cannot work with ESOs game engine, at least not for player collisions.

Lunaugh

BaneOfBattler wrote: »

Collision would be good if the game already had it and had a decent engine. With what we have now we cannot suggest that. Simple.

A pet peeve of mine is quoting just the part the reply author wants to focus on, but I will be a hypocrit for this.
”With what we have now...”
We most certainly can suggest it, we just can’t expect it this year.
Assuming ESO is healthy well into the future, server tech will become exponentially more powerful. The future is where such changes would reside.

Lichbourne90

Can you say LAG?

Lunaugh

Lichbourne90 wrote: »

Can you say LAG?

Can you say invalid argument?

BaneOfBattler

If one can blend together all the valid arguments you can come up with just LAG issue which is likely to break the servers.

End of discusion, mods can close this thread now.

Checkmath

BaneOfBattler wrote: »

If one can blend together all the valid arguments you can come up with just LAG issue which is likely to break the servers.

End of discusion, mods can close this thread now.

Why would the moderator close a discussion about a cool idea? Only because it is not possible at the moment?
The forum is the place to discuss such ideas freely and a thread should only be closed, when comments start to be off topic or baiting. If you arent interested to discuss or only comment with „lag“, then how about you dont comment at all and leave the discussion to the ones interested to discuss such ideas, even if they arent possible at the moment.

Lunaugh

BaneOfBattler wrote: »

If one can blend together all the valid arguments you can come up with just LAG issue which is likely to break the servers.

End of discusion, mods can close this thread now.

Thankfully, you do not have the authority to end this discussion. Its moving at a nice clip, and I’m interested to see more to-the-topic replies.

I imagine mounts would be able to function as true cavalry, chargeing tank walls to break formations. I’d go so far as to add in the concept of lancing.

Checkmath

About the horses and cavalry... that would be problematic, since you cant mount up in fights, so sieging a breach and then mounting up to charge into the tanks will not be possible. Also you cant ride a horse inside keeps (outposts are an exception), therefore you cant charge into the inner keep on a horse.

Dimski

BaneOfBattler wrote: »

Server charging with some sort of physics that would actually make sense (remember that we have backwards jump while sprinting on a horse forward towards a wall) because we lack any sort of physics now; will make the pvp go apesh!t.

While we are talking physics, why not get rid of circle strafing and all that jumping in full gear?

Checkmath

Not again the jumping discussion please....let the people jump as much as they want

Lunaugh

For the sake of continuity, I agree with stepping away from the subject of mounts.
I imagine skills would need to be re-worked to include force values (change stuns from being a hard proc to a function of the inertia/momentum equation)

Ragnarock41

Would actually give people a reason to use tanks again, you could do a ''shield wall''. (though we all know it won't happen. I just like the idea)

Would also help with landing dizzying swing since usually the enemy will simply run into you, to cancel your swing.

Lunaugh

speaking of dizzy I imagine that the off-balance mechanic could have some form of debuff towards inertia, making one more susceptible to stuns.
I imagine one could cast an RNG layer or three between Inertia and Momentum to add some spice, preserving some of the tactical elements without turning everything into a numbers game.
I think it would be nice if there was no such thing as a 100% proc stun. A 99% proc makes things interesting. A battle between two masters can be decided by a shift of the wind.