Jump to content
Tchernobog

Reflex and CPMA Movement Physics

Recommended Posts

Stop ignoring my points and making these sentimental statements. You don't have to explain how the movement works, but from the looks of it - I need to explain it to you. If you want a movement that's in perfect equilibrium for both aiming and movement then you listen to me. It is key that you understand what I'm talking about.

Watch the QW video (the whole video preferably) that I posted earlier to see what an effective W turning looks like during combat. This kind of sideways movement is de-emphasized in CPM/Reflex. And to know whether this was by choice or not, I need to get people to understand what's missing in a movement system they're used to not have it in or be possible to do with in first place. You being unable to think of any reason to use this technique is irrelevant. The shape of the map being uncharacteristically circle and uncommon in Reflex/CPM is also irrelevant. Most maps having mostly straight corridors is also irrelevant, because Reflex is a game that requires you to move sideways due to your opponent not always being at the direction that you're running/jumping towards to.

Quake Live movement is 100% consistent, every direction that you run or airstrafe to behaves same as their exact opposites. That's why the technique called "half-beating" is possible and also why there's no inconsistencies in strafing sideways whenever you have the situation that requires that. Not many people strafe sideways, but nobody is complaining that you CAN do it.

QuakeWorld movement is 100% consistent, every direction that you run or airstrafe to behaves same as their exact opposites. If you want to circle around an opponent, you're not forced to do this by head facing the turning direction or resorting to iffy techniques as experienced by Seekax and Terifire in their videos. Unlike in QL where movement is not a huge deal, in QW it is. And people have adapted their use of both sideways and forward movement over the years, which is easy to do because of it's consistency. 

Reflex/CPM movement is 50% consistent. Every "two key" strafing technique is consistent to every direction - you can Q3 strafe jump forwards as well as sideways, no problem there. Not many people strafe sideways, but nobody complains that you CAN do it either.. The same can't be said with "one key" strafing techniques where the movement prioritizes on moving forward. To successfully strafe sideways, you're subjugated to iffy limitations that exists to only make forward maneuvers (that already exists in A/D technique) more easy. CPM could be a mix of both "two key" and "one key" techniques, yet it prioritizes on moving forward which is indeed fine for Race and straight corridors, but not for combat with multi-directional action. Sure, not many Reflex players strafe sideways but that's irrelevant, because the options to do that do not exist in a format to make it convenient enough. People fail to understand that this is also a way to move during fights. Same as straferunning left and right while avoiding teh mad shaft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Terifire said:

to many people cs aircontrol doesn't feel intuitive at first, it only feels intuitive to you because that's what you're used to.

I have no problem with making one-key movement result in PK style aircontrol instead of source A/D air strafing; my problem is both the inconsistency in sideways movement that Smilecythe addresses, and the pedagogical problem of introducing new players to an unnecessarily convoluted movement system. More on this last point:

2 hours ago, lolograde said:

No one is having panic attacks while learning to move or trying to get around a corner

While it's true that when you phrase it with a ton of hyperbole, that occurrence doesn't transpire, I can say that (having introduced more new players to this game then I can immediately count, many coming from other competitive FPS's) it is very hard for me to properly convey aircontrol in this game, and hard for them to understand it. Teaching people how to switch between A/D and actual strafe jumping is already challenging (and rewarding because of its usefulness). When I have to explain how W strafing is the same as A/D but slightly different but don't worry about because you probably won't use it but if you're doing race you need to learn it but in duel not necessary but if you're switching between strafe jumping and A/D then you should transition with W but if you are going around a tight corner don't go to W just stay with A/D but also it only works with forward backward because the directionality is unlike any other FPS you've played............ ??????? I've really never understood why this is "rewarding" or increases of the skill in the game, and establishing that it IS one of these things is IMO the only way to justify its existence in the game.

ED: Another way to justify its existence (which to me, it feels as if you've been using lolograde) is by appealing to tradition: It was in CPM; CPM is a skillful and deep game; Therefore this mechanic is skillful and deep.
I don't believe this is sufficient justification.

Edited by klyph0rd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, m'lord, for I am but a simple and pathetic peasant. By your grace, I ask you to consider: what is the importance of consistency? Consistency for the sake of consistency? As you say so yourself this is largely irrelevant and the scenarios you paint are limited and probably rarely (if ever) applicable in game. 

If you can't aim and shoot in a particular way, well, that's a limitation that all players are bound by. Seems to me that makes positioning more important -- a crucial element of gameplay that should not be given up because if you disregard the importance of positioning, well, shit, we might as well be flying fighter jets around maps.

EDIT: I think the larger point here is how these movement mechanics impact the game overall. It shouldn't be considered in isolation from the rest of the gameplay but that's the argument you're trying to make by saying it's irrelevant what actually happens in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, klyph0rd said:

When I have to explain how W strafing is the same as A/D but slightly different but don't worry about because you probably won't use it but if you're doing race you need to learn it but in duel not necessary but if you're switching between strafe jumping and A/D then you should transition with W but if you are going around a tight corner don't go to W just stay with A/D but also it only works with forward backward because the directionality is unlike any other FPS you've played............ ??????? 
 

Talk about hyperbole... 

15 minutes ago, klyph0rd said:

ED: Another way to justify its existence (which to me, it feels as if you've been using lolograde) is by appealing to tradition: It was in CPM; CPM is a skillful and deep game; Therefore this mechanic is skillful and deep.
I don't believe this is sufficient justification.

I was responding to Smilecythe's comments which invoked CPM's movement (it being "irrelevantly broken") as well as sharing my perspective about the importance of balancing movement with aim and strategy. That was the context missing from your rebuttal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lolograde said:

If you can't aim and shoot in a particular way, well, that's a limitation that all players are bound by. 

Doesn't mean it can't be improved. And if you want to limit movement, then there's definitely better solutions than limiting maneuverability. Such as sharpness of air control. But again, I'm not sure if this limitation was made by choice because people have hard time understanding what I'm talking about even. Understanding what I'm talking about is key, so read the things I say with an intention of understanding them in case you already haven't. Don't read things I say assuming they're condescending on purpose, you need to understand what I'm saying in order for this to progress anywhere. 

18 minutes ago, lolograde said:

what is the importance of consistency? Consistency for the sake of consistency?

What are the areas that you think are acceptable as not consistent in Reflex? Some things like item respawn times are definitely better off consistent for the precise sake of consistency. I think we can both agree on that. My argument however is that movement should be consistent too. Quit being afraid of that word and convince me why movement shouldn't be consistent. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smilecythe said:

Doesn't mean it can't be improved. And if you want to limit movement, then there's definitely better solutions than limiting maneuverability. Such as sharpness of air control. But again, I'm not sure if this limitation was made by choice because people have hard time understanding what I'm talking about even. Understanding what I'm talking about is key, so read the things I say with an intention of understanding them in case you already haven't. Don't read things I say assuming they're condescending on purpose, you need to understand what I'm saying in order for this to progress anywhere. 

What are the areas that you think are acceptable as not consistent in Reflex? Some things like item respawn times are definitely better off consistent for the precise sake of consistency. I think we can both agree on that. My argument however is that movement should be consistent too. Quit being afraid of that word and convince me why movement shouldn't be consistent. 

That's the thing. I'm not sure what, if anything, needs to be changed with the current movement. It has gone through numerous iterations and tweaks at this point, lots of testing, and lots of gameplay time spent by the active community. I alone have over 300 hours so far and I assume there are people well in excess of 1,000 hours out there. If it were truly "broken", we'd see a lot more threads about this topic from people who have put hundreds of hours into it. But we don't. I can only surmise that is because people are mostly satisfied. I know I am mostly satisfied. I trust the devs (they truly are an excellent group) to make the right choice. While I think it'd be a mistake to pull the rug out from under people by making significant changes to the movement system, that's what the experimental ruleset is for so it does it gives the community time to play around with changes and provide feedback.

That being said:

  • Fix bug where you get stuck in a brush when you're going too fast (happens a lot in Race).
  • Some minor wall/brush-clipping (or "skimming") if for no other reason that to cure those issues of hitting some small brush and having your speed obliterated (happens a lot on LA-Dreams).  I don't think it needs to be CPM level clipping, but maybe just a minor/low amount of clipping.
  • Sometimes experience inconsistent results with rocketjumping sometimes but it's hard to tell if it's my internet having issues or whether I've done it sloppy somehow. Rocketjumping effectively in high ping is almost impossible. I'm not sure what the cause could be but perhaps there's a bug lingering in there.

I think that's about all I would change if I were king for a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, lolograde said:

If it were truly "broken", we'd see a lot more threads about this topic from people who have put hundreds of hours into it. But we don't. I can only surmise that is because people are mostly satisfied. I know I am mostly satisfied.

(probably worth reading the bold part first)

I haven't been making threads or trying to start discussions on this stuff because I'm tired, and certainly not because I'm satisfied.
I shouldn't speak for Smilecythe, but given the content I've seen him post as well as his attraction to a game that focuses significantly more on departing from the rigid mold created by historic arena FPS games, I think he might also be tired of trying to get people to at least try some new changes, as opposed to having people immediately assert that the changes probably won't be better so we shouldn't consider them.

It also seems as if you are in a poor position to say that sideways aircontrol is useless, as (to my knowledge, please correct if not accurate) you haven't used it extensively. As someone who hasn't played CPM extensively (and recently hasn't been able to dedicate too much time to Reflex), I don't try and champion or demonize ideas for weapon rebalancing, and instead limit myself to "plus-one-ing" ideas proffered by other players, so to speak. I think that it's weird for you to say it's not useful when it seems you don't know too much about its use.
(I'm really not trying to be argumentative or condescending; please please please don't take any of this as such. Forums are a poor method of communication, and if you wanted to chat over voice some time about movement or other Reflex topics--an open invitation to pretty much anyone--I would much prefer that so you might hear these comments with their intended tone: calm and non combative.)

You definitely bring up what I consider the most important point: using the experimental ruleset to try new things. The devs had long ago stated that they wanted to try things very different from CPM, and again briefly mentioned in various interviews since that they wanted to try drastically different changes/mechanics, and only haven't done so in hopes of avoiding a backlash from the community.

Now that we have the exp. ruleset, why haven't we seen some interesting and crazy changes? :(

ED: That conversation isn't really hyperbole (unfortunately); it's a pretty accurate tl;dr of my skype conversations when I try to teach friends (obviously not all in one sentence, but yes that's a conversation that happens once they learn the basics of CJ, bhop, and strafejump)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, lolograde said:

EDIT: I think the larger point here is how these movement mechanics impact the game overall. It shouldn't be considered in isolation from the rest of the gameplay but that's the argument you're trying to make by saying it's irrelevant what actually happens in the game.

Terifire and Seekax showed us that you can already turn with W and mouse fixed on target, by careful placement of the angle and speed, Seekax also noted that doing this technique this way is "pretty iffy" which I assume was him saying it's hard and not worth learning. It makes sense why nobody sees the benefit of it, it's not consistent enough to go with your knowledge about other parts of the movement and even if you do know it's there, you're not motivated enough to learn this unique mechanic because you're used to make do with the lack of it. I'm motivated to learn it myself though and I can definitely use it in combat, but that's beyond the point. The movement is still inconsistent and people being able to learn this wonky mechanic won't change that. 

The point here is that you can already do this maneuver, it's already in there with the mechanics. It's just pain in the ass to do and you have to learn it differently than doing the equivalent movement facing different directions, this is unintuitive and inconsistent. The turns Terifire and Seekax did can also be done with your sides fixed on the pillar. I don't see how being able to do this same turn with your front or back fixed on the pillar, with identical difficulty, feel and reward than with A/D turning - would impact gameplay enough to justify it's rejection. You wouldn't be able to use W as a medium between A/D strafing and W+A/D strafing. Then there might be a few people that blow your mind with their movement+aim combos. THAT'S IT. That's all the change that would impact you.

You may rely on W while doing the movement swap, but it's doable with A/D as well. You have one less technique to do that swap, but then you're compensated with a whole new array of movement which you could learn to use in combat. If you miss the benefit of being able to "sharp turn" with W, you could just simply increase aircontrol for A/D and get back the same results that way. There's absolutely no need to have two techniques to get the same job done differently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I see what you're getting at, and while that (consistent) type of movement would look and probably feel awesome, I don't think it'd make the game better. You'd see people trying to fly through the map rather than positioning themself strongly.

What exactly do you mean with it being inconsistent though? Because I can consistently pull off the same movement regarding aironcontrol.

Actually I'm all for experimenting withy movement, but not for the wrong reasons, and imo, saying "it's a mix from CPM and VQ3, so it SHOULD have this or that" is a wrong reason. For what it's worth, the movement seekax and I showed probably wouldn't really work in a duel, you'd be far better of just strafing on the ground unless you're certain your opponent has an ultralow sens and is running out of mousepad space.

Again, I don't think it's bad in it's current form, or that it SHOULD be changed, I think it's just different from qw/cpm/vq3/ql/skyrim/painkiller. And that's fine imo.

As for explaining the difference in w+s/a+d aircontrol to new players, it'd go something like this:

Both give aircontrol
A or D accelerate you while turning
At low speeds, W or S give more aircontrol and thus sharper turns but it doesn't accelerate you

Doesn't sound too difficult to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@klyph0rd That's the benefit of debate. You make your argument, I make my argument, and perhaps the devs referee and decide whether to make changes based on what is said. I don't think you have to convince me nor do I have to convince you. We don't both need to agree.

I've spelled out my opinions so anything else I say will be redundant.  Adding these to experimental will be fine with me if it's not a huge undertaking and cost devs loads of time (there's more pressing issues, I think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Terifire said:

What exactly do you mean with it being inconsistent though? Because I can consistently pull off the same movement regarding aironcontrol.

What he means is that the rules for air control are more complicated. In Quake World, Source, and Quake Live (also Unreal engine, I think), there is a single rule for air control (it's different between QW/Source and QL, but each has one rule). In Reflex/CPMA there are three rules: One for two keys (QL physics), one for A/D (QW physics), and one for W/S. Having different air control rules for different keys is inconsistent.

Smilescythe's proposal, which I agree with, is to have only two rules: One for two keys (QL physics) and one for one key (QW physics). This is less consistent than QW and QL, but more consistent than CPMA and current Reflex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terifire said:

What exactly do you mean with it being inconsistent though? Because I can consistently pull off the same movement regarding aironcontrol.

I don't mean inconsistency with your or someone else's capability to do it in reliable succession, I mean inconsistency in the logical/technical side. It doesn't give you same speed or turning capability as it's counter part techniques does. There's a specific angle at which you have to turn with A/D to get the most speed and certain turns in where you lose speed, if you do these same turns with W - you don't gain the same speed or lose the same speed. You're moving through same points in space with different effects depending on the key you're pressing or the direction you're looking at and it's illogical for the engine to behave differently and exceptionally this way. When you teach someone that "turning in air results with speed acceleration", this is the part that is inconsistent in that theory. 

EDIT: Kered13 summed it up first and better.

1 hour ago, Terifire said:

Again, I don't think it's bad in it's current form, or that it SHOULD be changed, I think it's just different from qw/cpm/vq3/ql/skyrim/painkiller. And that's fine imo.

If Reflex movement's goal was to be unique then this has not been achieved. There's not enough genuine difference to label Reflex different from CPM, that's exaggerating too much. There's triple jumps, W and A/D turning are swapped in usefulness and that's it. Rest is the same mechanics with different values. There's even plans to wall trimming making a return, so it's gonna be that bit less different in the future as well.

EDIT #2:

1 hour ago, Terifire said:

Personally, I see what you're getting at, and while that (consistent) type of movement would look and probably feel awesome, I don't think it'd make the game better. You'd see people trying to fly through the map rather than positioning themself strongly.

Your imagination is going a bit wild there. You would see people flying at the same speed as you're used to, but sometimes sideways.

Not a big deal breaker for your position centric metagame. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terifire said:

Personally, I see what you're getting at, and while that (consistent) type of movement would look and probably feel awesome, I don't think it'd make the game better. You'd see people trying to fly through the map rather than positioning themself strongly.

What exactly do you mean with it being inconsistent though? Because I can consistently pull off the same movement regarding aironcontrol.

Actually I'm all for experimenting withy movement, but not for the wrong reasons, and imo, saying "it's a mix from CPM and VQ3, so it SHOULD have this or that" is a wrong reason. For what it's worth, the movement seekax and I showed probably wouldn't really work in a duel, you'd be far better of just strafing on the ground unless you're certain your opponent has an ultralow sens and is running out of mousepad space.

Again, I don't think it's bad in it's current form, or that it SHOULD be changed, I think it's just different from qw/cpm/vq3/ql/skyrim/painkiller. And that's fine imo.

As for explaining the difference in w+s/a+d aircontrol to new players, it'd go something like this:

Both give aircontrol
A or D accelerate you while turning
At low speeds, W or S give more aircontrol and thus sharper turns but it doesn't accelerate you

Doesn't sound too difficult to understand.

if you're worried about positioning becoming impotent can i ask you to explain why the current iteration of the game's physics and movement gives positioning sufficient value? the game's ground movement is much more slippery than cpm's and although i like air control i know that many vq3 (a game i dislike) players do not like it because they believe that it devalues positioning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hArD_a$$_nIqQa said:

if you're worried about positioning becoming impotent can i ask you to explain why the current iteration of the game's physics and movement gives positioning sufficient value? the game's ground movement is much more slippery than cpm's and although i like air control i know that many vq3 (a game i dislike) players do not like it because they believe that it devalues positioning

I've heard that argument before, but don't think it makes much sense. It's not like it's easy to reposition using air control in the middle of a fight, the opponent is not gonna stop shooting you just so you can adjust your position. Jumping makes you more vulnerable, whether you have aircontrol or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I suppose crouching now too devalues positional play, as being harder to hit is now just a simple decision of becoming a smaller hitbox and you can in some circumstances pop your head up and down, closing or opening a random angle somewhere without taking a single step. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Yup...good night guys. I've made my points and am done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon reading I think both sides have good reasons for if this should be allowed or not. Ima give my scrub perspective because why not: I think that being able to move that way would increase the highest movement skill level achievable, but It wont devalue good positioning due to its limited use cases. Also the whole consistency with reducing the number of different ways air control works seems like a good idea. I think that movement should be as valued in terms of the three pillars, as aim and strategy and this change would help achieve that. I think putting this in experimental is probably the easiest way to test this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also for the record i dont have anything against cpm and i actually play it exponentially more than reflex. part of my excitement for reflex comes from the possibility that experimental shit will be tried and possibly stick, allowing me to play a "new" game instead of a game that i just find to be a worse version of cpm, infrastructure aside

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, hArD_a$$_nIqQa said:

i dont get how people are like "yeah im down for the devs to try new things with the movement" and then go "or nah actually im fine with movement thats 5% different from cpm"

Being down to test stuff doesn't mean that you need to be down to test anything and it certainly doesn't mean that you can't have an argument over the possible up and downsides prior to testing. I haven't read every post, but i'm fairly sure most people here aren't opposed to testing a more consistent movement model. They just don't agree that a non consistent model is automatically worse.

Also priorities, there are plenty of things in Reflex which really need testing to be figured out, movement isn't one of them at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hArD_a$$_nIqQa said:

i dont get how people are like "yeah im down for the devs to try new things with the movement" and then go "or nah actually im fine with movement thats 5% different from cpm"

Whatever, buddy. Because that's what my opinion gets reduced to... Just another guy who wants CPM clone. Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, lolograde said:

Whatever, buddy. Because that's what my opinion gets reduced to... Just another guy who wants CPM clone. Right. 

i dont think the segment of people i disagree with want a cpm clone, i think they want a game like 10% away from cpm on the "cpm spectrum" :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, hArD_a$$_nIqQa said:

i dont think the segment of people i disagree with want a cpm clone, i think they want a game like 10% away from cpm on the "cpm spectrum" :P

I think what CPM is or isn't is really irrelevant, tbh. To make changes simply for the sake of making it more/less like CPM (or any other game) is arbitrary. For the sake of consistency is, again, arbitrary. 

I really hope the devs have a vision for what they want out of the game because this thread really has not dealt with any gameplay mechanics other than movement. It's a big mistake, in my point of view, to argue about these issues in isolation to the rest of the gameplay. When you start tinkering with one (or multiple) pillars of the aim-strategy-movement iron triangle you start inviting balancing issues. 

But it seems that's what "people" seem to want to do... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lolograde said:

I think what CPM is or isn't is really irrelevant, tbh. To make changes simply for the sake of making it more/less like CPM (or any other game) is arbitrary. For the sake of consistency is, again, arbitrary. 

I really hope the devs have a vision for what they want out of the game because this thread really has not dealt with any gameplay mechanics other than movement. It's a big mistake, in my point of view, to argue about these issues in isolation to the rest of the gameplay. When you start tinkering with one (or multiple) pillars of the aim-strategy-movement iron triangle you start inviting balancing issues. 

But it seems that's what "people" seem to want to do... 

yeah i dunno dude i just want different things to be tried basically for the sake of, by chance, finding something new that's both fun and doesn't break the game

im not even talking about drastic changes necessarily. after all, we had the stake gun and "minigun" plasma at one point; why not try some more shit like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, lolograde said:

It's a big mistake, in my point of view, to argue about these issues in isolation to the rest of the gameplay. When you start tinkering with one (or multiple) pillars of the aim-strategy-movement iron triangle you start inviting balancing issues. 

Tell me your hypothesis in how sideways strafing would invite balancing issues. My rebuttal against the "people flying too much without paying attention to positioning" - argument is this:

  • "Two key" strafing sideways is already possible (and consistent). People being able to move that way has not brought up any apparent issues in balance. 
  • "One key" strafing sideways is also already possible with the current mechanics, albeit inconsistent and not corresponding to your knowledge about counter part techniques, rendering it unintuitive to learn.
  • People are pushing the combat-movement to it's limits on daily basis, both of these techniques are definitely emerging during fights even if by accident. Perhaps even more now after this thread. Again, no inherent signs of balance issues, I'd definitely be interested in one showing up though.
  • People would not be flying any more than what they do now. Only difference would be that they'd be doing it occasionally sideways, which they can already half-assedly do.

What were the other arguments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kered13 said:

Smilescythe's proposal, which I agree with, is to have only two rules: One for two keys (QL physics) and one for one key (QW physics). This is less consistent than QW and QL, but more consistent than CPMA and current Reflex.

I would love to see this in experimental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×