Game mechanic interaction: Guns vs Melee (crosspost)

[Lunatic]

Greetings! This is a crosspost to talk about a specific part of a thread I just posted, where I put down my thoughts and feelings on the gunning mechanic and why it works as well as it does. After much thought, I've come to the conclusion that melee and gunning are both mechanics with very little interaction and counterplay, leading to a part of the game that often feels quite shallow.

For context, I'll summarize the analysis thread: Gunning interacts well with itself and with the environment. Guns vs guns has unique counters and balances that require your strategy and skill in order to be effective. Meanwhile, Guns interact well with the environment by triggering explosives, dropping instagib objects on players, and by busting through cover (or being countered by cover!) to allow for smart use of cover-based combat.

Now that I've gone over the context, let's talk about the problem and what to consider when looking for a fix. As stated, guns interact well with what I feel to be two of the three core features of SFD: Guns, and the environment. However, there is a third (and final) core feature of the game, and that is the melee combat. Guns and melee do not interact well together, having little in terms of interaction or counter play. I believe this to be one of few things still holding back the game from being a shining jewel; an instant classic upon release.

I believe the biggest problems that gunning vs melee face are as follows:

• Melee has no reliable way to hit someone that is actively hopping around near them/running directly away from them (Switching to throw mode makes you stop sprinting, and as such is quite obvious, making it easier to react to the throw. Can't be done more than once without rearming yourself so the advantage is shortlived.)
• Melee can only disarm a gunner when they are aiming or shooting, making it difficult to actually disarm a gunner.
• Melee is too slow to reliably reflect gunfire while attacking, and block cooldowns are too high to properly deflect gunfire without heavy losses.
• Gunning has no method of disarming a melee weapon or method of quickly destroying said weapon.
• The majority of guns have no "get off me" types of moves, which makes it hard to make space once someone starts to get on top of you. Kicks can do this, but require proper positioning and timing, making the move very difficult to land as a result.

Now, as stated in the analysis thread:

Remember that while counters exist, it's not that move A outright trumps move B, but how you use move A that allows you to beat move B. Do not just spam move A because it can beat move B, make sure that you're using the move correctly - otherwise you may find that move A doesn't just bail you out for free.

The definition of an overpowered option is a get out of jail free card. If you can just use option A to always beat option B with no work involved, option A is overpowered. This is where we have to look at the balances of things and ask ourselves: Do we have a strong enough option to beat option B? Or is option A so pitiful that option B beats it despite the fact that it should lose?

So now, we have to look at what little interaction is involved between melee and gunning, and see if we can't find the middle ground needed to balance these mechanics against each other. Their interaction, as best as I can think of, are as follows:

• Melee combat can disarm a gun user by hitting them while they are aiming/shooting.
• Blocking/attacking with a melee weapon can absorb or deflect gunfire depending on weapon used.
• Any player can roll at any time, regardless of weapon held.
• Any player can throw their currently equipped weapon to damage and stun other players.
• Melee weapons have durability that is depleted as they strike objects, players, and bullets.

Now that I've listed off the current interactions, I'd like to go over a handful of changes that could be made that would allow for interaction between these two mechanics without one being able to beat the other easily. The idea was to give both of the mechanics ways of trumping the other, mostly going down the first list up top. I would like to go over each of these ideas in different threads to help fully explain.

• Add a dash attack that allows someone to keep moving while putting out an attack; would have a speedboost as used followed by a short sprint cooldown.
• Add in strong attacks on demand and make jab 1+2 loop back and forth, as suggested by Hjarpe at one point. Then make the strong attacks disarm when they deal damage.
• Add block locking to beat gunfire, allowing the function to better protect against bullets at the cost of being able to move and weapon durability. (also in the post Hjarpe made)
• Increase the deflection hitbox duration so that it's somewhat easier to attack and deflect bullets.
• Guns can break weapons through block locking, allowing a player to get the edge over someone by breaking their weapon. Make bullets deal durability damage at 75% of player durability damage so that it's serious.
• Overhaul kicks: Increase stumble time, decrease stumble speed (so that stumble distance is the same), and then change the kick cooldown so that it has a larger gap between kicks.

I believe that all of these changes, added together, would give the mechanics enough interaction between each other to add depth to the gameplay as a whole. These changes would allow melee users to catch players better, disarm players at will (provided it will also be slower and thus easier to react to), and defend themselves as a last resort if caught in the open; it would also challenge gunners to be more accurate with their shooting/timings if they want to hit their mark. Or, just spray into someone's block so they can close in with melee for the kill, knowing their opponent won't be able to defend themselves. Changing kicks so that they can stun for slightly longer also means that a gunner can create a better opening to get away or land a shot if a melee user gets too close. Since kicks have short range, however, and holding a gun leaves you unable to block, missing your kick or getting struck will force you to either unequip your gun or take the damage. With a longer cooldown, too, it's not easily spammed.

Or perhaps I'm not looking at things correctly? I believe that SFD is comprised of three core concepts: Gunning, Melee, and the Environment. Each of these features interacts well with each other, but not gunning vs melee. That said, if the above ideas are incorrect, or you think things could be better explained, what ways can we improve on the interaction between these mechanics to make the game feel less shallow or more whole? Let's get some conversation going!

[Del Poncho]

I think that the current situation of melee vs gunning is anything but shallow.
Of course it was a problem,some time ago, since you could run around the enemy shooting without any malus to that. But since the kneeling animation was introduced,I feel that we don't suffer from this problem anymore.

In a non-specific situation where 2 players meet,where player A has a gun and player B has a melee weapon, most of the times it's the melee player that will be victorious (Unless the gun players decides to actually melee the enemy,ofcourse).
Since the gun player will (most of the times) have to kick you in order to find the time to shoot you,the melee player will have the same opportunities (considering the surpirse factor as a bonus to the gunner,and the range as a bonus to the melee guy).

Plus,I think you're a underestimating the ability to throw items.
Yes,it's a bit obvious when you're about to throw a weapon,but if the guy takes time to block you,you can just wait for his block to end,and then throw your weapon.

[*]Increase the deflection hitbox duration so that it's somewhat easier to attack and deflect bullets.

Seeing someone deflect a bullet should be something special and unexpected. It shouldnt be something that everybody does everytime they get shot,otherwise,what would be so scenic about it?

[*]Add block locking to beat gunfire, allowing the function to better protect against bullets at the cost of being able to move and weapon durability. (also in the post Hjarpe made)

Plus,with a block lock it would look like a bored jedi standing still deflecting a bunch of bullets untill his weapon breaks. Same thing with melee. It would feel just too easy.

[*][...]Then make the strong attacks disarm when they deal damage.

That would be just goddamn powerfull,dude...

Anyway,as it's obvious,melee is much more situational than gunning,giving guns an obvious advantage in most of the situations,but I like to remember that they are not supposed to be 2 separated parts of the game,you have to blend em.
If the meleer is far away from the gunner, well, that's just too bad for him. He shoudlnt have a way to counter him,next time he won't find himself there,or he'll find a way to get to cover.

[mgtr14]

I agree with all of your changes except for the block locking one, it just seems wierd and uneeded. And as Del poncho said, it will lead to some problems. Maybe it would be best to make the player able to keep blocking if he is constantly being shot and at the same time he can cancel out of his block whenever he wants.

Also, to make it a bit harder to just keep gunning after being knocked down, make the player have to redraw his weapon ( But make the redraw faster ) I have seen many instances of good melee players being shot at the exact moment the gunner stands up again and to make it more horrible, even if they gunner stands up in the middle of the entire melee combo, he can still unload into him. And worst case, gunner has a weapon that can knock the melee player down. So not only has the gunner a way to knock his opponent down, or even still force him to block anyways and then walk away anyways since he can walk even after shooting, the one chance the melee user had is now wasted because the gunner knows a simple and OP trick.

[Lunatic]

Poncho, did you know your post shocked me to the point where I couldn't respond for a solid hour? Like, where do I even begin with this post, man? It's super contradictory.

I think that the current situation of melee vs gunning is anything but shallow.
Of course it was a problem,some time ago, since you could run around the enemy shooting without any malus to that. But since the kneeling animation was introduced,I feel that we don't suffer from this problem anymore.

w... what??? Kneeling is a result of using a jump attack or jump kick, aka one of the easiest ways to hit someone jumping around. Adding kneeling fixed the problem it countered??? That doesn't make any sense - if anything, it's harder to hit someone jumping around you and shooting, unless you're near objects and platforms, but then the gunner can account for that.
Furthermore, there is little interaction between these mechanics, especially when compared to how guns interact with the environment and itself. That makes the interaction between guns and melee shallow - aka, there's no depth.

In a non-specific situation where 2 players meet,where player A has a gun and player B has a melee weapon, most of the times it's the melee player that will be victorious (Unless the gun players decides to actually melee the enemy,ofcourse).
Since the gun player will (most of the times) have to kick you in order to find the time to shoot you,the melee player will have the same opportunities (considering the surpirse factor as a bonus to the gunner,and the range as a bonus to the melee guy).

This isn't true at all. The idea of giving someone an option/ability, a tool, is not for it to be the only option that player has - it's to give the user more to work with so that they can trick their opponents better. If anything, the gunner would have the range bonus?
Guns have higher overall DPS, with the carbine being able to deal more DPS than the katana. Guns are much safer to use/harder to punish for using since they never have to stop moving to do anything effectively, and can freely switch between stationary aiming and walking around with no drawbacks nor vulnerability/punishable frames. Melee can not say the same, hence why guns generally have the upper hand in CQC.

Plus,I think you're a underestimating the ability to throw items.
Yes,it's a bit obvious when you're about to throw a weapon,but if the guy takes time to block you,you can just wait for his block to end,and then throw your weapon.

I'll give you this one. Throwing is a solid mixup.

[*]Increase the deflection hitbox duration so that it's somewhat easier to attack and deflect bullets.

Seeing someone deflect a bullet should be something special and unexpected. It shouldnt be something that everybody does everytime they get shot,otherwise,what would be so scenic about it?

Why have such a cool idea so difficult to pull off? Due to the speed of projectiles and how slow melee is, the chances of intentionally hitting someone's bullets back at them is slim to none. It basically requires slomo, which then makes it pretty unlikely the reflected bullet will actually strike the gunner. It is so absolutely rare, and so impossible to pull off intentionally, that I just don't see a reason for the mechanic to exist in the game as-is. Either make it easier or, hell, remove it.

[*]Add block locking to beat gunfire, allowing the function to better protect against bullets at the cost of being able to move and weapon durability. (also in the post Hjarpe made)

Plus,with a block lock it would look like a bored jedi standing still deflecting a bunch of bullets untill his weapon breaks. Same thing with melee. It would feel just too easy.

It would feel tense, putting up a block at just the right moment to ward off their bullets. Look over at your weapon's health and watch it drain, and realize that this could go one of two ways: They could stop firing to make you drop your block and then shoot you some more (Maybe even kill you!), or they could advance on you while shooting so your weapon breaks and then draw their own (I mean hey, things could go a huge number of ways, but these are both pretty dangerous). Going fists vs a weapon is a massive disadvantage, lacking a lot of range makes it super easy for someone to wall you out with attacks. The reason I say this for a gunner is because the intended change is not just "make melee beat guns nd have guns kill melee weapons!!!" It's meant to make the game more dynamic, and give more advantages to all players. Regardless, if your weapon breaks you could very well die.

If your weapon breaks in your hands like this I would imagine you'd stumble back as it crumbles out of your grip, letting the gunner get a few shots in. Seriously, this would be a tactical decision - What if you were holding a katana, or a chainsaw? Would you want your weapon broken when it's so strong? It would be just the same as someone disarming you, except there's no chance to get the dropped item back because it would be destroyed.

[*][...]Then make the strong attacks disarm when they deal damage.

That would be just goddamn powerfull,dude...

This change is supposed to go into effect with on-demand strong attacks, and I'd imagine the strong attacks would take a little longer to come out. This gives the attack solid use across the board, but trying to pull one off when close to someone would probably be just a touch too slow to stop them from attacking or even grabbing you. It also allows melee to have a straightforward method of disarming someone regardless of if they're in a state to be disarmed or not, which I believe it is sorely lacking. Making it a slower attack would thus make more sense - it doesn't even need to do more damage, really.

Anyway,as it's obvious,melee is much more situational than gunning,giving guns an obvious advantage in most of the situations,but I like to remember that they are not supposed to be 2 separated parts of the game,you have to blend em.
If the meleer is far away from the gunner, well, that's just too bad for him. He shoudlnt have a way to counter him,next time he won't find himself there,or he'll find a way to get to cover.

This part also contradicts what you said above, where "melee will usually be victorious". You can't have something having an obvious advantage most of the time and have it lose most of the time. If that's the case, then melee is the one with the advantage - which we all know is not true.
I agree that the game is supposed to be blended, and I don't want one part of the game to be the only viable way to play/win. That's what this is all about, adding interaction between key elements of the game to better blend them and make the game feel well-rounded. If guns and melee can interact more, it allows more complex interaction between elements and players, and lets the two mechanics blend together better for a game that can have depth.
Complexity is not a bad thing when done correctly.

I just don't think melee is as good as you claim it to be. It's slow, it forces you to be stationary, and it's hard to hit a moving target with it unless you're using something that has baseball bat range or higher. The Bat is just short of katana range if you weren't aware. But hey, if you're fighting someone 200+ ping? Chances are there's nothing they can do to save themselves.

[Del Poncho]

Oh God,this will start an infinite number of quote layers. We are goin' deeper Leo! [cit]

Poncho, did you know your post shocked me to the point where I couldn't respond for a solid hour? Like, where do I even begin with this post, man? It's super contradictory.

I actually tought - and still think - that this post is not contradictory at all,dude. But I guess that I havent explained myself well,in some points.

I think that the current situation of melee vs gunning is anything but shallow.
Of course it was a problem,some time ago, since you could run around the enemy shooting without any malus to that. But since the kneeling animation was introduced,I feel that we don't suffer from this problem anymore.

w... what??? Kneeling is a result of using a jump attack or jump kick, aka one of the easiest ways to hit someone jumping around. Adding kneeling fixed the problem it countered??? That doesn't make any sense - if anything, it's harder to hit someone jumping around you and shooting, unless you're near objects and platforms, but then the gunner can account for that.
Furthermore, there is little interaction between these mechanics, especially when compared to how guns interact with the environment and itself. That makes the interaction between guns and melee shallow - aka, there's no depth.

Well,when it comes to a generic "melee guy vs gun guy",I always picture it the way I do it (And most of the people I see,at least): Not simply running in a direction,taking brief pauses to shoot the enemy. I tend to jump around him,use ladders,crates and stuff like that,staying in the same 5 meters,trying to do unexpected movements,and when the time is right,kick him to shoot him.
So basically,unless the gun guy always has a way to avoid the kneeling animation,he will have to time himself perfectly,not to get hit by a baseball to the teeth.
And when you get hit the first time,you have whether to switch to melee or try to escape after getting a full combo.

In a non-specific situation where 2 players meet,where player A has a gun and player B has a melee weapon, most of the times it's the melee player that will be victorious (Unless the gun players decides to actually melee the enemy,ofcourse).
Since the gun player will (most of the times) have to kick you in order to find the time to shoot you,the melee player will have the same opportunities (considering the surpirse factor as a bonus to the gunner,and the range as a bonus to the melee guy).

This isn't true at all. The idea of giving someone an option/ability, a tool, is not for it to be the only option that player has - it's to give the user more to work with so that they can trick their opponents better. If anything, the gunner would have the range bonus?
Guns have higher overall DPS, with the carbine being able to deal more DPS than the katana. Guns are much safer to use/harder to punish for using since they never have to stop moving to do anything effectively, and can freely switch between stationary aiming and walking around with no drawbacks nor vulnerability/punishable frames. Melee can not say the same, hence why guns generally have the upper hand in CQC.

I think I just didnt explain myself here. In this situation,the 2 guys are close to each other. Obviously,it's up to the melee guy to get close to the gun,in order to take advantage from his weapon.

[*]Increase the deflection hitbox duration so that it's somewhat easier to attack and deflect bullets.

Seeing someone deflect a bullet should be something special and unexpected. It shouldnt be something that everybody does everytime they get shot,otherwise,what would be so scenic about it?

Why have such a cool idea so difficult to pull off? Due to the speed of projectiles and how slow melee is, the chances of intentionally hitting someone's bullets back at them is slim to none. It basically requires slomo, which then makes it pretty unlikely the reflected bullet will actually strike the gunner. It is so absolutely rare, and so impossible to pull off intentionally, that I just don't see a reason for the mechanic to exist in the game as-is. Either make it easier or, hell, remove it.

Just because it's the cooles idea ever,doesnt mean that you should see it all the time. This thing is cool as long as it's a difficult thing to pull off.
Yeah,seeing someone doing a triple backflip with his hands tied is goddamn cool,but if everybody knew how to do it easily,we would just feel "meh" when seeing it.
I see it a bunch of times every round,goddamnit. If it wasnt a bit of a core defense for melee vs gun situations,i would make it even more difficult. Just because we are Bold and Bald action dudes doesnt mean we should be able to do everything at the first try!

[*]Add block locking to beat gunfire, allowing the function to better protect against bullets at the cost of being able to move and weapon durability. (also in the post Hjarpe made)

Plus,with a block lock it would look like a bored jedi standing still deflecting a bunch of bullets untill his weapon breaks. Same thing with melee. It would feel just too easy.

It would feel tense, putting up a block at just the right moment to ward off their bullets. Look over at your weapon's health and watch it drain, and realize that this could go one of two ways: They could stop firing to make you drop your block and then shoot you some more (Maybe even kill you!), or they could advance on you while shooting so your weapon breaks and then draw their own (I mean hey, things could go a huge number of ways, but these are both pretty dangerous). Going fists vs a weapon is a massive disadvantage, lacking a lot of range makes it super easy for someone to wall you out with attacks. The reason I say this for a gunner is because the intended change is not just "make melee beat guns nd have guns kill melee weapons!!!" It's meant to make the game more dynamic, and give more advantages to all players. Regardless, if your weapon breaks you could very well die.

If your weapon breaks in your hands like this I would imagine you'd stumble back as it crumbles out of your grip, letting the gunner get a few shots in. Seriously, this would be a tactical decision - What if you were holding a katana, or a chainsaw? Would you want your weapon broken when it's so strong? It would be just the same as someone disarming you, except there's no chance to get the dropped item back because it would be destroyed.

Eh,I can imagine this sort of defense only with a shield-like object (wich was suggested multiple times *cough*Gurt*cough*plz do it*cough*).
Blocking a bullet in a way so easy (Even if not advantageus,whatever),would kill the cinematic feel.
If everyone is super,no one will be.

[*][...]Then make the strong attacks disarm when they deal damage.

That would be just goddamn powerfull,dude...

This change is supposed to go into effect with on-demand strong attacks, and I'd imagine the strong attacks would take a little longer to come out. This gives the attack solid use across the board, but trying to pull one off when close to someone would probably be just a touch too slow to stop them from attacking or even grabbing you. It also allows melee to have a straightforward method of disarming someone regardless of if they're in a state to be disarmed or not, which I believe it is sorely lacking. Making it a slower attack would thus make more sense - it doesn't even need to do more damage, really

Eh,I don't think that a player should have the opportunity to disarm someone just with an attack,no matter how difficult it is to pull off.

Anyway,as it's obvious,melee is much more situational than gunning,giving guns an obvious advantage in most of the situations,but I like to remember that they are not supposed to be 2 separated parts of the game,you have to blend em.
If the meleer is far away from the gunner, well, that's just too bad for him. He shoudlnt have a way to counter him,next time he won't find himself there,or he'll find a way to get to cover.

This part also contradicts what you said above, where "melee will usually be victorious". You can't have something having an obvious advantage most of the time and have it lose most of the time. If that's the case, then melee is the one with the advantage - which we all know is not true.
I agree that the game is supposed to be blended, and I don't want one part of the game to be the only viable way to play/win. That's what this is all about, adding interaction between key elements of the game to better blend them and make the game feel well-rounded. If guns and melee can interact more, it allows more complex interaction between elements and players, and lets the two mechanics blend together better for a game that can have depth.
Complexity is not a bad thing when done correctly.

Again,I probably didn't explain myself. "Melee will be victorious" in a close quarter situation (same room,same building,whatever,as long as the melee player gets close to the enemy. And trust me,it's not so difficult to do it).
What I meant is,in a CQC situation,the gun dude will probably have to pass to his melee weapon (or fists).
In almost every other situation,the gun would prevail,as it's obvious. And I think it's the right way to do it.
As for complexity,I think that the game already has enough interaction. I mean,we're talking about generic melee vs gun scenes,cause we're trying to make a point and because we can't describe every situation ever,but it's a very rare scene. 90% of the times,everybody have a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. And if they don't,well,there are plenty makeshift weapons to be used/thrown.

I just don't think melee is as good as you claim it to be. It's slow, it forces you to be stationary[...]

Melee doesnt make you stationary at all. Of course,the classic A-D fight unaffected by your surroundings will be shallow,but there's nothing to do there,it's just up to the player. No changes will ever fix this.

[...]it's hard to hit a moving target with it unless you're using something that has baseball bat range or higher. The Bat is just short of katana range if you weren't aware.

Again,I'm in uge disagreement here. I rarely have problems hunting down someone,ESPECIALLY since the throwing update. You can just throw your weapon,make the guy fall/loose his gun and then pick it up to finish the job. Obviously,you have to time it a bit,or he will avoid it,but that's the same for guns and dodges.

But hey, if you're fighting someone 200+ ping? Chances are there's nothing they can do to save themselves.

Of course there are no chances! This game is not meant to be played with 200 ping,it's like saying that you got an absurd advantage on a player with no hands: It's obvious,it's the right thing,and there's nothing to do about it...I usually don't even accept red pings on my server.


Anyway, I think we need more examples,images,and stuff like that to actually make a point. Or maybe we just have different views on how the game should be, or again maybe we just had a different experience with SuperFighters. I rarely see someone that plays with you on my server,for ping reasons,so my hypothesis is that these 2 groups of people just play differently from each other. That's all I got.