Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BrownBoxStudio

Do You Mind Sitting on or Wearing an Object to Interact with Another Object?

Recommended Posts

So I'm making arcade games in SL, currently making skeeball or sometimes called arcade bowling, and had this preconcieved notion that it would be used more if it was easier to use, e.g. not having to sit or wear something to interact with the game.

Although I thought I might actually ask and see how willing anyone else is to actually wear an object or sit on an object to use said object? Is that something you find troublesome or are not bothered by having to do so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, but, if it's going to be something to wear, it has to be something that anyone who wants to play the game can get.  A game is useless to a bar or even a homeowner who wants to play with friends, otherwise.  This means it will have to be copy/transfer to the next owner so it can be given out, which will be a problem if you use any  third party items as the creators license rarely allows it.  You can make it no mod and script it so that it attaches to whoever wants to play then deletes itself when detached and never is in the inventory of the avatar.  That way no one can get the third party items.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you take a look at some of the best made, most widely used and most liked games(that are similar to what you're creating) you will note that they require the use of wearing something more times than not.

To *not* wear something almost renders the game useless. Unless you can figure out a way to be able to allow the avatar to aim and shoot/throw the ball without wearing something...the game will not likely be well received by most who would buy it.

I have quite a few arcade type games. All of the good ones, made by the best creators, that require the use of a ball(bowling, skeeball, basketball) require my av to wear the ball. I suspect there's a good reason why these creators went with this method, while those who did not, do not sell very well(if at all). Those I have that are not made by what I consider the best, are crappy games(sorry to be so blunt, but it's true, they are unrealistic and simply don't work).

I suppose sitting on something could offer the same effect, somehow, but I am really not sure how anyone would create these games without the use of either a wearable or somethign sat on. I've never once seen any of these games actually function without these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"To *not* wear something almost renders the game useless. Unless you can figure out a way to be able to allow the avatar to aim and shoot/throw the ball without wearing something...the game will not likely be well received by most who would buy it."

 

I have and done well if I say so myself. Yet there is still one aspect, the camera, which I cannot control if someone is not sitting. I know what the most widely used games do but I'm seeing if I can do things differently and better. Although from what you guys are saying the lack of sitting or wearing doesn't seem to make the biggest of differences.

 

"I suspect there's a good reason why these creators went with this method, while those who did not, do not sell very well(if at all)."

 

If I had to guess I would say this method has been chosen because it's the easiest. Giving a game intuitive controls is no easy feat. From experience making both ways I would say it's multiple times more the work. Although it does make for a more challenging game. With the aim and shoot method, if you manage to get the same force  you can leave your aim at the same spot and the physics in sl will always be the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BrownBoxStudio wrote:

"To *not* wear something almost renders the game useless. Unless you can figure out a way to be able to allow the avatar to aim and shoot/throw the ball without wearing something...the game will not likely be well received by most who would buy it."

 

I have and done well if I say so myself. Yet there is still one aspect, the camera, which I cannot control if someone is not sitting. I know what the most widely used games do but I'm seeing if I can do things differently and better. Although from what you guys are saying the lack of sitting or wearing doesn't seem to make the biggest of differences.

 

"I suspect there's a good reason why these creators went with this method, while those who did not, do not sell very well(if at all)."

 

If I had to guess I would say this method has been chosen because it's the easiest. Giving a game intuitive controls is no easy feat. From experience making both ways I would say it's multiple times more the work. Although it does make for a more challenging game.
With the aim and shoot method, if you manage to get the same force  you can leave your aim at the same spot and the physics in sl will always be the same. 

I definitely look forward to seeing a method without a wearable that functions properly, but you are right in assuming that the camera is a big part of these kinds of games. I can see how it would be difficult to control the camera, all you can really do is set a specific point, and if the user decides to change that, regardless of your setting(s), there's not much you can do about that. That's pretty much how everything is though. A lot of things have a fixed point for the camera once a user sits, but, of course, the user can also adjust/change his or her camera position whenever he/she likes. Sometimes I like to go into mouselook(no matter what the setting really is, lol) and let it go all willy nilly, it's kinda fun, and way more interactive than having a fixed point set for me by somethign I'm sitting on...if that makes sense.

I just want to address the last part.  I can assure you that, at least in my experience, even the aim and shoot is not always what you expect it to be, lol. Regardless of how good one gets at these games, there is always the element of "surprise, it's sl..." that can take place. I'm not quite certain what you mean by physics remaining the same, however. If you are saying that the physics will always behave the exact same way as believed, you'd be incorrect. If you're saying they *should* behave as one would believe, you'd be correct. If you're saying that if you always aim and always use the same "force"(I suspect you mean as predicted on screen, since there really is no other way to determine the force one is using in these games, despite a lot of trial and error, all we can really do is use our best guess), you'd be incorrect, or, at least, mostly incorrect. These games don't always function as one expects them to, and force is near impossible to really determine. More often than not the "game" one is playing will determine the force applied, but, there's no real way to decide, for certain, that it's actually that force(make sense? probably clear as mud, lol). I can give an example. In some games there is a countdown, while one aims, before throwing the ball(a lot of bowling, skeeball and even basketball games have this). One would suspect that always throwing at 3, for example, the force is always the same, and if one aims at the same spot, each and every shot, letting go at 3(again just an arbitray number) the ball *should behave the same. But...it doesn't. I would suspect it to as well, if it weren't for the fact that I ow far more of these kinds of games than I am willing to admit(bit of an addict, sigh..) and have spent years trying to perfect my game..to no avail. Sl is just..well..sl. The great games work great, despite the sl being what it is aspect. but the others... nah, they're just not fun :( Though, I admit I occaionally take their wearables and use them in ball fights with friends..they make great projectiles :D 

I think part of the resposnes you are getting are from people that don't play these games anyway, or at least not regularly, so the idea of wearing somethign would seem off to them. I can completely understand that sentiment. I'd feel the same, if my experience didn't dictate that this is rather normal, typical and expected behavior. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BrownBoxStudio wrote:

I have and done well if I say so myself. Yet there is still one aspect, the camera, which I cannot control if someone is not sitting.

It's not clear what you're actually proposing, but this part is especially confusing to me. I'm not understanding why you'd want to control the cam for those kind of games, as opposed to just tracking cam coordinates (which shouldn't require sitting nor attachment with an explicit permissions grant).

Maybe you're considering an Experience-based script -- which would be fine, but that comes with a whole separate set of UI baggage, particularly that scary long list of requested permissions that most Experiences never use but can't opt-out of. And becasue you're selling the games, it's a whole problem for buyers to deal with parcel permissions -- potentially on rented land -- for land-scope Experiences. So I'm guessing you're not really considering Experiences.

So then yeah, I don't know what you're really asking here. Other alternatives might include mouselook (an utterly miserable experience to be avoided as much as possible) or temp attachment (which sure beats handing out stuff for users to attach from inventory, but doesn't seem to be what the question is about).

Which reminds me: attachments are getting to be a problem for an increasing number of SL users -- a tiny minority, but a growing one -- who have all their attachment slots filled. (And as you may know, in such cases temp attachment is hideously ungraceful in its failure mode -- a thing not to be discussed in polite company.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

Not really, but, if it's going to be something to wear, it has to be something that anyone who wants to play the game can get.  A game is useless to a bar or even a homeowner who wants to play with friends, otherwise.  This means it will have to be copy/transfer to the next owner so it can be given out, which will be a problem if you use any  third party items as the creators license rarely allows it.  You can make it no mod and script it so that it attaches to whoever wants to play then deletes itself when detached and never is in the inventory of the avatar.  That way no one can get the third party items.

Just in passing, that's not completely effective, so unless the third party creator decides it's good enough for their particular IP, it's really not. (Note that this is especially a problem for embedded content, not merely attached geometry.) This is the rationale behind a jira I proposed a few weeks ago, for anybody interested in the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever makes it easy and obvious to use, though I do shy away from random things which add to inventory clutter. But then I'm still amused by rope climbing animations and crawl through spiral doors. :matte-motes-smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I


Qie Niangao wrote:


BrownBoxStudio wrote:

I have and done well if I say so myself. Yet there is still one aspect, the camera, which I cannot control if someone is not sitting.

It's not clear what you're actually proposing, but this part is especially confusing to me. I'm not understanding why you'd want to
control
the cam for those kind of games, as opposed to just
tracking
 cam coordinates (which shouldn't require sitting nor attachment with an explicit permissions grant).

 

My game doesn't track the camera. The controls are arrow keys for aiming and shooting/power. Then the game shows you power level through a texture, like a power bar, instead of telling you the power in chat like most other games. I found it was too easy to "cheat" the physics system by aiming at the same spot and getting the same power everytime through chat. Getting the same power each time on a power bar, I'd say, is harder than chat which was the goal.

 

My game kind of works like wii sports bowling movement controls, for anyone familiar with that.



 

The problem is that when you use the arrow keys, or wasd the avatar cam is reset back to the default center forward position of your avatar. That is unless you turn off that setting. So if you cam by the game to play the camera will reset when you press the controls. A possible solution to have the camera in an ideal position and keep it from moving unwantingly would be to have the player sit and then control the camera through script. You only need regular permissions to control someones camera but the object doing so either has to be attached or sat on.

 

My question was and is simply do you guys mind sitting on things, like games, to use them or would you rather not have to?

 


Which reminds me: attachments are getting to be a problem for an increasing number of SL users -- a tiny minority, but a growing one -- who have all their attachment slots filled. (And as you may know, in such cases temp attachment is
hideously
 ungraceful in its failure mode -- a thing not to be discussed in polite company.)

On that note I thought there could be multiple objects on attach points by using "add" instead of "wear"? Or is there still a limit even if you "add"? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BrownBoxStudio wrote:

 

My question was and is simply do you guys mind sitting on things, like games, to use them or would you rather not have to?

I understand. I'm just useless as a source for that, so instead I've been exploring peripheral tangents to see if there's another approach. (I'd guess, based on no information whatsoever, that newbies would be more reluctant to do the sit or attach thing, and more expect to simply walk up to a game and maybe touch to start interacting with it. Oldbies have already jumped through every possible hoop to interact with SL scripts, so won't think twice if asked to stand on their head and use tongue-to-nose control.)


On that note I thought there could be multiple objects on attach points by adding instead of wearing? Or is there still a limit even if you add? 

Right, there's still a limit on the total count of attachment "slots". I kinda think that number might be 38, but as many as desired can be stacked on the same attachment point now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Qie Niangao wrote:

(I'd guess, based on no information whatsoever, that newbies would be more reluctant to do the sit or attach thing, and more expect to simply walk up to a game and maybe touch to start interacting with it. Oldbies have already jumped through every possible hoop to interact with SL scripts, so won't think twice if asked to stand on their head and use tongue-to-nose control.)

Hmm that has me remembering that was one of my goals, to make it so you could just walk up and either touch or pay, allow permissions, and be playing. Having any sit or objects to attach would ruin that. I think one can still be in mouselook and use arrow controls without having the camera reset. 

I'm seeing I need to find some sl begginers, and non begginers could be good too, willing to test these ideas on inworld. Guess forum feedback, without having someone actually test the game, can only go so far. Mouselook might work but could be even harder to understand for a begginer then right click and sit. Also Qie, thanks either way. Even if you can't answer the specific question you have me thinking about alternative possibilities too.

 Anyone with ideas of where to find begginers in SL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


BrownBoxStudio wrote:


Qie Niangao wrote:

(I'd guess, based on no information whatsoever, that newbies would be more reluctant to do the sit or attach thing, and more expect to simply walk up to a game and maybe touch to start interacting with it. Oldbies have already jumped through every possible hoop to interact with SL scripts, so won't think twice if asked to stand on their head and use tongue-to-nose control.)

Hmm that has me remembering that was one of my goals, to make it so you could just walk up and
either touch or pay, allow permissions, and be playing. Having any sit or objects to attach would ruin that.
I think one can still be in mouselook and use arrow controls without having the camera reset. 

I'm seeing I need to find some sl begginers, and non begginers could be good too, willing to test these ideas on inworld. Guess forum feedback, without having someone actually test the game, can only go so far. Mouselook might work but could be even harder to understand for a begginer then right click and sit. Also Qie, thanks either way. Even if you can't answer the specific question you have me thinking about alternative possibilities too.

 Anyone with ideas of where to find begginers in SL?

I'm a little confused. Why wouldn't what you want be able to be done by setting it to default to "touch to sit"? Then people could interact with it with a single left-click, which is what you seem to want, and still have the benefits of the "sit" interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theresa Tennyson wrote:

I'm a little confused. Why wouldn't what you want be able to be done by setting it to default to "touch to sit"? Then people could interact with it with a single left-click, which is what you seem to want, and still have the benefits of the "sit" interaction.


Oh, lol, I totally forgot that was a possibility. Yes, that would fufill the goal of simplicity. You have to right click and pay anyway if it's not set to free to play. Clicking to sit wouldn't be so bad. Thanks for the reminder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...