<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GT Machaira</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mandible.net/2009/11/25/gt-machaira/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mandible.net/2009/11/25/gt-machaira/</link>
	<description>Breaking Into the Industry</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:37:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Zorba</title>
		<link>http://www.mandible.net/2009/11/25/gt-machaira/comment-page-1/#comment-16532</link>
		<dc:creator>Zorba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:42:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandible.net/?p=205#comment-16532</guid>
		<description>Curious. I&#039;m having some trouble duplicating it reliably, but I&#039;ve definitely had a few cases where back-attack hasn&#039;t done the &quot;right thing&quot;. I&#039;ll have to see what&#039;s going on with that.

In an early version, there was a &quot;back attack&quot; that you could do by hitting back-and-attack simultaneously. In reality, this either meant I had to delay all attacks in order to see if the user was about to hit &quot;back&quot;, which felt basically like ass, or it meant that you had to hit &quot;back&quot; before doing the attack which was starting to give me hand cramps from testing.

In Nanok, one of the problems I ran into was that the enemies would attack &lt;i&gt;too much&lt;/i&gt;. You really need for the enemies to back off often to give the player a chance to be awesome. I think, from some more thought, this has to be proportional to how many enemies are nearby - the more enemies there are, the more space they have to give the player - otherwise groups of enemies aren&#039;t fun.

It&#039;s always kind of sad when you have to program enemies to be intentionally stupid.

I&#039;m not sure how to make the up-attack better, aside from giving the enemies a stronger but longer-delay down attack so you can actually respond properly. I&#039;m also a little hesitant to make the enemies overcomplicated, but I suppose this is also why games tend to have many relatively-simple enemies that can be mixed up in interesting ways.

Things to think about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Curious. I&#8217;m having some trouble duplicating it reliably, but I&#8217;ve definitely had a few cases where back-attack hasn&#8217;t done the &#8220;right thing&#8221;. I&#8217;ll have to see what&#8217;s going on with that.</p>
<p>In an early version, there was a &#8220;back attack&#8221; that you could do by hitting back-and-attack simultaneously. In reality, this either meant I had to delay all attacks in order to see if the user was about to hit &#8220;back&#8221;, which felt basically like ass, or it meant that you had to hit &#8220;back&#8221; before doing the attack which was starting to give me hand cramps from testing.</p>
<p>In Nanok, one of the problems I ran into was that the enemies would attack <i>too much</i>. You really need for the enemies to back off often to give the player a chance to be awesome. I think, from some more thought, this has to be proportional to how many enemies are nearby &#8211; the more enemies there are, the more space they have to give the player &#8211; otherwise groups of enemies aren&#8217;t fun.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s always kind of sad when you have to program enemies to be intentionally stupid.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure how to make the up-attack better, aside from giving the enemies a stronger but longer-delay down attack so you can actually respond properly. I&#8217;m also a little hesitant to make the enemies overcomplicated, but I suppose this is also why games tend to have many relatively-simple enemies that can be mixed up in interesting ways.</p>
<p>Things to think about.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tang</title>
		<link>http://www.mandible.net/2009/11/25/gt-machaira/comment-page-1/#comment-16531</link>
		<dc:creator>Tang</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:20:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mandible.net/?p=205#comment-16531</guid>
		<description>A few thoughts:

Attacking while slowing down to turn performs a long attack in the direction currently facing. That doesn&#039;t feel right.

It is difficult to hit anything with the straight-up attack, and the attack patterns almost guarantee that you have to take a down-hit to be in the situation where you can hit something.

I found it notable that the AI would sometimes fall back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A few thoughts:</p>
<p>Attacking while slowing down to turn performs a long attack in the direction currently facing. That doesn&#8217;t feel right.</p>
<p>It is difficult to hit anything with the straight-up attack, and the attack patterns almost guarantee that you have to take a down-hit to be in the situation where you can hit something.</p>
<p>I found it notable that the AI would sometimes fall back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
