Implementing a control system of this kind is a substantial task, and getting it to play well is even more difficult. The new generation of motion controls are perhaps better suited to semi-realistic combat controls. Having said that, I don't want to dissuade you from pursuing this idea. Gamepad-based control systems where the player's actions are more directly connected to the character's limbs have hardly been thoroughly explored, and there are some successful examples. The Skate games (where the right stick controls foot position / balance, and tricks are pulled off by flicking the stick in a way somewhat representative of the real movement) offered a refreshing change from the Tony Hawks Pro Skater series (where trick controls are almost entirely abstracted, and arbitrary button combinations execute tricks).

In terms of advice for next steps, I have to echo earlier comments - the best way to proceed in designing such a combat system is to produce a minimalistic functional prototype. Modding an existing game or using a pre-made engine is advisable as you want to do this quickly/cheaply and allow rapid iteration. I suggest prototyping more as a means to refine the design than the first step towards a final implementation. It's the way to go for two reasons. Firstly, your design is complex enough that it has become nearly impossible to convey to others exactly how the system will feel using text alone - it's difficult for a reader to hold on to a mental model of the configuration of a complex spatial system like this. Secondly, it will probably also have reached a point at which you yourself are unable to anticipate exactly the behavior which will emerge from the rules you have set out. It's even harder to anticipate how others not so intimately familiar with the mechanics will react when they pick up a controller.

1) Please consider a more concise way of presenting your ideas. There is too much text. Do consider short, to the point descriptions. In your case, a prototype, video or sketches would help greatly to convey the idea of your combat system.

2) Users can move + attack at the same time. I can imagine the most popular strategy might be circling strafe around an opponent while firing a ranged weapon (or swinging a melee weapon). How would the stationary player keep up with a circle strafer?

3) Like others have pointed out - it might not be a good idea to develop two distinct control schemes simultaneously. Competitive RTS and FPS for example, have just one control scheme for both "pros" and casuals (e.g. WASD move, mouse click fire). Hardcore players can still have an "advantage" by mastering the control system to a high level of skill.

Projects run into time and resource constraints all the time. It is really important for the designer to cut superfluous portions of the game and focus on really selling the key features.

4) "When stationary, the system will in theory perform coinciding footwork by matching the upper bodies movement in a predictive anatomically correct fashion." is too vague. You need to provide details of exactly how this system will work and how you are planning to achieve this.

5) Also, the "do anything, become anyone medieval sandbox RPG/MMORPG with realistic complicated combat system" is a very common idea that gets posted on this forum a lot. It isn't anything "ground breaking" or original.

Gamepad-based control systems where the player's actions are more directly connected to the character's limbs have hardly been thoroughly explored, and there are some successful examples.

Definitely true. If I'm not mistaken each time they have been explored something amazing has come through to the industry. Atleast for the most part. Intuitive gameplay that allows you to feel more connected to the characters action leads to a sense which is only garnered commonly/correctly in the FPS genre in my opinion.

The Skate games (where the right stick controls foot position / balance, and tricks are pulled off by flicking the stick in a way somewhat representative of the real movement) offered a refreshing change from the Tony Hawks Pro Skater series (where trick controls are almost entirely abstracted, and arbitrary button combinations execute tricks).

[rollup='Self Quote']

The default state within the combat system is stationary. By this I do not mean to imply you stand face to face waving weapons at each other with your arms flailing. You are using both joysticks to emulate motions with your arms leaving no other way of moving your body (the D pad is an unrealistic solution for footwork). What I proposed is using anatomically correct responses of your feet according to what you do with your upper body.

In real life, when you swing a bat your waist turns. This naturally leads your legs into a position where they will follow through with your upper body. They line themselves up according to what your upper body is doing/has done. Due to my martial arts training I'm pretty familiar with how my body reacts when I perform certain actions. If I pay attention, I can feel how my body aligns itself to move in unison and how one action connects best in fluidity with the next motion. This is the basis of how I want that mechanic to work and what I meant by coinciding footwork. .

Let say your character is holding a short sword and he jabs, the natural response for his lower body is to step into the jab. Ideally to each upper body response the lower body has a proper anatomical reaction.

Other examples of motions and how the mechanic should cope:

Cross slash (diagonal swing of the sword which heads in a downward motion)

The Character will be throwing their body weight from their shoulders downward, from one side of their upper body, to their waist on the opposite side. In real life, the side that they will be coming down on, will need to brace itself for their weight or they can hypothetically lose balance. The leg on the side bracing itself should automatically step out and to the side.

Lets assume the next example happens immediately after the last has occurred to better showcase the concept.

Full fledged forward thrust (pulling the sword in towards themselves and then thrusting it outwardly)

A thrust isn’t very effective unless stepped in to. So from the characters last position of having one foot slightly out they would ideally want to take their other leg and step in with that one as they thrust their sword forward. The player wont have to do any of this footwork actively, it would already be in motion as he is inputting the commands to pull the sword back and begins to thrust.

Real fights have movement in them and I would hate to compromise footwork for the sake of my proposed arm control.

[/rollup]

5) Also, the "do anything, become anyone medieval sandbox RPG/MMORPG with realistic complicated combat system" is a very common idea that gets posted on this forum a lot. It isn't anything "ground breaking" or original.

No need to answer this one, its obviously a haters remark lol..

__________

This post was a bit long and I'll most likely get flamed for its length but I responded to mutiple people and formatted it (as usual) to allow readers to stop where their question/curiosity ends.

Hope this answers enough/brings up other points/garners more interest in my work.

Thank you all for your feedback/input/suggestions

Sin ?§• ??§?

My crazy suggestion would be to prototype it first.

I second this crazy suggestion. Unity. A floating pill wielding a slender pill as a sword...a large hot dog. ;) With that relatively simple set up you can focus on getting the 'sword' to swing and handle in a way that you want it to in your game, to get the idea across. That would be giving it a good shot.

You also need to take into account that I am a one man team.

The same thing applies to one man projects: you will run into time/resource constraints and you'll want to a few main features that are highly polished vs a bunch of unpolished optional features.

In particular, it might not be wise to allow players to skip it by choosing the simple control scheme. After spending all those time and resources, and designing your entire game around it, you don't want players to try your game having never experience the main/key feature because they chose to skip it.

Sure shows how much you read before attacking/criticizing my work. I posted an explaination for this with some moderate detail.

I did in fact read the entire thread. You have a few sketch ideas but I don't see how this could be implemented. What kind of algorithm would you use? How would this algorithm control the 3D model? Perhaps you could post up in-depth details elsewhere? E.g. start a GameDev journal?

In my humble opinion, and based on my work experience as a computer scientist + mathematical biologist, predicting full 3D body motions based on unconstrained arm motions is going to be a major technical undertaking. You should prototype this and see for yourself.

Sinister, reading your last post, it seems to be quoting things not from this thread, and in fact seems to be identical (barring some quotation formatting) to your post on your other thread.
Are you sure you posted the correct reply here?

you'll want to a few main features that are highly polished vs a bunch of unpolished optional features.

Agreed.

After spending all those time and resources, and designing your entire game around it, you don't want players to try your game having never experience the main/key feature because they chose to skip it.

I definitely don't This is why I'm hoping to polish it and revamp it as much as possible so it is viable option/more appealing and doesn't get overshadowed by the simple/"default system" (I think I've made it clear that the simpler system is the default but no way in fact what I wish to be the main attraction nor have I spent more time on it than the FFC). I'll be editing my OP soon to include more detailed information on the default system which is alot easier to grasp/implement in my opinion.