I very clearly presumed you had the same stance as me, pro walking toggle. I find the point I am trying to make very articulate so sorry. As I mentioned earlier combat stances have a very minor use in signalling the beginning and end of a fight. The current request in this thread is for Obsidian to add the toggle alongside everything else in the game. It has been their decision to (so far) not spend any money or time on this feature. This suggest to some degree that they do not see it as worthy of their resources. Everything else in the game they have already decided is worthy of them. Unless we are trying to request that they put the funds for one feature towards a walking toggle instead, the mention of other features add nothing as their existance does not give Obsidian the resources for the toggle or the popularity to make it worth adding.
My apologies. It is I who misunderstood you. I now know what you mean. You have a good point, but I think it is for us to discuss the merits of ideas, and for Obsidian to decide their value and priority. Whether or not they are going to decide to somehow get walking into the game should not have any bearing upon whether or not we ask that it be in there if at all possible (reasonably, obviously -- we don't want them to remove a chapter of the story so that resources can be re-allocated for walking animations).
But, yes, in a way, we're asking them to reprioritize, if that is what needs to reasonably happen. In Pillars 1, we all asked for individual stealth. Before the game was actually coded and built, it was planned. So, A, B, and C were in the plan, none of which were individual stealth. Would we have liked for them to have removed something else and put Individual Stealth into the plan? Yes.
Walking is a naturally lower priority than individual stealth, as it does not have as significant of an impact. Yet the point remains.
Well that's a bad example, as there is a great reason why you need an "at ease" stance and it's gameplay based. Simply put, it's a indicator to show you are locked in / out of combat.
Example: A fight goes poorly, your team is getting beat down, you decide to take the better part of valor. How do you know when you have run far enough away that you escaped combat? Easy: Your characters switch to their "at ease" stance.
It's actually quite an apt example. The out-of-combat stance isn't needed. There are numerous other ways in which to quickly and easily indicate that combat is over: music, icons, HUD-change, etc. Honestly, it's easier to indicate that without a visual character-model change than it is to indicate whether or not your character is moving faster/slower than normal without a visual character model/animation change.
Let's say your main character gets slowed by 15%. How easy is it to tell that you happen to be moving 15% slower across the battlefield when he's just doing his joggy animation, but gliding across the screen slightly less speedily? Same goes for a speed boost.
If you were to simply look at the person and see "Oh, they're running" or "Oh, they're blatantly walking," you'd very quickly know what's going on.
As for the whole "People obviously want to move faster than slower," slow-er than what, exactly? Do they want to move infinitely fast? Or is there a certain amount of speed with which they want to move? Ultimately, that question all comes down to one thing: In any given part of a game like this, does a player want to instantly skip out of there, or does a player want to move at a finite speed through the area? Barring "Oh, I just want to go back to town now," I would assume that a reasonable player wants to move at a finite amount of speed through an area. Do they want to move 1 pixel per hour? Of course not. Do they want to move at the speed of sound, though? Of course not. It has to be somewhere in-between. So "faster" doesn't really mean anything. And how slowly would you expect physically fit characters to walk? They're not sneaking. They're just walking. People walk for exercise, for crying out loud.
Let's look at it one more way. When you see, say, a Lord of the Rings film, and the party is traveling through the woods, are they constantly sprinting at full-speed? Nope. And when they walk for 20 seconds, then crazy stuff happens, do you stop and think "Man... that took way too long. They really should've been moving a wee bit faster through there, maybe a light jog, so that it only took them TEN seconds to get to the fork in the road where they were beset by orcs or some dialogue took place"? Most likely not.
The rate at which a player becomes bored watching his characters move through an area has a lot more to do with the pacing of the area and dialogue exposition, etc., than it does with how fast the characters are traveling. And instantly intuitive visual cues of "Oh, my characters are hiking through this tough terrain" or "Oh, my characters are charging into battle like there's no tomorrow" would be plentily valuable, objectively so. Going back to what Baltic was getting at... am I to decide it's relatively MORE important than any of the other stuff they have planned? Of course not. That's not for me to decide. But, is it a pointless request/topic for discussion? Hardly. Nor was my example a bad one for its goal.
Oh, and @gogocactus: Thanks. . I missed you guys, too. I finally have computer time on a regular basis once more, so I figured I'd drop in on some high-quality discussification.
Edited by Lephys, 12 September 2017 - 11:31 AM.