Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think anyone here is arguing that spell-casters should be wimps or unusefull on the battlefield. Just that they shouldn't be orders of magnitude more usefull then any other class.
IMO D&D (Pathfinder) has ALWAYS had balance issues in regards magic users versus non-magic using classes. These inbalances were particulary noticable at the high and low end of the level spectrums. At the low end of the spectrum, magic users were not very survivable, nor could they contribute much to many combats simply because they were severely limited in the number of spells they could cast before they were done. At the higher levels they became INSANELY powerfull because of the nature of some of the higher level spells they had access to.
In a PnP campaign, although not ideal, the situation wasn't generaly a game breaker because the players weren't playing against each other and the game environment that they were competing against was being moderated by a human game master. The game master could tailor the content the players faced was an appropriate challenge for the party. They could design a scenario so that the 1 magic missle spell or detect magic spell that a low level wizard could cast actualy was important to the situation and they could design content so that the Wizard couldn't instantly teleport or fly or WISH the party out of every jam they got into. A good GM designed foils for certain types of abilities so that the party couldn't use 1 spell or one routiene strategy as a blanket solution to every encounter. He forced them to think instead.
When switching format to PFO all that goes out the window. Certain spells (and other abilities) just wont translate very well to this type of format. GW did the sensible thing by stating up front that they won't be using the mechanics of the PnP ruleset for PFO. We are just going to have to understand that as players. They are not, I'm sure, out to nerf anybody just for the sake of nerfing. They are just simply puting together a design that will work for this type of game....and that means that certain abilities just won't work the same way they do in the PnP Ruleset.
The other thing to remember about Wizards/Magic from the PnP ruleset is that they are SEVERELY limited in the number of higher level spells they can cast per DAY. In fact, that is one of the BIG balancing factors in the PnP Ruleset for casters. Ok, you pulled out your big artillery to squash everything in this encounter with a couple spells.... now what are you going to do for the next FIVE encounters your party is going to run into before you get your spells back?
In PFO, do you want to cast 1 fireball spell and then WAIT 8 HOURS real-time before you get your spells back before you can use it again?
Because that's the other thing mechanicaly that balances out casters.... they can be insanely powerfull for about 2 minutes a day...and they spend the rest of the day doing pretty much nothing but waiting for thier next 2 minutes of glory. I don't think that's a recipie for a good MMO format.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The real problem with spellcasters is their spell-completion items. If we let wands of fireball into the game, and we don't address the issues it creates for formations, there won't be any formations.
But as I've mentioned before, after 10,000 years of history, wands of fireball would be thoroughly countered as a battlefield tactic, else the world's backstory would make no sense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Foot soldiers charging a body of ranged weapons never works - not in DnD, not in the real world (note - this assumes the ranged people have an ounce of common sense lol).
With all due respect, that's not historicaly accurate. Depending upon the exact era, the weapons and armor involved, the tactics and the situation on te battlefield....melee combat could indeed be dominant on the battle-field.
It was, in fact, an important element in mass combat right up into the Civil-War. It's why the bayonet and the officers sword were still standard issue in the age of muskets.
On the ancient battle-field, ranged weapons were generaly seen as more of a "harrasment" factor and it was usualy melee troops, fighting in formation that decided the battle.
The "Shield Wall" was THE dominant battle-field tactic for centuries during the late Dark Ages and Early Middle Ages. It was eventualy overcome not by archery but by the massed heavy cavalry charge (e.g Norman Cavalry).
Things to consider...Ranged weapons were not always very effective at penetrating armor at range (projectile weapons loose power over distance due to air resistance). A shortbow with a 30-40lb pull isn't going to do much against a suit of heavy chain let alone plate. The more powerfull ones had a slow rate of fire which allowed an enemy to close distance rapidly. Shields or Pavis's provided foot-soldiers with additional protection. Accuracy over distance was also very poor. You didn't really aim at targets much beyond 40 yds....you aimed at an area and hoped by chance you hit something that was in the general vacinity.
This means you only inflicted significant casualties by putting massive volumes of fire into a single area. That's why European Armies during the AGE of muskets taught thier soldiers purposefully NOT to aim. Because the decrease in speed of firing wasn't offset by the increase in accuracy.
Then you start to consider environmental factors... forests or other thick terrain, cover. Fog, high winds, rain/frost (wet bowstrings or worse yet, wet poweder)..... all these could play havoc on missle troops.
That is not to say that ranged troops didn't have an important role on the battlefield. But it is not until relatively modern times and modern fire-arms that they became universaly dominant on the battle-field.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The real problem with spellcasters is their spell-completion items. If we let wands of fireball into the game, and we don't address the issues it creates for formations, there won't be any formations.
But as I've mentioned before, after 10,000 years of history, wands of fireball would be thoroughly countered as a battlefield tactic, else the world's backstory would make no sense.
Keep in mind that humans overwhelmed the ancient elven nation into retreat to another planet by sheer numbers mixed with low birthrates for elves at a time where humans were still largely separated into tribal societies. This is canon. Surely, those elves had a few level 20 casters to go around.
So, there is at least one documented case where primitive societies have taken down well-developed, advanced societies within the lore of the game.
Also, the inherently unbalancing act of making a game carries risks that break the in-game feel. Heroes are supposed to be rarities in their world. A level 20 character is typically a one in a million person. When you create a game where you have thousands of level 20s, things are bound to get wonky.
That said, even though PFO won't be going to 20, even level 10s are described as lieutenants and royalty types according to the inner sea world guide. So, you've instead got thousands of high-powered lieutenant types or young royalty persons running about each with the ability to lead armies and/or nations. Again, some weird behavior is to be expected.
That said, I do think a squadron of level 10 casters should be able to obliterate an entire army of low level fighters if not by virtue of their inherent lack of skill then by their inability to purchase expensive magical equipment.
I do think it will be interesting since there are no high level magic casters there will be no high level spells that can outright block magic such as anti-magic field (SL 6, CL 11) or mage's disjunction (SL 9, CL 17). You've got some lesser globe of invulnerability (SL 3, CL 5) going around but that still shouldn't be cheap.
Protection from energy (SL 2, CL 3) is an option but this only protects against a single energy type and would require insanely good intel, active divination or some sort of 'detect magic at range' abilities to know what's going on. It should be noted that those sort of options only come into play at higher levels as well. But, at that point it's too late because the protected energy type is determined at item creation and is not determined by the user of the item.
Very interesting, indeed...
I would suggest rounding up a couple people at Paizo and meshing out at least a rough play-by-play of how exactly humans drove elves from Golarion to get a feel for how that sort of thing can be done. I mean, here you have a long-lived race that has an inherent magical quality who seeks to utterly master what they do and they were beaten back by cave men with sticks and rocks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GW can not only use strategies from ancient warfare but also more modern formations like "wedge" and "diamond" (in which the members purposely keep distance from each other so AoEs will never get more than one of them)...and even combine those with movement strategies like "bounding over watch". Since these formations came from need in a world with AoEs and proliferation of missile weapons, it makes sense Golarions would also use it. But, many conflicts will be low magic/tech so the ancient strategies still have their place too.
Point being, each has its use and a good commander should know when best to employ which formations against which foes. Minimizing damage can come in the form of both mitigation as well as avoidance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would suggest rounding up a couple people at Paizo and meshing out at least a rough play-by-play of how exactly humans drove elves from Golarion to get a feel for how that sort of thing can be done.
I believe that would be the giant meteor that hit the planet, called in by the aboleths?
"Perhaps suspecting that the Earthfall was nigh, the elves departed Golarion through these gates to their mysterious legendary homeland of Sovyrian where they remained in isolation for thousands of years.[1]"
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Elf#Departure_from_Golarion
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Age_of_Darkness
While humans were growing....rocks fall everyone dies is *still* a better gameplay mechanic ;)
I think in translating the PnP to the MMO it's important to note that giving martial characters resistance/avoidance/whatever versus casters is not a caster nerf, it's a martial buff. Judging by the caster/martial threads that crop up periodically, that's what people wish for in the PnP game, and I for one am glad it will be that way in the MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This sounds amazing and could likely pull in my old table top friends that have been scattered across the country. My only concern is the feasibility of staying in formation. In the real world we have an innate awareness of our surroundings via quick glances, sound and just the “feel” of having someone next to you. Formation fighting works largely because of this awareness. Are they planning on having some assistance in maintaining formation? They mention a place indicator, which would help. I am curious to see how this will be handled. Will they include combined AoE affects? e.g. a flight of arrows launched at extreme range by a formation of 50 grunt archers. Will the players join into squads and then have a squad leader set a formation?
Idea: How about a mini formation inset (that can be toggled on & off like a mini map) showing your place in the group, and maybe even a squad location indicator, relative to the rest of an army. How will the work targeting of ranged units that are shooting over they’re protective front line? Or the mage casting spells from the center of a squared phalanx? Will there be a key option (e.g. F1) to make units in your formation translucent?
This concept has amazing potential to bring an entirely new dimension to MMO play, but will it be user friendly enough for the occasional player to actually participate and experience?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think in translating the PnP to the MMO it's important to note that giving martial characters resistance/avoidance/whatever versus casters is not a caster nerf, it's a martial buff. Judging by the caster/martial threads that crop up periodically, that's what people wish for in the PnP game, and I for one am glad it will be that way in the MMO.
I would agree with this whole heartedly and take it one step further, This isn't even a caster/martial comparison, This is a formation vs individual comparison. We have NO details on what a casters role or ability within a formation is. It is fully possible that they have abilities that are stronger/better than lobbing fireballs into the center of a formation.
The idea we have been given, is a comparison of individuals vs formations, and been told more or less that disorganized individuals lobbing any kind of attack at a formation, is more or less the equivelant of kids throwing rocks at a car. This is neither a nerf nor buff to casters or melees, because this isn't a martial vs caster issue, it is a formation vs unorganized issue. 100 disorganized barbarians charging an organized group of soldiers, are also expected to be torn to shreds, but this isn't a barbarian vs fighter issue.
Some reason people are latching into their head that soldier = fighter. This isn't class warfare here guys.
Soldier = person in an army, whether they are fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues etc.... From my understanding within formation people will do what they do, much better. Individuals trying to do what they do, on their own, or in a group that does not utilize war tactics, are unlikely to stop an approaching formation. A formation of soldiers does not directly mean 60% fighters, 20% archers, 10% clerics, 10% wizards. It could very well be any mix of classes one can imagine, and this mix could very much change how a squadron fights.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Resist Energy is a 2nd level spell for Wizards and Sorcerers. Communal Resist Energy is a 3rd level spell for the same.
At the same power level that a Wizard gains Fireball, a trained solider in a leadership role should gain access to a reasonable counter.
What if the counter was the ability to modify the target of abjuration spells to match the soldier's unit? So rather than a unit leader having a direct counter to arcane power, they have the knowledge to employ arcane counter-measures. So if you have a mage in your unit, you have the leadership and tactical proficiency to help them expand their abjuration spells to cover the whole unit, let's say so long as they are co-located?
Like an infantry platoon commander who isn't about personally firing indirect fire or automatic weapons, emplacing obstacles/minefields, etc. but if you give them the asset, they know how and where to employ them.
I would suggest rounding up a couple people at Paizo and meshing out at least a rough play-by-play of how exactly humans drove elves from Golarion to get a feel for how that sort of thing can be done.I believe that would be the giant meteor that hit the planet, called in by the aboleths?
"Perhaps suspecting that the Earthfall was nigh, the elves departed Golarion through these gates to their mysterious legendary homeland of Sovyrian where they remained in isolation for thousands of years.[1]"
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Elf#Departure_from_Golarion
http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Age_of_Darkness
While humans were growing....rocks fall everyone dies is *still* a better gameplay mechanic ;)
Actually the entire quotation about their departure from Elves of Golarion is:
A Brief History of elves
Elven history is so long, even elves sometimes have
trouble distinguishing fact from legend, and some might
ask whether such a distinction is in fact necessary. Before
the Starstonestruck in – 5293 ar, the elves hardly marked
sequential time, noting important events by seasons and
astrological shifts. Yet as the cycles rolled on, their once-green fields and forests darkened. Humans grew more
numerous. Bestial things clawed at the edge of elven
control. This world, for so long an elven paradise, grew
strange and horrific.
The elves fought back, but it was clearly a losing battle.
The humans, with their higher birthrate, could swarm
over the valiant elven warriors though each elf was worth
10 of the younger race. With the imminent cataclysm of
Earthfall urging them to action, the elven leaders made a
decision. From across the world, elves used magical gates
and vast caravans to travel to Kyonin’s capital of Iadara, to
step through a portal into the mysterious realm known as
Sovyrian, whispered to be a distant continent, planet, or
even plane or dimension from which the long-lived race
originally sprang.
Bolded sentence that underpins my statement. As you can tell, the way those sentences are written, the wiki puts their movement entirely on Earthfall but EoG states that's far from the only thing they were dealing with. It was simply a turning point where they chose to preserve as many of themselves as they could before being wiped out and not the main focus on that era.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think in translating the PnP to the MMO it's important to note that giving martial characters resistance/avoidance/whatever versus casters is not a caster nerf, it's a martial buff. Judging by the caster/martial threads that crop up periodically, that's what people wish for in the PnP game, and I for one am glad it will be that way in the MMO.
I would agree with this whole heartedly and take it one step further, This isn't even a caster/martial comparison, This is a formation vs individual comparison. We have NO details on what a casters role or ability within a formation is. It is fully possible that they have abilities that are stronger/better than lobbing fireballs into the center of a formation.
The idea we have been given, is a comparison of individuals vs formations, and been told more or less that disorganized individuals lobbing any kind of attack at a formation, is more or less the equivelant of kids throwing rocks at a car. This is neither a nerf nor buff to casters or melees, because this isn't a martial vs caster issue, it is a formation vs unorganized issue. 100 disorganized barbarians charging an organized group of soldiers, are also expected to be torn to shreds, but this isn't a barbarian vs fighter issue.
Some reason people are latching into their head that soldier = fighter. This isn't class warfare here guys.
Soldier = person in an army, whether they are fighters, wizards, clerics, rogues etc.... From my understanding within formation people will do what they do, much better. Individuals trying to do what they do, on their own, or in a group that does not utilize war tactics, are unlikely to stop an approaching formation. A formation of soldiers does not directly mean 60% fighters, 20% archers, 10% clerics, 10% wizards. It could very well be any mix of classes one can imagine, and this mix could very much change how a squadron fights.
I've noticed a couple of assumptions in the thread:
(1) Formations is antagonistic to individual choice
(2) Magic users act as artillary therefore must make formation based units "sitting ducks" ie AoE nukes.
(3) Magic users will create formations as well.
I think (1) and (2) have been discussed well enough on both sides of what it should be and how it could be (possible).
But a quick question, to my mind a caster is not a formation type of unit, more of a individual or perhaps a cabel of wizards performing a stationary ritual on a hill. Is that at odds, ie will "all" classes be required to be part of units so that battles can be designed at this tactical level (exceptions would just complicated things eg frequencies etc)? Or will magic users as I envisage them in my own mind, be exceptions here?
To add I think the stationary cabal thing DOES relate to heavy mortar/catapults/those french things (trebuchets)!, in fact. I just find it a weird idea that a formation of wizards lines up against a formation of "knights"? And if a wizard is say 1/12 with 11/12 soldiers how would that work, in a given formation?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... will "all" classes be required to be part of units...? Or will magic users... be exceptions...?
My understanding of what Ryan was saying is that a Unit may be composed of any archetypes. Based on which archetypes are present, and in what proportions, the Unit Leader will have different options.
I don't think Magic Users will be treated any differently than any other Archetype.
And if a wizard is say 1/12 with 11/12 soldiers how would that work, in a given formation?
My understanding is that the presence of that one Wizard will give the Unit Leader access to special abilities he would not be able to use if he didn't have any Wizards in his Unit.
Has any feedback been given if usage/day abilities will be pegged by participating in a unit/army?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't recall any specific info on how they're going to handle spells per day, other than this post where Ryan talks about the importance of differentiating Wizards and Sorcerers.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My argument has been against things like declaring marching in a square formation to be magical. The strength in making formations built on world physics is just that - allowing for a nearly full range of individual action, while still requiring coordination. The need to accomplish the same goal, rather than do the same dance.
Training for and properly executing formation maneuvers, however, would be extraordinary. (using the PnP terminology, which will probably not transfer)
Do you disagree that training for a type of situation, and then executing that training, can be extraordinary, and therefore be contrary to strict physics?
It would be amazing if there was a 'battlecam' of some such to watch the entire fight while still being able to keep up with your units formations and orders. You probably wouldn't be able to see the single soldier about to strike at you in this view, but it'd be cool regardless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How does a simple Facing bonus accomplish the goal?
What we hope to create is a system where players naturally re-create a lot of real-world military tactics and strategies.
In the system you describe, a thin line is indistinguishable from a square.
Are you asserting that a square shouldn't be any more effective than a line? If so, you should provide some reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The square... could provide flanking bonuses of its own against enemy breakthrough units.
How does what you've described so far (a simple Facing bonus) provide special bonuses against "breakthrough units"?
Are you asserting that a square shouldn't be any more effective than a line? If so, you should provide some reasons.I am rather curious as to how you came to that conclusion...
Well, I read this:
To enter a formation, you choose to focus on a direction. You gain bonuses on the three directions in front of you, and penalties from the five to your sides and behind.
As saying that you would reduce the system down to a simple Facing bonus. If that's true, then there's no difference between a line and a square for attacks from the front. Yet, in reality, there's a massive difference between a line and a square for attacks from the front.
Now, if you're going to start complicating your "simple" solution by adding additional cases, then I'm going to remind you that this is how systems become costly, which was my original argument.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you have a historical example of melee infantry using the square against melee infantry in open terrain?
Why would I need to provide such an example?
I'm trying to understand your proposal, which you said was simple because all it had to do was track facing. I've presented reasons why it's not that simple, and asked you questions about it, which you've completely ignored.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeriar, that'll teach me to nag you about answering questions :)
How does what you've described so far (a simple Facing bonus) provide special bonuses against "breakthrough units"?I answered, referencing the link Wikipedia cites, that squares often have troops inside of them.
I don't see how your response is an answer - unless perhaps you are saying that the front person in the line can be killed and the unit will still be viable because there is another person behind him with the same facing bonus.
Yet, in reality, there's a massive difference between a line and a square for attacks from the front.
You'll note, that I never said "infantry versus infantry". Those were your words.
However, I think I'm beginning to understand your vision. If I'm correct, you're basically arguing that each individual character can defend better against attacks coming from the direction their facing. As long as they have an ally covering the directions they're not facing, then they're well-protected. If they have a ragged line, then they're less likely to actually have a specific "threat zone" covered than if they have a nice, neat line.
I didn't respond to the counterarguments because I wasn't trying to make any argument about the relative effectiveness of units in formation. I was only trying to understand how your proposal would encourage players to actually use formations without explicitly defining the formation they were using.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Jumping in late- first, assuming that the 'square' and facing system is adapted to a system that uses a grid much smaller than 1/person/point (Each character gains a bonus to a sector and penalty to the complementary sector):
How would such a system encourage different formations, rather than a single 'best' formation with only rare exceptions? When would a turtle formation be superior to a line formation, and when would skirmishing be superior to a column formation?
The square formation broke a cavalry charge better than a line, because it masses fire against a small portion of the enemy, and cavalry didn't have as long a range as musket fire- the square had to attack a smaller area than the line to break a cavalry charge. The square falls to the line formation, however, because the line will form at musket range and fire much larger total volleys at the square. The line breaks to the cavalry charge because only a few soldiers could attack the cavalry before they reach pistol and saber range.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Xeriar: how would your system slow down a line's movement speed, or allow a turtle formation to even exist? I can imagine a magical or extraordinary shield formation breaking catapult, ballista, or even cannonball fire. Modern artillery, somewhat less so, but modern artillery rewrote all the rules of battle when it was introduced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where's that dead horse stick? lol.. Here it is :)
So I went back and re-read the 'fireball' description. Very interesting. So interesting, it needs sharing in full.
A fireball spell generates a searing explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 10d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure.
You point your finger and determine the range (distance and height) at which the fireball is to burst. A glowing, pea-sized bead streaks from the pointing digit and, unless it impacts upon a material body or solid barrier prior to attaining the prescribed range, blossoms into the fireball at that point. An early impact results in an early detonation. If you attempt to send the bead through a narrow passage, such as through an arrow slit, you must "hit" the opening with a ranged touch attack, or else the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Two things are very striking about the description. One is that the fireball creates no pressure - which means it's not really like modern artillery. Thats interesting, but not the most interesting thing.
The most interesting thing is that a fireball can be interrupted, mid-air, if it comes into contact with something. That something need only be "a material body" - an arrow for example. (some of you can already see where this is heading.. let the INT 6 people catch up though) In light of that (and the fact that a natural 20 is a hit regardless of the difficulty) it becomes apparent that the way to defeat an incoming fireball is to shoot a whole mess of arrows at it.
In terms of game mechanics, what this can mean is that a 'soldier' learns how to do intercept a fireball with an arrow - i.e. can make an attack of opportunity to prematurely detonate it. You can make the attack as hard as you like - there's always going to be a minimum 5% chance to hit (1 in 20). This, btw, actually encourages massing your troops because given enough people somebody is going to hit it.
I suspect that it scales down nicely to the party level too. Gary the soldier can try to hit the fireball by himself. And he might get lucky (5% of the time).
The only change / tweak you have to make to the ruleset is to make hitting a fireball an attack of opportunity. I can see armies training to do this, btw. It's low cost (you lose an arrow) compared to the cost of commissioning a wand or retaining a spell caster. It's much better than the turtle idea if you have the men to employ it.
That's how I see armies working around the fireball, anyway.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Where's that dead horse stick? lol.. Here it is :)
Two things are very striking about the description. One is that the fireball creates no pressure - which means it's not really like modern artillery. Thats interesting, but not the most interesting thing.
The most interesting thing is that a fireball can be interrupted, mid-air, if it comes into contact with something. That something need only be "a material body" - an arrow for example. (some of you can already see where this is heading.. let the INT 6 people catch up though) In light of that (and the fact that a natural 20 is a hit regardless of the difficulty) it becomes apparent that the way to defeat...
Is to have a large group of people shoot the fireball in midair, as opposed to shooting the caster?
Shooting the caster also has the benefit of stopping Lightning Bolt, Sleep, Mass Command, and other spells.
I suspect that Rock to Mud will be a staple of formation combat, even if the save-or-die nature of dispelling the effect while people are in it is reduced.
So, here's a question: in mass-combat, is there any creative, critical or original thinking the regular soldiers need to do? Will they EVER have to come up with what they're going to on their own, or HOW they're going to fulfill an order? Will they EVER be told "damage the opponent!" and then choose if they want to do a ranged attack or a spell and if so which spell, or will there simply be a "follows order" or "doesn't follow order" mark?
Because I think if you give the individual units more ability to have actual input, it would take away a lot from the "monotony" by keeping things interesting and dynamic, make the players feel like they're doing more than just pressing the "obey order" button, AND maintain the "rhythm" requirement to stay in cohesion.
FOR EXAMPLE: Let's say the commander says "attack within 5 seconds." There's two ways I can see this going down:
1) The squad has 5 seconds to enter in the DDR sequence to properly "attack." If they all do it within 5 seconds, they are in cohesion. If they do not, they aren't. This is the current way mass-combat has been described.
2) The squad has 5 seconds to, as individuals, each come up with their own way of fulfilling the order. Two fighters swipe their swords, one ranger does too, another ranger shoots from his longbow, and one mage casts fireball while another casts magic missile. If each squad member completes his or her own, individually chosen "attack" option within the specified time frame, the unit is in cohesion. If the members are off on time or if one of the units chooses to take a defensive action or cast a buff spell instead of attack, then the members are NOT in cohesion. This is what I think would solve a few weak points presented by the current plan, while maintaining the current plans strengths.
Personally, it just seems to me that option #2 would keep mass combat far more interesting, exciting, and dynamic. It would also certainly add more potential for variety in encounters. AND, it takes away the "monotony" problem - it's not just a bunch of players being in DDR step together, but it's a bunch of players who need to be in sync with each other BUT still have the autonomy to decide how they stay in sync. So it transforms from a "follow orders mini-game" into a "follow orders" sub-style within the mechanics of the "regular" game."
ON A RELATED NOTE: My example also brings back another issue I'm still as of yet unclear about: how varied can a squad's orders be? Does it have to be all or nothing, aka "attack!" or "defend!" or whatever? Or can I create synergy within my own squad by giving more complex arrows IE, "mages: cast true strike on the archers in 5 seconds. Archers, shoot your arrows in 7 seconds."
Because if you give commanders the ability to structure orders dynamically like that, that too would help vastly broaden the levels of strategy and player interaction. And especially if you pair that with giving players in squads autonomy - basically you've just exponentially grown the metagame. There are immediately dozens and dozens (if not HUNDREDS, depending on the scale of the battle) of more possible strategies and counter-strategies in mass combat, the direction of battles will be able to shift much more rapidly and require much more attention and focus from all parties involved, AND commanders get the ability to come up with and draw from a significantly wider array of tactical choices!
I'd love to get some thoughts on both of these ideas (#1 giving players some autonomy within formation for how to follow orders, #2 giving commanders the ability to issue complex orders) from everyone, but especially the devs. If you agree, cool! ... How come? If you disagree, okay; why?
So that people MIGHT actually give half a thought towards reading my input, here is a concise summary of the above.
1) Don't assume "monotony" is the only way to acheive what you want! You can have the same style of combat WITHOUT montony! Give the members of a formation the ability to make specific choices, not just "obey order" or "don't obey order." FOR INSTANCE, have the commander give the order "ATTACK!" but let the players choose if they want to swing their swords, shoot their bows, cast one spell or another, and so on! This way, individual combatants aren't just doing "DDR" but actually get to make choices! There's no need for monotony!
***SUMMARY OF POINT 1:*** Give players autonomy! By letting them have some degree of choice, you remove the "monotony" without taking away from the priority of working together as a cohesive unit!
2) Mass combat metagame and strategy will be far more interesting if you 1) allow the existence of complex squads (instead of just fighters, rangers, spellcasters, let commanders mix and match!) and 2) allow the issuance of complex orders. So instead of just "attack," and "defend," let commanders say "CASTERS, buff the archers in 5 seconds! ARCHERS, fire your arrows in 7 seconds!" This method allows for HUNDREDS of battlefield choices, which would allow players to invent an incredible amount of strategies, to the point where players are actually CREATING strategies, and not just using whichever new formation they unlocked with their new skill points in leadership.
***SUMMARY OF POINT 2:*** If you give commanders dynamic order capabilities, the game becomes EXPONENTIALLY more interesting.
OVERALL SUMMARY: Mass combat can do what you want it to do, AND it doesn't have to be monotonous, AND it can be molded in such a way as to exponentially increase the number of options and thus significantly increase the amount of meaningful, unique, and interesting player interactions.
Triggering the fireball to explode in the mid-air idea from the PHB sounds better than magical resistance. Even when the troop didn't hit it, the fireball will probably hit the front formation and cause explosions there instead of destination the caster planned to. Rock thrower would probably do better intercepting a fireball than an archer. Setting obstacles in front of army would also help its defense.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The reason why magic-users aka ranged DDs are seen as superior in open field mass combat in classic MMO is because these mass combats all happened in the same way:
Two lines forming at max missile/spell range with in-duh-vi-duh-als poking forward a few steps, furiously mashing the "next target" key to maybe loose a spell/missile, and retreat.
Repeat ad nauseum.
The reason for this wasn't that ranged combat was so awesome, but because there was no leadership.
In the few cases where a significant proportion of players on one side listened to a leader and f.i. charged in unison, they broke the unorganized opponent line easily.
What armies do is to ingraine this leadership aspect into the very game instead of subsidizing it to Teamspeak, even adding some additional benefits via leadership abilities.
I am all for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeriar,
Your ideas definately have some merit but I expect they are simply going to be too resource intensive for whatever game engine GW decided to use to impliment on a mass scale. It could probably handle the facing bonus thing fairly well...but anything more complex then that, I doubt.
For example in the Tetsudo formation example you used. In your model, the game would have to approximate pretty much a full physics engine as it would have to track the angle the shield was placed at and the exact trajectory of an incoming missle to determine if it struck the shield or not.
Under the system Ryan described, it would simply have to determine that the player was occupying a slot in the formation (i.e. position relative to other players, something the engine has to track anyway to do rendering) and that the player had pressed the "Tetsudo Formation" button.
What Ryan described already sounds pretty darn ambitious in terms of resources and programming but clearly GW feels they can pull it off and I applaud them for attempting something truely innovative that takes MMO combat "to the next level". What you are proposing, while I would actualy prefer it as a player, I think is just asking them to go a bridge too far in terms of actualy building into the game. I could be wrong about that, but that's what my intuition is telling me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... will be a disaster for PvP players.The only way I see it being a disaster is by taking away the benefit of the experience they've already gained in other MMOs. They'll have to adapt to a new system.
Other than that, I don't really see it.
Yeah, the ideas put forward here in this dev diary SCREAM teamwork. It may even have me intrigued to play in some PvP battles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The easy answer to your question is "units in formation are highly resistant to magical attacks".
The more complex answer to your question is "when subjected to a magical attack, a unit may have to perform a cohesive action to degrade the impact of a magical effect, and the amount of that reduction is a function of leadership, unit ability, and player skill."
A functional answer to that question is "if a wizard shows up on a battlefield against cohesive units, the wizard won't last long enough to do much damage". And when acting as a part of a unit, wizards won't have the ability to cast independent spells as if they were acting alone - they'll be taking cohesive actions along with the other characters in the unit, and by their presence in the unit affecting what kinds of actions that unit may be able to take - based on the abilities of the other characters, the unit's leadership, and the skill of the players.
I read this and think of formations like the Roman Testudo. Then I think of a wizard. Then I add the two and get a fantasy version of a TANK! Lower the shields cast fireballs, rays, burning hands, or one of a hundred other things safely behind a walls of tower shields. /glee, thank you Ryan, thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rather than add the basic physics to make formations an emergent feature...
That is why I think your proposal would be unimaginably expensive, and probably never come to fruition.
If I'm wrong, then you could make a fortune coding a game engine that had such a through implementation of basic physics, and I wish you the best of luck making that a reality.