Goblin Squad Member
|
In every PFRPG game I have played in since PF came out there have been friendly fire incidents, almost every one was a result of an archer firing into melee without the proper feats. They took a -4 to hit, and rolled a 1, a fumble. Many times they missed hitting either the foe or the ally, but not always. After the right the archer would sheepishly apologize, the wounded party member got healed and the archer bought a round of drinks next time we hit a tavern (or gave a part of his/her treasure share to the injured party member).
Perhaps it is because we always use miniatures (I am a painter and every campaign I have been in, including the current 4 I game in, all have had at least one or more other painters as well), so as a Wizard I didn't hit party members with AOE spells since I targeted the spells to keep party members out of the blast/burst radius. If I couldn't, I used a different spell, saving the bigger one for a more opportune moment.
Point is FF does happen in PnP games, and should happen in PfO. If you fire missile weapons or spells into melee, be prepared to apologize and make amends. Accidents happen, but by the same token if you keep doing it, expect your friends to be looting your husk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
'It is only a game' ignores the fact that every hunting creature including man learns behaviors through play. It is what we do, and what we have always done. Cats do it. Dogs do it. Every hunter learns by playing.
If you let children play, or frankly some adults, and they grow used to the idea that it is their weapon's job to sort out the good guys from the bad guys, then you are potentially contributing to a great tragedy.
Teach responsibility. Teach responsibly.
This is a MMO that has only the most tenuous relationship to reality. It is not a shooting simulator where you actually hold a rifle controller and take aim at your target. It is going to be an avatar on screen taking a 3rd person view of making hand-wavey motions and there will be a boom. If someone can't tell the difference between a MMO fantasy environment and real life, then there is a serious mental problem and they need to be hospitalized. It is the responsibility of parents to teach people the difference between fantasy and reality, and to seek medical help if they fail.
It is not the responsibility of a fantasy game to do so.
|
Goblinworks Lead Game Designer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Long and short of it is we don't know. Until we get a working combat model we're not sure how the annoying vs. fun factor will be. There are a lot of issues with location in a multiplayer environment that have to be carefully worked out, since anything that is an AOE involves some amount of negotiation between server and client as to where people actually are when these attacks go off.
We are looking at being tab targeting being the primary targeting method, and classifying targets as friend vs neutral vs hostile based on a number of inputs (active wars, flags, reputation, etc), so you won't be able to attack targets marked as friendly on accident. So single target friendly fire, i.e. stabbing your group mate in the back, is not likely.
AOEs will be targeted at specific characters and then spread out from there. How that will work in terms of friendly fire is up in the air.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course it isn't the responsibility of the game. It is our responsibility as players to ensure than nothing we do or encourage to be done will contribute in any way to the avoidable death, especially of a child.
These games cannot rightly be held responsible for what that young man did in Connecticut, but at the same time I cannot in good conscience believe that our games might not have had an influence either. Even a slight chance should be cause for sober reflection.
Is there something we could do to encourage gun safety?
Maybe it is more important to use the opportunity to teach people to be responsible for the application of their powers instead of protecting them from their own foolishness?
Somebody said, to paraphrase: "Protecting the world from foolishness results in a world filled with fools."
Let's deal with the downsides if we have to, but if it means even one child learns to handle power responsibly it will have been a net gain.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
AOEs will be targeted at specific characters and then spread out from there. How that will work in terms of friendly fire is up in the air.
As previously, I'd be happy with that being the extent of FF possibly because it could be communicated: "That character with the dark robes: Nuke in 5!"?
@Being: Ok, I was wondering where you were coming from (or going to!); you're saying there's some good reasons sometimes for keeping it "raw": Hardship can lead to stronger responsibility?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know magic isn't the only thing that has issues with FF. Assuming they implement a weapon doing damage to everything in its path, weapons will have the same problem. Especially two-handed weapons. I mean a two-handed weapon isn't very melee group friendly. Although it does allow for some interesting tactics. You can have your two-hander swinging away hitting multiple targets while your rogue is jumping in and out of the two-hander's weapon range picking off the targets from behind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AOEs will be targeted at specific characters and then spread out from there. How that will work in terms of friendly fire is up in the air.
Will AoEs that are barriers also require an enemy to cast? For example, can someone cast Blade Barrier as a deterrent or do they have to actually have an enemy tab-targeted to cast the spell? Having the option to switch to a targeting reticule to target a patch of ground would be very nice instead being forced to cast a individual target and spread from there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
@Being: Ok, I was wondering where you were coming from (or going to!); you're saying there's some good reasons sometimes for keeping it "raw": Hardship can lead to stronger responsibility?
It can. It has worked for soldiers to train as if it were. But that wasn't exactly where I was headed.
Hunting creatures learn to hunt by playing, and one of the many things human beings are is hunters. Given that, and we know people are playing online games, then are we learning anything in this play and if so, what is that? What does it look like? More to the point what could it look like taken to any logical extreme.
Undertand many things you might come up with might be scary one way or another. But there are people walking around who are very extreme people.
If I have an opportunity to either
Which is the more rational and responsible course for me to take?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
After more thought, I would like to make one more point in response to your argument, Being. We are adults here for entertainment purposes. Children shouldn't be playing without parental approval, and there are game ratings for a reason. It isn't the purpose of goblinworks to make the game a platform for education on accepting responsibility beyond the context of the rules of the PVP flags and reputation/alignment system.
The core tenets of the gameplay has us murdering one another regularly and has us constantly returning from the dead once we are killed. In the face of that disconnect from the realities of life and death, lack of friendly fire is inconsequential if you are trying to educate through gameplay.
Will AoEs that are barriers also require an enemy to cast? For example, can someone cast Blade Barrier as a deterrent or do they have to actually have an enemy tab-targeted to cast the spell? Having the option to switch to a targeting reticule to target a patch of ground would be very nice instead being forced to cast a individual target and spread from there.
AOEs will be targeted at specific characters and then spread out from there. How that will work in terms of friendly fire is up in the air.
I would like the option for any AoEs to target open ground as well as enemies, for tactical reasons, especially PvP confrontations and settlement defense.
As far as FF from a moral standpoint, I don't see how making people responsible for their actions can ever be a bad thing. Bringing thought back to multiplayer games is a good thing that GW is already doing with many things they are adding to PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ground targetting would help the Wizard greatly where the canny opposition spotted the possibility of fireball so they press into melee in an attempt to render the fireball useless or damaging to friendlies as well.
A tactic that would be rendered pointless were there no FF to worry over. Then you could just nuke the biggest scrum and let the magic sort them out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Being et. al.: I think that it is unreasonable to expect or assume that: 1) the game can prevent anyone from using it to reinforce their own psychosis, 2) there will not be children playing regardless of legal verbiage, or 3) that there will not be adults playing that have the maturity and emotional capacity of a 2-year old. I think (as @Being alluded) that as responsible people we need to play responsibly. I believe that it is true that humans learn to hunt by play. I also believe that humans learn by example. What examples will we be in POL?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my evaluation it is beyond question that FF should be enabled.Why?As I said earlier in this thread:
- Providing people with power without an entailing responsibility for the consequences is not just deceitful, it is irresponsible.
- If you have a weapon ensure it does not damage your ally.
- It isn't a good thing when some big kid takes his AR-15 into a kindergarten class and starts shooting little kids. I would be the last to argue that games cause violence, but I would also very much urge that we avoid even the possibility that our beloved games are contributing to such incidents because they teach us through repetition that there is no need to check your fire.
- If we apply some simple self-control we avoid the possibility of additional regulation. Can we not just apply a little bit of common sense?
- Defend Liberty: Be Responsible.
Oh. I saw that before and wondered what the hell it had to do with PFO.
Honestly, I still am.This reminds me of that scene in RoboCop 2 when the PTA was consulted on what directives Robocop should have. It ended up crippling him to the point that he could not do his job, and he risked his own death, electrocuting himself when he grabbed a junction box just to undo the code. See, it's not Robocop's job to be nice, get people to quit smoking or lecture about the evils of global warming, it's to enforce the law.
PFO is not a learning tool for adults. It's a game. You want an educational game, buy a Leapfrog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the annoying vs. fun factor...
Thanks for pointing out that the top priority here is to make the game more fun, not anything else.
We are looking at being tab targeting being the primary targeting method,
mmkay... there was this long 'anti-tab-targeting' thread, but I assume you are aware of those arguments and bring them into the full view.
..so you won't be able to attack targets marked as friendly on accident.
extremely clear!
AOEs will be targeted at specific characters and then spread out from there. How that will work in terms of friendly fire is up in the air.
so, the discussion here should focus on that point, then
p.s: AoE centered on specific characters seems like a boost to stealth. Correct?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Teach responsibility. Teach responsibly.
The only thing Friendly Fire in a game teaches you, is that AoE spells are going to be more useless than the designers expected, and that single-target spells will be king.
Why even spend the development resources on AoE spell effects, if you're going to render them so situational? Just save yourself the headache and only include single-target spells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teach responsibility. Teach responsibly.The only thing Friendly Fire in a game teaches you, is that AoE spells are going to be more useless than the designers expected, and that single-target spells will be king.
Why even spend the development resources on AoE spell effects, if you're going to render them so situational? Just save yourself the headache and only include single-target spells.
In massed formation combat you can use ranged AOE on the second and third ranks of the enemy line.
Unfortunately I can't say I am surprised that some of us reject inconvenient responsibiities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's isn't about RL responsibility for me, it's about fun vs annoyance. While FF absolutely does add a meaningful role in tactical combat, it will be abused by griefers in the ways I have previously outlined.
The increased fun by needing to be absolutely sure where an aoe is placed, making sure not allies are in the arc of your greatsword, or when firing a bow into a melee if far outweighed by the annoyance of griefers who will intentionally attack teammates or cause themselves to be attacked by a teammate to abuse reputation penalties for friendly fire.
Again, we are already rejecting the inconvenient reality of death in order to make the game playable. Rejecting friendly fire in order to keep the game fun is no different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imbicatus for what little it is worth I recognize that you have given serious thought to what I feel is a serious matter and I appreciate your sense of responsibility and the thought others who have not chosen to speak have given it.
It is one thing to consider the case, evaluate its merits, and choose a position based on reasoning.
It is a very different thing to only deny it is an issue. Those children ... well, I couldn't say nothing.
It's isn't about RL responsibility for me, it's about fun vs annoyance. While FF absolutely does add a meaningful role in tactical combat, it will be abused by griefers in the ways I have previously outlined.
The increased fun by needing to be absolutely sure where an aoe is placed, making sure not allies are in the arc of your greatsword, or when firing a bow into a melee if far outweighed by the annoyance of griefers who will intentionally attack teammates or cause themselves to be attacked by a teammate to abuse reputation penalties for friendly fire.
Again, we are already rejecting the inconvenient reality of death in order to make the game playable. Rejecting friendly fire in order to keep the game fun is no different.
To be honest I don't recall seeing where GW plans to add a reputation hit, or option to alter someone's reputation simply for scoring a hit on a "friendly". If this has been mentioned I would appreciate being pointed in the direction of the post or blog entry. Certainly if someone is killed a reputation change will be possible. Furthermore I believe there needs to be some way to "hit" the reputation of player that repeatedly strikes friendlies during battle.
Ryan initially described the reputation system like Ebays buyer/seller ratings. Actions that will allow a player to "score" another's action on the reputation screen are; transactions both buying and selling. Aspects of the contract system. Actions that result in a players death, among these are PvP, healing, buffing another player who is in combat with a player (that results in the players death?). I'm fairly sure that certain actions like destruction or assaulting constructs within a settled hex will result in some form of reputation hit.
(I know I'm missing some things, but at the moment I can't recall what they are)
I've seen numerous posts that mention reputation changes that I can't recall have ever been discussed by GW, making me question where they got the information and if they are just guessing. I think it would be a good thing to try and iron out what actions will and won't effect a players reputation so we will all be on the same page with what the Devs intend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're right, there haven't been any dev posts saying that there will be Reputation hits for Friendly Fire, (and the last dev post in the thread suggests there may not be FF at all), but everyone that is pro friendly fire seems to want there to be an option for there to be some kind of way to penalize the people who do engage in it. The most logical way to do that is through reputation loss. I was just pointing out if that was in place, it will be abused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also agree that there has been no implication of rep hits on friendly fire. At least not in a non-fatal hit. You might get an attacker flag, but as far as I know, there's no direct rep loss for just attacker. That being said, working around stealth etc... could be a bit of a challange for the developers. Stealthed or invisible characters would have to be exempt from causing flags of any sort while stealthed.
Friendly fire is on the fence, and I agree with GW, it could be good or bad, depending on the greater depth of the combat system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would assume, since the default position any player will have toward another is "potential enemy", if you accidentally hit a friendly player, you'd still get an attacker flag. If you died in the course of that battle, you'd also pay the loot penalties for being an attacker.
As to the using power responsibly angle...
If my fighter character had the hit points (or reflex saves) to survive a fireball or two, but my enemies could not, I'd ask the mage to drop them on me, eating the damage to kill the enemy.
What does that teach?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to the using power responsibly angle...
If my fighter character had the hit points (or reflex saves) to survive a fireball or two, but my enemies could not, I'd ask the mage to drop them on me, eating the damage to kill the enemy.What does that teach?
Did this all the time on my PnP monk. Spell Resistance + Improved Evasion + Ridiculously high reflex saves + self heals if I roll a one on the save = fireballs are non-threats.
I would agree that while a "fun" game can be made out of FF mechanics and situational use of skills, ask yourself if PFO is that game. Personally, I don't see that it is.
MS Flight Simulator was a really popular game franchise. However, I wouldn't advocate for their plane sim gameplay to be included in a game like Battlefield 1942/2/3/etc.
It's one thing if everyone playing the game is playing it for that aspect. But to expect MMO players to play by 'real-life tactical simulator rules' doesn't really work. Like mentioned before, players will still just use single target abilities. AoE volley on the ranks in the back? What group of gamers would assemble in such a manner, knowing they are opening themselves up to the most devastating AoEs that will wipe them all out? Great in theory, but terrible in practice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I can predict my enemy's tactics I can win the battle. If I know that my enemy will press forward into Melee and not use formations in rank and file then I know my enemy's tactic, and if they surprise me and use rank and file I still have that fireball.
Without FF=On I can less predict his tactics. He might choose keep his light troops as archers back in the trees firing on me where they would have been less likely to do so knowing I could lightning storm them equally well if they close or stay ranged.
With FF=On he will instead reliably use his lights to maneuver and turn my flank close in order to negate my ranged strength.
It improves, rather than weakens, play to make consequences count.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I can predict my enemy's tactics I can win the battle. If I know that my enemy will press forward into Melee and not use formations in rank and file then I know my enemy's tactic, and if they surprise me and use rank and file I still have that fireball.
Without FF=On I can less predict his tactics. He might choose keep his light troops as archers back in the trees firing on me where they would have been less likely to do so knowing I could lightning storm them equally well if they close or stay ranged.
With FF=On he will instead reliably use his lights to maneuver and turn my flank close in order to negate my ranged strength.
It improves, rather than weakens, play to make consequences count.
Still, you're talking about a scenario where you are orchestrating and executing the movements and ability usage of several units, against an opponent who does the same. If we're talking about a 50 vs 50 battle in PFO, we're talking about 100 individual players, controlling 100 interdependently trained, geared and positioned characters. And all these players have their own mind and opinion of tactic and strategy.
I'm exceptionally inclined to believe that the battle would play out in no way similar to what you have described. The more people involved, the less organized a group will be. Again, you describe a game where everyone involved plays the same way you do. Shares the same view for tactic you do. It doesn't actually happen because it's based on the notion that everyone is playing the game the same way you do.
On paper everything you describe sounds like a really cool game to play. But for that game to work, requires everyone who PvPs to be playing that game for that reason. So far PFO doesn't sound like it's aimed at the tactical-realism-sim demographic.
I'll give a very specific example: Back in 2005 (or so), I played the hell out of a game called Battlefield 2. BF2 had a vote kick mechanic to allow you punish/remove players who were disruptive to the team. The game featured Friendly Fire as part of the combat mechanics, and do you want to guess what ACTUALLY happened in REAL gameplay scenarios? IDIOTS would die from their own stupidity, and the innocent player would suffer the consequences for it. Commanders would call down an artillery-strike on a zone that had half a dozen enemies. There would be a voice com to all teammates that artillery was in bound. There was a HUGE red indicator on the minimap that said "HEY, DON'T ENTER THIS SPACE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU WILL DIE!"... and what happened? Johnny Clueless would walk into it, see he was killed by FF and punish his teammate. Worked the same way for land mines. Place mines outside of an enemy base, your teammate drives a loaded Jeep into their base, over the mines (despite the skull and cross bones on the HUD), die, and punish for TKx4. Blow up a tank with a rocket; tank explodes, teammate next to the tank dies from the explosion - TK. Punish.
While it seemed really great in concept, the way it actually played itself out in game was drastically different. You can't ever account for the lemmings who just aren't even playing the same game as you in their mind. And the really depressing thing is; there's going to be more of them than you in an MMORPG. Just look at everyone on these forums; everyone has a unique opinion of PvE/PvP/mounts/flight/trade/ganks/FF/crafting/politics/alignment/etc.
For FF to work in the manner you describe Being, everyone has got to be on the same page. I don't want what you describe - not because I think it wouldn't be fun. But because I don't think it would work with the majority of players, and the experience would be ruined.
But it would be neat to play one day :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personaly like and support the concept of Friendly Fire, but alot of the practicality of it is going to depend on the possible engagement ranges supported by the combat engine along with the movement speeds of characters.
If combat engagements are possible at long ranges, say a couple hundred yards (example WWII Online), and movement speeds are realisticaly slow.....then FF is entirely practical. If you aren't being an irresponsible idiot, then you are very selective in your use of AOE attacks...you only cast them while the enemy is at long range and closing in the opening phases of the engagement... you hold off and switch to direct fire attacks once there is a possibility that any of your allies are close enough to be subject to getting hit.
If that isn't the case, and the combat engine only supports maximum engagement ranges are absurdly close, along with unrealisticly fast movement rates (as is the case in most MMO's) then they may want to avoid implimentation of FF, as such attacks will almost never be practical to use.
What they DEFINATELY want to do is make sure that there is NEVER always 1 or 2 "best" attacks that the character almost always uses regardless of the combat situation, because they simply do the most damage all the time. That really kills tactical depth.
One thing they COULD look to as a compromise solution is a "pseudo" Freindly-Fire mechanic. That is FF that didn't actualy do damage to freindly characters but imposed certain conditions or debuffs that made it very difficult for freindly characters to operate while under.
The afforementioned WWII Online had such a system FF (HE shells) wouldn't do any direct damage to you but it would shake your screen very badly making it impossible to aim effectively (and in that game you really needed to aim) it was also loud as heck making it impossible to hear anything else around you and would often kick up dust or smoke that really cut down on your visability. In other words, it didn't actualy damage you but it supressed you to the point you really weren't very effective at all at fighting while under it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@clynx Have you read all the blogs? You may be very happy to read the one about massive battles and unit combat with formations, You're in the Army Now!
The possibility of accidental FF would almost be a game breaker for me, and I imagine a lot of other Oceanic players. I typically play most MMOs with a minimum of 250ms lag and up to 500ms could still be considered normal. Accidental FF would represent a huge handicap for higher latency players. If there was a toggle as suggested earlier that would work for us. AoE could be treated differently to focused attacks presumably...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I can predict my enemy's tactics I can win the battle. If I know that my enemy will press forward into Melee and not use formations in rank and file then I know my enemy's tactic, and if they surprise me and use rank and file I still have that fireball.
Without FF=On I can less predict his tactics. He might choose keep his light troops as archers back in the trees firing on me where they would have been less likely to do so knowing I could lightning storm them equally well if they close or stay ranged.
With FF=On he will instead reliably use his lights to maneuver and turn my flank close in order to negate my ranged strength.
It improves, rather than weakens, play to make consequences count.
Still, you're talking about a scenario where you are orchestrating and executing the movements and ability usage of several units, against an opponent who does the same. If we're talking about a 50 vs 50 battle in PFO, we're talking about 100 individual players, controlling 100 interdependently trained, geared and positioned characters. And all these players have their own mind and opinion of tactic and strategy.
I'm exceptionally inclined to believe that the battle would play out in no way similar to what you have described. The more people involved, the less organized a group will be. Again, you describe a game where everyone involved plays the same way you do. Shares the same view for tactic you do. It doesn't actually happen because it's based on the notion that everyone is playing the game the same way you do.
On paper everything you describe sounds like a really cool game to play. But for that game to work, requires everyone who PvPs to be playing that game for that reason. So far PFO doesn't sound like it's aimed at the tactical-realism-sim demographic.
I'll give a very specific example: Back in 2005 (or so), I played the hell out of a game called Battlefield 2. BF2 had a vote kick mechanic to allow you punish/remove players who were disruptive to the team. The game...
I enjoyed reading this!
As said earlier in thread, not sure FF would be that worthwhile/workable in skirmish type mmorpg battles - but in WAR with massive units I think FF could on such a large scale actually be vital for these battles to work between artillery and infantry and maneouvring.
If there is FF of a large artillery over a large area, the units equally large know that such large damage would be very crucial to avoid for a lot of people ie the unit(s) - in that case, I think the tactics of armies improving with each other COULD actually work. For eg drawing on the map the movements and the artillery sticking to targets (ie communicating before a plan). Secondly it means there is a transition when infantry clash of turning off artillery on that conflict and a hand-to-hand clash going on (no supporting artillery)? Sounds good to me.
Obviously NOT all players will want to attempt to be soldiers, so there should be a subset who excel at this ie Settlement/Kingdom: Total = 2,000 - standing + citizen army around 200? I mean anywhere from approx. 100 (5%) upwards of specialised soliders in a settlement seem possible, especially if it's a successful kingdom?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The possibility of accidental FF would almost be a game breaker for me, and I imagine a lot of other Oceanic players. I typically play most MMOs with a minimum of 250ms lag and up to 500ms could still be considered normal. Accidental FF would represent a huge handicap for higher latency players. If there was a toggle as suggested earlier that would work for us. AoE could be treated differently to focused attacks presumably...
As said, for armies, if it's "artillery" - suitably large and slow, and marked, then I assume it is workable in WAR with units ie the scale is what counts. I'm less sure it's workable in the typical skirmish of mmorpgs where a little here and there occurs and the graphics are off of where the AoE actually is/your avatar is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not easier. Better doesn't equate to easy.Hmmm.
Not sure if being obtuse, or forgot the post previous to mine where you implied that it would be easier to combat a foe if FF was in place.It's ok though. I understand you think this is a great idea.
I don't see where you got the implication: reading a battle while fighting it isn't easier, and it would be much easier to lod AoEs wherever there is a mass of people fighting knowing my guys will be fine.
It does force the enemy into a tactic which you may be able to better prepare for, similarly to drawing them into a fire zone or prompting them into exposing themselves because your ranged AoE's can reach around corners that would shield them from direct fire.
But it isn't easier. It just makes tactics more meaningful than spray and pray.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We are looking at being tab targeting being the primary targeting method, and classifying targets as friend vs neutral vs hostile based on a number of inputs (active wars, flags, reputation, etc), so you won't be able to attack targets marked as friendly on accident. So single target friendly fire, i.e. stabbing your group mate in the back, is not likely.
There's been a good deal of disussion on this topic. It would be intersting to hear how tab-targeting aids the combat system/fits with the technical considerations, perhaps with alternative targetting discussed by comparison?
Will the tab-target be somewhat more involved than eg melee strikes squares around it, ranged-attack hits squares within range zone, for example?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, if a target is marked friendly and you can't hurt them, I guess that means no FF?
Good.
I didn't read Lee's statement that way, I read it to imply no "accidental attacks" of freindlies which could simply mean that the system warns you when you attempt to put down an AOE that might harm those who you consider freinds...meaning you'd have the choice of not using an AoE (at this point, we don't even know if AoE's are in at all)in that situation...or purposefully using the AoE knowing that the system would interpret it as a hostile act.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think AoEs HAVE to be in the game. It's just not pathfinder without Mages and Sorcs able to Fireball and Lightning Bolt hordes of foes, or dragons breathing cones of fire on lesser beings.
We just don't know if they will affect friendlies or if there will be a way to lob them without tab targeting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think AoEs HAVE to be in the game. It's just not pathfinder without Mages and Sorcs able to Fireball and Lightning Bolt hordes of foes, or dragons breathing cones of fire on lesser beings.
We just don't know if they will affect friendlies or if there will be a way to lob them without tab targeting.
Agreed, and honestly I think there are about a dozen different ways to handle this, it's not a completely binary choice. Alot (IMO) depends upon the specifics of the combat engine. What I would be dissapointed in seeing would be if AoE's ALWAYS became the goto choice when you had multiple targets, regardless of the combat situation. That would dissapointingly dumb down combat. For my money, EVERY single attack type (including all AoE's) should have upsides and downsides depending upon the specific combat situation....assessing those and making effective choices for the situation should be a big part of the gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How is friendly fire handled in the PF RPG PnP game?It's handled by being physically in the same room as the group of players you're about to fry to a crisp with your maliciously-tossed fireballs.
What ? No, it's handled via the Meta Magic feat 'Selective Spell' ; which allows you to exclude a number of friendly targets from an area effect spell.
Also, there exists a 'selective channeling' feat that lets healers exclude the monsters when they burst heal.In PFO, this can be expanded and pre-set, so just knowing the feat you can turn FF on or off, depending on whether you are fighting a guild civil war or an orc horde.