Goblin Squad Member
|
...
on the other hand, if accessibility is only reason to not have friendly fire, then we are on slippery slope, and it hardly ends in player-driven sandbox.There is a difference between giving things away for free and avoiding putting things in your game that will result in no one wanting to play it.
i want to play game with friendly fire. that's one. there are probably others, as i'm not even that good with aim. imo, friendly fire promotes player skill. and not only twitch, but actual observing, learning and adapting. it makes teamwork mean something, and not just some random collection of unknowns. it makes trust valuable asset. it makes responsibility mean something.
if you don't let people make mistakes, then how can you expect them to learn something?
Yeah, the possibility of friendly fire exists in a tabletop session of Pathfinder. But in a tabletop session of Pathfinder the action gets put on pause to that Jimmy the Sorcerer can target his fireball and drop it with pinpoint precision. In this context the possibility of friendly fire works just fine.
One of the biggest differences between MMO and tabletop RPG play is that one is real time and flowing and the other is turn-based. If PFO is going to have a pause button for Jimmy the Sorcerer to pinpoint his fireball so that he doesn't hit me, I am okay with that. Otherwise, the concept friendly fire can go get bent.
On a side note, Stefan, when you are playing Pathfinder, do you (or would you) enjoy it if you had to target your fireball without counting squares or without the time to think for more than a fraction of a second? Because if you play it this way, and still enjoy friendly fire, you're a braver player than I.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why in this context? You have decided the context, not a good way to start a discussion.Scott didn't decide the context, the game designers did. Maybe you missed the part in the announcement where they explicitly say that this is an MMO of the Pathfinder (IE Golarion) setting and will not be based on the Pathfinder RPG rules.
Pathfinder is a brand that encompasses many things. The part of the Pathfinder brand that is being used for this video game is the setting. The setting existed before the rules. The setting will still exist when they make new rules. The setting is still the setting when Scott and others play it using different rules.
But they are calling it Pathfinder Online instead of Golarion Online because Pathfinder is the more well known label.
Now there is a crux of the issue. Pathfinder, unless you live under a rock or in the past, is a Line of products. Of which most persons using the Pathfinder Setting will also be using the Pathfinder Rules. I think it is one of those nasty marketing ploys I loath to 'trick' customers into the game be using the brand Pathfinder, then when I can't have my Fighter/Sorcorer, saying "Well what we actually meant was, set in the Pathfinder Setting only. Oops, wasn't that made clear in the advertising?"
I shouldn't let rumors and hear-say color my views of a game not let released. But to date the game rates a high, 'meh?' on my need to buy scale. Before reading threads it was on my 'must have' list.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Taking a persons comment ad nauseam isn't a strong position to refute from.
I was just trying to point out a flaw in your argument, not really make a "strong position". But I will elaborate if you wish.
What is Pathfinder? I have Pathfinder setting books, they have numbers and things in them to relate to the Pathfinder rule books. So what is Pathfinder?
A brand of role-playing related products by Paizo.
A setting?
It is a collection of products that share a common setting. Paizo also has setting neutral products, which are marketed under the Gamemastery brand. While the RPG is "setting neutral", it was built to support the setting, not the other way around. The default assumptions come from Golaion.
In which case what are these numbers for? A rule-set?
They are rules designed to allow you to play an RPG in the setting. They currently use the Pathfinder RPG, but they have used d20 and other rule systems in the past. There is even some "official" conversions to True 20 for one of the early adventure paths. I'm sure the rules will change again someday in the future.
Ok then, what is Pathfinder? Not to you personally, but the actual definition.
Seems my idea that Pathfinder is a complex interaction of setting (which would include novels) and rule-set is in error.
Pathfinder is a brand. It has always been tied to the Golarion setting. But it really has meaning far beyond just the rules. I notice that you are only subscribed to the RPG. Maybe that colors your perception. Paizo makes a very large quantity of Pathfinder products, and only a small subset are RPG rules. But the setting is what put Pathfinder on the map.
Edit: You responded above while I was typing, so you've already mostly addressed this. Anyway, I recommend you try and judge it by the official information from Goblin Works and avoid all the wild speculation on the forums. We just don't really know enough about how the game is going to work to make good judgments yet.
|
|
On a side note, Stefan, when you are playing Pathfinder, do you (or would you) enjoy it if you had to target your fireball without counting squares or without the time to think for more than a fraction of a second. Because if you play it this way, and still enjoy friendly fire, you're a braver player than I.
It was called 1e and 2e. I agree being on the wrong end of a fireball sucks - especially embarrassing when it's your own...
But back then we trusted our GM's, now we only trust 'squares'.
Not to get back into the old battle-mat vs non-battle-mat. But I dislike the square counting combats of d20. The whole god's eye view just takes me so out of character. The GM can verbally explain the situation, I can ask for clarification and then act. I find it easier to swallow when the GM says I have a 50:50 chance of catching a party member in a fireball than counting exact squares and having a GPS guided fireball explode such that it doesn't even touch a hair on my friend 2' away from the edge of the blast - without fail.
As I said previously, I have more faith in human nature AND started my RPG career without a battle-mat.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you wanted you could have friendly fire, then have a feat like selective blast. makes all of your spells cost more to cast, but hey, it avoids your party mates.
Unfortunately, this becomes a feat tax for any aoe mage, melee ability , etc. and will jsut be added into classes 4 pathces later, and you loose friendly fire...
That's what happens.
On a side note, Stefan, when you are playing Pathfinder, do you (or would you) enjoy it if you had to target your fireball without counting squares or without the time to think for more than a fraction of a second. Because if you play it this way, and still enjoy friendly fire, you're a braver player than I.It was called 1e and 2e. I agree being on the wrong end of a fireball sucks - especially embarrassing when it's your own...
But back then we trusted our GM's, now we only trust 'squares'.
Not to get back into the old battle-mat vs non-battle-mat. But I dislike the square counting combats of d20. The whole god's eye view just takes me so out of character. The GM can verbally explain the situation, I can ask for clarification and then act. I find it easier to swallow when the GM says I have a 50:50 chance of catching a party member in a fireball than counting exact squares and having a GPS guided fireball explode such that it doesn't even touch a hair on my friend 2' away from the edge of the blast - without fail.
As I said previously, I have more faith in human nature AND started my RPG career without a battle-mat.
S.
Yes, I remember those days as well. The DM decided whether or not you were accurate with a magical tea party handwave. Back then the only time friendly fire happened in our groups was when it enhanced the story.
But that was then, and this is now. There will be no DM in PFO to magically handwave your fireball placements. There will be no way to play PFO without the battlemat. Human nature will play no role.
|
|
I notice that you are only subscribed to the RPG. Maybe that colors your perception.
I subscribe to get the rules books sooner (I live in New Zealand) and I buy the setting material from my local store (supporting local store).
I still stand by my comment that Rules-Setting are intertwined into the brand Pathfinder. Each CAN be used as a separate product, BUT are designed to work together at all levels - we are talking Pathfinder as of right now, not in the dim dark past of 3.5e and Paizo's Dungeon/Dragon mags.
The Online game, it would appear, will be only going to cover a sub-set of what is recognized when we say Pathfinder (as a brand name) - i.e. the Setting. For some, and I include myself here, this lessens the Pathfinerness of the game BECAUSE of the strong link felt between Rules and Setting (which is promoted by Paizo themselves, and rightly so).
Apologies if I came across as being unduly argumentative,
S.
|
|
But that was then, and this is now. There will be no DM in PFO to magically handwave your fireball placements. There will be no way to play PFO without the battlemat. Human nature will play no role.
True, but I contend, that if you know that your in a small space with lots of friends then fireball (for example) isn't your choice of spell. Seems straight forward to me, friends around = don't hit the fireball key. But we come back to Scott's point, if the game is PF Setting only, then we may not even have fireball to cast so this may be a mute point.
************************************************
Not @ Moro - just a general smart-arsed comment
************************************************
Either that or a spell like resist fire to buff the party will become a smart choice! Wow, having to think and prepare. If they go down that path they might create an RPG...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you wanted you could have friendly fire, then have a feat like selective blast. makes all of your spells cost more to cast, but hey, it avoids your party mates.
Unfortunately, this becomes a feat tax for any aoe mage, melee ability , etc. and will jsut be added into classes 4 pathces later, and you loose friendly fire...
That's what happens.
not necessarily. if someone chooses to play solo, or in small-coordinated group, or can aim real well, they might not take that feat. also, aoe are naturally effective if they hit multiple targets. if you are fighting enemy that doesn't stay in close order, that feat is basically dead weight.
obviously, it becomes problem if base abilities are designed around assumption that everyone will take all options. but that's issue of bad design.
|
|
So can I as Mandrake the Assassin, who has been to town and been paid by other PC to kill one of my party members, during a fight target and stab my 'friend'? It is open PvP right? What if I'm a CE Mage and want to nuke the weakened party? If I can't you have removed a powerful and centeral interaction of an RPG - conflict. This won't be one party of 4-6 friends, this will be more like a 'real world' - love, hate, betrayal, etc. No nice fractions like WoW to hide behind. This sort of thing makes the game appeal to me. Real human type interaction in a fantasy setting not dictated by programming masters.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still stand by my comment that Rules-Setting are intertwined into the brand Pathfinder. Each CAN be used as a separate product, BUT are designed to work together at all levels - we are talking Pathfinder as of right now, not in the dim dark past of 3.5e and Paizo's Dungeon/Dragon mags.
The Online game, it would appear, will be only going to cover a sub-set of what is recognized when we say Pathfinder (as a brand name) - i.e. the Setting. For some, and I include myself here, this lessens the Pathfinerness of the game BECAUSE of the strong link felt between Rules and Setting (which is promoted by Paizo themselves, and rightly so).
Apologies if I came across as being unduly argumentative,
S.
The "dark past" of 3.5 Pathfinder Adventures doesn't seem that long ago to me. I guess I'm just not as invested in rules as you are. Example: I love Eclipse Phase. I don't really like the rules they use though. So next time I try to run a game I will probably use Fate. I've heard Shadowrun works well for it too.
So even though my 3.5 -> Pathfinder Beta -> Pathfinder game has been going for 4+ years, I'm not that attached to the rules themselves. I am just as likely to use Dragon Age or something else for my next campaign. But I keep buying Pathfinder books because I love the detail they put into the setting.
I'm certain the designers will do a good job of maintaining the "feel" of the Pathfinder rules in the MMO game. There will have to be some changes, as what works for a tabletop game doesn't work well for a computer game. Especially in a real time environment that isn't segmented into turns.
No apology necessary, I recognize that you are just being passionate about a game you love.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyone care to answer the question of who qualifies as a friend if you turn friendly fire off?
I have already answered that one pretty thoroughly I thought. I would say that system gives solid control with very minimal issues.
So can I as Mandrake the Assassin, who has been to town and been paid by other PC to kill one of my party members, during a fight target and stab my 'friend'? It is open PvP right? What if I'm a CE Mage and want to nuke the weakened party? If I can't you have removed a powerful and centeral interaction of an RPG - conflict. This won't be one party of 4-6 friends, this will be more like a 'real world' - love, hate, betrayal, etc. No nice fractions like WoW to hide behind. This sort of thing makes the game appeal to me. Real human type interaction in a fantasy setting not dictated by programming masters.
My suggested method of friendly fire also works for that, the only condition is you would have to leave the party and press one of the 2 keys before launching the first shot. The idea is a system to reduce accidental killing of your team, not necessarily intentional killing.
|
|
No apology necessary, I recognize that you are just being passionate about a game you love.
Coolness. Just didn't want to come across as if my opinion mattered any more than anyone else posting.
Part of the problem I guess is Paizo has made such a good product that allows a whole bunch of people to meld into their own version of the game that we all have slightly different ideas of "what is Pathfinder".
PF Online, and all luck to them, will NEVER replace Paizo's PnP game in my world. PF Online will be something I may do when I can't get a group together to play the real thing. So in some ways, FF or non-FF doesn't really worry me - either way PF Online won't be eating into my 'real' hobby time.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(1) If you read what you said it was "more worthwhile to consider...". I was wondering why it was more important than the rules?
Yes.
I believe rather than having blinders on, it is more worthwhile to discuss the Pathfinder Line as a whole.
I don't think it is, really. In fact, I think it's dangerous to feel as though you need to somehow make the mechanics of an entirely different format fit the mechanics of your online game.
I believe BOTH are important to encompass the Pathfinder 'feel'.
As deinol pointed out, the Pathfinder Tales line of fiction has nothing mechanical in it, and I daresay could be written to describe an adventure in just about any system - or even none at all!
If not then Paizo could have just used 4e D&D as the rules and still developed the Pathfinder setting.
I think they probably could have, actually.
Are you saying that if no spell in the rulebook appeared in the online game or if you cast Magic Missile and it polymorphs a tiger into a rabbit you won't be a little confused?
If casting Magic Missile caused my enemy to polymorph, yes, I would be confused.
But if casting Magic Missile did something magic missile-y, then no, I wouldn't be confused.
(2) Er, in a PnP RPG we don't have to obey reality either. That statement applies to both video and PnP games.
Right. You get to make the rules up to fit your game. They made certain rules up for the tabletop game because they worked well. They'll make other rules up for the online game.
(3) I think your emotive language fails to live up to the actual arguments you have used to date.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
(4) So in PF Online you think you will only be able to do one thing? That again would be disapponting. You really think there will be a button that says 'AoE Mage: create'?
By "AoE character" I am referring to any character that makes an investment of character options in AoE abilities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i want to play game with friendly fire. that's one. there are probably others, as i'm not even that good with aim. imo, friendly fire promotes player skill. and not only twitch, but actual observing, learning and adapting. it makes teamwork mean something, and not just some random collection of unknowns. it makes trust valuable asset. it makes responsibility mean something.
All of these things are emphasized in MMORPG design already. They're taken care of. You don't need to turn on friendly fire to accomplish these things.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As deinol pointed out, the Pathfinder Tales line of fiction has nothing mechanical in it, and I daresay could be written to describe an adventure in just about any system - or even none at all!
Now I am going to proceed from a position of complete ignorance of Pathfinder novels - feel free to tear strips of my proceeding comments...
I haven't read any Pathfinder novel, so I'm going to use the Dragonlance novels (first 3) to illustrate.
In the first of the three, Raistlin casts Spell spell, he uses sand and mumbles words. These things while written in a way consistent with telling a story are based on the rule-mechanics of the spell. If you had played 1e AD&D you would say, yep that's right. If you hadn't played 1e AD&D you say, ok sleep spell needs sand and some magic words. So no matter what side of the fence you were on, both parties can have a conversation about how to cast a sleep spell.
Now... In PF RPG I cast my fireball, boom! I imagine, unless for an explained reason, that the Pathfinder novel would describe something similar to that in the rules. Huge ball of flame erupting from seemly nowhere engulfing and burning all within it fiery bounds. That the novel reader and the RPG player will agree on. The person, who has neither played the RPG or read a novel but has played Online, disagrees and says that fireballs only hurt the "bad-people (TM)". In fact they go on to explain how in the crowded tavern you can immolate all the "bad-people (TM)" while leaving all the "good-people (TM)" perfectly safe!
The RPG player and novel reader walk off to have a sensible discussion away from the Online player.
Sorry, best example I can come up with at short notice...
Cat'o'nine away,
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So has Golarion existed outside the D20 based family of mechanics? If not the rules are at least a part of the setting Q.E.D.
Oh dear.
The rules can be a part of the Pathfinder experience, but they are not necessarily part of the Pathfinder experience. See: Pathfinder Tales.
It is perfectly possible to enjoy the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (which is what this game is based on) without having any idea what the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of these things are existant to one extent or another in MMOs. You can still enhance them with a bit of friendly fire. Why settle for the status quo?i want to play game with friendly fire. that's one. there are probably others, as i'm not even that good with aim. imo, friendly fire promotes player skill. and not only twitch, but actual observing, learning and adapting. it makes teamwork mean something, and not just some random collection of unknowns. it makes trust valuable asset. it makes responsibility mean something.All of these things are emphasized in MMORPG design already. They're taken care of. You don't need to turn on friendly fire to accomplish these things.
Because sometimes the status quo is the status quo for a very, very good bunch of reasons, many of which we've provided.
|
|
So has Golarion existed outside the D20 based family of mechanics? If not the rules are at least a part of the setting Q.E.D.Oh dear.
The rules can be a part of the Pathfinder experience, but they are not necessarily part of the Pathfinder experience. See: Pathfinder Tales.
It is perfectly possible to enjoy the Pathfinder Campaign Setting (which is what this game is based on) without having any idea what the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game rules are.
But miss out on the details - of the type I posted above (see Dragonlance novel example).
Sure I can use Golarian with Cyberpunk 2010 but how much extra work am I in for? Given the size of the book I'm not overly keen, but if really pushed I'm happy to list the % of the book that is given over to rule-mechanics that require knowledge of the PF Rule line.
It's also perfectly possible for me to nail a nail into a piece of wood with a liquid nitrogen cooled banana, however I would prefer a hammer.
S.
Edit: I mean the Inner Sea Guide when I say 'book' above.
Edit 2: I agree with Scott's statement about settings can be used with whatever rule-set floats your boat. My 4e game is set in the 1e Forgotten Realms, but it does require me to have a lot of conversion/home-brew notes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, my apologies, I'll get right on the dissection of that system then.
Yup that was what I was looking for, was something I thought up in a short time so I expect to find a few weak points
A party member attacks a guild-mate. What is the effect of an AoE heal/buff?
I'd say if you physically cast something after the person started attacking, your friendly status would turn off, if you didn't the guild mate would have to target you and turn off the safety.
Oh wait you are meaning who will the aoe's effect. I'd say if the guild has not triggered you, your aoe heals would effect them as normal until they performed a hostile action to you specifically. Though they might make aoe heals party specific, in which case, it would only effect the party.
Of similar concern, what about a guildie or guild ally attacking others in your party?
I'd say being attacked until they hit you, they stay friendly unless you manually toggle, I'd say even the total removal of safeguards would not effect party members (you can always drop party if you wish to fight them) so a single button could flip friendly fire on for everyone outside your party, or you could drop and join the guild if that was the side you wanted to take.
What about criminals? Assuming someone attacking/robbing/vandalizing other players and property is somehow "flagged" as such for a duration. If a party member goes criminal and you don't see it, what happens when you help them in any way, do you get flagged as well for aiding and abetting?
That sounds like an issue related 100% towards criminal flagging, I don't see how friendly fire influences it in either direction.
A group of neutrals (unassigned) come charging over the hill at your party with weapons drawn. You are standing near to another neutral party (PC or NPC). You either have to nuke everything not in your party or take the time add 20 hostiles
yup this would be a situation in which you'd be in trouble, why were you standing so darn close to a non-friendly group unless you were partied with them. you'd either accept the casualties, not aoe for that fight, or run away so that you aren't tangled up with a non allied party. Being tangled up with a non allied party is a bad idea with or without friendly fire.
In general if you are going to be fighting or doing anything in close range of a group of friendly unassigned, you should friend them as soon as possible. if it backfires, their protection is automatically lost on the first hit they do, and you can toggle it with a single button if you realize a pre-emptive strike is needed.
So overall I guess I have to accept that it wouldn't be so bad having no friendly fire AoEs, as long as any animations for those AoEs are target specific. No giant explosions that party mates can just ignore. No lightning bolts magically tunneling through your party members with...
actually this could work, fireball could be lava jets coming through the ground, lightning bolt could happen in the sky with an animation of lighning bolts coming down on the targets etc... How the spells look is entirely DM/GM discression.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Because sometimes the status quo is the status quo for a very, very good bunch of reasons, many of which we've provided.
if you mean status quo maintained for mass consumption, i truly hope designers move away from it. it's been bland for more than a decade, no matter how good it looks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No he means like murder being wrong is status quo.
We don't stop thinking murder is wrong simply becasue it's been status quo. It's status quo for a good reason, ie the collapse of society.War
Death penaltyI could go on if you'd like.
Please do, since neither of those is murder. Murder is a legal term, and has strict definitions under the law. Those things aren't even manslaughter. They are homicide, but homicide simply refers to the killing of a person.
Now, I don't know where you live, but I live in California. Our penal code makes specific allowances under sections 195 and on that explain justifiable homicide. There are many cases in which the killing of one person by another (or by many) is considered both just and (usually) not taboo - self-defense, military action, legally prescribed execution, pursuit of escaped felons, protection of habitation, accident or misfortune, and so on.
And before you cry "But that's just the legal definition!" - the legal definition is the definition.
He means exactly that no friendly fire is the status quo. Which could continued to be argued, but I'd just as soon argue with my spider plant since the results would be the same. No wait, my spider plant would grow better for it.
I mean that no friendly fire is the status quo because there are a lot of very good reasons for that being the case, many of which we have discussed, and those reasons have not washed away over the last few years.
|
|
I mean that no friendly fire is the status quo because there are a lot of very good reasons for that being the case, many of which we have discussed, and those reasons have not washed away over the last few years.
Again, the very good reasons seem to boil down to complaints that friendly-fire of AoE, remember ONLY things that would be able under PF rules to do such a thing, NOT bow shots etc, would mean that friends may get hurt meaning I can't spam AoE's in every encounter and technological.
In the case of the mis-targeting (either by mistake or on purpose), not really an argument against just a statement of opinion on how things should behave.
Technology hurdles; these could be very real and for these reasons I can see FF AoE's failing. But, computers and internet connections are far faster than when I started playing WoW at it's release. They could hardly change the whole way AoE spells work in 2011, they were locked in to doing things the way they could at the time of release. PF Online is new and things deemed too hard, and thus justifying not doing something, may not be so today. Using the past as an excuse to not investigate different ways of doing things is bad science. There will be an alpha and a beta no doubt, could it hurt to see how a FF AoE system panned out? Again I believe only technological issues would make the idea of FF AoE unworkable, all the other reasons given are steeped in convenience or based on the off chance something wants an AoE one trick pony.
Breaking away from the "mass us" vs "mass them" idea (e.g. Horde vs Alliance) is a great idea and I look forward to an open PvP game where people just play their character as they want without the nanny-state programmers having to define 'friend' and 'enemy'.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again, the very good reasons seem to boil down to complaints that friendly-fire of AoE, remember ONLY things that would be able under PF rules to do such a thing, NOT bow shots etc, would mean that friends may get hurt meaning I can't spam AoE's in every encounter and technological.
Are you under the impression that people spam AoEs in every encounter in most MMORPGs? It sounds like that's what you're saying, and that what you're proposing will change it. That's not the case. A well-designed game does not need friendly fire to incentivize the use of a wide array of abilities. They already do so through the use of other balancing mechanisms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the case of the mis-targeting (either by mistake or on purpose), not really an argument against just a statement of opinion on how things should behave.
Technology hurdles; these could be very real and for these reasons I can see FF AoE's failing. But, computers and internet connections are far faster than when I started playing WoW at it's release. They could hardly change the whole way AoE spells work in 2011, they were locked in to doing things the way they could at the time of release. PF Online is new and things deemed too hard, and thus justifying not doing something, may not be so today. Using the past as an excuse to not investigate different ways of doing things is bad science. There will be an alpha and a beta no doubt, could it hurt to see how a FF AoE system panned out? Again I believe only technological issues would make the idea of FF AoE unworkable, all the other reasons given are steeped in convenience or based on the off chance something wants an AoE one trick pony.
Personally I see aoes as something that should not be a 1 trick pony, they should do probably about 1/4th the damage of a similar leveled single target, there areas etc... should be situational. not to mention the difference in elements etc... There should be single target spells that are more effective when you can't always get the shot. I just think can't always get angle where it would be more efficient. I think however that situations where it will be more efficient are just about non-existent, with friendly fire. So far we have, "Might be useful if you get the jump on the opponent and can aim and fire before he notices you exist, or if they are stupid and bunch all of their ranged enemies close to each-other.
Breaking away from the "mass us" vs "mass them" idea (e.g. Horde vs Alliance) is a great idea and I look forward to an open PvP game where people just play their character as they want without the nanny-state programmers having to define 'friend' and 'enemy'.
S.
I 100% agree with this one, sides of a battle should be entirely player controlled, whether they are hostile or friendly to each-other also player controlled. None of the nonsensical. Yesterdays enemies should be tomorrows friends.
|
|
Again, the very good reasons seem to boil down to complaints that friendly-fire of AoE, remember ONLY things that would be able under PF rules to do such a thing, NOT bow shots etc, would mean that friends may get hurt meaning I can't spam AoE's in every encounter and technological.Are you under the impression that people spam AoEs in every encounter in most MMORPGs? It sounds like that's what you're saying, and that what you're proposing will change it. That's not the case. A well-designed game does not need friendly fire to incentivize the use of a wide array of abilities. They already do so through the use of other balancing mechanisms.
But you are or are not agreeing that FF AoE could indeed be one of those incentives to using a wide-array of abilities? And that by using FF as a mechanism you maintain a little more connection with the D&D roots that the PF rules, and by association the PF setting, was founded on.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you under the impression that people spam AoEs in every encounter in most MMORPGs? It sounds like that's what you're saying, and that what you're proposing will change it.
Some classes = yes. Paladin or Death Knight in WoW for sure - it's their thing.
You seem very keen on making WoW in a PF setting, or so it seems. New game, new year, new graphics, new CPU's, let's hope the game designers can think a little ahead rather than as you promote a little behind.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But you are or are not agreeing that FF AoE could indeed be one of those incentives to using a wide-array of abilities? And that by using FF as a mechanism you maintain a little more connection with the D&D roots that the PF rules, and by association the PF setting, was founded on.
In theory it "could" be, but so far every calculation and use I can come up with sees it as a huge reduction of the range of useful abilities. Turning a reasonable quantity of spells into such a tiny niche that most likely wizards will get the boot the second they cast them and be instructed to remove them from their hotbars to be safe, does not seem to broaden anything. IMO broadening variety of spells means making many options equally useful, not taking what is overpowered and making it useless, that just moves the problem.
To some extent I see the connection to PF rules, but I just can't see it working in real time. I love pathfinders rules because they work very well for turn based. But short of making the game turn based quite a few ideologies will have to be kicked to the curb.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is that so important?
For me, it's because I have played D&D (I'm including PF when I say D&D from this point on) for the lives of many cats. If Golbinworks can create a game that has features immediately familiar to me I'll connect faster and more strongly with the game. Even those players who have cut their teeth, RPG-wise, on the PF rules/setting, will still connect with a game the feels familiar both in look and in 'physics'. I am NOT saying the d20 dice mechanics needs transferred, the program details need not ever be obvious to me, that I care little about. But I would like to think I can read the 'physics' from the PF rules and see them play out in the game. Failure of that means I now have two versions of what happens in a PF world in mind. In which case the PF Online game is just another game, and I have no more vested interest then say Modern Warfare or Skyrim.
The Bioware non-MMORPG Knight of the Old Republic vs Bioware's Mass Effect is a good example of this. From the time the KotoR booted up I was hooked, non-stop play. Mass Effect had a time of , er, who's that, er, where's that - you get the point.
I can put a Ferrari badge on an old Dodge, but it's still an old dodge. Like-wise I can make a game and call it Pathfinder, but unless it's Pathfinder under the hood, it's just another MMORPG game.
Hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter. I'm not stuck on FF AoE's, but not having them would be symptomatic of potential for less and less Pathfinder (as I know it) in the computer game. It's not the label on the box and DVD I'm interested in, it's the heart, soul, and physics.
Cheers, oh, and Merry Christmas everyone,
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But you are or are not agreeing that FF AoE could indeed be one of those incentives to using a wide-array of abilities?
Yes, I agree that friendly fire would provide incentive for people to use a wide array of abilities.
The problem is, of course, that friendly fire sucks. No one likes it, except a handful of people who think they might like it, but probably won't after they spend months dealing with its unavoidable headaches.
You can achieve the same incentives using what games already use. And you avoid the headaches I mention above.
Again: you achieve your goals, and things don't suck. There is no compelling reason to include friendly fire.
And that by using FF as a mechanism you maintain a little more connection with the D&D roots that the PF rules, and by association the PF setting, was founded on.
The connection to the original rules is unimportant. Less than unimportant. Dangerous. To be avoided.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No one wants a World of Pathfindercraft.
Realizing that certain things that are in a tabletop game, but not in an MMO for very good reasons does not mean people want WoW PFO.
WoW actually has nothing to do with why this is not a good idea, or why friendly fire AoE isn't in any (that I know of) MMO currently, anymore than EQ or EQ2, AoC, etc.
It just isn't there, because it's a pain in the ass, plain and simple.
Not for convenience sake, or ease of play, but for enjoyment of play.
And that's a very good reason.
People have stated repeatedly why it doesn't exist currently, and why it shouldn't in PFO, either. If others don't agree with that fine, but to continue arguing about it is rediculous. It simply is a bad idea.
Ask for it. Maybe it will be included in PFO. That will not change that it is a bad idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You seem very keen on making WoW in a PF setting, or so it seems.
I love this argument.
People propose truly awful ideas, long since discarded by the industry for how awful they were, and when you oppose those awful ideas, they accuse you of trying to make another WoW. Of course, this ignores the fact that I'm on board with a huge number of sweeping fundamental differences between WoW and PFO, like player-controlled territory, macro resource management, sandbox-style play, a slow build-up of players, and about twenty other things out of the handful we know about at this point.
But I guess "You just want to make another WoW!" is just easier to get away with than actually understanding what the other person is saying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can put a Ferrari badge on an old Dodge, but it's still an old dodge. Like-wise I can make a game and call it Pathfinder, but unless it's Pathfinder under the hood, it's just another MMORPG game.
No one is selling you a Dodge as a Ferrari. They're selling you a game based on the Pathfinder setting and designed with a custom set of rules suited for MMORPG play.
If faithfulness to the rules is important to you, you're going to be disappointed. Period. If faithfulness to the setting is important to you, you'll probably be much happier with the final product.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
The problem is, of course, that friendly fire sucks. No one likes it, except a handful of people who think they might like it, but probably won't after they spend months dealing with its unavoidable headaches.
...
but where does it stop? are we going to abolish theft, treachery, deception? just because it sucks to most people?
are we going to enforce people to wear pink and orange, too?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People propose truly awful ideas, long since discarded by the industry for how awful they were, and when you oppose those awful ideas, they accuse you of trying to make another WoW..
I have no idea, so I must ask, are you in this industry? You know this for sure?
Nothing you have put forward as reasons for 'why not' other than technology seem like deal breakers. In fact they only involve a mindset change - that is what I was meaning by you want WoW, old ideas, that unless you can provide insider knowledge may have been implemented because of technological limitations of the time. So please provide a link(s) that have discussion of the designers of WoW, EQ, EQ2 or whatever game you choose with shows they thought about, tried, and then rejected FF AoE as 'awful ideas'.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People propose truly awful ideas, long since discarded by the industry for how awful they were, and when you oppose those awful ideas, they accuse you of trying to make another WoW..I have no idea, so I must ask, are you in this industry? You know this for sure?
Nothing you have put forward as reasons for 'why not' other than technology seem like deal breakers. In fact they only involve a mindset change - that is what I was meaning by you want WoW, old ideas, that unless you can provide insider knowledge may have been implemented because of technological limitations of the time. So please provide a link(s) that have discussion of the designers of WoW, EQ, EQ2 or whatever game you choose with shows they thought about, tried, and then rejected FF AoE as 'awful ideas'.
S.
Maybe no one little thing is a 'deal breaker' to you. On the other hand, the myriad annoyances that will occur would be a deal breaker to most people. So far, you haven't managed to express a compelling reason why it should be included in the game.
Pros
Fidelity to the original rules
Cons
Annoys your party members when you make mistakes
Potential for intentional griefing
Makes AoE spells nearly worthless
Sounds like a deal breaker to me. The requirements of a good table top RPG are not the same as for a good massive computer game. So putting 'rule fidelity' as a Pro is being rather generous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People propose truly awful ideas, long since discarded by the industry for how awful they were, and when you oppose those awful ideas, they accuse you of trying to make another WoW..I have no idea, so I must ask, are you in this industry? You know this for sure?
I'm not at all in this industry.
Nothing you have put forward as reasons for 'why not' other than technology seem like deal breakers.
No, they probably wouldn't seem like deal breakers to you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is that so important?For me, it's because I have played D&D (I'm including PF when I say D&D from this point on) for the lives of many cats. If Golbinworks can create a game that has features immediately familiar to me I'll connect faster and more strongly with the game. Even those players who have cut their teeth, RPG-wise, on the PF rules/setting, will still connect with a game the feels familiar both in look and in 'physics'. I am NOT saying the d20 dice mechanics needs transferred, the program details need not ever be obvious to me, that I care little about. But I would like to think I can read the 'physics' from the PF rules and see them play out in the game. Failure of that means I now have two versions of what happens in a PF world in mind. In which case the PF Online game is just another game, and I have no more vested interest then say Modern Warfare or Skyrim.
The Bioware non-MMORPG Knight of the Old Republic vs Bioware's Mass Effect is a good example of this. From the time the KotoR booted up I was hooked, non-stop play. Mass Effect had a time of , er, who's that, er, where's that - you get the point.
I can put a Ferrari badge on an old Dodge, but it's still an old dodge. Like-wise I can make a game and call it Pathfinder, but unless it's Pathfinder under the hood, it's just another MMORPG game.
Hope that clarifies my thoughts on the matter. I'm not stuck on FF AoE's, but not having them would be symptomatic of potential for less and less Pathfinder (as I know it) in the computer game. It's not the label on the box and DVD I'm interested in, it's the heart, soul, and physics.
Cheers, oh, and Merry Christmas everyone,
S.
A question about your "I want to recognize the game".
How would you manage and recognize spells like prayer under your system? No definition of friend or foe, not workable spell.
How would you manage haste? "I can chose 10 targets, let's click on 9 other character before activating the spell. 1,2, ... stop moving around 3, 4 .... f*# I am dead."
If you can't cast AoE spells without affecting friend or foes (depending on the spell) I see plenty of spells that will become useless or very situational.
"If the enemy is 100' away, I can cast haste, if they get within 50' I can't as between connection lag end server mechanics they can be within the AoE when it is completed."
I think we need a way to preselect our friends at least if you want to recognize the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How would you manage and recognize spells like prayer under your system? No definition of friend or foe, not workable spell.
Perhaps I haven't been very clear. You would still have parties, you would still have 'friends' all AoE buff spells would work as described in the rules. What I have issue with is if I'm surrounded by my 'friends' and some 'enemies' if I cast Haste, all my friends are effected, but not my enemies - the spell Haste says this. Now if I were to cast Fireball BOTH 'friends would be effected - if not then Fireball is not as described in the RPG.
I am really struggling to see how FF AoE would make AOE spells useless? If you mean, make AoE's not something you can always cast just because a group of enemy is there. Again, the arguments against are issues of mindset and an unwillingness to consider changing said mindset. We are after all talking a small sub-set of spells in the PF rules.
If you don't want intentional griefing then open PVP shouldn't be even considered.
And yet again, I agree technology may be a killer - but the CONS presented seem personal preference and no more (or less) a stamp for or against FF AoE as my wish for PF continuity.
S.