|
re-post as it was never answered - regarding PF setting vs RPG and how problems still arise
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
|
The problem with your example conversation is, well, it's very short sighted. The player of the RPG is going to realize that the MMO has different mechanics. If the subject of fireballs actually comes up, they will be used in a very familiar way: roasting bad guys. So your three hypothetically ignorant people can have a boring conversation about fireballs if they want.
On the other hand, I'd much rather talk about whether joining the Hellknights is an ethical thing to do. Mechanics are irrelevant and all three can have interesting things to say.
Edit: BTW, I am so joining the Hellknights.
|
I want to cast fireball and lighting bolt if I create a wizardly type character in PFO.
Therefore I am against implementing friendly fire. If friendly fire is not off then I cannot use these abilities. I will be kicked from my group and declared a noob. And I will have deserved it.
Its possible a limited form of friendly fire could be implemented such that only my group/raid is excluded. Perhaps even a setting in the options menu beside autoloot (which is always off by default for some reason) so if I do go rogue I can put in my two weeks notice with a bang.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I can think of pulling/ambushing assuming the enemy is completely unaware of your presence... and.... uhh... maybe ranged enemies if your opponent clumps all of their ranged guys together, rather then spread them out like the primary benefit of ranged is for?
So far those are the only examples I've seen of situations where FF aoes might be possible to use, and the first one is pretty much entirely limited to instance events that are going to be a minor part of the game if they even exist.
So aside from these 2 that may not even ever have a point in time where either one is ever applicable... I challenge you to name 2 other situations where a friendly fire aoe would make sense to use.
Maybe I'm completely missing something, if so I would like to be corrected, but everything I can come up with either requires some magic pin point targeting system that is somehow fast and can 100% work around lag (Yes internet is faster then it used to be, but not everyone's connection is perfect or consistent, nor is everyone located in the same country as the server, a 1-2 second lag every once in a while is still common for many many people).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To those arguing that there should be priorities greater than simplicity and convenience. Thank you, your opinions are appreciated even if in the minority. It would be nice if we were simply able to discuss ideas without the ridiculous hyperbole of any suggestion in an MMO being dangerous or bad (as far as I am concerned, if a person has no constructive criticism/ideas on a topic, they have nothing to add to the topic, and therefore no business responding).
AoEs will be very viable even with friendly fire. Think of what the endgame will be, contests of territory between PC factions/guilds/alliances. Contrary to the requests of some, I expect conflictual PvE endgame will be very limited (I specify conflictual because ideally the highest levels of harvesting/crafting are equal to endgame content).
As a single example, AoEs will be very useful against characters on/in fortifications.
I have always equated fireball to grenades (I use what I know in my mental analogies, and I spent time in the Army). I would not throw a grenade into an enclosed space with allies in it, no matter how many enemies were there too...likewise I would not toss in a fireball were it in my power. Yet, even with this limitation, soldiers still carry grenades because they are a powerful tool when they can be used. A battlement full of enemies is the perfect place for a grenade...fireball and/or lightning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To those arguing that there should be priorities greater than simplicity and convenience. Thank you, your opinions are appreciated even if in the minority. It would be nice if we were simply able to discuss ideas without the ridiculous hyperbole of any suggestion in an MMO being dangerous or bad (as far as I am concerned, if a person has no constructive criticism/ideas on a topic, they have nothing to add to the topic, and therefore no business responding).
AoEs will be very viable even with friendly fire. Think of what the endgame will be, contests of territory between PC factions/guilds/alliances. Contrary to the requests of some, I expect conflictual PvE endgame will be very limited (I specify conflictual because ideally the highest levels of harvesting/crafting are equal to endgame content).
As a single example, AoEs will be very useful against characters on/in fortifications.
I have always equated fireball to grenades (I use what I know in my mental analogies, and I spent time in the Army). I would not throw a grenade into an enclosed space with allies in it, no matter how many enemies were there too...likewise I would not toss in a fireball were it in my power. Yet, even with this limitation, soldiers still carry grenades because they are a powerful tool when they can be used. A battlement full of enemies is the perfect place for a grenade...fireball and/or lightning.
I can kind of see that, though I'm not certain the concept of player manned battlements making much sense, that involves a very large portion of players being ranged. Which makes perfect sense in a military or futuristic sense, but significantly less sense in a campaign setting where half or more of the major hero's and combatants are melee. The concept makes sense in eve, it makes sense in battlefield 3, where the idea of a bayonette charge is well a very silly hypothetical situation that happens once in a blue moon. But in a situation where half or more likely 60+% of players are melee characters, firing from a castle wall will not really be a player action, possibly NPCs will likely fill that role, which could in theory make it occasionally useful.
If grenades were around in the time when war was fought with spears and swords, they would have been an almost unused weapon on the battlefield, beyond sabotage attacks.
|
|
The problem with your example conversation is, well, it's very short sighted. The player of the RPG is going to realize that the MMO has different mechanics. If the subject of fireballs actually comes up, they will be used in a very familiar way: roasting bad guys. So your three hypothetically ignorant people can have a boring conversation about fireballs if they want.
On the other hand, I'd much rather talk about whether joining the Hellknights is an ethical thing to do. Mechanics are irrelevant and all three can have interesting things to say.
Edit: BTW, I am so joining the Hellknights.
I complete see your point, you are happy with the big picture and I won't be.
I think I'm not really talking mechanics as world physics. Fire burns, gravity makes your character not float away etc.
I'd say the thread has run it's course and only time will tell if the designers think like me or yourself.
Have a good holiday,
S.
|
|
But in a situation where half or more likely 60+% of players are melee characters, firing from a castle wall will not really be a player action, possibly NPCs will likely fill that role, which could in theory make it occasionally useful.
If that is true it still works. If you are a melee character and in a castle, you would stay put until either the castle is breached or the enemy is routing - and you may come out to give chase. May sound boring for the melee characters in the castle but it makes the most sense.
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can kind of see that, though I'm not certain the concept of player manned battlements making much sense, that involves a very large portion of players being ranged. Which makes perfect sense in a military or futuristic sense, but significantly less sense in a campaign setting where half or more of the major hero's and combatants are melee. The concept makes sense in eve, it makes sense in battlefield 3, where the idea of a bayonette charge is well a very silly hypothetical situation that happens once in a blue moon. But in a situation where half or more likely 60+% of players are melee...
That plays right into another discussion about how a more diverse and flexible system is preferable to the trinity when you do not know what situation you will find yourself in. A knight who can pick up a bow and take out a few invaders outside ones castle, is much more useful in this situation.
In fact, that brings up another example when AoEs would dominate, from battlements and into invaders.
I am not sure how player manned battlements do not make sense in a game in which the end-game will be building player towns/forts and holding them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would very much like to see a situation where the default spell wasn't always "Fireball" or "Lightning Bolt" or "Cone of Whatever" simply because you can and it will do the most damage.
It would be nice to see a game impliment mechanics where players had to spend a little thought on which form of attack was best for the particular situation and that they might have to take into consideration the possibility of unintended consequences of a particular attack form if things went awry.
It would add some depth and strategy to combat choices and make for an interesting game-play dynamic. I think some form of freindly fire would be cool.
Not neccesarly in favor of manual aiming (although I do like it in shooters and SPRPG's) or freindly fire automaticaly on every AOE attack role....but I think it would be cool if something like criticaly failing on attack role had some possibility of unintended consequences....and those consequences could be rather serious if the player were particulary unwise in thier choice of attacks given the situation.
Something like "I missed the orc who was fighting my freind in that wagon filled with bottles of Greek Fire. Ooops...perhaps I should have rethought using a FLAMING arrow on that one...a regular arrow might have been more prudent....Oh well, at least the orcs been taken out" would be fun to see in play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can kind of see that, though I'm not certain the concept of player manned battlements making much sense, that involves a very large portion of players being ranged. Which makes perfect sense in a military or futuristic sense, but significantly less sense in a campaign setting where half or more of the major hero's and combatants are melee. The concept makes sense in eve, it makes sense in battlefield 3, where the idea of a bayonette charge is well a very silly hypothetical situation that happens once in a blue moon. But in a situation where half or more likely 60+% of players are melee...To those arguing that there should be priorities greater than simplicity and convenience. Thank you, your opinions are appreciated even if in the minority. It would be nice if we were simply able to discuss ideas without the ridiculous hyperbole of any suggestion in an MMO being dangerous or bad (as far as I am concerned, if a person has no constructive criticism/ideas on a topic, they have nothing to add to the topic, and therefore no business responding).
AoEs will be very viable even with friendly fire. Think of what the endgame will be, contests of territory between PC factions/guilds/alliances. Contrary to the requests of some, I expect conflictual PvE endgame will be very limited (I specify conflictual because ideally the highest levels of harvesting/crafting are equal to endgame content).
As a single example, AoEs will be very useful against characters on/in fortifications.
I have always equated fireball to grenades (I use what I know in my mental analogies, and I spent time in the Army). I would not throw a grenade into an enclosed space with allies in it, no matter how many enemies were there too...likewise I would not toss in a fireball were it in my power. Yet, even with this limitation, soldiers still carry grenades because they are a powerful tool when they can be used. A battlement full of enemies is the perfect place for a grenade...fireball and/or lightning.
Grenades were around (mostly filled with Greek Fire), as were catapults, trebuchet, ballistae, early cannon and a wide variety of other weapons. The reality is that war was never fought exclusively with sword & spear. In fact, the bow predates the sword by a goodly amount....and early spears were primarly a thrown weapon.
In fact, even, the classical gunpowder filled style grenade dates from and saw considerable action in the period when the pike, bayonett and cavalry charge still played very significant roles in combat. Where do you think the term "Grenadier" comes from?
Different tools for different situations.
Melee based troops had significant roles to play in assaults of fortifications in historical middle age battles. Their role as defenders was to guard breaches in the wall and repel attempts by the enemy to scale the walls usind ladders or cross over using siege towers. The reverse was true for the attackers who were attempting to gain breaches in the wall or the walls themselves.
The role of missle based troops (which was the same in field battles BTW) was to thin the enemies numbers as they approached the defenses and engaged the defenders...or in the case of the attacker to provide cover for the assault forces as they came under attack on approach.
All sorts of area of effect or area denial style weapons were used in these sorts of engagements....burning oil or pitch spilled from cauldrons was a particularly popular method of castle defense.
Just to provide some historical basis for the discussion...on the types of tactics that were actualy used in ancient combat. Doesn't neccesarly have to reflect what should/should not be in the game...especialy a game based on fantasy.... but personaly I'd like to see some form of "freindly" fire possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To those arguing that there should be priorities greater than simplicity and convenience. Thank you, your opinions are appreciated even if in the minority. It would be nice if we were simply able to discuss ideas without the ridiculous hyperbole of any suggestion in an MMO being dangerous or bad (as far as I am concerned, if a person has no constructive criticism/ideas on a topic, they have nothing to add to the topic, and therefore no business responding).
AoEs will be very viable even with friendly fire. Think of what the endgame will be, contests of territory between PC factions/guilds/alliances. Contrary to the requests of some, I expect conflictual PvE endgame will be very limited (I specify conflictual because ideally the highest levels of harvesting/crafting are equal to endgame content).
As a single example, AoEs will be very useful against characters on/in fortifications.
I have always equated fireball to grenades (I use what I know in my mental analogies, and I spent time in the Army). I would not throw a grenade into an enclosed space with allies in it, no matter how many enemies were there too...likewise I would not toss in a fireball were it in my power. Yet, even with this limitation, soldiers still carry grenades because they are a powerful tool when they can be used. A battlement full of enemies is the perfect place for a grenade...fireball and/or lightning.
1) a sandbox has no endgame.
2) the number of soldiers that die of friendly fire is fairly high.
3) a battlefield don't suffer from lag.
... Thinking of that artillery suffer from lag. And there are plenty of rules about how it should be used to avoid harming friends.
To cite from the Murphy laws of combat operation:
- Friendly fire -- isn't.
- The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
- When you are forward of your position, the artillery will always be short.
- When the enemy is closing, the artillery will always be long.
The last two will be the norm in a MMORPG.
If grenades were around in the time when war was fought with spears and swords, they would have been an almost unused weapon on the battlefield, beyond sabotage attacks
Catapults covered some of the AoE weapon role and they did see little use outside of sieges.
The advent of firearms, in particular direct fire guns started a change in combat tactics. When they did become reliable the melee combatant started to lose his importance.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1) a sandbox has no endgame.
I am not disagreeing with you because I assume you mean in the Themepark sense, but there will be activities that the highest level PCs interact in. This could arguably be referred to as end-game. I play another semi-sandbox called Saga of Ryzom and in that, the players who have progressed furthest in their skill trees tend to spend more time with PvP, politics, and social engineering (even if only within their guild). They do participate in the little bit of theme park content available, but they do so routinely...and primarily to progress the previously mentioned categories (usually to gear their lower skilled players for fun or for PvP).
In SoR...that state is considered and called end-game.
As for the rest. I agree, but that sounds like an argument against the logic of war...which I will not disagree with. As for lag...that is a always a problem with any mechanic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those arguing that there should be priorities greater than simplicity and convenience. Thank you, your opinions are appreciated even if in the minority. It would be nice if we were simply able to discuss ideas without the ridiculous hyperbole of any suggestion in an MMO being dangerous or bad (as far as I am concerned, if a person has no constructive criticism/ideas on a topic, they have nothing to add to the topic, and therefore no business responding).
The only hyperbole here is that any suggestion is met with being called ridiculous or bad.
The problem is that your suggestions tend to fall into this category. Other people are making suggestions that no one is calling bad (or that perhaps even you might consider bad).
You just don't like your suggestions being called bad. That's fine, and sort of expected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Contrary to your opinion SB, I am not protective of my ideas. I have never suggested one expecting, demanding, or requiring it to be implemented. I just thought we were discussing them. I did not propose the idea of darkness, I did not propose an ecology, I did not propose an economy...someone else did and I am trying to help them figure out how to make these ideas work. If we can't, so be it...but I enjoy the problem solving. The source of my angst is the fact that I am familiar with a different form of dialog and debate than what you use. Ideally, you try to shoot down my ideas, I defend them in order to make them better. But, you give nothing to address and I fail to grasp how I am suppose to interact. I do not see the purpose of your post and this confuses me. I admit I fail because I keep letting myself be drawn in...damn it...did it again.
The connection to the original rules is unimportant. Less than unimportant. Dangerous.
Dangerous, really? Exaggerate much?
The only hyperbole here is that any suggestion is met with being called ridiculous or bad.
There is no chance of your forced default anonymity idea becoming reality, because it is a bad idea.
Hmmm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contrary to your opinion SB, I am not protective of my ideas. I have never suggested one expecting, demanding, or requiring it to be implemented. I just thought we were discussing them. I did not propose the idea of darkness, I did not propose an ecology, I did not propose an economy...someone else did and I am trying to help them figure out how to make these ideas work. If we can't, so be it...but I enjoy the problem solving. The source of my angst is the fact that I am familiar with a different form of dialog and debate than what you use. Ideally, you try to shoot down my ideas, I defend them in order to make them better. But, you give nothing to address and I fail to grasp how I am suppose to interact. I do not see the purpose of your post and this confuses me. I admit I fail because I keep letting myself be drawn in...damn it...did it again.
Look, every time I've tangled with one of your ideas, I've provided multiple reasons for why I offer up the opinion I do. I will not let you tell me that I have given you nothing to address. If you're truly unable to address those criticisms, you need to head back to the drawing board.
Dangerous, really? Exaggerate much?
Nope. If a misguided attempt to hold fast to the tabletop rules makes the online game's gameplay worse, and the game less playable as a result, then that attempt has endangered the success of your game.
Therefore, dangerous.
There is no chance of your forced default anonymity idea becoming reality, because it is a bad idea.Hmmm.
I like how you chose my most recent post on the topic of default forced anonymity, as opposed to the multiple paragraphs of arguments against it I posed in the thread where the topic was discussed at length.
Perhaps you should read that thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can read it too, I addressed your points...or admitted I would have to think further on it.
You proceed to just say
bad
because
bad
And don't even act like it is just me...I am just the idiot who keeps coming back. You have chased off many people who just wanted to discuss ideas.
As I have previously mentioned, I am torn because I am hopeful about this game.
Funny that whenever anyone presses you for your ideas all you can do is regurgitate the certainties...nothing original to contribute or just afraid the griefers will tell you its "bad"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You proceed to just say
badbecause
bad
No, actually, I said that the idea wouldn't become a reality because it's bad. And, frankly, I don't need to rewrite my entire argument every time I reiterate that it's a bad idea. You can go read those arguments. They exist. Here, on this subforum. You probably should have read that discussion, since it goes over a lot of the stuff you seem to want to retread all the time.
And don't even act like it is just me...I am just the idiot who keeps coming back. You have chased off many people who just wanted to discuss ideas.
This is a public forum. If you present an idea here and say "This is a great idea!" you need to be prepared for people to say, "Hey, I don't think that's a great idea!" We're not here to pat each other on the back and hand out prizes for Most Effort.
Funny that whenever anyone presses you for your ideas all you can do is regurgitate the certainties...nothing original to contribute or just afraid the griefers will tell you its "bad"?
See, this again. My criticisms are somehow suspect because I've only bothered to share a handful of ideas of my own. This is awful argumentation, but it's also sort of sad. There are a lot of ideas out there that others have come up with that I have voiced support for. It just so happened that they were pretty good ideas, and not a lot of people bothered to voice disagreement or concern over them.
But let's pretend that I don't have anything original to contribute. Is that easier for you? Does it let you ignore my arguments more easily?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again...let me assure you, you are not the only one being forced to reiterate stuff...when have I ever claimed something a great idea?
I suppose it proves we are here for different purposes. I am here to make constructive suggestions to Goblinworks about features and/or mechanics I would like to see in PFO. This will include exclusively, things which are different than "what everyone else does". So I will never suggest not "reinventing the wheel". Every little change is reinventing some wheel. This means I will never state someones suggestion is bad or dangerous...if I do not like it I will ignore it because Goblinworks may like it. On the other hand, I could offer "improved" versions of the idea with my dislikes fixed. Sometimes, if in a discussion about an idea, we (the collective in discussion) decide we have reached a place we cannot improve and there are still dislikes, then we make the decision to abandon and try a new solution. This, to me is a constructive community.
I would love to hand out Most Effort awards to those who contribute here positively. I would not win of course after letting myself stoop to my debates with you...but the more mature members of the community who also contribute could.
You chasing people away who have original ideas is what is dangerous and has endangered he success of this project...at least more so than anything else. There are veteran MMO developers at Goblinworks. By your own admission, you are not an MMO developer...so let them decide what is good and what is not.
Does you stating you have nothing to contribute make you easier to ignore? Certainly, it proves you are just trying to raise yourself by shooting everyone else down. This is why you contribute nothing anyone could get shot down. It is actually kinda sad...sorry, sorta sad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You chasing people away who have original ideas is what is dangerous and has endangered he success of this project...at least more so than anything else. There are veteran MMO developers at Goblinworks. By your own admission, you are not an MMO developer...so let them decide what is good and what is not.
Does you stating you have nothing to contribute make you easier to ignore? Certainly, it proves you are just trying to raise yourself by shooting everyone else down. This is why you contribute nothing anyone could get shot down. It is actually kinda sad...sorry, sorta sad.
Really, KitNyx, the biggest difference in what we're here for is that I argue against certain things that people say. You just argue against people, and seem to have absolutely no problem with leveling personal attacks at people who say things that you don't like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But in a situation where half or more likely 60+% of players are melee characters, firing from a castle wall will not really be a player action, possibly NPCs will likely fill that role, which could in theory make it occasionally useful.If that is true it still works. If you are a melee character and in a castle, you would stay put until either the castle is breached or the enemy is routing - and you may come out to give chase. May sound boring for the melee characters in the castle but it makes the most sense.
S.
I'm actually starting to half way come around, I also agree it's up to the developers. I do have to say I can't particularly say I like the idea of melees waiting around for the castle to be breached, as you said it sounds very boring for the melee characters... I'm for realism but fun should come ahead of realism. Now assuming there are say NPCs above the castle walls or on things ranged, and then they clear the possibility for melees to fight I could be for it.
If they find a way for aoes to be usable on a noteworthy basis, I could actually get behind it. If they have a system where AoEs are only usable in a handful of types of battles, and melees sit out 90% of fights, or all melee classes pick up a bow and are ranged 90% of the time, I would be strongly against this idea, as that isn't increasing diversity, it's reducing it to nothing. Perhaps it is more realistic for 70% of combatants to be archers, but it isn't particularly fun or exciting.
I am pro-chalange, and I am pro-variety of abilities. If goblinworks can find a way to make both AoEs and single target spells usable in a FF environment it could be fun, if doing so does not also completely eliminate the concept of melee classes, and turns rogues and fighter archtypes into pure archer builds then I am strongly against it, once you are looking at it that way it hasn't solved anything.
I am in favor of diversity, aoes that deal decent damage to crowd, but weak individual damage compared to single target, means both are usable. Turning it so that the melees sit out most of the fight... well now we've taken melee out of the options... how is that any better for variety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually starting to half way come around, I also agree it's up to the developers. I do have to say I can't particularly say I like the idea of melees waiting around for the castle to be breached, as you said it sounds very boring for the melee characters... I'm for realism but fun should come ahead of realism. Now assuming there are say NPCs above the castle walls or on things ranged, and then they clear the possibility for melees to fight I could be for it.
If they find a way for aoes to be usable on a noteworthy basis, I could actually get behind it. If they have a system where AoEs are only usable in a handful of types of battles, and melees sit out 90% of fights, or all melee classes pick up a bow and are ranged 90% of the time, I would be strongly against this idea, as that isn't increasing diversity, it's reducing it to nothing. Perhaps it is more realistic for 70% of combatants to be archers, but it isn't particularly fun or exciting.
I am pro-chalange, and I am pro-variety of abilities. If goblinworks can find a way to make both AoEs and single target spells usable in a FF environment it could be fun, if doing so does not also completely eliminate the concept of melee classes, and turns rogues and fighter archtypes into pure archer builds then I am strongly against it, once you are looking at it that way it hasn't solved anything.
I am in favor of diversity, aoes that deal decent damage to crowd, but weak...
It's definately something that would require some thought and a delicate balance to do well. In real battles (of the pre-modern era), there were usualy multiple phases to most battles. There was the harrasment/approach phase where the opposing forces were sizing each other up, manuvering into position and approaching the enemies lines. This was the phase where (aside from skirmishers) most of the ranged combat took place as the armies tried to weaken each other before the main battle was joined. Then there was the main battle phase where the main melee lines of each side met and joined combat trying to wear each other down. Missle troops (if they could) would typicaly switch targets to formations held back in reserve and not engaged in battle yet. Then there was the route phase where the true slaughter began where one army finally broke morale and started to retreat in panic while the other army tried to chase them down and slaughter them. There could be multiple iterations of these phases, as often armies only commited part of thier troops in any given attack...and had multiple waves of battle. Sometimes a route phase would turn into another main battle phase...as forces chasing after one wave of defeated attackers would run headlong into a fresh set of attackers waiting for them to do so...this was even employed as a purposefull tactic sometimes (read up on the Battle of Hastings 1066 if you have a chance..it makes for some interesting info).
With most MMO's there is mostly only 1 phase....as encounter ranges are so short there isn't much time for any sort of harrasment/approach phase between combatants... in the time you snap your fingers, the melee combatants are engaged... and there really isn't much capacity in terms of strategy of holding anything in reserve as people aren't interested in following direction...just hacking away until they die.... and there typicaly isn't much of a route phase either, as no one cares much about self-preservation when it's a virtual character in a game that can be easly resurrected without suffering much harm if they fall. So because there is mostly just a "main battle" phase....they have to allow the ranged troops to be able to attack while the melee opponents are engaged, because there isn't much else for them to do in a battle that happens outside of that.
Not sure what the best way to address that would be, but I would like to see a bit more variety introduced into combat if possible. One way to partialy address it might be to lengthen the typical encounter/combat ranges in open terrain....at least relative to a footmans movement rate (which is insanely/unrealisticaly fast in MMO's compared to real life). In a typical battle, a longbowman might start firing at enemy troops at ranges upto 400 yds....not direct shots mind you, but high arching mass volleys designed to saturate a general area with arrows in hopes of striking some enemy that occupied it by chance and volume of fire. It would also be interesting to see if there were some benefit provided for melee troops in maintaining position/formation relative to each other when approaching & engaging the enemy rather then the typical mindless rush forward that one see's in most MMO PvP. That would add an element of skill/strategy/organization to combat and make for something interesting for melee's to pay attention to when they weren't actualy swinging thier swords at an enemy.
Note, that was one of the reasons the Romans were so effective in winning battles. Individualy their fighters often weren't nearly a match for thier enemies warriors...but they were disciplined, organized and knew how to keep formation and work with each other while thier enemies warriors tended to get themselves killed attacking peicemeal. When the Romans lost discipline and broke formation or when thier enemies started picking up on the fact that they were far better off fighting in formation rather then individualy is when the Romans started to lose battles.
That dynamic of fighting in formation held as a very important battlefield principle right up until pretty much WWI...when machine-guns and massed artillery put a rather dramatic end to it.
After some thought, I've come to see friendly fire as a "risk vs. reward" problem. If AoE spells use friendly fire rules, the risk of using them increases, therefore the reward (damage) must also increase. Otherwise they won't be worth using and will never get used.
This would mean when AoEs can be safely used, they will be very deadly. It also means when they are used unwisely, their friendly fire will be just as deadly.
I consider both of those scenarios to be problematic.
The safest scenario I can think of to use an AoE would be pulling packs of mobs. If Hate doesn't work the way we're used to, mages could become the pullers of choice. AoE pull with devastating effect without cementing aggro on yourself, easily outdamaging everyone else in the process.
Extrapolate from this a group of mages coordinating their pull. The pack of mobs is dead before they even move. And mages are the kings of PvE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And don't even act like it is just me...I am just the idiot who keeps coming back. You have chased off many people who just wanted to discuss ideas.
Actually I have noticed at least two replies (none was one of yours) to Scott posts that were deleted by the forum moderators for the language or style used.
So I don't think it was Scott that chased away people. It is more the angry people that cased away themselves.Similarly you aren't a "idiot ho keeps coming back". You are a person that has enough patience to try to discuss with other in a civil way even when you disagree.
That is why you are still here. And that is what is important in a forum discussion. I doubt that a guy that start making angry pieces as soon as his suggestions are challenged will add much of use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
if were gonna do it for Magic... than how about Melee attacks too.. siwng that bastardsword to much near a group of friends.. and lop some heads off...
equal possibilities yes I believe that is the idea, IMO for that to work well the arc will have to be fairly small, of course that also leads to a new can of worms, if the arc is large then you reduce melee combatants to 1v1, if the arc is small then you are looking at people fighting while moving and rarely landing a blow.
As I mentioned, I'm not 100% against FF anymore, but it is indeed a can of worms inside of a can of worms inside of a can of worms in a fantasy MMO. If goblinworks can make it work where it isn't limiting people to 1-2 classes, wizards aren't so terrified of their own aoe spells that they don't even learn them, or melee classes are just flat out unused due to the extreme difficulty of fighting, great.
If it just is impractical and miles over the heads of goblinworks to the point where it can't be made to work, I am just fine with that as well.
Also on the issue of hate, I don't think it will work like MMO's, the way that ryan implied, it sounded like the way it is set up will actually be worse for the pulling wizard then most games, considering it sounds like they feel trinity issues stem from the tank classes being too good, which makes perfect agro tank + good priest = invincibility. Solving that, means that the tank can't be perfect at holding agro... which means that a wizard lands a nuke that takes half of every enemies HP, they will likely do what enemies would in P&P, use every method they can to beat the crap outa that wizard, possibly even accepting AoO's, or attempting to dodge his attack range.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I have noticed at least two replies (none was one of yours) to Scott posts that were deleted by the forum moderators for the language or style used.
I think it's just easier to paint them as the victim because I don't really get bothered by this sort of thing.
|
|
if were gonna do it for Magic... than how about Melee attacks too.. siwng that bastardsword to much near a group of friends.. and lop some heads off...
Because this is the same as not having FF AoE's to me. It would be something that would not happen in the PF setting using PF 'physics'. However, implementing 'cleave' feat would be cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I'm really interested in is not so much freindly fire per se (though I like that idea) but a mechanic by which certain types of attacks or abilities can cause unintended negative consequences if used in certain situations where there would be some logical hint that it might be imprudent to use them. Especialy for particularly powerfull spells or abilities.
Freindly fire seems the most obvious and straightforward way to introduce such a play element but it's not neccesarly the only way.
What I really hate about combat in many of todays MMO's is that players end using the same 2 or 3 spells or attacks/abilities over and over again in virtualy every encounter because they do the most damage and there is really never any reason not to use them.
To me that makes for very shallow and unimaginative combat.
I'd love for some sort of mechanic where people have to consider potential side effects of the abilities they want to use...and what sort of consequences those side effects might have.
A non-friendly fire based example might be something like:
Wizard: "Yes, Lightning Bolt is my most damaging spell but we're fighting a Steel Golem...they feed of electricity...my spell actualy has a small chance to end up healing him instead...or giving him the energy for a more powerfull attack....in this situation, maybe I should use Frost instead...it won't do as much damage but there is no chance of it backfiring either."
I'd absolutely love to see players having to make those sort of gameplay decisions when considering what abilities to use in combat.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have never played WoW, but have played EQ and EVE (Minny small craft pilot).
After reading 4 pages on this in one sitting, I'm still for Friendly Fire for AoE spells. Here's why. We don't know much about this game yet, but we do know that the land area of the game is going to be huge, and that pvp will be a big part of it.
You're not going to be dropping fireball in a "raid" environment against a "boss". I'd hazard to guess that's not when you use them for in PnP Pathfinder. You use them at long range, or against multiple targets before friendlies are tied in with them to soften them up. Its a selective use spell, something in you're toolbox.
A single wizard on his own might not want to tangle with 4 Hobgoblins, but if he can go invisible, catch them off guard with a fireball, then finish them off the survivors with single target spells, more power to him. He shouldn't be dropping the fireball at his feet repeatedly however.
I like the idea of a "selective spell" ability, sort of like the feat. There are lots of ways to handle this, the easiest being to have a selective spell use progressively more "mana" (or whatever) for each target you remove from you're list.
Here's a hypothetical example (Using traditional classes for lack of any solid info): You're group consists of a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger And You (The Wizard). You have the selective spell trait/skill/feat whatever. Before combat you Flag everyone in you're group (some GUI function), this makes the spell 100% safe to use, but take's too much "mana" to be an effective choice unless you're fighting 6-7 baddies at once; however, if you flag only the fighter and cleric while letting the rogue take his chances (you and the ranger are set back at range) the spell becomes much more reasonable, requiring only 2 targets hit to be an effective choice.
Seems to me that this keeps both sides of the issue happy.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I've read four pages, and still don't understand why some people are opposed to AoE (all creatures) effects. There's no technological reason that targeting can't be done client-side. The person casting a spell would know who he was hitting when he cast it.
The issue of multi-target effects is one of targeting. Not the design choice "Can this spell hit anyone?", but the implementation question "How does the user determine who this spell hits?"
Either friendly fire is possible, or there is no spell, tactic, or other effect that works better on an group of archers huddled alone together than on a group of enemies engaged in melee with a group of friendlies. Fireball either doesn't exist, or is all-purpose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You're not going to be dropping fireball in a "raid" environment against a "boss".
If the raid boss involves adds (as raid bosses are wont to do) then you probably will.
I'd hazard to guess that's not when you use them for in PnP Pathfinder.
Sure it is. 6d6 damage is nothing to sneeze at.
You use them at long range, or against multiple targets before friendlies are tied in with them to soften them up. Its a selective use spell, something in you're toolbox.
That's not really how the spell is used in practice. Ideally you'd be able to do that, but in D&D you often find yourself encountering enemies in rather close confines (y'know, dungeons). Thankfully, spells like fireball can be precisely targeted in the pen-and-paper game to land just on the enemy's side of the fight and not on your own. But in my experience the majority of fireballs cast are cast during the thick of combat.
A single wizard on his own might not want to tangle with 4 Hobgoblins, but if he can go invisible, catch them off guard with a fireball, then finish them off the survivors with single target spells, more power to him. He shouldn't be dropping the fireball at his feet repeatedly however.
I like the idea of a "selective spell" ability, sort of like the feat. There are lots of ways to handle this, the easiest being to have a selective spell use progressively more "mana" (or whatever) for each target you remove from you're list.
Here's a hypothetical example (Using traditional classes for lack of any solid info): You're group consists of a Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Ranger And You (The Wizard). You have the selective spell trait/skill/feat whatever. Before combat you Flag everyone in you're group (some GUI function), this makes the spell 100% safe to use, but take's too much "mana" to be an effective choice unless you're fighting 6-7 baddies at once; however, if you flag only the fighter and cleric while letting the rogue take his chances (you and the ranger are set back at range) the spell becomes much more reasonable, requiring only 2 targets hit to be an effective choice.
Seems to me that this keeps both sides of the issue happy.
As a solution, this strikes me as complex and fiddly. It could probably be implemented, but I'm not sure it would be well-received.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You're not going to be dropping fireball in a "raid" environment against a "boss".If the raid boss involves adds (as raid bosses are wont to do) then you probably will.
I'd hazard to guess that's not when you use them for in PnP Pathfinder.Sure it is. 6d6 damage is nothing to sneeze at.
I find that 1d3 giant spiders is better versus living nonhumanoids, and hold person allows the target one save or he is paralyzed for the rest of his life. But yeah, I suppose you could use the arcane secrets of the universe to simply reduce hit points. If you wanted to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I find that 1d3 giant spiders is better versus living nonhumanoids, and hold person allows the target one save or he is paralyzed for the rest of his life. But yeah, I suppose you could use the arcane secrets of the universe to simply reduce hit points. If you wanted to.You're not going to be dropping fireball in a "raid" environment against a "boss".If the raid boss involves adds (as raid bosses are wont to do) then you probably will.
I'd hazard to guess that's not when you use them for in PnP Pathfinder.Sure it is. 6d6 damage is nothing to sneeze at.
The upside to fireball is that it's guaranteed damage. Your enemy can save, certainly, but he's still taking half of that 6d6. Spiders take a whole round to appear and be effective (though once they pop out boy are they ever effective), and hold person has no effect on a successful save (though it certainly is a good spell - on a failed save it's like hitting the "WIN" button). Fireball isn't the sort of thing I'd fill all my slots with, but it's definitely not limited to long-range opening volleys in D&D.
|
|
I've read four pages, and still don't understand why some people are opposed to AoE (all creatures) effects. There's no technological reason that targeting can't be done client-side. The person casting a spell would know who he was hitting when he cast it.
That seems a simple idea. If the client takes a snap-shot at the time of casting of the situation when the spell is cast. From that it determines who/what is hit and then passes that to the server. Sure lag/ping times will mean that at times it will appear that friends were in the blast radius it would alleviate the problem of targeting based on a lagged view of the battlefield.
Interesting - any computer dudes about? Is this possible?
S.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've read four pages, and still don't understand why some people are opposed to AoE (all creatures) effects. There's no technological reason that targeting can't be done client-side. The person casting a spell would know who he was hitting when he cast it.That seems a simple idea. If the client takes a snap-shot at the time of casting of the situation when the spell is cast. From that it determines who/what is hit and then passes that to the server. Sure lag/ping times will mean that at times it will appear that friends were in the blast radius it would alleviate the problem of targeting based on a lagged view of the battlefield.
Interesting - any computer dudes about? Is this possible?
S.
IT security 101, The Client is never to be trusted. Whatever is processed on the client side, will be hacked and modified. Scripts will be written to interfear with client/server communication, and people will make applications to have the client to never tell the server that his friends were hit, but always tell the server all enemies were hit. If the server double checks, then it will false positive on people who have lag that makes it appear the player and monster are in different places etc...
Nothing regarding hits/misses/damage etc... should ever be processed client side, that is a guaranteed exploit armsrace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've read four pages, and still don't understand why some people are opposed to AoE (all creatures) effects. There's no technological reason that targeting can't be done client-side. The person casting a spell would know who he was hitting when he cast it.That seems a simple idea. If the client takes a snap-shot at the time of casting of the situation when the spell is cast. From that it determines who/what is hit and then passes that to the server. Sure lag/ping times will mean that at times it will appear that friends were in the blast radius it would alleviate the problem of targeting based on a lagged view of the battlefield.
Interesting - any computer dudes about? Is this possible?
S.
can't do that. for all practical purposes, server considers all clients to be lying, cheating scumbags. any action calculations and resolutions are done server-side. clients can only send requests; not demands.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
can't do that. for all practical purposes, server considers all clients to be lying, cheating scumbags. any action calculations and resolutions are done server-side. clients can only send requests; not demands.I've read four pages, and still don't understand why some people are opposed to AoE (all creatures) effects. There's no technological reason that targeting can't be done client-side. The person casting a spell would know who he was hitting when he cast it.That seems a simple idea. If the client takes a snap-shot at the time of casting of the situation when the spell is cast. From that it determines who/what is hit and then passes that to the server. Sure lag/ping times will mean that at times it will appear that friends were in the blast radius it would alleviate the problem of targeting based on a lagged view of the battlefield.
Interesting - any computer dudes about? Is this possible?
S.
I'm aware of the security implications. Since middleware is being used, the industry standard of the client reporting player position is already de facto; the server simply makes a sanity check comparing legal movement speed with delta d. A simple case of "When these objects were in this position, fireball was targeted at this point." (That information is exactly equal to "These targets were within the area of the fireball.")
Another option is to place the target location at the start of casting the spell, and have a cast time long enough to cover lag; still suffers from accidental friendly fire if allies move into the target area.
In either case, the caster should have immediate visual feedback on where the effect will be, before committing to the spell. And for multi-target spells, like multiple-ray spells, the client MUST tell the server exactly what objects are targeted. The server only makes the check to see if they are hit.
The upside to fireball is that it's guaranteed damage. Your enemy can save, certainly, but he's still taking half of that 6d6. Spiders take a whole round to appear and be effective (though once they pop out boy are they ever effective), and hold person has no effect on a successful save (though it certainly is a good spell - on a failed save it's like hitting the "WIN" button). Fireball isn't the sort of thing I'd fill all my slots with, but it's definitely not limited to long-range opening volleys in D&D.
If your enemy is likely to save against your spell, you are casting the wrong spell. If he has a high will save, but a low fort save, use the spiders. If you are targeting reflex, use web and spider climb to give the rogue +3d6 per round with their ranged attacks. If you need unsavable damage on a single target, use scorching ray for 4d6 or 8d6. If you can't beat fort, will, reflex, OR touch AC, then use expeditious retreat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If your enemy is likely to save against your spell, you are casting the wrong spell. If he has a high will save, but a low fort save, use the spiders. If you are targeting reflex, use web and spider climb to give the rogue +3d6 per round with their ranged attacks. If you need unsavable damage on a single target, use scorching ray for 4d6 or 8d6. If you can't beat fort, will, reflex, OR touch AC, then use expeditious retreat.
I'm not going to get into an in-depth argument over caster tactics here, but I didn't say anything about the target being likely to save. I said that even if the target saves, they're still taking significant damage.
Spiders have to hit. Rogues have to hit. Scorching Ray has to hit. Fireball just has to be cast.
My point is simply that fireball sees a lot of use in the middle of combat, even in the tabletop game. Let's not pretend that it's only used as a long-distance opener just for the sake of helping to justify relegating it to that role in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've read four pages, and still don't understand why some people are opposed to AoE (all creatures) effects. There's no technological reason that targeting can't be done client-side. The person casting a spell would know who he was hitting when he cast it.That seems a simple idea. If the client takes a snap-shot at the time of casting of the situation when the spell is cast. From that it determines who/what is hit and then passes that to the server. Sure lag/ping times will mean that at times it will appear that friends were in the blast radius it would alleviate the problem of targeting based on a lagged view of the battlefield.
Interesting - any computer dudes about? Is this possible?
S.
Based on EVE experience, I would say no (not a computer expert, but some experience with big, lagged fights).
You can't leave the "decision" of where people is at the time of the casting to the client side. You will end with a bunch of people that "miraculously" never hit a friend (i.e. people that will hack the client one way or another) and a lot of "normal" people that don't use AoE most of the time for fear of hitting friends.Guess who will win most fights?
I know that it is sad to limit the game functions because of cheaters, but in a large enough community you will have them and the developers need to keep that in mind.
As far as I know "everything that can be hacked will be hacked" is a basic assumption in on line games.
What the developers need to do is to limit it to as few individuals as possible and to limit it ina way to make the benefit for the cheater as low as possible.
I'm aware of the security implications. Since middleware is being used, the industry standard of the client reporting player position is already de facto; the server simply makes a sanity check comparing legal movement speed with delta d. A simple case of "When these objects were in this position, fireball was targeted at this point." (That information is exactly equal to "These targets were within the area of the fireball.")
Another option is to place the target location at the start of casting the spell, and have a cast time long enough to cover lag; still suffers from accidental friendly fire if allies move into the target area.
In either case, the caster should have immediate visual feedback on where the effect will be, before committing to the spell. And for multi-target spells, like multiple-ray spells, the client MUST tell the server exactly what objects are targeted. The server only makes the check to see if they are hit.
The problem is that you are assuming instantaneous communication and calculations server side. That is impossible to achieve.
To continue with EVE, the program operate in 1 second ticks, i.e. the server calculate the effects of the players actions and movement and then send an update every second. So you are regularly something like 3 seconds behind what is really happening (you make your action this second, they are processed the next second and sent you the third) if there is no lag in the internet connection and the fight isn't too crowded. Make it a very crowded fight and the time for the server side calculations will pile up.Your client is making a guess to the targets actual positions, but it will be out of date by several seconds on the actual positions.
Using Pathfinder standard speed and constant movement into the round (a MMORPG isn't turn based) your targets and your friend can have moved by 10' (or 20') during those 3 seconds. Very few area effect spells will work at range with that kind of differences unless the targets are surprised and not acting.
In practice a AoE attack that can't discriminate between "friends" and foes would be a niche attack used very rarely as it could be used only during the open volley of a fight and only if the target is not moving or moving in a predictable way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I assume targeting would include placing a target reticle on the ground and people in the AoE would flash, green for enemies, red for teammates/raidmates/guildies. Many of the problems above can be alleviated by making the reticle larger than the AoE by an amount proportional to your current ping(x2). This would simulate your character quickly assessing who might wander into the AoE. Likewise, the decision is not made client-side. The client sends the command to "fire" the AoE and at that point the server uses its current position for each player to decide who gets hit. By using a larger reticle, the AoEer can make a safer assumption that no friendlies would be hit (even though there might be a slight difference due to the AoEer and friendly lag...hence the reason for the ping*2 larger reticle).
Someone earlier also mentioned distance AoEs...and someone else argued because that was not how it had been done in other MMOs. I think that should be the purpose of AoEs...they are powerful spells that hit an entire area. PFO, with its focus on more realistic distances, should do much better at allowing long distance combat. As for limited uses...well, AoEers are welcome to put their skills to any use they can think of.
I dont know how the combat system is going to be, if it is going to be somewhat like Wow (sorry for using the reference, but I dont know what the term for such a system is lol) or if it's going to be more of a twitch based realtime system like, say, Mortal Online.
Personally, I enjoyed Mortals combat even though it had it's flaws. It really brough your own personal skill into play. And yes, there was friendly fire.
In my opinion, this system brough back the danger of combat. As an example, take a look at the old Star Wars movies, like A new hope etc. and compare the lightsaber duels with the new movies. The old fights were slow and more accurate to how a real (REAL) swordfight would happen. I mean, when it's a matter of life and death, no one in their right mind would go flailing a longsword around in a 10 vs 10 melee fight right?
You would probably hit some of your friends if you dont act carefully.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I assume targeting would include placing a target reticle on the ground and people in the AoE would flash, green for enemies, red for teammates/raidmates/guildies. Many of the problems above can be alleviated by making the reticle larger than the AoE by an amount proportional to your current ping(x2). This would simulate your character quickly assessing who might wander into the AoE. Likewise, the decision is not made client-side. The client sends the command to "fire" the AoE and at that point the server uses its current position for each player to decide who gets hit. By using a larger reticle, the AoEer can make a safer assumption that no friendlies would be hit (even though there might be a slight difference due to the AoEer and friendly lag...hence the reason for the ping*2 larger reticle).
Someone earlier also mentioned distance AoEs...and someone else argued because that was not how it had been done in other MMOs. I think that should be the purpose of AoEs...they are powerful spells that hit an entire area. PFO, with its focus on more realistic distances, should do much better at allowing long distance combat. As for limited uses...well, AoEers are welcome to put their skills to any use they can think of.
Ideally, there would be an area of full damage, and then damage would fall off to zero around the edge. The caster should be able to see what area will be targeted as part of the decision to target it. I still say that the client information can include "cast fireball centered at x,y,z from position x,y,z at time T hitting A,B,C,D." The server can validate this almost as easily as it can determine who is hit- check to make sure time T is within the acceptable lag limits, then look at the position at time T and determine who was hit, and compare to the client-side list. If odd behavior starts coming from a particular client, then initiate second-tier hack detection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ideally, there would be an area of full damage, and then damage would fall off to zero around the edge. The caster should be able to see what area will be targeted as part of the decision to target it. I still say that the client information can include "cast fireball centered at x,y,z from position x,y,z at time T hitting A,B,C,D." The server can validate this almost as easily as it can determine who is hit- check to make sure time T is within the acceptable lag limits, then look at the position at time T and determine who was hit, and compare to the client-side list. If odd behavior starts coming from a particular client, then initiate second-tier hack detection.
What exactly is second tier hack detection. With lag everything is possible, in many different games I have seen situations like this
. . . X . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . . . . .
. . . Y . . .
With Y being a player and X being the enemy, both of them showing that distance appart while both are swinging melee attacks and hitting each-other. Someone with a bad connection can have this happen numerous times. How can you clearly determine whether it is cheating or lagging? People who lag severely, usually have bad connections, meaning it happens frequently for them so frequency isn't a good margin of detection, if they are accidentally hitting people in FF, they generally should just not play an aoe character, (same reason that people with bad connections do not play healers in most MMO's), but if you are going to randomly ban them because it looks like hacking that is not a good system to use.
|
|
My point is simply that fireball sees a lot of use in the middle of combat, even in the tabletop game. Let's not pretend that it's only used as a long-distance opener just for the sake of helping to justify relegating it to that role in PFO.
Perhaps while we are at it we can avoid subjective terms, and stop pretending that Fireball is the only spell in a Wizards arsenal she is likely to cast in a combat situation? Lightning Bolt for example might be a good alternative in some FF situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lag is certainly an issue...but I don't regard it as ANY MORE SIGNIFICANT an issue for Freindly Fire then it is for MOST OTHER combat mechanics that exist in MMO's today.
- Is Lag an issue if it causes you to miss a heal on the main tank when the "boss" has just walloped him and is getting set to wallop him again?
- Is Lag an issue if a bunch of mobs have proximity damage abilities and the CC misses the opportunity to root them before they get to you?
- Is Lag an issue if someone is "kiting" a boss or a bunch of mobs and it causes them to run into a wall or off a cliff instead of turning when they were supposed to do so?
- Is Lag an issue if the boss has some sort of harmfull special ability and a character(s) need to fire off a reactive to counter it?
- Is Lag an issue if the "puller" has to time his pull against a patrolling mob so it's not too close to another group of mobs that they get aggro'd as well?
I don't see how Freindly Fire is any MORE prone to Lag complications then any of the above mechanics, which are ALL used in many of todays popular MMO's.
Bottom line is that lag sucks when it happens and it will occasionaly cause problems for players when it occurs....but it's something that every MMO player has learned to accept as part of the complication of playing online games with less then perfect connectivity.
Lag can be used an excuse to eliminate ANY sort of player interactivty in combat. IMO, that's a bogus excuse...if we really are that concerned about any possible complication from Lag...then we essentialy should be arguing for "Turn Based" gameplay...or against any sort of player input being neccesary in combat...otherwise you are prone to the same sort of complications from Lag that freindly fire is.
Perhaps a more relevant questions are "What is combat pacing going to be like in PFO" and "what are typical encounter ranges going to be like?"
The closer to "twitch" based the combat pacing is...then the more vulnerable to lag ANY sort of player input in combat is going to be.
The closer the typical encounter ranges are then the less usefull ANY sort of ranged combat dependant ability (not just Freindly Fire) becomes.
The answers to those questions are going to determine ALOT about the practicality of many combat mechanics in the game (not just Friendly Fire).
For example, if pacing & movement are slow enough and combat ranges long enough that characters have a decent amount of time to get off a few ranged attacks before enemies can close... then inadvertant Friendly Fire becomes much less of an issue. If pacing & movement are super-fast and combat ranges are short.... then it's not just Freindly Fire but ALOT of combat mechanics that are going to need to be examined in light of that.