Friendly fire - I'm all for it


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

One thing I would like to see is friendly-fire. Meaning if you drop a fireball in the middle of a melee, everyone, both foe and allies get hurt.

"Once you pull the pin, Mr Grenade is NOT your friend"

S.


I'm on the fence. On the one hand, it makes perfect sense. On the other, I really don't like getting blown up by allies who don't know how to aim or who simply don't care.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I semi-fondly recall my miscalculated fireballs on an AD&D 1st edition (I think) mage. It was -meant- for just the trolls in the cave, but it turned out that the low ceiling meant it blasted the party (me included) as well ...

Not sure I'd like something like that in an MMO. Yes, it's realistic, but it's also quite wide-open for abuse. "Oh, sorry, didn't mean to fry you guys ... again".

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, this sounds like something that will do nothing but increase frustration.


Scott Betts wrote:
Yeah, this sounds like something that will do nothing but increase frustration.

You should make this or "That's a BAD idea." your signature. =)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

While I agree that is adds another layer of required skill that will have mistakes, meaning Friendly Fire isn't friendly, I personally see it as a way to reduce the button mashing of WoW. I could with my DPS Mage in WoW almost turn off the screen and just look at my watch and press buttons X, Y, and Z at times A, B, and C during some boss fights. Boring. If targeting both to hit the enemy and not allies is more prominent (i.e. Skyrim) then you have to actually 'play' the game and not just 'press the buttons'. Seems to work fine in games like Modern Warfare, in which I only play Hardcore because I like the added complexity of just not being able to spam grenades/bullets etc.

Still it would seem currently I am in a minority.

How about a Hardcore server then?

S.

Goblin Squad Member

Zesty Mordant wrote:
You should make this or "That's a BAD idea." your signature. =)

But then how would I deliver that essential personal touch?

Goblinworks Founder

While I can definitely see the negative effects this could have on the game, I would have nothing against friendly fire being an added challenge to overcome and take into consideration before an action. As Stefan said, it works in FPS MOGs like Modern Warfare and Battlefield just fine. People adapt to the challenge. I like it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't really like this idea, but if it was for something completely optional like a hardcore server I wouldn't mind, I guess it's just a question as to what the demand for it is. For me a lot would depend on perspective. In the usual third person mode for these games I'd find it very hard to judge just where my fireball would hit. It would be even tougher if there was a delay on activation for the spell and everybody is moving around in real time. For this to work I think you'd also need to be able to aim for a point in space rather than a specific target, which would make it very hard to get terribly precise.

For all of that risk the fireball would need to do really significant damage when used right, otherwise I could see it hardly ever being used at all.

Goblinworks Founder

Berik wrote:

For me a lot would depend on perspective. In the usual third person mode for these games I'd find it very hard to judge just where my fireball would hit. It would be even tougher if there was a delay on activation for the spell and everybody is moving around in real time. For this to work I think you'd also need to be able to aim for a point in space rather than a specific target, which would make it very hard to get terribly precise.

For all of that risk the fireball would need to do really significant damage when used right, otherwise I could see it hardly ever being used at all.

It would really capture the essence of the PnP fireball (and Lightning bolt). This is one of the most iconic spells of all time. It should be both feared and respected, and saved for the most dire circumstance as it was in PnP.

I'm only toying with the idea though


Sounds like an interesting addition to game play to me.


As an Open PvP everywhere game, this is one of the few that could pull it off. The problem becomes if you "accidently" fry someone in a safeish zone and the guards come down on you like a ton of bricks. Especially if your target intentionally walks into your spell just to see you rack up a prison fine or the like.

Goblinworks Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
FoxBat_ wrote:
As an Open PvP everywhere game, this is one of the few that could pull it off. The problem becomes if you "accidently" fry someone in a safeish zone and the guards come down on you like a ton of bricks. Especially if your target intentionally walks into your spell just to see you rack up a prison fine or the like.

I think this is where the added strategy of wielding magic would be at it's best. Do you risk injury to innocents and anger the city watch by casting that fireball, or do you zap him with a ray of enfeeblement and crush him under the weight of his armour, reducing him to a feeble mess crawling along the cobblestones?

Goblin Squad Member

Friendly fire is too problematic for words. People running into field effect spells in Ultima Online pretty much rendered them as 'do not use' spells around other players.

The level of griefing in Darkfall Online is also quite horrific. Swing your sword/cast your spell/shoot your arrow directly into the back of the guy who cunningly jumped infront of you. You are now a criminal under the eyes of all and they will murder and loot you.

Too problematic.

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:

Friendly fire is too problematic for words. People running into field effect spells in Ultima Online pretty much rendered them as 'do not use' spells around other players.

The level of griefing in Darkfall Online is also quite horrific. Swing your sword/cast your spell/shoot your arrow directly into the back of the guy who cunningly jumped infront of you. You are now a criminal under the eyes of all and they will murder and loot you.

Too problematic.

I have to agree, considering the idea of criminal flagging when attacking players etc... and actually making players prevent griefing is going to involve death being painful, so accidental PKing and harming, as well as intentional grief killing trying to make it look like incompetence. Is a bad idea.


Really, these animations are going to be slow enough to enable 'cunningly jumping infront' or into the AoE of a spell?

This stuff should be fast. Maybe there's some flashy spell animation, but the damage and such should be instantaneous (except with duration spells like wall of fire or whatnot.)

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
(except with duration spells like wall of fire or whatnot.)

R.I.P Lord British.

Goblinworks Founder

Coldman wrote:

Friendly fire is too problematic for words. People running into field effect spells in Ultima Online pretty much rendered them as 'do not use' spells around other players.

The level of griefing in Darkfall Online is also quite horrific. Swing your sword/cast your spell/shoot your arrow directly into the back of the guy who cunningly jumped infront of you. You are now a criminal under the eyes of all and they will murder and loot you.

Too problematic.

Very good point. I hadn't thought of that.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Coldman wrote:

Friendly fire is too problematic for words.

Let's call it for what he's really asking for. Free For All PVP in every place.

Goblinworks Founder

LazarX wrote:
Coldman wrote:

Friendly fire is too problematic for words.

Let's call it for what he's really asking for. Free For All PVP in every place.

...I think that's a little bit uncalled for to be honest.

In Stefans defence, I think he is looking at this from more of a Pen and Paper point of view than a "Imma gank u 4 lulz" point of view. So was I until Coldman gently reminded us of what could happen in MMO format.

Stefan has been quite neutral on the player killing front from what I have noticed. I have seen posts both for and against depending on the thread.

Considering the game doesn't have factions as far as we know, Free for All PvP is most likely going to be the case. I for one support that because I really do not like twin faction MMO's as they always end up one-sided.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hate non-consensual PvP (but I consider PvP to be any acts of aggression against players, not just combat...therefore I hope I have the right to defend myself and my allies) but love the idea that people must use their abilities wisely. I am all for the effects of friendly fire...and likewise, enemies receiving poorly timed (or aimed) buffs.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The problem is any mechanism that's put into the game WILL, not IF, be exploited by jerks and gankers who are drawn to MMOs to get their jollies.

You never put anything into an MMO without considering that aspect of it.

Goblinworks Founder

LazarX wrote:

The problem is any mechanism that's put into the game WILL, not IF, be exploited by jerks and gankers who are drawn to MMOs to get their jollies.

You never put anything into an MMO without considering that aspect of it.

QFT

Looking forward to the imaginary single player coop Pathfinder RPG Now with realistic turn based combat and friendly fire!

Note: That wasn't sarcastic. If someone ever does do a decent game with that concept I'll be all over it like Angelina on a third world country childcare centre.


Elth wrote:
LazarX wrote:

The problem is any mechanism that's put into the game WILL, not IF, be exploited by jerks and gankers who are drawn to MMOs to get their jollies.

You never put anything into an MMO without considering that aspect of it.

QFT

Looking forward to the imaginary single player coop Pathfinder RPG Now with realistic turn based combat and friendly fire!

Note: That wasn't sarcastic. If someone ever does do a decent game with that concept I'll be all over it like Angelina on a third world country childcare centre.

This is the mini game I would like to see made for mobile devices, but instead of pure SP to make it more along the Final FantasybTactics line.

Or as a virtual PRG: Battles line, resurrecting the dnd minis rules in its own way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem with declaring 'no friendly fire' is that this is a game with open PvP. EVERYONE is your potential enemy, and it's entirely possible someone might even be a double agent working for you waiting for the time to make their move.

How is the game supposed to define 'allies' when such allegiences are underneath the programming? If you drop a bomb, everybody in the area is getting hit, friend or foe.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will be incredibly offended if there is NOT friendly fire in the Pathfinder Online game. There is friendly fire in the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. Why in the world would there not be in the online version?

Some have said it would be a bother. It would be problematic. To complicated for people. Seriously?

Everquest (Ralos Zek server) had friendly fire. It worked just fine there. World of Warcraft, you can drop an AOE spell on your buddies all day long. Everyone has the "Selective Spell" feat apparently with no limit on how many people you can ignore. That is a bother. That is problematic. It is over-simplified idiocy. It is fire and forget without having to even remotely having to think.

I would hope that the Pathfinder Online game would be a little more cerebral than WoW.


The problem is that some @$&h0le will exploit it to to harras noob players and that wil increase frustation more than simply having a greifing in your team wich you veto from further parties.

Yes, freindly fire might add to the realism and the immersion, but, is it really worth it? Maybe in dungeons where you can simply stop playing with them once you indentified them.

Humbly,
Yawar

Goblin Squad Member

Tempestorm wrote:

I will be incredibly offended if there is NOT friendly fire in the Pathfinder Online game. There is friendly fire in the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. Why in the world would there not be in the online version?

Some have said it would be a bother. It would be problematic. To complicated for people. Seriously?

Everquest (Ralos Zek server) had friendly fire. It worked just fine there. World of Warcraft, you can drop an AOE spell on your buddies all day long. Everyone has the "Selective Spell" feat apparently with no limit on how many people you can ignore. That is a bother. That is problematic. It is over-simplified idiocy. It is fire and forget without having to even remotely having to think.

I would hope that the Pathfinder Online game would be a little more cerebral than WoW.

Well I believe the problem is in AoE's, in pathfinder P&P, targeting a fireball behind an enemy fighting your tank, was a piece of cake with 100% chance of success in normal circumstances, landing the same target in a live action game, is virtually impossible. End result, aoes become completely useless in any situation in which you are not fighting alone. You can allow them to not target your raid/party while killing anyone friend or foe outside of your party just fine, Otherwise unless it is you vs the world wizards should not ever use aoe spells.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

In the Pen and Paper game you have the time to aim the spell. In a real time computer game how much time you will need to target 10 friends for a haste spell? Remove 10 enemies from your positive energy channelling?
Select/deselect targets from countless spells that allow that in the P&P game but will require too much time for a real time game?

Then there is the latency problem.
Taking an example from EVE;: what I see isn't what the other player is really doing, but the projection the server and my local client do of the consequences of what he was doing the last time he issued an order to the server.
The program operate in 1 second ticks so normally we are at least 1 second behind of what is really happening.
If I have issued a command the other player could see the consequences of it from 1 to 10 seconds (or even more) later.
Sometime if there are connection troubles, plenty of actions, fast ships and other things putting pressure on the system my local client will feed me informations based on what the target was doing and saying me it is at 5 km, then it gets its updates from the server and suddenly the target is 50 Km away and going in a totally different direction.
All the shots I have fired against him with my short range weaponry haven't done anything as he was out of my range.

Put that in a Pathfinder world. I fire my fireball, but what I am really seeing is the situation as it was 1 second ago.
The it was all ok to fire it, now my fighter companion is in melee with the enemy or the cleric has interposed himself between me and the monster, so that the fireball bead will hit him and detonate prematurely.
End of fireball as a castable spell.

The possible solution is to be allowed to declare a specific number (skill based?) of "friendly target" for friendly buffing spells before you start the combat, while you have ample free time. When you cast your buffing spells they are automatically selected as targets if they are in range.

Same thing for offensive spells. You have a number of friendlies. When you cast the spell they are automatically excluded from the AoE.

In EVE no one use area affecting attacks in high security as it is a almost guaranteed way to get yourself killed by the police.

Goblin Squad Member

Tempestorm wrote:
I will be incredibly offended if there is NOT friendly fire in the Pathfinder Online game.

You may want to rethink what it means to be offended. Also, the sort of thing that is acceptable to be offended over.

Quote:
There is friendly fire in the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. Why in the world would there not be in the online version?

Because this isn't the online version of the Pathfinder Role Playing Game. This is Pathfinder Online, an MMORPG set in the Pathfinder universe. The sooner you accept that this is a non-trivial difference, the better off you'll be.

Quote:
Some have said it would be a bother. It would be problematic. To complicated for people. Seriously?

Yes.

Quote:
Everquest (Ralos Zek server) had friendly fire.

"Everquest had it," is not justification for a game having it ten years later, or ever, for that matter. And Rallos Zek was a joke.

Quote:
World of Warcraft, you can drop an AOE spell on your buddies all day long. Everyone has the "Selective Spell" feat apparently with no limit on how many people you can ignore. That is a bother. That is problematic. It is over-simplified idiocy. It is fire and forget without having to even remotely having to think.

There are plenty of things to think about in WoW without having to worry about your AoE party members accidentally wiping your raid with a single misclick.

Quote:
I would hope that the Pathfinder Online game would be a little more cerebral than WoW.

You are mistaken if you think that WoW is not a mentally engaging game.

Silver Crusade

No, I do not need to rethink it. It is a matter of perception and opinion. Mine and yours apparently differ.

The game may not intend to be the Pathfinder RPG in video game form, but the former is the inspiration for the latter. By your logic the online version may as well have motorcycles since they are not the same thing it won't matter right?

Yes, Rallos was a joke... I would say you need to rethink your idea of a joke, but I have alreayd pointed out matters of opinion. I will allow mine to stand.

There is little to nothing to worry about in WoW.

As to being mistaken about it being mentally engaging... I will again mention that opinion thing. I play the game. I enjoy it. Mentally engaging... rarely.

As I said, if fireballs do not hit everything in their path (to include the caster who created it if he drops it at his feet) thet I will be offended.

Goblin Squad Member

Tempestorm wrote:
No, I do not need to rethink it. It is a matter of perception and opinion. Mine and yours apparently differ.

It's difficult for me to fathom a mind that finds a fairly run-of-the-mill design decision in a hypothetical video game "incredibly offensive." I reserve "incredibly offensive" for serious matters. There is no game design decision that the PFO devs (or anyone, for that matter) could make that would warrant more than a "mildly disappointing" verdict from me.

It concerns me when people find really inconsequential stuff like a single rule from a single game to be so important that they're willing to get very upset over it. It means that they probably don't have a lot of perspective for what is and isn't worth agitation.

Quote:
The game may not intend to be the Pathfinder RPG in video game form, but the former is the inspiration for the latter.

The world of the former. And, to a certain extent, the rules. But only to a certain extent. The pen-and-paper game's rules will be and should be ignored when they would harm the online game's play experience.

Quote:
By your logic the online version may as well have motorcycles since they are not the same thing it won't matter right?

I don't think motorcycles would be in keeping with the Pathfinder campaign setting flavor of the game.

Quote:
Yes, Rallos was a joke... I would say you need to rethink your idea of a joke, but I have alreayd pointed out matters of opinion. I will allow mine to stand.

I'm not sure why you feel I need to rethink it, since apparently we both agree that Rallos Zek is a joke.

Quote:
There is little to nothing to worry about in WoW.

Perhaps you are so fantastic at video games that heroic raid achievements do not stress you in any way. That's great.

Quote:
As to being mistaken about it being mentally engaging... I will again mention that opinion thing. I play the game. I enjoy it. Mentally engaging... rarely.

I guess that's a shame for you? I have the distinct impression that the upper bound of what WoW offers in terms of challenge is far more than your typical MMO player can handle. The brilliance of WoW's design is that you can make the game as challenging as you feel you can handle. If heroic raiding isn't your thing, then you can just run normal raids. If raiding isn't your thing at all, there are heroic 5-mans. If you can't handle that challenge, there are regular 5-mans. So on, and so forth. And, at each tier, there are achievements of varying difficulty to earn.

I would be truly astonished to discover friendly fire in PFO. I think you will be disappointed, but I think that's more easily attributed to unrealistic expectations than any failure on the developers' part.

Goblin Squad Member

Scott Betts wrote:
Perhaps you are so fantastic at video games that heroic raid achievements do not stress you in any way. That's great.

Just stop it. 'Heroic raid achievements'. Your right, but please god stop.

In regards to friendly fire, I revise my previous response. Yes, it is problematic but I also now think that, given the non consensual PvP environment we can perhaps expect, area of effects will indeed be problematic if they strictly only hurt an enemy; who does the game consider to be your enemy in a non-consensual PvP environment?

In past open pvp games, your 'enemy' was anyone including yourself and games like Mortal, Darkfall and UO would allow AoE effects to damage yourself and others.

For now however, I highly recommend we stop talking about it until we learn more - which might be a while.


Friendly fire... let's see...

1) Raid: Half the raid DPS consistently "miss" the boss and hit the tank instead, due to lag, tank movement, or lack of FPS skill. Raiding is now impossible.

2) City Defense: It is possible enemy players will be able to deal damage to your town's structures. Mr. Wizard whips out his fireball and noobishly blows a hole in the city wall, killing several enemies but causing your city to be conquered.

3) Solo: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Say you just started training sword skill. You're out exploring, engage in a fight, and *OOPS* just cut off your own hand. Now you're dead.

4) Socializing: You (a ranger) and some warrior you just met go out looking for adventure. You happen to be a bad shot IRL. After the 5th death, the warrior tells you where you can put your next arrow. This happens a few times with other players, and suddenly you have a reputation and no friends.

I could go on and on, but do I really need to?

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Perhaps you are so fantastic at video games that heroic raid achievements do not stress you in any way. That's great.

Just stop it. 'Heroic raid achievements'. Your right, but please god stop.

In regards to friendly fire, I revise my previous response. Yes, it is problematic but I also now think that, given the non consensual PvP environment we can perhaps expect, area of effects will indeed be problematic if they strictly only hurt an enemy; who does the game consider to be your enemy in a non-consensual PvP environment?

In past open pvp games, your 'enemy' was anyone including yourself and games like Mortal, Darkfall and UO would allow AoE effects to damage yourself and others.

For now however, I highly recommend we stop talking about it until we learn more - which might be a while.

I would say hitting players that are not in your group or guild, likely. Possibly even tags for allies, friends lists etc... random joe you haven't met jumps out from a bush, he is vulnerable.

If you party with someone, are in the same guild etc... as them, in a raid with them, if your guild is currently allied, friendly fire should have a safety that has to be removed intentionally (if you are hit or damaged by someone, it automatically turns off the safety for you).

Problem solved, you can defend yourself from a random pack of bandits, but you aren't roasting the tank who is currently holding back that giant pack of worgs.

Goblin Squad Member

It's already a pain in the ass to have to joust repeatedly in raid content...imagine having to do that becasue of one of your own groupmate's spells? Especially if they have an AoO mechanic?
"I know all the melee guys will have to eat attacks, but can you all move out? I'm about to drop a fireball!" <---won't end well.
Or as a healer in any MMO have you had to remind players to not stand in the fire! Well now, not only will you have to do that, but also tell the mage/sorc to quit dropping firewall over or next to the party.
"Seriously! Get out of the Fire! Oh, Magelicious put it there...ffs!"
This is just the tip of the iceberg...
Not. Fun.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:


It's difficult for me to fathom a mind that finds a fairly run-of-the-mill design decision in a hypothetical video game "incredibly offensive." I reserve "incredibly offensive" for serious matters. There is no game design decision that the PFO devs (or anyone, for that matter) could make that would warrant more than a "mildly disappointing" verdict from me.

It concerns me when people find really inconsequential stuff like a single rule from a single game to be so important that they're willing to get very upset over it. It means that they probably don't have a lot of perspective for what is and isn't worth agitation.

At no point did I say I was going to lose sleep on it. I find the idea that fireballs not causing "friendly fire" in a setting such as this to be a disservice to the source material. Hence, it is an offense to the idea of the game. I will aquise that I used the quantifer "I" but my intention was more toward the idea of it being an offense to the material. Poor verbage on my part.

Quote:


The world of the former. And, to a certain extent, the rules. But only to a certain extent. The pen-and-paper game's rules will be and should be ignored when they would harm the online game's play experience.

I do not disagree with you. They are not taking the Core Rule Book and making it into a computer game. Take what works, cull what does not. However, I do not think that friendly fire is something that should be hand waved.

Quote:


I don't think motorcycles would be in keeping with the Pathfinder campaign setting flavor of the game.

I was being facetious and speaking in terms of gross exaggeration to make a point. Of course motorcycles are outside of the setting flavor of the game. But, in my opinion, so is negating friendly fire from a spell such as fireball.

Quote:


I'm not sure why you feel I need to rethink it, since apparently we both agree that Rallos Zek is a joke.

Forgive me, the sarcasm did not come through very well in that comment. Rallos was, in my opinion, the only server worth playing for EverQuest. Your opinion may very.

Quote:


Perhaps you are so fantastic at video games that heroic raid achievements do not stress you in any way. That's great.

No, I simply see little to no reason in doing the raids. Anytime I have been involved in them it is simply stand here, do this, then this will happen, then you do this to this boss... there is no surprise. No variation. Memorizing dungeon layouts does not an engaging encounter make. That is why I enjoy player versus player confrontation, I enjoy the interaction. I enjoy not knowing if I am going to have to defend myself or if I am going to make a new friend.

I actually miss some of the older mechanics of WoW. My hunter used to actually utilize crowd control. Now I just shoot things. Why? Because the accepted tactic for just about any fight is "Charge!", AOE tank it... rinse/repeat.

/shrug

I will close by saying that friendly fire is definitely within the flavor of the Pathfinder Online game given it's inspiration. You may disagree, but stop trying to analyze my outlook on life based on a couple of comments on a message board.


Hudax wrote:

Friendly fire... let's see...

1) Raid: Half the raid DPS consistently "miss" the boss and hit the tank instead, due to lag, tank movement, or lack of FPS skill. Raiding is now impossible.

2) City Defense: It is possible enemy players will be able to deal damage to your town's structures. Mr. Wizard whips out his fireball and noobishly blows a hole in the city wall, killing several enemies but causing your city to be conquered.

3) Solo: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Say you just started training sword skill. You're out exploring, engage in a fight, and *OOPS* just cut off your own hand. Now you're dead.

4) Socializing: You (a ranger) and some warrior you just met go out looking for adventure. You happen to be a bad shot IRL. After the 5th death, the warrior tells you where you can put your next arrow. This happens a few times with other players, and suddenly you have a reputation and no friends.

I could go on and on, but do I really need to?

Oh yes, please entertain me with more ridiculous, over the top, extreme examples.

OK, Granted some people are pushing for a system where those things could be possible. But . . .

AoEs don't have to be binary. It doesn't have to be either everything in the area gets hit, or only the enemies get hit. Go look at your spells list for a minute and a half.

Fireball =/= Magic missile, but both can hit multiple targets.

Oh no! In order to cast fireball I might have to consider my allies positions. I mean some of us managed to be able to provide close support bombing runs in EVE with a minimum of friendly fire before we got the nifty new targeting sphere. If you don't have the player skills you don't use AoEs. I know it's rough, but such is life.

If you are raiding a dragon you shouldn't be tossing out Ice Storms in the middle of the fight, stick to polar ray or disintegrate, or w/e. You know like you would at the game table. Well at least you would if all your melee fighters didn't have rings of evasion and pumped up reflex saves to avoid the dragon's breath weapon. But of course you couldn't plan like that for a raid, that would be silly.

Oh no, maybe you have to actually select your targets for horrid wilting. Or maybe you could use a macro system to auto-target hostiles, criminals, and people you've set negative standings to (/cast spell "Horrid Wilting" [target] & [hostile] & [criminal] & [Standing <= -5]) . Or maybe you just have it target everyone who isn't in your party or guild. But then again macros are hard. We wouldn't want to have to ask someone for help after all.

Sorry if I'm coming off a bit irate, but seriously, every thread seems to devolve into this absolute yes vs. absolute no debate. Can people just try and look past there narrow point of view? Just a tiny bit?

Goblin Squad Member

Well in fairness, friendly fire is kind of a all yes or all no kinda thing. You either have it or you don't.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Well in fairness, friendly fire is kind of a all yes or all no kinda thing. You either have it or you don't.

Of course how did I miss that. Either every single attack must be capable of friendly fire, or none of them can be. It's an obviously binary choice.

Goblin Squad Member

Tempestorm wrote:
At no point did I say I was going to lose sleep on it. I find the idea that fireballs not causing "friendly fire" in a setting such as this to be a disservice to the source material.

I promise, the campaign setting's virginal purity will not be violated by turning off friendly fire.

Quote:
Hence, it is an offense to the idea of the game.

The guys who are going to be in charge of the direction of PFO are some of the same people in charge of the source material (Pathfinder). If it doesn't offend them, I don't see any reason why you should be offended over it.

Quote:
I will aquise that I used the quantifer "I" but my intention was more toward the idea of it being an offense to the material. Poor verbage on my part.

I'd bet real money that the people who created the Pathfinder campaign setting wouldn't really see turning off friendly fire in an MMORPG based on the setting as an offense to the material.

Quote:
I was being facetious and speaking in terms of gross exaggeration to make a point. Of course motorcycles are outside of the setting flavor of the game. But, in my opinion, so is negating friendly fire from a spell such as fireball.

I don't know that you can even say that a mechanic like friendly fire is part of the setting's flavor. If anything, the existence or non-existence of friendly fire is established by the ruleset (in this case, the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game), which, as we've already established, should be up on the chopping block whenever it suits the game.

Quote:
Forgive me, the sarcasm did not come through very well in that comment. Rallos was, in my opinion, the only server worth playing for EverQuest. Your opinion may very.

Rallos Zek so fundamentally altered the play dynamics of the game by virtue of its FFA PvP system that nearly every facet of the game was different. Everquest, as envisioned by the developers, wasn't really happening on that server. You were experiencing a very different game, one where low-level play was often emphasized over high-level play, and where people would habitually stand around wearing nothing in order to avoid losing any of it. It was laughably weird.

Quote:
No, I simply see little to no reason in doing the raids. Anytime I have been involved in them it is simply stand here, do this, then this will happen, then you do this to this boss... there is no surprise. No variation.

The challenge is not in surprise or variation. Raid bosses are puzzles. The best puzzles are laid out in plain view. You know how everything works, but what you don't know is how to solve it. That's the tricky part, and your role as participant in the solving of those puzzles is where the excitement and challenge lie.

Quote:
Memorizing dungeon layouts does not an engaging encounter make.

No, but stellar encounter design does. WoW arguably has some of the most engaging encounters ever conceived of in modern gaming, able to push 25 people as a single cohesive unit to achieve a common aim.

Quote:
I actually miss some of the older mechanics of WoW. My hunter used to actually utilize crowd control. Now I just shoot things. Why? Because the accepted tactic for just about any fight is "Charge!", AOE tank it... rinse/repeat.

This is brutally false. I cannot think of a single raid dungeon where this is the norm.

Even Molten Core was more involved than this.

Goblin Squad Member

i'd like to see friendly fire, and not only for aoe spells. also, i'd like to see something to address focus fire. it's just boring to primary one after another.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post. Be civil.


Gunner--

If friendly fire exists, what makes you think it would be restricted to AoEs, or spells? The way I see it, the only thing in the game that wouldn't be subject to friendly fire is magic missile. If that's the case, it's easy to predict large numbers of people making wizards specializing in magic missile just for the sake of avoiding friendly fire.

If any of the FPS element of having to aim makes its way into the game in combination with friendly fire, it would be rare to see any other character ever made. It would turn the game into Wizardfinder.

People will go that far out of their way just to avoid such horrible quality of life issues as friendly fire and aiming.

There needs to be an exceptional reason to reduce quality of life, and "Wouldn't it be cool..." and "I would like..." don't even begin to cut it.

Liberty's Edge

Hudax wrote:

Friendly fire... let's see...

1) Raid: Half the raid DPS consistently "miss" the boss and hit the tank instead, due to lag, tank movement, or lack of FPS skill. Raiding is now impossible.

2) City Defense: It is possible enemy players will be able to deal damage to your town's structures. Mr. Wizard whips out his fireball and noobishly blows a hole in the city wall, killing several enemies but causing your city to be conquered.

4) Socializing: You happen to be a bad shot IRL

I have removed the silly one. But the rest, hell yes. That's why I would like friendly-fire.

Of course as this would be a feature of the Raiding WOULD be possible as the programmers would make sure it is.

Lag is an issue, but as long as you have a cast time longer than the lag for each spell a correction can be made server side - I guess?

The city defense example sounds awesome in that you are putting forward the idea of destructible terrain. Rebuild times etc for defenses decreased by having PC experts assist?

*******************************************************

Friendly-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and cut yourself or shoot a friend engaged in melee.

All it would mean is throwing around flasks of oil or ice storms will take a bit of thinking. Perhaps thinking is bad when playing an MMORPG?

********************************************************

As to the comments regarding WoW being cerebral - all I can think is these people haven't got to 'farm' status on the content. Even before that the encounters are rope learning, like the alphabet, and many times just try-die-repeat until success as the high end raids are knife edge - which is what makes them brain-dead. Do this encounter this way or you fail... seems fun until you do FAR too many of them.

If PF Online follows WoW's idea of endgame fun I'll be disappointed.

S.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:

Gunner--

If friendly fire exists, what makes you think it would be restricted to AoEs, or spells? The way I see it, the only thing in the game that wouldn't be subject to friendly fire is magic missile. If that's the case, it's easy to predict large numbers of people making wizards specializing in magic missile just for the sake of avoiding friendly fire.

If any of the FPS element of having to aim makes its way into the game in combination with friendly fire, it would be rare to see any other character ever made. It would turn the game into Wizardfinder.

People will go that far out of their way just to avoid such horrible quality of life issues as friendly fire and aiming.

There needs to be an exceptional reason to reduce quality of life, and "Wouldn't it be cool..." and "I would like..." don't even begin to cut it.

Agreed, though I also have to agree with the statement that friendly is a relative term in an open PVP world, for once I do actually have to note in open PVP the line is not as clear. Here's how I would do it, First off people need to have a friends list, and a foes list, (foes list functions exactly as a friends list in most games, only with the exception that foes are never considered friendly unless removed from the list) Possibly even a neutural list for people who you want to be able to message, but for some reason or another regularly switch roles.

A player can also chose to friend or foe entire kingdoms or alliances if he choses

Party members: Once someone is in your party, they are treated as friend (this is the only special condition that overrides the foes list)

Guild/allience/kingdom members: Automatically friendly unless foed

Guild allies: A guild can mark other guilds as friendly or as foes which prevents friendly fire, unless personal friend/foe list are set.

Now if someone reaches a player who is friendly, they may toggle on or off friendly fire with a simple hotkey, there should be 2 keys to do this, one that toggles the current target, and one that just sets it to anyone outside your party. Also it should be noted that if you are damaged by someone, no matter what they are instantly set to foe, you should not have to take the time to find the hotkey once they have damaged you.

Now some people have been bringing up eve, and why total abolition of friendly fire makes sense in eve but not in pathfinder, the answer to this is simple. In the eve universe, I believe you have 3 dimensions to work with (never played so can't be certain), and 100% of combatants are ranged.

Pathfinder we can expect close to 50% of the combatants to be melee. That means friends and foes will be at point blank range of each-other almost always, a wizard will essentially be completely unable to use aoes anywhere ever unless he is traveling out in the wilderness alone (Which should not be considered a brilliant idea for most wizards) and even then your average melee focused character is going to close the distance as fast as possible so now the wizard still can't use aoes without blowing himself up or doing some very slow aiming while he's getting sliced to bits), in P&P in addition to having the ability to spend 30-45 seconds precision what your wizard is doing in like 3.5 seconds of in game time, he also didn't have obstructions to his vision, the actual player targeting gets a perfect birds eye view, which would not be a particularly comfortable angle to have the entire game in, and toggling back in forth would slow the spells down even further.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Stefan Hill wrote:

Firely-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and ... shoot a friend engaged in melee.

Because it was removed in the passage from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Now you can attack a grabbed target without endangering your friend of fire a bow into a melee without the risk of hitting a friend, but those are changes of the previous mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:

Firely-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and ... shoot a friend engaged in melee.

Because it was removed in the passage from 3.5 to Pathfinder. Now you can attack a grabbed target without endangering your friend of fire a bow into a melee without the risk of hitting a friend, but those are changes of the previous mechanics.

3e/3.5e had zero chance of hitting friendlies meleeing with a bow - only 1e and 2e (more codified) had this 'feature'. d20 mechanics gave you an option of no shooting or -4 to hit (mitigated with a feat).

S.


Stefan Hill wrote:

*******************************************************

Friendly-fire in the way I meant it was from effects in the PF RPG that would affect others, e.g. fireball. Nowhere in the PF RPG does it say you can fumble and cut yourself or shoot a friend engaged in melee.

All it would mean is throwing around flasks of oil or ice storms will take a bit of thinking. Perhaps thinking is bad when playing an MMORPG?

********************************************************

At the table, if I attack a party member, I can hit them. If I critically fumble, I can injure myself.

You can't dismiss my examples of friendly fire and expect me not to dismiss yours.

If I make a ranger and discover I'm a bad shot, the game is over for me. I can't play the build I want, so why would I play at all. At the table, my aim is based on a d20 roll. Why would it be based on RL skill in PFO? Are head shots going to one-shot people now? Now the twitchy teen who's played Halo 24-7 for the last 5 years makes a ranger and dominates the game. No thanks, not playing in that environment. That doesn't feel like Pathfinder, that feels like an FPS--and is in direct violation of PFO's design philosophy.

The burden is on you of explaining how friendly fire and aiming could be anything other than sadistic ways to make the game virtually unplayable outside of certain builds and RL video game skills.

1 to 50 of 227 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Friendly fire - I'm all for it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.