Goblinworks Founder
|
This is a really cool Idea, but how will the Dance Dance Revolution style Precision movements work with latency? I know things like Dancing/Spellweaving in Age of Conan was nigh on impossible for me to do from Australia, as are many other "Click here at this time or die!" features from some MMOs.This is an absolutely legit question. I suspect that what will happen in development is that we'll find that the heartbeat of Units needs to be slower than that of individual characters so that most players can consistently get their input to register in synch with their unit companions.
It will certainly require playtesting. I don't think it will be a deal-killer to have a high latency connection, but "high latency" may be a relative term. I've seen some folks with multi-second latency, and that's probably too much for any system to overcome.
I would consider anything over 800ms latency to be unplayable in any form of game. On average without using third party software or tweaks my latency in a new MMO would average between 200-350ms from the east coast of Australia. I would be happy to help test this feature if you require assistance/additional input from this side of the world.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reading this it sounds like you're saying once fighters come up with a defensive tactic that its impossible for spellcasters to come up with a counter-tactic.
Why is it so hard to imagine character abilities of a supernatural or spell-like nature that can reduce or counter the effects of common spells ...
I highlighted the part you seem to be ignoring.
I haven't been ignoring it, Ryan. But I thought we were talking about generic homo sapiens. I've done mass combat against drow in the Mystara setting and later in the Battlesystem setting. I've used air combat against the poor foot soldier. A lot of our campaigns had a mass combat component to it - from small squads to whole nations. So I'm familiar with it, both in theory and in practice.
My concern, i think, stems from that initial statement that you made which appeared at the face to be a blanket resistance for soldiers against magic. Everything that you've said since then, however - better equipment, evasion, etc... suggests that you're envisoning anything BUT a generic blanket resistance. Which means that we're probably arguing from the same side and it was all just a misunderstanding.
As for why these things exist - and why Golarion isn't ruled by sorcerers and wizards the answer is simple. In the grand scheme of things, spellcasters represent a very small percentage of the population as a whole. (Adventurers in general represent less than 1% of the world i would guess, and of those spellcasters are but a precentage ). Its just disproportionately represented in the adventuring world - as are fighters with 20 strength and thieves with a 20 dex. The subtle, yet very important difference in the MMO is that adventurers represent a much higher percentage - maybe as high as 50% of the whole population. So, in fact, this is not an average army - its not even a typical representation of Golarion. In Golarion, running a nation isn't a single person job. The ruler (even in an absolute dictatorship) is supported by advisors and administrations. He has to communicate with people. Which leaves him open to, among other things, assassination. Spell-casters tend to be very acutely aware of their own mortality and try to avoid situations like that.
Hopefully that helps. Again, I like the ideas you've come up with. I can see doing things like using tower shields right next to one another to "turtle" and reduce the effect of a fireball spell. That would be an excellent tactic, for example.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
At some point there's a line where only one player is making decisions, and everyone else only executes them. I caution against crossing that line, even though I can't really pin it down.
Everybody participating needs to make independent, meaningful decisions that don't have a radically better result if they are coordinated by external scripting tools.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You need to think of it like this:
Squad leader says: "Ready Arrows!"
And readying those arrows on tempo is better than off tempo which is better than not doing it at all.
Squad leader says: "Draw!"
Drawing on tempo is better ...
Squad leader says: "Aim!"
Etc...
Squad leader says: "Fire!"
Etc...
The effectiveness of this action (how much Combat Power) it generates is a factor of how well the unit did at performing the required actions on tempo, plus their individual abilities, plus the leader's abilities, plus external factors like terrain, weather, elevation, etc...
This is a very simple case and you can see how it could become quite complex very quickly, making non-trivial to "bot" (or no less easy than botting most MMO combat is).
You have to imagine things like the squad leader changing orders in the middle of an action - maybe a Fireball is inbound and the unit needs to react as an interrupt to their ranged attack action plan. Or maybe half the unit is out of arrows and needs to communicate that to the squad leader before a half-flight is fired ineffectually. All sorts of buffs and debuffs could be added to this mix, or the unit could do two things at the same time (like Mbando's example of firing suppressing fire while lobbing grenades).
And this is just the simple case of a unit standing in one place firing arrows. Add in things like moving while acting, acting while some members of the unit are in contact with enemy forces, reorganizing a unit to relieve fatigued members with fresh troops, coping with the loss of a unit's leader (or the unit's commander or other breakdowns in the chain of command), changing formation, allowing another unit to pass through your formation, trying to move from one unit to another, and all sorts of other things you could be tasked with doing and you see how quickly "following orders" becomes a real test of player skill and attention to detail.
As with all Pathfinder Online systems what we want to develop is a strong basic framework to which we can add lots and lots of depth and choices over time and which rewards players who choose to understand and utilize that depth to make good choices and maximize their effects.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I do overall absolutely love the idea, I do have to ask ryan, what is the plan to avoid botting. Say Joe writes a script for the archers, it syncronizes with 10 other archers, and when joe presses the button to aim it automatically makes the other 10 archers aim, when joe fires, it makes those archers fire, and when joe hits to break or cancel to react to something else, it automatically breaks or cancels the other guys, and they just have to move on their own. Is there a planned measure to counteract this idea? In general you guys are always the first to address these possibilities, so I am assuming you've already though of that, but I'm currious what your plan is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right off the bat I think we could vary the phase of each player's action UI and change the commands that each player has to enter (whatever those are: keystrokes or keystroke combinations, mouse actions, etc). That way no two players in a Unit are doing the same thing at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My main concern is if full-blown flight is in the game. Levitation - okay, there are mundane ways of handling an enemy that does that, or has wter-walking, the ability to move through unwarded stone, and what have you.
Anything else is open for balance, I think. Balancing the ability to fly is a serious issue.
Should full blown flight make it into game I think this actually WOULD help balance it. First off I would imagine that if flying as a part of an army is possible, it would be highly difficult, and require a lot better coordination. If you step on the toe of the guy next to you, it hurt's his toe and may trip him. If you clip the wing of the griffon next you, you are probably both going down.
Second off, if squadrons of flying soldiers actually were common on the battlefield. They could easily implement some anti-flying combat maneuvers that are extremly effective.
Personally I think the best way to do it is make flying creatures something to be feared by small groups and mobs, but mainly just for light harassment or countering enemy fliers in massive battles.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Right off the bat I think we could vary the phase of each player's action UI and change the commands that each player has to enter (whatever those are: keystrokes or keystroke combinations, mouse actions, etc). That way no two players in a Unit are doing the same thing at the same time.
It needs to be nontrivial to determine exactly what the best action to take to best fulfill the "volley fire" order, not just make it hard to multibox an entire unit. I don't see any way to do that while also making combat almost all character based.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus - I'm just not going to worry about people who want to hack the client to the extent that they are decoding the dataflow from the server and automating responses. That level of effort is effectively unblockable. All we can do is make it necessary to keep doing such work all the time by changing the datastream regularly and mixing up the way the protocols work.
The case I was asked about was someone writing a script that could allow many players' characters to be controlled by a central director. My answer makes that very, very hard, thus removing most of the temptation to attempt to do it.
There will always be a few people with the time and ability to completely compromise the client. The solution to that is watching for behavior patterns that indicate such hacking has been done and taking action against those accounts. The only viable technical solution is something like WoW's Warden which is a bit beyond the scope of what we're planning on doing for a long while, if ever.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alright I suppose to better cover this whole concept I am going to break down the complete blog entry section by section.
Hit Me With Your Best Shot
If you look at most MMO mass combat, what you see is a mechanic developed for individual fights that has been scaled up for larger engagements, especially in games where melee combat is more common than ranged combat.
So we start out by looking at MMO mass combat. I will only base my analysis on similar fantasy themed games as a game such as EVE Online covers a very different scope of sovereignty and PvP mechanics.
I can not really think of a game that involves a mechanic to scale up individual aspects to offset the large numbers game.
You could consider group/raid buffs as an example but if that is the case it sort of achieves the same thing as formations, without all the extra fiddly bits.
- Need to stay in range to benefit?: check
- Need to stay alive to benefit?: check
Something like formations seems like a prime example of a mechanic being introduced in PFO to scale up from individual contribution.
- Need to stay in range to benefit?: check
- Need to stay alive to benefit?: check
- Need to face the right direction to benefit? check
- Need to use proper skill at specific timing to benefit? check
That seems like the same goal but with just extra superfluous mechanics on top of it just so it might look better to someone who can actually stop to smell the roses and see it.
Much has been brought up about tactics in this discussion. Tactics are usually the method used to achieve a goal and do not require a game mechanic to resolve.
Imagine a choke point: two 100 foot long, 5 foot thick walls for simplicity.
Both sides have the following options.
- Rush to meet in the middle and fight to the death.
- Only Team A sends 2 people around the wall on their left to flank.
- Only Team B sends 2 people around the wall on their left to flank.
- Team A holds back 2 archers with a delayed middle rush.
- Team B holds back 2 archers with a delayed middle rush.
- Team A and B send 2 people around to same side of a wall, uh oh!
The options are mind boggling and require no game mechanics to achieve success or failure. The superior side both in skill and tactical choice wins the day. Terrain decides a good portion of what tactics will be used prior to and during engagement.
Now we look at objectives which are for me the basis of even bothering to really dig in and use anything but the most basic of zerg style tactics.
Little to no world objectives that have little consequence over respectable time for either side in relation to PvP.
- World of Warcraft would be the prime example of this.
- Clones of the WoW PvP model.
Taking/owning land/objectives that have noticeable consequence over respectable time for either side(s) in relation to PvP.
- Shadowbane: This would probably be the closest we can get in comparing a game to PFO. Everything from building, alliances, nations, etc.
- Dark Age of Camelot: 3 sides that had not only their own land/keeps to fight over but the neutral and opposing land/keeps as well.
- Warhammer Online: Used the DAoC model but dropping down to 2 sides fighting over land for each of the 6 races to open up the opposing sides united capital city.
As we can see the first method is rather bland. The remaining objective based games, while not always within the same scope as what PFO plans to provide, have many PvP aspects that play into this discussion. We can not divorce guilds/alliances from any discussion of mass PvP as they have been central in how anything from a small skirmish to a total war of hundreds play out.
------------------------
Typically, you'll see a stew of combatants essentially fighting individual battles. Where there is overall command and control, it is usually dedicated to healers selecting targets to aid, and ranged attackers picking targets to mass fire against.
If you look close enough at any fantasy battle involving 2 or more sides it is just a matter of time for it to end up looking like a battle of individuals.
Time and scale are factors here. Players of MMOs rarely have the luxury (real life oh no!), or patience in some cases, to replicate the scope that methods of formation based combat seems to want to promote in mass PvP. An argument could be made that the majority of combat will involve smaller numbers of players than giant armies. This is the River Kingdoms after all and unless we want to blow the Pathfinder lore out of the water, it is more a game of smaller skirmish rules the day than one of mass combat. While the build-up in movies might look nice, and William Wallace gave an awesome speech before rushing the line. it is at the end of the day that killing the other guy before he kills you is the goal, not how fancy one side or the other looked while doing it. After all not many games zoom out to a birds eye view to even give you a chance to view such a scene. You have better things to worry about, like the guy who is right next to you trying to jam his axe into your skull.
------------------------
Once a battle starts to tip towards one side or the other, there's very little that can be done to reverse the rout. Running away is sometimes an option, but even that is quite often impossible, as the mechanics that were built to make running away from PvE hard get in the way of escaping a PvP battle.
Running away is for cowards! Tactically minded alliances/raids/groups will fall back to get better advantage when things start to turn. Once again it is rational choice and not mechanics that decide what tactic will achieve the best effect. I have seen my share of the age old suicide runner/jumper tactic that confused an enemy force long enough to allow reinforcements enough time to show up and not be caught flat-footed as to repeat a mass version of the initial tactic.
------------------------
Looking down on such a battle, you'll see virtually no units or cohesion. Each character stands and fights in an island of its own, moving to keep making attacks or to avoid being hit (if one is a healer or a ranged attacker). There are typically no benefits to maintaining any sense of order, so it is therefore rare for such order to be maintained.
I just do not agree that formations as described are required to achieve the goal in mass PvP. An alliance, your guild, a raid group, your party, and the guy closest to you are all there - to jump in and achieve victory before the other side does. These systems exist to allow for people to rally together for the same goal. Tactics happen when you give players objectives that matter. What is described in this paragraph is the natural order of things in mass PvP, not a goal. Keeping buffs from your group/raid sure sounds like a good enough reason for me to run up to the enemy and kill them first. Getting hit as little as possible is everyone's goal if you want to win, unless you have a mechanic that makes taking hits useful in killing the other guy.
More analysis to follow for the remaining sections.
P.S. Depending on inclusion of collision detection and how it will work on an individual and formation basis would affect many concepts here.
My main concern is if full-blown flight is in the game. Levitation - okay, there are mundane ways of handling an enemy that does that, or has wter-walking, the ability to move through unwarded stone, and what have you.
Anything else is open for balance, I think. Balancing the ability to fly is a serious issue.
Should full blown flight make it into game I think this actually WOULD help balance it. First off I would imagine that if flying as a part of an army is possible, it would be highly difficult, and require a lot better coordination. If you step on the toe of the guy next to you, it hurt's his toe and may trip him. If you clip the wing of the griffon next you, you are probably both going down.
Second off, if squadrons of flying soldiers actually were common on the battlefield. They could easily implement some anti-flying combat maneuvers that are extremly effective.
Personally I think the best way to do it is make flying creatures something to be feared by small groups and mobs, but mainly just for light harassment or countering enemy fliers in massive battles.
I really hope flying squadrons make it in. Ideally anyone on a flying mount would have to be lightly armored, and flying units would be subject to plummeting to earth under a good ranged volley of fire or apt magic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really hope flying squadrons make it in. Ideally anyone on a flying mount would have to be lightly armored, and flying units would be subject to plummeting to earth under a good ranged volley of fire or apt magic.
Assuming the countermeasures for flying are easier to get than flying itself, I am neutral on the topic, impiment when possible if possible, but no real reason to rush the idea or expect it anywhere near launch.
I am still greatly opposed if the countermeasures themselves are difficult to obtain, the idea of 4 year vets being nearly unkillable to relatively new groups, is a great issue that needs to be avoided. Should vets be better than newbies, absolutely, but if the newbies see an ability that they have 0 counters for and realize they have lost before the battle even begins, that is a sign of horrible design.
Yeah, I kind of see how flying combat is something we shouldn't expect to see in the first draft of the game. I can see how discussions about flying might give the devs headaches when they've got so many nuts and bolts to design. But when the game is made, when it's been out for a while and people expect expansion material, that would be a great time to add this kind of icing on the cake.
I could imagine that by the time of the first expansion we have the base classes added- And with the addition of the cavalier, I'd hope that horse mounted combat is streamlined by this point.
Then with more expansions and the addition of ultimate equipment/ ultimate magic/ ultimate combat influenced stuff, I'd be grateful to see all the bells and whistles of flying mounts, archetypes within archetypes, exotic vehicles and maybe firearms.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@DeciusBrutus - I'm just not going to worry about people who want to hack the client to the extent that they are decoding the dataflow from the server and automating responses. That level of effort is effectively unblockable. All we can do is make it necessary to keep doing such work all the time by changing the datastream regularly and mixing up the way the protocols work.
The case I was asked about was someone writing a script that could allow many players' characters to be controlled by a central director. My answer makes that very, very hard, thus removing most of the temptation to attempt to do it.
There will always be a few people with the time and ability to completely compromise the client. The solution to that is watching for behavior patterns that indicate such hacking has been done and taking action against those accounts. The only viable technical solution is something like WoW's Warden which is a bit beyond the scope of what we're planning on doing for a long while, if ever.
I'm not looking for something which stops cheaters- I'm asking for the players to actually be engaged with the tactical situation, rather than playing a minigame that is barely related.
If, for example, there was a bonus to each arrow fired within a specified window at a qualifying target, it remains each archer's decision if they are going to fire according to their orders or if it is better to instead attack the target that they suspect their squad leader may not have seen. (or if the entire squad may have orders to attack a different target than the one they are tricking into entering a defensive posture, doing less than maximum damage for attacking the 'wrong' target but doing more damage than they would have done if they attacked the prepared target.
@DeciusBrutus - I'm just not going to worry about people who want to hack the client to the extent that they are decoding the dataflow from the server and automating responses. That level of effort is effectively unblockable. All we can do is make it necessary to keep doing such work all the time by changing the datastream regularly and mixing up the way the protocols work.
The case I was asked about was someone writing a script that could allow many players' characters to be controlled by a central director. My answer makes that very, very hard, thus removing most of the temptation to attempt to do it.
There will always be a few people with the time and ability to completely compromise the client. The solution to that is watching for behavior patterns that indicate such hacking has been done and taking action against those accounts. The only viable technical solution is something like WoW's Warden which is a bit beyond the scope of what we're planning on doing for a long while, if ever.
I'm not looking for something which stops cheaters- I'm asking for the players to actually be engaged with the tactical situation, rather than playing a minigame that is barely related.
If, for example, there was a bonus to each arrow fired within a specified window at a qualifying target, it remains each archer's decision if they are going to fire according to their orders or if it is better to instead attack the target that they suspect their squad leader may not have seen. (or if the entire squad may have orders to attack a different target than the one they are tricking into entering a defensive posture, doing less than maximum damage for attacking the 'wrong' target but doing more damage than they would have done if they attacked the prepared target.
You raise a really valid point here. Sometimes, squads get set up with bad leaders. Now, obviously, you don't want that to happen, BUT... IF a military squad has a bad, incompetent leader, and his orders are going to get everyone killed, the squad can sometimes unofficially look to a new leader, or do their own thing, or whatever, to ACTUALLY accomplish the objective.
With the current system, it sounds like if your squad has an incompetent leader you are 100% screwed and there's nothing you can do about it - there's no ability to get input from the soldiers, all they can do is conform or not (and make things even worse).
Obviously the ideal world is just "don't have dumb leaders," but that will always happen sometimes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If, for example, there was a bonus to each arrow fired within a specified window at a qualifying target, it remains each archer's decision if they are going to fire according to their orders or if it is better to instead attack the target that they suspect their squad leader may not have seen.
This is the issue of mission orders--a model that substitutes an endstate (the commanders intent) for instructions. So instead of saying "Lt, your orders are to destroy the enemy on hill 154 and hold it at all costs," you get "Lt, our mission is to ensure the battalion has freedom of movement tomorrow in support of the RCT's push north. We believe an enemy Sqd reinforced is currently emplaced on hill 154, with anti-armor attached, covering bridge 123. My intent is to make sure we have mobility across the bridge--your mission is to conduct a deliberate attack on enemy in vicinity of hill 154, for the purpose of providing mobility across bridge 123."
In the first case, if the Lt. takes their platoon to hill 154 and finds the enemy has displaced across the bridge to another hill, they are at a loss--"what now, Lt?" Do they pursue across the river, take the hill, what? There's now way in the fog of war to know what the best course of action is. But in the second case, if the Lt realizes the enemy has displaced, but can still bring fires to bear on the bridge, then the Lt knows they must pursue in order to fulfill the commander's intent.
This isn't an issue at lower level units, where they are generally physically co-located, like in Decius' sqd level example. But if PFO is going to link the coordination of units from the the sqd level to the army level, there needs to be room for unit leaders to exercise initiative.
Basically, if we have a large scale battle with forces arrayed in a way that provides for bonuses, if a sharp platoon commander realizes the enemy is using the treeline to the far left of the formation to get around into their ass, they should be able to react and use initiative, without the game mechanics making a smart move a dumb move.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At that squad level, a single archer acting out of squad coordination should decrease the effectiveness of the current squad goal. Having been infantry, the "archer" rarely has the information necessary to decide what actions are in the best interests of the army...and should not even if they do; squads are intended to be cohesive units, the smallest unit of planning, manoeuvred as a single whole.
As for bad commanders, that is a possibility and a reason to train. On the battlefield, commanders, good or not, should always set the intent of a manoeuvre. I agree with Mbando that a way to give sub-commanders options and/or flexibility if commanders so choose, would make the system more powerful...but "archers" are not sub-commanders within a squad.
Also, as much as mass military combat is cool, I hope it doesn't act is the "main piece" of PFO.
I mean, I love doing stuff like that and it sounds fun - but I also love messing around with just me and a small group of friends, where I have complete and full autonomy on me and my actions and my strategy and how I work with my team.
Don't sacrifice one element for the other, imo. They should both be viable.
ALSO, @RYAN: another question: How much of an element will actual, user-generated strategy be in mass combat? You say spending time on the soldiering career path makes you a more viable soldier. It unlocks advanced tactics and better options and all of that.
Let's say there's a fight between two guys - one guy has max ranks in "leadership" and has all of the advanced tactics unlocked. He also isn't a very good leader and doesn't have a sound tactical mind.
His opponent has a similarly sized force, but only a few ranks in leadership - he hasn't unlocked many of the advanced tactical options. But let's say he's a tactical genius - he KNOWS good tactics. He knows how to split his force, how many mages should be distributed with how many soldiers, and so on. ... will this guy be able to beat the guy with better ranks? How close will it be?
Also still confused about how diverse squads will be able to be and how complex of orders will be able to be given out at once.
Also still confused about if being good at "soldering" means being less good with 1-on-1 or small dungeon/mob-based combat. Is skill at combat skill at combat, or is there Combat: Warfare and Combat: Small Battle, as two separate skills?
A big part of the "player initiative" problem can only be resolved with actual in-game communication. Good players will note tactical advantages and suggest them via chat/vent. Good leaders will change tactics according to circumstance.
The other part--being engaged in the tactics via game mechanics--doesn't strike me as being a huge problem. In a WoW raid, for instance, the raid leader decides the strategy and the raid executes it. Within that parameter, they have full access to all their abilities. That's kind of how I see formations working, except without as much freedom of movement. And freedom of movement in large scale PvP is an illusory choice--strike off on your own and you'll end up dead, formations or not.
It boils down to what actual abilities are granted and/or limited by being in formation. Is the leader the only one who gains formation abilities, or does everyone gain them? Are formation abilities completely swapped out, or are they added to your normal selection? In other words, do you retain your ability to choose how you follow orders based on how your character is built, or are you given standard issue ability rotation: 1,2,3 repeat?
Some random thoughts. I see the formation as being a type of buff that, in addition to having range, has a shape. Perhaps the shape is even clearly visibly defined, such as a marking on the ground. From this perspective, the leader becomes a kind of support role. While a cool idea, this kind of obviously makes the strategy always to be "kill the leader" which is a direct reflection of "kill the healer." Can this be avoided somewhat? Can the next in line step up to be the leader, or would this make formations much too difficult to kill?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, as much as mass military combat is cool, I hope it doesn't act is the "main piece" of PFO.
They have a robust PvE game planned. It's a common fallacy (one that I have fallen victim to) that "game with open pvp" equates to "pvp game."
Also still confused about if being good at "soldering" means being less good with 1-on-1 or small dungeon/mob-based combat. Is skill at combat skill at combat, or is there Combat: Warfare and Combat: Small Battle, as two separate skills?
I asked a similar question a while ago. The response I got was pve and pvp would use different skills. At the time I didn't get why they wouldn't translate, but considering formations, now I get it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some random thoughts. I see the formation as being a type of buff that, in addition to having range, has a shape. Perhaps the shape is even clearly visibly defined, such as a marking on the ground. From this perspective, the leader becomes a kind of support role. While a cool idea, this kind of obviously makes the strategy always to be "kill the leader" which is a direct reflection of "kill the healer." Can this be avoided somewhat? Can the next in line step up to be the leader, or would this make formations much too difficult to kill?
My interpretation, or at least my imagination (which is subject to be wrong of course), see's it as more or less a shaped buff, possibly complete with symbols, IE shields for the front lines, arrows for where ranged should stand etc... while not forcing for those types to be there, the buffs to those squares or areas should be relevant to them. IE the shields give defense and mellee offense, the arrows grant range/shot accuracy etc... and of course all of them granting overall resistance from AoE's etc... The leader spot should be replacable with a new leader who can resume the same formation but with buff stregnths based on his own leadership level etc... in that case.
IMO the idea of kill the leader being a popular desired tactic. Is pretty realistic. As is assuming the "worse than death" mechanic is something that lasts long enough to effect far enough into the future, assassinating the leader before the battle even begins. That IMO adds some realism to war. After all that is how it works in real war, When the senior officer falls, organization, tactics etc... goes downhill fast. That being said, formations themselves should be designed to protect this leader and not make it as simple as "archers target general".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I asked a similar question a while ago. The response I got was pve and pvp would use different skills. At the time I didn't get why they wouldn't translate, but considering formations, now I get it.
That's too bad...it seems logical to me that a squad of 24 Spartans with a turtle technique that nullifies fireballs might be useful in a fight against a firebreathing dragon.
Or, using your advanced squad coordination tactics to crush random PC skirmishers should also be usable in an large dungeon againsts random NPC skirmishers.
Why not line up and coordinate a squad of 12 archers to volley into NPCs for x4 damage and a defensive buff?
The formations and manoeuvres, if they create coordinated effects and buffs, seems as if they would be usable in any situation you can think to apply it to and have the room to do so.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I asked a similar question a while ago. The response I got was pve and pvp would use different skills. At the time I didn't get why they wouldn't translate, but considering formations, now I get it.That's too bad...it seems logical to me that a squad of 24 Spartans with a turtle technique that nullifies fireballs might be useful in a fight against a firebreathing dragon.
Or, using your advanced squad coordination tactics to crush random PC skirmishers should also be usable in an large dungeon againsts random NPC skirmishers.
Why not line up and coordinate a squad of 12 archers to volley into NPCs for x4 damage and a defensive buff?
The formations and manoeuvres, if they create coordinated effects and buffs, seems as if they would be usable in any situation you can think to apply it to and have the room to do so.
Provided that the room to do so isn't trivial (as in, not going to happen in dungeons, or be as effective in heavy forest or swampland or other difficult terrain), or that at least some PvE forces have some counter to armies, that's not a problem. If the answer to 'how do we clear out this ruin?' is always 'Form into a skirmishing unit and let the math do the work.', then something has been implemented wrong.
Having been infantry, the "archer" rarely has the information necessary to decide what actions are in the best interests of the army...and should not even if they do; squads are intended to be cohesive units, the smallest unit of planning, manoeuvred as a single whole.
My experience in mock combat and in the military is different- There is rarely time in combat to communicate with 'higher' regarding new information that changes the most effective means to attain the intention. It's one thing to keep to one's sector, it's another thing entirely to recognize that overwhelming force is succeeding at overloading a neighboring sector and assist.
Treating a squad like a single unit is something that makes sense on the theatre level, but typically not on the tactical level. If the mechanics of squads are designed at the theatre level, I think that they will be poorly suited to the individual player who needs to click the 'obey order' button.
The formations and manoeuvres, if they create coordinated effects and buffs, seems as if they would be usable in any situation you can think to apply it to and have the room to do so.
Honestly I would prefer if they translated well, and certainly hope there will be some mid-range efficacy in trying, but I see why they would separate the skills. Maybe if bringing a soldier on a dragon raid was better than bringing a new character but less desireable than an equally skilled adventurer... Then there could be reasonable translation of skills but still leave room for new characters (because likely the soldier will be pvping and the raid still needs bodies).
The leader spot should be replacable with a new leader who can resume the same formation but with buff stregnths based on his own leadership level
My thoughts exactly. But in the transition period, the "leader switch" so to speak, the squad should lose cohesion and be vulnerable, otherwise it could be an impenetrable weak link. It should be potentially as catastrophic as a tank dying in a raid--people can either fumble and wipe, or adjust to a new tank or rez the dead one and carry on. Killing the leader would then give the potential to route the squad, but skilled players could recover and rally.
Treating a squad like a single unit is something that makes sense on the theatre level, but typically not on the tactical level. If the mechanics of squads are designed at the theatre level, I think that they will be poorly suited to the individual player who needs to click the 'obey order' button.
It's a very similar (or the same?) problem as how do you design a raid without making the raiders do the safety dance.
Maybe the solution is as simple as creating opportunities for one player to turn the tide. Like an archer spots a flaw in the dragon's hide, or a warrior soldier successfully shield blocks the blow that would have killed his leader.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...But in the transition period, the "leader switch" so to speak, the squad should lose cohesion and be vulnerable, otherwise it could be an impenetrable weak link. It should be potentially as catastrophic as a tank dying in a raid--people can either fumble and wipe, or adjust to a new tank or rez the dead one and carry on. Killing the leader would then give the potential to route the squad, but skilled players could recover and rally.
I think the loss of a leader could have effects like this, but if no change to the plan is needed then the unit certainly has file closers or non-coms to keep things going even if the commander falls.
So if the unit is attacking an enemy's flank, and the commander falls, the unit keeps moving to attack. It can keep going, if moving or attacking, or keep holding if defending. The leader switch mostly impacts any changes to the current activity.
Targeting leaders of formations should be challenging, not just tab-tab-tab-tab "ah, found the leader, everyone target my targeted enemy".
So, here's a question: in mass-combat, is there any creative, critical or original thinking the regular soldiers need to do? Will they EVER have to come up with what they're going to on their own, or HOW they're going to fulfill an order? Will they EVER be told "damage the opponent!" and then choose if they want to do a ranged attack or a spell and if so which spell, or will there simply be a "follows order" or "doesn't follow order" mark?
Because I think if you give the individual units more ability to have actual input, it would take away a lot from the "monotony" by keeping things interesting and dynamic, make the players feel like they're doing more than just pressing the "obey order" button, AND maintain the "rhythm" requirement to stay in cohesion.
FOR EXAMPLE: Let's say the commander says "attack within 5 seconds." There's two ways I can see this going down:
1) The squad has 5 seconds to enter in the DDR sequence to properly "attack." If they all do it within 5 seconds, they are in cohesion. If they do not, they aren't. This is the current way mass-combat has been described.
2) The squad has 5 seconds to, as individuals, each come up with their own way of fulfilling the order. Two fighters swipe their swords, one ranger does too, another ranger shoots from his longbow, and one mage casts fireball while another casts magic missile. If each squad member completes his or her own, individually chosen "attack" option within the specified time frame, the unit is in cohesion. If the members are off on time or if one of the units chooses to take a defensive action or cast a buff spell instead of attack, then the members are NOT in cohesion. This is what I think would solve a few weak points presented by the current plan, while maintaining the current plans strengths.
Personally, it just seems to me that option #2 would keep mass combat far more interesting, exciting, and dynamic. It would also certainly add more potential for variety in encounters. AND, it takes away the "monotony" problem - it's not just a bunch of players being in DDR step together, but it's a bunch of players who need to be in sync with each other BUT still have the autonomy to decide how they stay in sync. So it transforms from a "follow orders mini-game" into a "follow orders" sub-style within the mechanics of the "regular" game."
ON A RELATED NOTE: My example also brings back another issue I'm still as of yet unclear about: how varied can a squad's orders be? Does it have to be all or nothing, aka "attack!" or "defend!" or whatever? Or can I create synergy within my own squad by giving more complex arrows IE, "mages: cast true strike on the archers in 5 seconds. Archers, shoot your arrows in 7 seconds."
Because if you give commanders the ability to structure orders dynamically like that, that too would help vastly broaden the levels of strategy and player interaction. And especially if you pair that with giving players in squads autonomy - basically you've just exponentially grown the metagame. There are immediately dozens and dozens (if not HUNDREDS, depending on the scale of the battle) of more possible strategies and counter-strategies in mass combat, the direction of battles will be able to shift much more rapidly and require much more attention and focus from all parties involved, AND commanders get the ability to come up with and draw from a significantly wider array of tactical choices!
I'd love to get some thoughts on both of these ideas (#1 giving players some autonomy within formation for how to follow orders, #2 giving commanders the ability to issue complex orders) from everyone, but especially the devs. If you agree, cool! ... How come? If you disagree, okay; why?
I'd love to get some thoughts on both of these ideas (#1 giving players some autonomy within formation for how to follow orders, #2 giving commanders the ability to issue complex orders) from everyone, but especially the devs. If you agree, cool! ... How come? If you disagree, okay; why?
How about both of them implemented?
The first one being more specialized and limited to similar characters. For example, everyone in the squad has a sword & shield, so they can do the fancy unified moves like in LOTR movie when they sheathe the sword together.
The second can belong to a generalized army, so when the commander says ranged attack, some may shoot arrows with their bows, some may cast magic missile, some throw bombs, others can fire their crossbow/ firearm.
#1 would be like when you're controlling a single squad in RTS games like company of heroes / battle for middle earth. The attacks of a squad members are unified. Except now the player gets to be the singular unit within the squad.
#2 would be similar to mount and blade. When cavalier / footmen are asked to attack with range weapons, they'll just do nothing due to inability. When all units are asked to charge, cavaliers / footmen / archer / musketeer will perform differently to fulfill the command.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GoblinWorks,
I am concerned about your plan for group combat tactics for several reasons.
First, Real Life military units are good at tactics because they spent an enormous amount of time drilling. This drilling is not only tedious, it is boring. Adding any element to the game which is tedious or boring is not what you are interested in, and I can only imagine a very few would actually drill enough to make a difference.
Second, communication is much harder on an MMO than in real life. The chat window requires one to stop fighting to type, and then to look at the text to read. This communication problem will have to be resolved to make unit tactics even possible. This will require a Skype like connection within each group, so they can talk to each other.
Third, most tactics are EASY to defeat. The phalanx formation you mentioned is quite venerable to a flanking maneuver. Utilizing Hannibal’s maneuver you can defeat a phalanx in detail. A cavalry group should be able to flank a phalanx. You are planning on mounted combat right?
Lastly, Historical unit tactics will NOT work in pathfinder! Basically the tactics would not be effective because of the number of Area of Effect abilities running around the battle field. I can not imagine the Greeks using those tactics if someone had invented the hand grenade, or Molotov cocktail. The phalanx unit is just lining themselves up for a lightning bolt.
I would like to apologize for being so negative. I actually like to concept of teamwork, and find that aspect of PvP lacking greatly. However, the reality of most MMOs is there is already an advantage to working together. When my son and I play a PvP combat round in Star Wars the Old Republic we are far more effective than individually. Even to the point of taking on three enemies. (That is significant because I am a casual gamer, and generally drag him down.) This is effective because not only is he in the room, but he sits behind and to the right of me. We not only utilize verbal communication skills, he can see my screen, and can give me directions based on what I am seeing.
The main reason teamwork is emphasized in real life, and not in games is because the reduction in fun is not offset by any significant consequence. When dying in SWTOR, we are back in the fight within 15 seconds. So why team up? The survivability might be higher, but the fun is lower. Are you willing to make significant consequences to battle scenes, to make survivability much more important? There would probably be many complaints about lack of fun.
One way you could do that is when a battle between more than 10 on each side is going on, it disrupts the respawn points, requiring the dead character to respawn a minimum of one hex away. Also disrupt any fast travel into the area. (people can run away from the fight, just not run into the fight.) That would mean that characters who die in the combat must take significant time to get back to the combat, making their survival much more important.
A way to make grouping beneficial is to add bonuses based on the amount of support you have. Having a fighter nearby might boost your AC. Why? Because the fighter on your left means you do not need to worry about attacks coming from your left. Add in the law of diminishing returns, and you have a fairly good system which can not be too overpowered. For Example: A friendly fighter within 30’ of you gives you a 10% boost to your AC. A second friendly fighter only boosts your AC by 8%, the third 6%, Fourth by 4%, and fifth by 2%. With this, having 5 fighters nearby significantly increases your AC, but you as a developer can adjust these numbers to make that total boost be effective, but not able to be exploited. Different classes should boost different things. Clerics might boost saves, wizards might boost spell resistance, making the benefit of a diverse army nice.
Running away should be fairly easy to accomplish. Most MMOs have a different speed for when a character is in combat, and when they are not. Simply allow a character to switch out of combat by not utilizing an offensive ability for ___ seconds. The attacking foe is still slow, while the low health defender is getting faster. You could also include abilities, like ‘leg shot’ which does minimal actual damage, but slows the target down to be considered a defensive shot, and not reset the timer for moving into the faster state. Be careful with a timer which is too short; People might use the higher speed for tactical advantage in the middle of battle rather than to just run away.
On to actual tactics! Please include a system for tactics, and not the actual tactics themselves. What I mean, is include a ‘Tactical Editor’ which will allow for the commanders to create their own tactics. Even allow them to simulate and practice the tactics with their team mates. The bonuses can be set based on an algorithm, and how well the troops actually hold to the tactics. This will allow commanders to adapt their tactics to what mix of players they have, as well as to combat a known enemy’s tactics. It will also make defending tactics MUCH harder.
During combat, when a commander issues a tactical command, the screen should include an easy to follow visual clue to where your character should be, and what their area of responsibility should be. That way you reduce the amount of drilling the players need to do.
A players responsibility in a tactic might be class related. For example, an archer might have spell casters as their primary responsibility, other archers as a secondary responsibility, and mele characters as a tertiary responsibility. When the attacking army comes, as soon as a mele character is within range, they highlight, and a single keystroke will target that enemy. Even while engaged with that enemy, if a spell caster comes within range, then the highlight will move from the mele character to the spell caster, allowing the player to shift focus to the higher priority enemy.
A tactic might also be ability specific. Taking our above archer example, when the mele enemy comes within range, the desired ability might be ‘leg shot’ intended to slow the enemy rather than just pure damage. In that case, the desired tactical ability would also highlight.
By making the tactics player generated, they will be MUCH more fun. I also think they will be more effective. (Never underestimate the creativity of people!) I can imagine playing with a small group of friends, and we each take turns leading the group, and making our own tactics for the specific group. It would also be great, if we could integrate those small unit tactics into the larger group tactics of major combat. The commander would issue more generalized tactics to their squad leaders, who would in turn issue their squad level tactics to their specific squad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
GoblinWorks,
I am concerned about your plan for group combat tactics for several reasons.
First, Real Life military units are good at tactics because they spent an enormous amount of time drilling. This drilling is not only tedious, it is boring. Adding any element to the game which is tedious or boring is not what you are interested in, and I can only imagine a very few would actually drill enough to make a difference.
Second, communication is much harder on an MMO than in real life. The chat window requires one to stop fighting to type, and then to look at the text to read. This communication problem will have to be resolved to make unit tactics even possible. This will require a Skype like connection within each group, so they can talk to each other.
Right there is where I will have to largely differ, voice chat is more or less a requirement for organized combat in large scale complex battles in any MMO, whether it is added via 3rd party programs or is built into the game. Personally I actually do hope that GW can build voice chat into the game, IMO that was a huge benefit in DDO, while not as good as vent/mumble/teamspeak for established guilds etc... It raised the quality of random pick up groups by a huge margain. In WoW 5 mans were huge liabilities that many people wouldn't pug, while in DDO PUGing 12 man raids was common place and usually successful. However even if GW doesn't implement voice chat into the game, large events that require mass co-ordination and are generally done by large guilds/groups, will almost certainly utilize voice chat, whether the guilds are running their own mumble/vent server, or the game manages to impliment it themselves.
Personally I see little problem with certain formations and manuvers being vulnerable to other formations and manuvers, Ryan has pretty clearly stated that he intends for flanking, pincers etc... to be strong viable tactics, as they should be. Calvary if implimented is something both sides should have access to, as well as should have it's own counters.
As far as the aoes etc... I still dont' grasp why it is so hard for people to accept the idea that large armies would be using buffs etc.. to avoid damage from aoes. Whether that is a power inate in the leadership, or whether that is one of the wizards roles in his position of the formation,
I think the difficulty to accept troop magic resistance is due to how humans' warfare evolve. People develop new technology to counter the enemies. WWI tanks were made to counter trench warfare, for example.
From what I remember, Golorian is a baseline magic world (somewhere around the Greyhawk level), and most of the time the more north you go, less magic it would be. Here
If physical damages have a higher chance of being caused, methods to improve physical damage reduction would be put in priority rather than magic damage reduction. It seems more logical imho.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think the specific arguments are "PnP area effect spells are overpowered for very large groups of targets." along with "That is consistent with the lore.".
I agree that PnP doesn't do mass combat well. It's not supposed to- the war rages around the characters as they fight dramatic moments. I don't agree that the lore agrees with spellcasting being the only pivotal part of mass engagement.
Questions for Ryan:
1) If I understand what's been said, having an ability increases the commander's list of orders that can be issued. Does this apply to spells? For example, can a unit of mages be ordered to cast fireball as an attack? I'm a little confused as to the role of mages in unit based combat.
2)Will stealth be possible in battlefields? Units of invisible rogues: yea or nay?
3) How do summoned units factor into things? Are they considered to be in a unit with their summoning caster? Can they be formed into units of their own? I would love to see lines of corpses or summoned horrors, or to see lines of soldiers bolstered by them. I would hope that "swarmy" armies are possible if many summoning characters are in an army.
I spent a long time on my post and didn't get any real responses to it, I'm sad =(
I spent a long time on my post and didn't get any real responses to it, I'm sad =(
You get what you f**~ing get. Don't make me beat you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I spent a long time on my post and didn't get any real responses to it, I'm sad =(
I'm hesitant to offer unsolicited advice, but if you're interested in trying to get responses to your posts, I would suggest you focus on making it concise. You don't want to make people have to put in a lot of effort just to understand what you're saying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of armies, squads and formations a lot for territory domination and control. Though I worry that the system will break down once in the hands of players, as we tend to break things. My main concern is about how magic and armies will be handled.
Mainly because a magic user is much the same as technology is for us, and the effect it has on military tactics. It's a game changer. If formations of units are simply "magic resistant" because they are a cohesive unit (assuming they perform well), I'm left with a feeling that can only be described as "Really? That's what you're going with?". A magic user of appropriate level should be a devastating force to a unit of, cohesive or otherwise, non-magically supported soldiers.
A level 1 wizard would be a kin to someone with a semi-automatic weapon. Dangerous but overall can't do enough damage before being overrun or running out of ammunition. A level 5 would be like a soldier with an automatic weapon, and an assortment of grenades (explosive, smokes, flash bangs). A level 20 would be like a stealth bomber, aircraft carrier, nuclear bomb, and a tank combined and had a baby hell spawn of mass destruction. The point is, magic is a major force and simple cohesion shouldn't be enough to significantly impact that force. At least not without assistance from magic itself, whether that be an allied wizard countering spells, casting protective magic, or magically enchanted items.
Without knowing the exact details on skills, mechanics and spells, it's very hard to understand how it will all mesh together. In the table top game, a caster is limited by his spells per day, as well as how effective those spells are due to caster or spell level. Casters can't necessarily win wars on their own, but their impact should be significant when employed. Any limitation or reduction in impact needs to come from a logical, lore based, source.
Tactics, strategy and preparation should thwart casters, not a mechanic born from the necessity to make a desired format...
The problem with this is class balance. It's still an issue with PvE based games, though to a lesser extent....and DnD has always had problems with balanicing casters vs non-casters... but when everyone is on the same side fighting against the environment, issues of balance are less of a big deal.
In PvP, balance issue become even more important. Essentialy no class should be an uncounterable Tac Nuke when compared with the majority of other classes in the game. Each class should bring some advantages to the table...but they all should have at least partial foils and counters that are readly availble to the majority of other classes in the game.
In other words, it's not much fun playing a bunch of guys on the ground with spears when the other side is flying around in A-10 Warthogs... and if that's caused simply because of the choice of class the characters decided to pursue, then the game has a problem with class balance. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DeciusBrutus - I'm just not going to worry about people who want to hack the client to the extent that they are decoding the dataflow from the server and automating responses. That level of effort is effectively unblockable. All we can do is make it necessary to keep doing such work all the time by changing the datastream regularly and mixing up the way the protocols work.
The case I was asked about was someone writing a script that could allow many players' characters to be controlled by a central director. My answer makes that very, very hard, thus removing most of the temptation to attempt to do it.
IMO, there are 2 answers to this issue, which working in tandem could pretty much reduce botting to a non-factor.
Firstly, you need to make the ability for the player to issue the correct response to the leaders orders lenient enough in terms of response time that the average player with an average reaction time and a reasonable connection speed doesn't have much issue entering the correct responses. That should remove alot of the temptation/advantage of botting it in the first place. Since an average player who's paying attention is fully capable of entering the correct response...not much need or advantage to bot it.
Secondly, GW will hopefully put together a system where each individual is balancing the units situation and his formation orders against his individual situation and making a judgement call upon which action is best in THAT particular situation. It should be the case where following unit orders (if well lead) GENERALY yields the best result for that side in combat. However there should be frequent exceptions where the best thing for an individual to do, not only for himself but also for his side, is to ignore those orders, break formation and do something different. In real world combat situations, I believe this is called "Acting on Individual Initiative"..... and it's prized in many armies. It was regarded as one of the primary strengths of the US Army in WWII. Basicaly an individual or lower level commander may have a set of standing orders from command but when they see a situation develop where those orders no longer make sense or they see an opportunity to significantly alter the battle and there isn't time or ability to contact higher command for instruction, the individual takes it on his own initiative to act on the situation. These situations should develop in the mass combat model GW develops for PFO. That is, there may be situations where it is better to break format...and lower unit cohesion and combat bonuses in order to achieve some specific action that you can undertake as an individual. Under such a system the botter is at a disadvantage because they loose the opportunity to take advantage of those situations where it is better to act in contradiction to orders.
Hypothetical Examples....
- The Unit is ordered to hold position and form a shield wall, but as an individual I have a DOT on me from a Ranged Caster that is 10 yds away that will only be broken by that caster getting attacked. As an individual I've got to make a judgement call whether it's better to break formation (and weaken the units cohesion) to go attack that caster or to stand there and become a casualty (and weaken the units combat strength for the encounter by my input).
- The Unit is orderd to hold position and form a shield wall, but I see an individual enemy soldier raising the drawbridge to the castle we want to storm, I don't know whether my unit leader see's it or not. Is it better for our side for me to break formation and stop that drawbridge from being raised...or to stand there and contribute to unit cohesion?
- The Unit is ordered to hold position and form a shield wall, but I see the freindly unit to our right has just lost it's standard to an enemy soldier who is retreating away with it. I'm the one in our unit nearest to that enemy and I have an opportunity to intercept him. Is it better for me to break formation and recover that standard or to stand there and contribute to cohesion.
In each of these cases, it's argueable that the better course of action for ones side as a whole is to break unit cohesion in order to achieve some specific end that presents itself to the individual soldier. Just as in real world combat, it should be clear to the individual soldier what thier orders are......but whether to execute those orders or not is a judgement call that the individual is responsible for making. It may be the case that it is GENERALY best to maintain formation and follow your given orders....but there are always exceptions.... and it's upto the individual players judgement as to how to act on those exceptions and then deal with the consequences of such....and that's something no botter can do.
In other words, we may be given specific direction as to where and how to move in order to best support formation but that doesn't mean we need to act as mindless robots who always follow those directions. We are thinking individuals who get to make judgement calls about whether to follow those directions or not.
In the real world, millitaries who want thier soldiers to think and foster a sense of individual initative and judgement usualy outperform those who expect thier soldiers to act as mindless robots. That's because situations in combat develop rapidly and unexpectedly in ways that orders cant always account for and respond to in time. Having individuals who can respond intelligently to those situations is a huge advantage. History tells us that there are many examples of battles won because individuals or lower level officers acted on thier own initiative without orders (or even in contravention to them).
In PFO, the (proposed) system will tell you mechanicaly what you need to do to keep formation and achieve unit cohesion in order to provide the best combat bonus for your formation..... what it CAN'T tell you is in any given situation whether it's better to contribute to your units cohesion and maximize it's combat bonus...or to take some other significant action as an individual that can alter the course of battle. That's the part that is always going to be left upto the player. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry for (at least to some people) beating a dead horse, but I feel that I need to speak to this apparent spellcaster invincibility and consequently the "need" to put together some kind of universal resistance or debuff against spellcasters.
The one argument, that a L20 Wizard can clean up against a horde of L1 fighters is absolutely true. Also true is that a L20 Fighter can clean up against a horde of L1 Wizards. Thats not the effect of the difference in classes, its the effect of the difference in levels.
The other argument, that a wizard can cause catastrophic damage on the battlefield is also true, but only under ideal circumstances. And again, if you put any class in an ideal position it will perform beyond average expectations. That's the advantage of tactics and positioning and a good PC will know how to maximize that. Thats just the nature of MMOs and RPGs in general.
I can give specific examples of how the effect of spellcasters can be minimized (in addition to the ones mentioned in previous posts). Invisible thieves backstabbing spellcasters, rangers specializing in bows, magical items used against spellcasters, traps, et cetera. It needs to be remembered that all spellcasters need 2 things to succeed - time and concentration (for now we'll ignore somatic and verbal components but certainly they can play a part). Take away either of those two things and spellcasters become very squishy.
As for the damage they do - most area effect spells have an inverse relationship between area and damage per target. A fifth level wizard may be able to cast fireball at a group of 5th level fighters - but what are the odds they will kill any of them? And then the mage is out of fireballs and the fighters (some of who made their save) are not out of swords. And never mind the thief with "improved evasion" or similar. And is any of this any different than the amount of damage a trebuchet or mangonel will do? And I don't think PFO is considering removing siege engines from the game.
Having played spellcasters I would be very wary to bring them out onto the battlefield. Spellcasters mostly work because they can have some command and control over the battlefield. That works very well in party combat, incredibly less so in combat. As a higher level spell caster I would insist on at least a handful of fighters or theives to act as my bodyguard (probably with one or more helms of truesight or similar enchantments). And at that point, I would be no different than any other kind of siege engine.
Nerfing spellcasters is essentially equivalent to the long-time nerf of the 'Blaster' class in City of Heroes (which has been going on for 7+ years now). The end result was that blasters became one of the least selected class and everybody played a melee character. Blasters had a very difficult time soloing and were only supporting artillery in large groups (some of the end game content has 30+ PCs fighting many more monsters - pretty large scale).
Ok. that's the end of my POV. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As for the damage they do - most area effect spells have an inverse relationship between area and damage per target. A fifth level wizard may be able to cast fireball at a group of 5th level fighters - but what are the odds they will kill any of them? And then the mage is out of fireballs and the fighters (some of who made their save) are not out of swords. And never mind the thief with "improved evasion" or similar. And is any of this any different than the amount of damage a trebuchet or mangonel will do? And I don't think PFO is considering removing siege engines from the game.
Killing them with a single fireball, unlikely, 20 fighters in a tight formation, vs 4 level 5 wizards casting fireball, should more or less wipe them all out, thus negating the entire concept of formations unless we raise the distance of a formation to everyone standing 30' apart. And that is at low levels, in the event the wizards all run out of fireballs, obscuring mist, expedicious retreat etc... (at low levels of course, before greater invisibility, teleport etc... are options). Formations are weak to very many of the options a wizard has available to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Killing them with a single fireball, unlikely, 20 fighters in a tight formation, vs 4 level 5 wizards casting fireball, should more or less wipe them all out, thus negating the entire concept of formations unless we raise the distance of a formation to everyone standing 30' apart. And that is at low levels, in the event the wizards all run out of fireballs, obscuring mist, expedicious retreat etc... (at low levels of course, before greater invisibility, teleport etc... are options). Formations are weak to very many of the options a wizard has available to them.
Yes, but what about 4 level 5 rangers with longbows and the appropriate feats? How many fighters can they take out before the fighters reach the rangers? What about thieves with shortbows and sneak attacks?
The fighters are in better shape against the fireball spell if they're allowed to use a 'turtle formation'. I'd envision the turtle formation (if correctly executed) to half fireball damage and with a save, quarter it). The downside is that the fighters are stuck in that position for a round (or several seconds in MMO time).
Foot soldiers charging a body of ranged weapons never works - not in DnD, not in the real world (note - this assumes the ranged people have an ounce of common sense lol).
As an aside I plan next week to do a bunch of 'skirmishes' between different types of units to see how they fare against one another. I'll post it.. somewhere... for everyone to debate. I'd do it sooner but I won't have the time.