Goblin Squad Member
|
Rather than add the basic physics to make formations an emergent feature...That is why I think your proposal would be unimaginably expensive, and probably never come to fruition.
If I'm wrong, then you could make a fortune coding a game engine that had such a through implementation of basic physics, and I wish you the best of luck making that a reality.
These physics engines already have precedent. They also aren't compatible with larger scale environments and certainly not compatible with more than say 64 quality models of up to 8 varieties (Battlefield 3). Throw in the high variability of individual models, from elves to dwarves to gnomes and hulking half-orcs, and from flowing robes to shifting platemail, to speak nothing of exotic shapes associated with demons and dragons and giant purple worms. All this sort of thing has to be considered when proposing some high end physics model for something that might have limited scope, like Unit Formations.
Personally, in my minds eye I've seen the unit formations following a UI similar the dynamic warnings seen in The Secret World. Perhaps a circle or square on the ground, with indicators hinting at proper directionality or formation shapes. Commands from the Unit commander could follow a similar UI, or just Alert Messages on screen. As far as I can tell, one of the key aspects to properly introducing this type is the heartbeat of the actions. WoW for example couldn't support this type of feature because the basic heartbeat is a fairly rapid 1 second global rhythm to just about everything, and the expectation of rapidity dominates what the game has evolved into. In EVE the heartbeat is no faster than about 3 seconds, and for a user, the context of their efforts is often seen in a slower timeframe (missile travel time, etc).
The balancing of wizardly powers vs unit defenses or unit offense vs individuals seems a trivial but critical act of numbers balancing. That sort of thing will be part and parcel to designing the game in general, so I'm honestly not all that concerned about it. What seems to be the biggest problem is balancing Expectations that soldiers are mooks in metal, and wizards are reality bending meteor swarms in the making. This is unfortunately a classic fallacy of discussion regarding Martial vs Magical powers, and one that's been pervasive since year one of 3.5. I'm sure the math majors could go into the theoreticals of a fireball vs a pile of fighters, but at the end of the day, a sudden explosion isn't actually likely to end a few competent same level dudes in plate, and even that's going on the strict and inaccurate model of directly comparing values in the PnP game to an MMO. As has been exhaustively discussed, strict comparisons are effectively useless. The themes and flavor will be ported over, certainly, but the actual math MUST be left behind. Once that decision is made, a world of mathematical opportunity opens up, and the designers are allowed to devise any system they want, and make it work however they want (within budgetary reason, of course).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You seem to be equating emergence with difficulty...
No. I'm not. I'm equating "add[ing] the basic physics to make formations an emergent feature" with difficulty.
Honestly, though, seeing your recent post on the type of Player Nation you're wanting to build, I'm not at all surprised that we clash so. It's funny how that keeps happening that way...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally, in my minds eye I've seen the unit formations following a UI similar the dynamic warnings seen in The Secret World. Perhaps a circle or square on the ground, with indicators hinting at proper directionality or formation shapes. Commands from the Unit commander could follow a similar UI, or just Alert Messages on screen.
That's what I've been picturing - visual cues for the player to respond to: a place to stand, a direction to face, some action to be performed.
Moving and acting in formation (in RL) isn't just executing the commander's orders as quickly as possible. There are also cues and alignment from the persons to your sides and to your front. If you're out of alignment or out of step, you'll see and correct or you'll get bumped. PFO doesn't need to bombard the players with all of these cues in real time, lagging the systems with chaff. Give the player a target circle to maintain position, a target direction to face, etc.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Personally, in my minds eye I've seen the unit formations following a UI similar the dynamic warnings seen in The Secret World. Perhaps a circle or square on the ground, with indicators hinting at proper directionality or formation shapes. Commands from the Unit commander could follow a similar UI, or just Alert Messages on screen.That's what I've been picturing - visual cues for the player to respond to: a place to stand, a direction to face, some action to be performed.
Moving and acting in formation (in RL) isn't just executing the commander's orders as quickly as possible. There are also cues and alignment from the persons to your sides and to your front. If you're out of alignment or out of step, you'll see and correct or you'll get bumped. PFO doesn't need to bombard the players with all of these cues in real time, lagging the systems with chaff. Give the player a target circle to maintain position, a target direction to face, etc.
Many formation maneuvers rely on the certainty that everyone else will execute the proper action at the proper time. Polearm formations in particular require precise coordination to rapidly change facing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many formation maneuvers rely on the certainty that everyone else will execute the proper action at the proper time. Polearm formations in particular require precise coordination to rapidly change facing.Personally, in my minds eye I've seen the unit formations following a UI similar the dynamic warnings seen in The Secret World. Perhaps a circle or square on the ground, with indicators hinting at proper directionality or formation shapes. Commands from the Unit commander could follow a similar UI, or just Alert Messages on screen.That's what I've been picturing - visual cues for the player to respond to: a place to stand, a direction to face, some action to be performed.
Moving and acting in formation (in RL) isn't just executing the commander's orders as quickly as possible. There are also cues and alignment from the persons to your sides and to your front. If you're out of alignment or out of step, you'll see and correct or you'll get bumped. PFO doesn't need to bombard the players with all of these cues in real time, lagging the systems with chaff. Give the player a target circle to maintain position, a target direction to face, etc.
While in the real world this is true down to the quickest measurement of time, in an MMO the heartbeat can be longer, since at the basic core of the mechanic is an abstraction. Latency driven grace periods are typical in the MMO space and to be expected in any combat scenario. If, as I believe Ryan might have hinted at, the Unit Formations work on a different and slower time signature than "regular" combat in solo PvP or dungeon crawls, I think that's fine.
Its worth reminding people, this isn't going to be the only way to do combat, and even PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many formation maneuvers rely on the certainty that everyone else will execute the proper action at the proper time. Polearm formations in particular require precise coordination to rapidly change facing.
While in the real world this is true down to the quickest measurement of time, in an MMO the heartbeat can be longer, since at the basic core of the mechanic is an abstraction. Latency driven grace periods are typical in the MMO space and to be expected in any combat scenario. If, as I believe Ryan might have hinted at, the Unit Formations work on a different and slower time signature than "regular" combat in solo PvP or dungeon crawls, I think that's fine.
Polearm formation are an excellent example. Imagine a block of pikemen with their pikes slanted to the west. The commander wants the soldiers to shift their focus to the north, a "simple" facing movement.
But it isn't a simple movement - like Decius hints, they needs to all lift their pikes from a slant to vertical - in unison so someone doesn't lift their pike into the one above it (it might actually be done in waves, so the rear-most ranks lift their pikes first). Once all the pikes are vertical, each soldier pivots in place. Once the unit is facing the right way, then they lower their pikes back to a slant, in unison (or by rank/file). Although it isn't simple, in a real unit, this can be done relatively quickly, faster than computer lag would allow if each command has to be issued and responded to, which I think is Gruffling's point.
In my opinion, the game needs to know that the soldiers in a unit are capable of working in unison and that they are all there, actual humans marching to their commander's order. It may expect them to have certain skills (basic infantry drill, advanced infantry drill, pike drill) trained. But we don't require a character outside of formation to actually thread his swordtip into his scabbard every time he puts the thing away. We also don't need to know the precise angle of pikeman #12's weapon when the commander changes the unit's facing. If pikeman #12 is playing from Australia and lagging, it shouldn't matter; the unit should still function.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am still quite curious how much of an impact an individual in the unit can have if: 1) they're just not very good; 2) they're intentionally trying to be disruptive; or 3) they're disconnected.
1) Clumsy player. I think skill training is drill training for this kind of stuff. Consider a unit with 50 characters, each with 3 months of skill training time devoted to that unit's requirements. The characters don't need to drill together for 3 months in game, because they drilled for 3 months outside of the game (at the expense of a lot of possible adventurer skills).
The character is trained and in the fight. He responds to his commander's orders with muscle memory from long training. In fact, I'd suggest that your hypothetical physically disabled player should be able to serve as a soldier alongside Twitchy McTwitcherson and the players' reaction times shouldn't matter in the slightest.
2) Disruption. I don't think the character in formation should have much effect. If he was obviously disruptive in RL he'd die, permadeath, and the unit would continue on. If a character in formation doesn't meet the requirements of whatever minigame/positioning/whatever GW requires, he falls out of the unit. Unit strength is reduced by one.
3) Disconnection. Same - if a character in formation doesn't meet the requirements of whatever minigame/positioning/whatever GW requires, he falls out of the unit. Unit strength is reduced by one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My dream set-up would be the player of a soldier in formation can see what's in front of him. He can see his damage bar, see enemies moving, etc. But the character is on autopilot, based on his skills and the unit commander's orders. The player has some sort of mini-game going on - keep this pointer inside this circle, press the green button when the yellow button lights up, whatever. The minigame is mostly to test that yes, it's a human player and he's paying attention and disciplined enough to keep at the minigame. Showing the fight on the screen is mostly to distract the player from the minigame.
When the character is hit, the minigame might get harder. At 50% health a pop-up could flash to the screen and says "You are badly hurt - do you drop from the formation?" If the character hits yes, unit strength is reduced by one, other characters get "People are breaking formation. Will you run and live or stay and die?". On the vent channel, the veterans curse the newbie for breaking and running, and the ten other green troops that chose the [run and live] side of the morale check.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Urman has the gist of what I was saying about abstractions. We don't require our characters to toggle knee-foot interactions for each leg to run around, its QWOP-tastical silliness to demand this type of micro management, and that type of micromanagement wouldn't exist anywhere else. I think Ryan's reference to DDR or Guitar Hero seems to have been taken in a literal way by some. It was my impression (or assumption maybe) that a Soldier in coherency would have their "normal" abilities replaced (or preferably augmented) with a subset of Unit Formation Abilities. Effectively this turns the whole Unit into more of a "character" and the commander of the unit directs the efforts. Then the effectiveness (Combat Power, w/e the label is) of the Unit is a comparison of the performance of the taks, and the various skill metrics in place. Perhaps the UFA skills are like "Advance and Attack" an analog to a charge, or "Shield Wall" as an analog to Total Defense, etc etc etc. There seems to be a ton of design space to be explored in this area, and although I might not really get into it primarily, I am interested in seeing how the system is expanded into playability.
I think Ryan's reference to DDR or Guitar Hero seems to have been taken in a literal way by some. It was my impression (or assumption maybe) that a Soldier in coherency would have their "normal" abilities replaced (or preferably augmented) with a subset of Unit Formation Abilities.
I have the same thought and the same impression. Urman's mini-game in my mind would then be a rotation or priority of the player's own devising via skill selection, while participating in the formation.
I'll be your bad guy. You seem to want something you can hate.
Are you volunteering as content?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You seem to be equating emergence with difficulty...No. I'm not. I'm equating "add[ing] the basic physics to make formations an emergent feature" with difficulty.
Honestly, though, seeing your recent post on the type of Player Nation you're wanting to build, I'm not at all surprised that we clash so. It's funny how that keeps happening that way...
You're really hung up on the word 'physics'.
Fine. Call it a buff.
If you have complaints about the player nation, you should take it to that thread. I was originally planning on another "lawful neutral" order but people were complaining about there being no proposed serious villains.
So fine. I'll be your bad guy. You seem to want something you can hate.
You aren't the Villain we deserve. You're the villain we need.
Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
/threadjack
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you forget about the NPC part. Probably that NPC will have a impact in the mass combat. Food...
I have a suggestion. confrontation with a army with a different formation or type of class will have a impact on the sequence. Maybe they will have keys that you have to not touch.
More the army that you fighting against is powerful, more it will be difficult for you, but you can win if you're very talented. Or you will need other PC for help.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My dream set-up would be the player of a soldier in formation can see what's in front of him. He can see his damage bar, see enemies moving, etc. But the character is on autopilot, based on his skills and the unit commander's orders. The player has some sort of mini-game going on - keep this pointer inside this circle, press the green button when the yellow button lights up, whatever. The minigame is mostly to test that yes, it's a human player and he's paying attention and disciplined enough to keep at the minigame. Showing the fight on the screen is mostly to distract the player from the minigame.
When the character is hit, the minigame might get harder. At 50% health a pop-up could flash to the screen and says "You are badly hurt - do you drop from the formation?" If the character hits yes, unit strength is reduced by one, other characters get "People are breaking formation. Will you run and live or stay and die?". On the vent channel, the veterans curse the newbie for breaking and running, and the ten other green troops that chose the [run and live] side of the morale check.
I really wouldm't be into that sort of system, as it kind of trivializes and takes control away from the actual player. What I would prefer to see is an onscreen indicator of where the player is supposed to be in order to keep formation (lit circle, square, etc) and of what action he is supposed to be performing. If the player registers both his position and the action indicated within whatever time-pulse the formation system uses as a heartbeat then the player is contributing to the overall cohesion of the formation. The formation system then takes the values of all the characters contributing to that formations cohesion and uses it to calculate a set of buffs (that can vary upon the chosen formation and action) and applies those buffs to EACH individual member of the formation that is keeping cohesion.
So at no point is the player loosing control of his character when compared to regular PvP (if regular PvP has an autoattack, then that's fine for a player in formation as well) and they are still fighting, moving, registering damage and making decisions as an individual. It's just that there is an indicator of what thier position and order are SUPPOSED to be, and if they follow that indicator they will partake of the group (formation) buff's and contribute some portion of thier skill to the strength of those buffs for everyone in the formation. They can still choose to do something different at any time (e.g. they aren't required to auto follow the formation orders) but if they do, they won't get the buffs and they won't contribute to the strength of the buffs. Whether it makes sense for them to follow the formation orders or do something else is a judgement call that is continualy made by each individual according to thier individual situations. MOST of the time it will probably be best overall to follow the formation orders and maintain unit cohesion but in the chaos of combat there will be frequent situations where the best thing for them and thier side is to ignore those orders and do something else as an individual.
The side that has the advantage will be the side where both the unit commanders and the individuals within the unit are making the better judgement calls of what to do and when to do it. That way, mass combat is still a tacticaly interesting game BOTH for the commanders making unit level decisions about what to do as a unit, but ALSO for the individual grunts making decisions about when to act as part of the unit and when to do something else as an individual. What I don't want to see is mass combat reduced to something that is only tacticaly interesting for the commanders and the grunts are reduced to some sort of mini-game of Guitar Hero. It's ok if the prompts are THERE to indicate what to do to give the formation a bonus...it's not ok if the only thing the individual grunt ever need consider is pressing the right keys to follow the prompt. In other words you can choose to play Guitar Hero and generate a mechanical bonus.... but you still have opportunity to do your own "riff"... and sometimes doing that "riff" makes more sense.... the good mass combat players (as grunts) will be the ones who know when to "riff" and when to play as part of the chorus. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So at no point is the player loosing control of his character when compared to regular PvP (if regular PvP has an autoattack, then that's fine for a player in formation as well) and they are still fighting, moving, registering damage and making decisions as an individual. It's just that there is an indicator of what thier position and order are SUPPOSED to be, and if they follow that indicator they will partake of the group (formation) buff's and contribute some portion of thier skill to the strength of those buffs for everyone in the formation. They can still choose to do something different at any time (e.g. they aren't required to auto follow the formation orders) but if they do, they won't get the buffs and they won't contribute to the strength of the buffs. Whether it makes sense for them to follow the formation orders or do something else is a judgement call that is continualy made by each individual according to thier individual situations. MOST of the time it will probably be best overall to follow the formation orders and maintain unit cohesion but in the chaos of combat there will be frequent situations where the best thing for them and thier side is to ignore those orders and do something else as an individual.
I'd be fine with that implementation.
I'll note that part of the entire idea of a unit working together is that it presents a unified front. Without a unbroken front, the soldiers in the front rank can be attacked at greater than 1:1 odds. So whenever someone in the unit dies, the person in the rank behind him automatically moves up - and the PFO system should have that fellow's position target move up (and that soldier can choose not to close up the rank).
The same thing happens when someone disconnects - it doesn't matter if the soldier fell out from death, or heatstroke, or he went to his knees to look for a contact lens, the soldier in the rank behind moves up. And the same thing happens when 2 guys in the front rank make a tactical decision to leave the unit - when they are out of the unit for X heartbeats, the system says they're gone from the unit and the person in the rank behind them gets the signal to move up.
Once outside the unit to its front, there's no automatic method for the independent operators to get back inside the unit. It's a whole lot easier for people to automatically step up to fill a gap than to step backwards and create a gap - and units are normally loathe to create gaps in their frontage. The people in the unit are about 3'/1m apart, with weapons, armor, and shields taking up a lot of space. Either the commander needs to do something to open a gap so the outsiders can pass through the unit, or they need to run around the end of the unit. Reinforcements typically fall in at the rear of the unit or (maybe) to its left/shield side, depending on the commander's needs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So whenever someone in the unit dies, the person in the rank behind him automatically moves up - and the PFO system should have that fellow's position target move up...
It hadn't really occurred to me until I read that, but it might be extremely challenging for the system to actually place an individual character's position target in the right place. I wonder what would happen if I see the player in front of me failing to maintain cohesion - can I choose to take over his position? If I do, will the formation system recognize that I should now be in that spot? Or will it be telling me that I need to go back where I was?
That seems like quite a challenge.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Urman,
I expect the easiest way to deal with that is for formations to have a fixed size (e.g. 20 spots or whatever), but for most formations the outer rank counts significantly more then the inner ranks....and you are correct... once an outer rank slot is empty it should disconnect the missing player from the formation and shift the ranks up one to fill the outermost slot that is empty.
What they could do is allow the acting commander to create a list of players allowed to join the formation and as long as you were on that list and the formation had an empty slot you could simply issue attempt to JOIN a formation and you'd automaticaly be assigned the highest priority empty slot in the formation and put on a timer to move into position to fill it. If you aren't on the permitted list or the formation is already full...then your JOIN request would be auto-rejected.
That would allow for maintenance of the formation without alot of excess micro-management. Essentialy players could come back into formation from thier individual missions or from reserve to fill up the empty slots as needed, as long as they are on a pre-approved access list. You weight the advantage given to the formation based on the slot, with outer rank slots generaly being more important.
If GW wanted to get really fancy (probably not on the first cut). They could make different slots weigh towards different SORTS of Buffs (offensive, defensive, healing, etc). They could even check what equipment/skills a player who occupied a given slot had and give optional bonuses/buffs based on the player meeting those criteria.
For example....If a formation had X position filled then it would get it's base bonus. If the player holding that specific position also had a Standard equiped and had the "Standard Bearer" merit bade...then there would be an additional bonus of a certain type applied. If the player in the formation holding Y position had a muisical instrument equiped and muisic skill at a certain level, the formation gets another type of bonus for that (e.g... Fife & Drums, Bagpiper, etc).
There is alot of opportunity to do interesting stuff with such a system... once you get the basic mechanisms for it in place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It hadn't really occurred to me until I read that, but it might be extremely challenging for the system to actually place an individual character's position target in the right place. I wonder what would happen if I see the player in front of me failing to maintain cohesion - can I choose to take over his position? If I do, will the formation system recognize that I should now be in that spot? Or will it be telling me that I need to go back where I was?That seems like quite a challenge.
In my mind I envision an outlined area around each character. if you stay in the area you are "in formation". If you are out of it, you're out of formation (or the formation is broken into two formations). You only get whatever additional bonuses, attacks or defenses when you're in formation.
And I was very much under the impression that in pre-modern warfare once you got into hand to hand combat, formations kind of dissolved into a melee or scrum. At this point command and control was virtually impossible until the two opposing units broke apart. (Regaining control was a major purpose of musicians and flags on the battlefield). If I'm very much in error, I'd appreciate a peer-reviewed source to set me straight. So while formations are all very good and well to counter calvary charges and defend against ranged weapons, i do think that at some point you have to engage in straight up PvP combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In my mind I envision an outlined area around each character. if you stay in the area you are "in formation".
I see that too. My comment was about what happens when a Player recognizes the clear need to move up to the rank in front of him because the character that used to be there is now dead, or ran away. If I move up, but the system still thinks I'm supposed to be in my old position, what happens? Will the system recognize that I'm in the new position, and update my outlined area to reflect that? Or will it continue trying to direct me back to my old position?
[Edit]I suppose another possibility is that the system simply lays out the positions where someone should be, and I can occupy any of those positions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@hewhocaves
I apologize for not having a peer reviewed source available. However, for whatever it's worth, from my understanding it's a little bit of both. Units did try to maintain some semblance of formation in melee, as it did provide significant advantage to have protection on both your flanks and it was only the front ranks that were directly engaged. However in the press of melee units would tend to get pushed out of shape. But they would seek to reform once the opportunity arose.
However it's important to note that battles weren't generaly one long uninterupted press of melee. Lines would tend to press against each other then fall back apart as exhaustion or apprehension wore in. Attacks would come in waves and units (attacker or defender) would sometimes break and route only to be replaced by a fresh formation from the rear to cover the gap.
It was during those breaks that maintaining formation and unit discipline was particularly important. For instance if you look at the Battle of Hastings you can see what happaned to the Saxon infantry when the Norman attack against one of thier flanks failed and the Saxons broke thier shield wall formation to follow up the retreating Normans.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon - I think the computer should update your position as casualties mount. I think that if they just make those spots accessible to anyone, that chaos will ensue. But thats just my guess.
@GrumpyMel - that's ok (re: peer review). The intent was to preempt people linking to "Bob's website of war" as a defensible source. (Bob hasn't been credible for years!)
I have a lot of problems with the Creative Assembly games (Medieval, Empire, etc...) but one thing I do think they did well was model how you lose command and control on the medieval battlefield once they engaged in hand to hand combat. It takes a long time to get the rabble reorganized, and a fair amount of time to do it for professional soldiers. One of the things I would often do in those games was to hit a good unit with some rabble first and then throw in my good unit into the mix. Keeping formation gets you that very important first impact in melee. But once that first impact happens, the equipment and training of the individual soldier really is as important as the formation if not more.
Of course Medieval: Total War was the equivalent of low-level characters. Our battles will look nothing like that because we'll have a large percentage of high level characters (given time). So this could all be pointless jibber-jabber.
Speaking of casualties, I really wonder how they're going to do that in combat. Will you be able to re-enter the battle by respawning? That seems unfair. I'd like to see that you can't respawn until after the battle is over (unless a cleric has resurrect).
Now I want to play Medieval: Total War lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@hewhocaves
Yeah, I got you. Command and Control was a big problem with on the Medieval battlefield even outside of melee. Commanders had to rely either on couriers or on visual (standards, crude semi-phore, etc) or auditory signals (horn blasts or muisicians) to relay orders to the individual formations....and clearly both have thier problems with reliability even on the best of days.
On top of that, even if the orders were recieved, they weren't neccesarly followed by the individual formations. There are numerous historical examples of that... look at Agincourt for one of the more infameous where the first 2 waves of French knights charged without orders, resulting in a disasterous defeat.
Then of course, even if orders are recieved and understood, there are issues of confusion in carrying them out. For example, look at the Battle of Barnet during the War of the Roses. The battle was fought under conditions of thick fog and one formation mistakenly identified an allied formation as enemies (due to similarties in the device they wore) and fired upon them, whereupon the allied formation cried treachery and the entire Lancastrian side fell into disarry with units fighting both freindly and hostile formations at the same time due to the confusion.
With the abilities available to players in an MMO (e.g Teamspeak, etc) I don't see an easy way to model the sort of confusion and difficulties of Command & Control that many historical armies faced. On the other hand, with magic existing in the Pathfinder world and available to be utilized by millitary commanders...perhaps they wouldn't likely be prone to the same level of difficulty in Command and Control that real world historical commanders in the pre-modern era were?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the other hand, with magic existing in the Pathfinder world and available to be utilized by millitary commanders...perhaps they wouldn't likely be prone to the same level of difficulty in Command and Control that real world historical commanders in the pre-modern era were?
I think that many command and control challenges, like attacking friendly forces, have existed throughout history. Consider Stonewall Jackson in the US Civil War, shot by his own pickets by mistake, or Tillman shot by fellow Rangers in Afghanistan. That kind of stuff is impossible in most MMOs - you often can't hurt friendlies. Fog of war is timeless as well, and in a world with magic there could be deliberate action to make the battlefield even foggier.
The feudal societies of Europe had a lot of command and control problems in part because the commanders were lords, not soldiers. Command of formations was based on social rank as much as anything. I don't know how much this maps over to other societies - feudal Japan might have had similar problems, but I don't know enough about non-feudal societies. The Romans didn't seem to have the same infighting between units, though there were undoubtedly politics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
hehe - I thought that the 'vision' was to emulate those medieval battles. Once you start calling in precise meteor swarms you trash that whole paradigm.
Btw I did play a Total War game this weekend (Empire: Total War). And yeah the disciplined units did keep a decent cohesion even in melee combat and it helped them survive! So, mark me down as 'wrong' for that :)
Of course that cohesion meant all the more dead people against the canister (or grape shot) from the cannon. Too bad I hadn't researched "skirmish" mode yet.
There's one battle in particular where the Ottomans sent a huge mass of poorly trained soldiers against my Poles. They *almost* made it to the cannon when the canister shot hit them. Those units melted away and took most of the army with them too. If I figure out how to put it on youtube, i will.
Otoh I've charged cannon with experienced troops and taken the guns nearly every time. While this is not perfectly transferrable to PFO, I think there are useful similarities showing that character level is more important than formation type. (And rightfully so).
Personally i hope they don't do any mounted combat at launch, and rather spend resources on other parts of the game. I feel it takes quite a lot to make mounted combat perfect in visual and balance, and i don't want to see some half-assed attempt on it.
I have 2 questions about large scale battles :
- Will the game evolve in some kind of RTS where only generals play a significant role ?
- What about scouting ? It would be nice if rangers and rogues could play a role as scout and gather intel on enemy forces before the battle occurs (big fan of rangers here ^o^)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel
hehe - I thought that the 'vision' was to emulate those medieval battles. Once you start calling in precise meteor swarms you trash that whole paradigm.
Btw I did play a Total War game this weekend (Empire: Total War). And yeah the disciplined units did keep a decent cohesion even in melee combat and it helped them survive! So, mark me down as 'wrong' for that :)
Of course that cohesion meant all the more dead people against the canister (or grape shot) from the cannon. Too bad I hadn't researched "skirmish" mode yet.
There's one battle in particular where the Ottomans sent a huge mass of poorly trained soldiers against my Poles. They *almost* made it to the cannon when the canister shot hit them. Those units melted away and took most of the army with them too. If I figure out how to put it on youtube, i will.
Otoh I've charged cannon with experienced troops and taken the guns nearly every time. While this is not perfectly transferrable to PFO, I think there are useful similarities showing that character level is more important than formation type. (And rightfully so).
Well historicaly, once gun-powder weapons started to become more prevelant on the battlefield, especialy field artillery, the paradigm with formations started to change a bit. Note, we're mostly not talking medieval anymore as cannon rarely played much of a role outside sieges in that period...we're talking more Age of Musket and Napoleonics.
In classic Napoleonics, you are talking column for marching (gives you speed) but bad for fighting. Line, double line or triple line for fighting infanty (maximizes firepower of the muskets), square for defending against cavalry and skirmish against cannon (dispersement results in less casualties). The conundrum started to come when you were facing combined arms, as skirmish was easy meat for cavalry, and line would break too, but square made a nice tight target for artillery.
Anyway, abundant high level magic would change the paradigm too...in so many ways it'd even be hard to predict. Not only do you have the area of effect pyrotechnics but things like illusion, invisability, weather control, flight, modifying terrain, even stuff as simple as accurate long range communication and scrying. Battles would probably look nothing like classic medieval battles in that paradigm. The way I always dealt with it in my PnP Campaigns was to have it so that High Level Magic was so incredibly rare it didn't really effect warfare that much. The occasional (1 in 200 or something) magic missle or bless or cure light wounds isn't going to change mass combat much....but when you get higher level spells involved on anything approaching a regular basis, I'm not quite sure just how you deal with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I haven't read the whole thread now, but I'm a little worried about the Guitar Hero reference. At first read, it sounds to me as if we, as players, enter a "battle sequence" and have to succeed at many quicktime events which, in my opinion, aren't real gameplay. Have I misinterpreted things or is that the way it's gonna go down?
Have I misinterpreted things or is that the way it's gonna go down?
Seems like that is the way it's gonna be yeah. I like that they want to give us many ways to specialize our characters, but i didn't really like the sound of how we have to ''perform''. It might look good, serve for good RP and be an interesting way to build a character, but if it turns out to be no fun (for most people under testing) i hope they think twice about it (iteration is a high-budget mmo luxury maybe).
I already sense that so much is already set in stone, i thought experienced devs know that things DO change during development. But i like their overall goal; players being dependent on others to survive.
It seems there could be other ways to make mass combat more interesting than the usual zergs you see, without forcing people to perform guitar hero sequences, which might sound monotonous to some.
- You could have leadership skills that give you access to group wide buffs. The ''tighter'' the group is the more effective the buff is. These buffs could be both general and specialized and swapped on the spot depending on the situation. If you have a mix of characters attacking a position, put on a general, but weaker, + attack buff. If you are retreating put on a + movement speed buff. If you are leading a group of archers put on a specialized, but stronger, + ranged attack buff. If you are defending vs a group of wizards put on a magic resistance buff etc. Good general would have a wide selection of buffs to use, more effective buffs and would have to know when to use which
- Generals could also have access to target or area marks that gives members of their squad bonuses vs those targets/areas
- Have collision detection. Heavy armor in the front defending the archers in the rear etc.
- Have terrain and line of sight play a vital part in strategy.
If most people like your original plan when you test it, go for it! I would love to see soldiering as a career to pursue along side adventurer, bandit, crafter etc. The more roles the better. But if it turns out to be merely a gimmick, for the sake of looking good, but offering poor gameplay, please change it so the soldiers enjoy soldiering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Caedryan, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a required aspect of gameplay. I'm not sure if you're familiar with it, but in WoW's Wrath of the Lich King expansion, they added a lot of Vehicle-based combat, where you jumped in a vehicle of some sort and your ability bar changed to represent what the vehicle could do instead of what your character could do. LOTRO does the same thing with their Play Sessions, where you take on the role of an historical character and play through their experiences, but with an ability bar that represents their abilities rather than yours. I'm sure other games do the same thing.
At least, that's kind of the way I see it happening. You'll "enter" into a Unit and your ability bar will be replaced by an ability bar that represents your abilities as a member of that particular unit, rather than your abilities as a character.
@Caedryan, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a required aspect of gameplay
As long as it stays this way i don't think there will be a problem. Some people will like it, some people won't, and that's fine. I just hope we won't be forced into it because it's the only way to defend our settlement which we spent so much resources on building.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I think the "Guitar Hero" reference has alot of us turned off, including those who want primarly to play soldiers. If we wanted to play something like "Guitar Hero" we'd probably be playing "Guitar Hero"...not waiting to play PFO. However, I suspect that we are probably taking Ryan's words a little too litteraly. I seriously doubt that GoblinWorks is going to turn mass combat into nothing more then some sort of "follow the bouncing ball" gimmick. That element of the game is too important and too much of a differentiator for them to waste it on something cheesy.
I suspect, and from other posts in this topic I think this falls in line with what Ryan envisions, is that they want to make working as a team rather then a mob of individuals have some real benefit in mass combat, as it should. In order to facilitate that they've got to create some mechanics around it...and they also, for practical purposes have to create some sort of visual queue to the player to indicate how they best can contribute to team bonus'es. I don't expect that you'll ever actualy loose control or freedom of action over your character....and I certainly don't expect (and will be sadly disapointed) if in practical terms participating in mass combat is going to turn out to be as pavlovian as playing "Guitar Hero".
I think almost no one who's interested in PFO is going to be interested in doing that or is going to have fun spending any significant amount of play time doing it. So optional or not, I just don't think it's going to work out like that...as that would be a huge wasted opportunity and a huge waste of development resources. Given what I've seen of the GW team so far, I think they are simply too good to let that happen.
I suspect what's going to happen is that we'll probably be given some direction by the game as to where we need to be and what we need to be doing in order to contribute the largest mechanical bonus to our unit. I expect there will be some latitude in exactly how those are executed. For example an action order could be as simple as "attack" with the character open to deciding exactly which sort of attack to execute. It's also the case, I suspect, that will be upto us as individuals to constantly be evaluating those directions based upon our immediate situation and whats going on immediately around us....and I expect it will often be the case that the best thing to do for both yourself as an individual and for your side will be to ignore what the game indicates will provide the largest mechanical bonus for your formation and to do something else entirely which has a more profound effect on the battle.
Example: If the game indicates that the way you can contribute to your formations bonus is to stand still and "Defend" but your army just lost it's standard and your the closest person to that happening, your force will probably be best served overall if you break formation and rescue that standard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Caedryan, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a required aspect of gameplay.
Yes, of course. But as GrumpyMel said, if it's gonna be a huge part of the game and if that's going to be the only way to defend a settlement in mass combat... I really think GW will make this feature as good as possible, but in the worst case scenario that would be a real turn-off.
Edit: Just imagining. You enter Mass Combat mode with a quick overview of the battlefield. Glowing letters announce "BATTLE!" and then it says "Press A repeatedly" and then "Press in sequence: q, c, b, t. I mean come on... Can that be fun?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just imagining. You enter Mass Combat mode with a quick overview of the battlefield. Glowing letters announce "BATTLE!" and then it says "Press A repeatedly" and then "Press in sequence: q, c, b, t. I mean come on... Can that be fun?
Something tells me that's not a very accurate depiction of what we should expect...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, can't imagine that could possibly be fun. No sarcasm intended.
You'll have to move your character around to maintain position. You'll have to face the right direction. You may have to change gear. You may have to select targets. From time to time you may need to run around to get into a new formation or escape when your formation crumbles.
You'll have to communicate with your formation leader letting them know when you need help or have a target of opportunity or see something happening that is meaningful.
You'll have to decide when it is the right decision to break formation coherence and flee (or make a crazed one character charge), and when to suck it up and die while at your post.
You might have to mount or dismount. You might have to activate or deactivate buffs or debuffs. You might have to counterspell or take some other action to negate an incoming hostile effect.
Two units that clash in melee might dissolve into a scrum of individual 1:1 combat and you'll have to be ready to deal with that eventuality.
Your unit may be disrupted by a successful charge or AoE effect and you could suddenly find yourself cut off and have to rally at a different location.
You could get assigned to a new unit and have to make your way across the battlefield to get to that unit while avoiding, deflecting, or negating incoming hostile effects trying to kill you.
All of that will be going on while you are following the chain of orders to generate Combat Power and act coherently with the rest of your formation.
And if you're leading that formation you're going to have an incredibly expanded list of things you'll have to pay attention to and act on as well, which will become more complex the larger the formation you're leading and the more capable the soldiers in that formation are.
So no, I don't think it will be boring, I do think it will be fun.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Caedryan, it's important to keep in mind that this is not a required aspect of gameplay.
Yes, of course. But as GrumpyMel said, if it's gonna be a huge part of the game and if that's going to be the only way to defend a settlement in mass combat... I really think GW will make this feature as good as possible, but in the worst case scenario that would be a real turn-off.
Edit: Just imagining. You enter Mass Combat mode with a quick overview of the battlefield. Glowing letters announce "BATTLE!" and then it says "Press A repeatedly" and then "Press in sequence: q, c, b, t. I mean come on... Can that be fun?
It's pretty much the gameplay of most high-budget single-player games. Consider Assassin's Creed series, where figuring out what to is most often trivial, but executing that is 'simply' pressing the right keys at the right time in the right sequence. There's even modes of play which are literally only about perfecting the proper sequence of inputs.
If the entire formation is bracing against a charge at the same time when a charge hits, the charge is much less effective; if the entire volley is loosed at the same time, the volley is much more effective.
There is one huge advantage that a group of individuals has over a squad of the same number: the individuals can scatter and require the squad to engage them serially and take more time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So no, I don't think it will be boring, I do think it will be fun.
Thanks for that post. That really cheered me up. That sounds A LOT better, than my vision of it. I'm calm again. :)
@DeciusBrutus: And that's why I don't like many of the single-player games out there, because they are dumbed down so that every idiot on the planet knows what to do. "Press X" "What X?" will never happen, I hope. ;D
You know I'm not that kind of hardcore gamer who goes through 10 games a month, but when I play, I want to have a little challenge in it :) But now Ryan cleared that up and I'm looking forward to that challenge...
I can definitely also see the appeal of just pushing the same button at the same time, I think that requires a bit of timing and perfection of said timing. But over time it would just become routine, that's why I was worried.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally i hope they don't do any mounted combat at launch, and rather spend resources on other parts of the game. I feel it takes quite a lot to make mounted combat perfect in visual and balance, and i don't want to see some half-assed attempt on it.
Agreed here. I am really looking forward to seeing how LOTRO implements mounted combat with their Rohan expansion. So far in previews it looks and sounds great.