Valid points to an extent. In your first post, I don't think we're on the same subject with the second post as it was more directed to an idea Nihimon mentioned, although I may have misunderstood it. If he was meaning you were challenged and had time to leave upon entering a claimed territory, then my statement didn't matter, nor applies.
If he's running around at that low of HP consistently he is an obvious griefer and easy to petition. His friend would be tagged hostile calling in the NPC sheriff while whittling him down if not grouped. Assuming grouped with his friend dueling, now they are both up for possible banning. GM intervention aside, yes people could do this. In a sandbox reputation matters. Compared of the downsides of FF off, I'm willing to accept that. On or off both have consequences for griefing. Never said they didn't.
A non-grouped set of people running around single attacking is also an option. The last person gets flagged criminal. If they buffed each other, they all still get tagged criminal. You'd still have one criminal per target you attacked in you roaming wizard (caster) group. Again, griefing will happen either way. I do not see more negatives for FF on than there are for FF off.
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're talking about using AoE to grief in lawful areas, so more or less safe areas. The game won't suddenly shift the setting to make it more convenient for the target of the griefing, so your loophole ridden arguments shouldn't either.I am against a challenge mechanic that causes your attacker to not be flagged without requiring consent. Going AFK in a dangerous area SHOULD get you killed, but not freely or without consequences to both of you. The attacker would still need to get flagged/alignment hit if you did not give consent, but they'd still get the looting benefits of killing you as well. Who goes AFK in unsafe areas without expecting possible repercussions?
EDIT: =D I realize I tend to sound blunt to the point of rudeness at times. That is not my intent.
It is stupid to use grenades or nukes in areas in which you are concerned about collateral damage. Consider that before using a fireball in town. If a wizard is that stupid, they deserve the full repercussions of their actions.
I am however confused about points brought up by Blaeringr, while always evil, I thought killing others is only illegal in areas with laws...like civilized areas. I am not sure why using an AoE on anyone should tag someone criminal outside these zones (or in battlefields for that matter). The only repercussion you should have for nuking your buddies in battle is their anger later and the attrition of your army caused by you.
Discussion on Wilderness flagging Here
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Considering fighting in good aligned settlements will be consider an evil act, most fights will take place in the wild i assume. So the Marshall system will probably be irrelevant. Alignment of the parties wont matter either. Good people can do evil and vice-versa. So having a good aligned PC in with the evil wont be a tactic used. I am betting friendly fire will be allowed. We want this game to be a good game, not mindless AoE spamming. There's WoW and DAoC and several other games for that type of play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All of the examples I have seen of how to manipulate a fixed set of rules have the same result: The griefer and any compatriots get away with it for a while, get warned, and either stop because they choose to or stop because they are no longer players.
This makes the most sense of what I've read here so far.
If you get impatient waiting for justice from Goblinworks though, you might want to talk about your problems over some freshly baked bread.
Alignment of the parties wont matter either.I'm not sure exactly how you meant that, but I think Lee's comments from the post linked by cattu make clear that the relative alignments of the two parties will matter when determining how much of an alignment hit the attacker takes.
That was my interpretation as well. Alignment and reputations.
@DeciusBrutus - Pretty much. The only issue is minimizing how long they get away with it. Game design and GM intervention can both reduce or increase that time. I'm trying to consider methods to reduce it via game design rather than relying on petition systems as those tend to get pretty overworked in any game. I'm sure the Dev team has considered many, but discussion can bring new solutions sometimes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What if AOE's only affected targets you've set to hostile? In Blaeringrs harvesting example the harvesters would be safe, unless he had tagged them as hostile first. You could still have AOE's affecting your friends, but this way neutal targets would be exempt. If you're at war with someone you can always affect them with AOE's while idiots who run into the fray are safe.
Lets see what the convoluted mind of Blaeringr can think of around this. He has much more experience than me of finding loopholes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ravening, that's an interesting idea. In essence, Friendly and Hostile players would both be subject to your AoEs, but Neutrals would not (by default).
Honestly, though, the more I think about it, the more I think that AoEs should simply damage everyone in the area and give the caster the Attacker flag if they damaged any other players, regardless of their intent or awareness. Ultimately, AoEs should be used in controlled situations, and the burden should be on the caster at all times - just like in real life when you're using hand grenades or mortars...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ravening, that's an interesting idea. In essence, Friendly and Hostile players would both be subject to your AoEs, but Neutrals would not (by default).
Honestly, though, the more I think about it, the more I think that AoEs should simply damage everyone in the area and give the caster the Attacker flag if they damaged any other players, regardless of their intent or awareness. Ultimately, AoEs should be used in controlled situations, and the burden should be on the caster at all times - just like in real life when you're using hand grenades or mortars...
You use mortars and hand grenades in real life. Now that's just scary.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ravening, that's an interesting idea. In essence, Friendly and Hostile players would both be subject to your AoEs, but Neutrals would not (by default).
Honestly, though, the more I think about it, the more I think that AoEs should simply damage everyone in the area and give the caster the Attacker flag if they damaged any other players, regardless of their intent or awareness. Ultimately, AoEs should be used in controlled situations, and the burden should be on the caster at all times - just like in real life when you're using hand grenades or mortars...
This I could agree with, it makes sense and I can't deny that the OMG I can't just only use AoE's all the time but actually have to base the decision on where I am and who might be near? arguement gets old to me. AoE's could in fact be viewed as foolish to use in high sec, and in low sec "go near a wizard who seems to be killing groups of enemies at your own risk" in low sec.
Organized groups could certainly handle the situation well enough, heck in DDO there were a handful of spells that effected your party, Grease being one of the most common. Grease became virtually unused, however many of the ones who used it, in advance cast freedom of movement on their party, there's no reason why the same couldn't apply to casting "protection from energy fire" on your group, then fireball.
Or even say custom armors etc... What if there were say a type of armor that granted protection from fire, vulnerability to ice. Sort your soldiers in, put the group with fire resistance in one group, put the ones with electric resistance in another, have the fire nuking wizards allied with the fire resistant guys, the electric focused wizard with electric prepared team etc...
@Onishi; hey that was my idea :P
Hey programmers just remember undead hates healing spells and loves harm spells. make sure you program the corect spell restrictions based on what hurts/heals each hostile target. Which brings me to my next thought what about enemy element resistance, immunities, and absorptions will we still be able to cast (oopsie) spells like; I just casted a scorching ray at the iron golem (healing him). Of corse this is all suplemental ideas you could rewrite rules for just online version of pathfinder but the story essance would be somewhat broken. example if undead were healed by positive enerygy and harmed by negative enegy this would make it an easier game mechanic but then how would you implement the positive and negative energy planes or even the shadow? it's something to steam over anyway.
Good point to bring up. +1
While I (obviously) am for 100% friendly fire, I'm still trying to consider ways to compromise between the two camps. The issues I see from the ideas thrown around are that any compromise compounds the problems of both sides, increases development resource use, and/or can cause problems with future implementations. The only exception is the increased AoE cast time/animation which I definitely like in concept.
That brings it down to:
A) Friendly Fire on 100%
B) Friendly Fire off, friends associated by whatever parameters fit with the vision of the game Devs (crowdforging vote?) Group, Settlement/Kingdom, Neutral?, Company, etc...
Unless anyone has more ideas or I missed something else that wouldn't be a waste of dev time for the return the game would receive. I'm really hoping I missed something...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hows about a poll.
if casting a fireball caused you to be flagged as a criminal, give you an alignment hit and a reputation hit as well as potentially kill of party members if you, or they lagged while casting would you still use fireball at any time other then soloing or griefing?
Yes, In the wilderness (attacker, not criminal flag) with a party who could work together as a team. Considering the alignment and reputation hits only occur upon a player's death it's a moot point. Don fire resist gear. Cast resistance spells. Freedom of movement spells. That's what would make it tactical rather than seeing the screen light up like the fourth of July anytime 2 or more creatures appear.
TLDR: Yes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is all this about spells? If someone steps between your bow and your goblin, you better have precise shot or risk getting flagged as a criminal. Actually, be careful where you swing that greatsword too, and when your buddy the cleric channels to heal, you pass your flagging on to them as well.
If they make unintended targeting only apply to spellcasters, then they're hobbling them unjustly compared to every other class. Arcanists would be stuck with Magic Missile until they can buy a feat to avoid 'friendly' targets, and divine casters would need selective channelling or just go evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because spells have this problem more frequently.
You will get a warning if you are about to perform a criminal act, or assist a criminal.
Bottom line, AOE attacks should only hit 'enemy' targets.
That's the only solution I see as well. It's unfair to only pick on casters, and if the same things were fairly applied to conventional attacks, it would be trivially easy to get anyone flagged for 'attacking' you, allowing PK'ing without consequence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fixed that for you, unless you're intending to be an anti-spellcaster bigot.Bottom line, ANY attacks should only be used when certain to hit 'enemy' targets....or face the repercussions of your gamble/stupidity.
I can assure you that GW will not make non-aoe attacks have a chance of hitting something else, that's twitch combat, and Ryan said no twitch. It's a nightmare that is only acceptable in a single player game, where latency to and from the server isn't an issue.
Forencith was correct in his original wording.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fixed that for you, unless you're intending to be an anti-spellcaster bigot.Bottom line, ANY attacks should only be used when certain to hit 'enemy' targets....or face the repercussions of your gamble/stupidity.
Nope, I would I use the same argument for flask throwers and even some melee weapon uses such as whirlwind. If my character is swinging a single sword in non-acrobatic combat, I hope it is because he/she has the skill to use it and enough control to avoid hitting friends who might be fighting around him/her. Where I start having concerns is when people are tossing about splash weapons or other forms of AoE...and being selective with targets within the radius of effect. I just don't get it.
(I would actually prefer it as you have said it...but asking for AoEs to be logical is pushing many too far.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why is all this about spells? If someone steps between your bow and your goblin, you better have precise shot or risk getting flagged as a criminal. Actually, be careful where you swing that greatsword too, and when your buddy the cleric channels to heal, you pass your flagging on to them as well.
If they make unintended targeting only apply to spellcasters, then they're hobbling them unjustly compared to every other class. Arcanists would be stuck with Magic Missile until they can buy a feat to avoid 'friendly' targets,
Stuck to only magic missile, By that you mean, have their spells reduced by roughly 10%. Believe it or not, there are more spells then fireball, and magic missile, and yes there are more than 1 AoE, as there are tons of other single target spells, aimed spells, beneficial spells etc....
While I haven't done the solid math, I would say harmful AoEs, make up somewhere in the 5-20% of a wizards spell list. Saying that a wizard is greatly gimped because he cannot use AoEs on every enemy, is like like saying a rogue is gimped because he can't make use of disable device when fighting against creatures. Just because situations of which X spell isn't your first choice, and even when those are in the majority, it isn't necessarally wrong.
and divine casters would need selective channelling or just go evil.
You pretty much have to start out evil (or at least neutral with evil leanings), to need selective channeling. Unless you are in a party of good undeads...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is only an issue for attacks that hit characters other than the direct target. Generally, the only types of attacks that do that are AoE attacks.
I don't expect it to be possible to have your bow shot, or sword swing, or single-target spell hit something other than your target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You pretty much have to start out evil (or at least neutral with evil leanings), to need selective channeling. Unless you are in a party of good undeads...
If a criminal, low reputation, and/or evil character jumps next to you while you are channelling, you'd heal them too. Now you're a criminal and take reputation and alignment hits. That's what I'm concerned about, AoE effects opening you up to attack by 'good' griefers. If it only affects spellcasters, then it's a witch hunt, with otherwise good characters getting ganked by those who are doing evil while claiming a good reputation.
Friendly fire happens with conventional weapons too, but that's ignored to give mundane weapons a pass while spellcasters are at risk of being turned evil against their will. If someone fires a scorching ray, it's entirely possible that someone could get in the way while the casting animation is happening. PFRPG avoids the issue because combat is turn-based and you can see where everyone is, but there's nowhere near that time or visibility in an MMO.
Maybe a compromise would be okay. AoE's can affect NPC's/monsters or members of your party. You'd have to be selective when party members are in the way, but random people wouldn't be affected unless they've attacked you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a criminal, low reputation, and/or evil character jumps next to you while you are channelling, you'd heal them too. Now you're a criminal and take reputation and alignment hits.
That's not true. Ryan has made it abundantly clear that you will never get the Criminal flag without effectively clicking "Yes" on an "Are you sure you want to be flagged Criminal?" dialog box.
Unfortunately, this is a really thorny issue that probably has too many loopholes to ever be confident you've got them all plugged. I'm beginning to think they might be better off simply having AoEs only affect Hostile characters... Not that I want that, I'm just saying it may not be worth the effort to try to figure out how to make it actually work any other way.
Unfortunately, this is a really thorny issue that probably has too many loopholes to ever be confident you've got them all plugged. I'm beginning to think they might be better off simply having AoEs only affect Hostile characters... Not that I want that, I'm just saying it may not be worth the effort to try to figure out how to make it actually work any other way.
Wow, after reading through this thread I must agree. Perhaps we can try to get a Dev, or Ryan to comment on their present thoughts on this subject? Also a poll to see how the majority of players would have it handled wouldn't be amiss either.
I'm leaning toward neutral players being exempt from AoEs. But perhaps only exempt for the first attack? I say that because say my rogue is sneaking up on a mob, a wizard whom I can't see decides to nuke that mob, and not being able to see me unleashes a AoE. Unless I had some nefarious purpose in mind I would either move away from that area or say something to the wizard announcing my presence.
At this point, if the wizard got flagged as a criminal, I could just stealth and wait for the battle between the wizard and the mob to be over, backstab the wizard and get a kill with no penalty or alignment hit right? Somehow that doesn't strike me as very fair given the wizard had no way of knowing I was in the area of effect.
A knotty problem indeed.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I fully support Friendly fire in this game. With great power comes great responsibility, you cannot just go around throwing fireballs willy-nilly without collateral damage and negative consequences. The great thing about spells like Fireball in the table top games was that they were both feared and respected, they were incredibly powerful but had the potential to really backfire if not used responsibly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Ryan has made it abundantly clear that you will never get the Criminal flag without effectively clicking "Yes" on an "Are you sure you want to be flagged Criminal?" dialog box. ...
If you can select the targets of an AoE spell at the beginning of casting the spell, the server may be able to identify those targets still in the area of effect when the spell completes. Untargeted friendlies entering the area during casting would not be affected, but (unfortunately) untargeted unfriendlies would also not be affected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Get off the Spider-Man crap here, it's a thinly-veiled excuse to make spellcasters more prone to getting unintentionally flagged. Why do you want to play a fantasy game if you hate magic?
What happens when you attack and there's a stealthed person standing in the way?
Your attack either:
1. Hits them, flagging you as an attacker and criminal.
2. Passes through harmlessly, as if by magic.
3. Pops up an "Are you sure?" dialogue.
What people are proposing here is that the archer gets the 2nd result, the BSF with his greatsword gets option 3 (or 2), while only the spellcaster has to deal with the consequences of 1. What is so special about spell damage that it warrants turning every mage into a criminal while the rangers and paladins go on about their blissfully ignorant way?
Get off the Spider-Man crap here, it's a thinly-veiled excuse to make spellcasters more prone to getting unintentionally flagged. Why do you want to play a fantasy game if you hate magic?
What happens when you attack and there's a stealthed person standing in the way?
Your attack either:
1. Hits them, flagging you as an attacker and criminal.
2. Passes through harmlessly, as if by magic.
3. Pops up an "Are you sure?" dialogue.What people are proposing here is that the archer gets the 2nd result, the BSF with his greatsword gets option 3 (or 2), while only the spellcaster has to deal with the consequences of 1. What is so special about spell damage that it warrants turning every mage into a criminal while the rangers and paladins go on about their blissfully ignorant way?
That's why I suggested a poll. To see how many support which method of dealing with the issue. Then perhaps we can get Ryan to comment on how the Devs feel about it. Perhaps the will of the majority would win out? That's what the whole Crowdforging concept is about after all.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Get off the Spider-Man crap here, it's a thinly-veiled excuse to make spellcasters more prone to getting unintentionally flagged. Why do you want to play a fantasy game if you hate magic?
What happens when you attack and there's a stealthed person standing in the way?
Your attack either:
1. Hits them, flagging you as an attacker and criminal.
2. Passes through harmlessly, as if by magic.
3. Pops up an "Are you sure?" dialogue.What people are proposing here is that the archer gets the 2nd result, the BSF with his greatsword gets option 3 (or 2), while only the spellcaster has to deal with the consequences of 1. What is so special about spell damage that it warrants turning every mage into a criminal while the rangers and paladins go on about their blissfully ignorant way?
There's no ulterior motive behind my preference for friendly fire besides adding some depth to combat. I'm also fully supportive of friendly fire for ranged martial weapons.
You asked the question "Why do you want to play a fantasy game if you hate magic?"
My answer is I have been playing fantasy games since thieves had 1d4 hit points and fireballs could blow up your party as well as the goblins fighting them. I love fantasy games with magic, but I want that magic to be handled with care, not just thrown around willy-nilly. Fireballs have been blowing up friendly faces since the 80's in Computer RPGs, why should this change because it's an MMO? SSI did it with the Gold Box, Bioware did it with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, why should Pathfinder eliminate friendly fire when it has been common place since Pools of Radiance and Champions of Krynn? And do not try to use the excuse that Pathfinder is not D&D because Pathfinder is very much the successor of the old rules.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Fireballs have been blowing up friendly faces since the 80's in Computer RPGs, why should this change because it's an MMO? SSI did it with...Neverwinter Nights
SSI's 'gold-box' engine was used for what was probably the first graphical MUD, the original Neverwinter Nights. It was hosted on AOL, and only allowed 500 players on at a time. There was friendly fire, which produced the only PvP available in the game: magic-users (usually dual-classed with cleric) indirectly blasting one another. Of course, that was a turn-based system in which targeting was a calculation in a fixed environment, not an estimation in a fluid one. In other words, it's a false analogy and your grognard card is a weak argument from antiquity.
There's no ulterior motive behind my preference for friendly fire besides adding some depth to combat. I'm also fully supportive of friendly fire for ranged martial weapons.
I love fantasy games with magic, but I want that magic to be handled with care, not just thrown around willy-nilly.
Take everything you are saying about fireballs and apply it not only to archers but the swordmonkeys too. Why shouldn't I be able to stealth up behind some BSF and wait to get nicked by his greatsword's backswing, allowing me to 'retaliate' with extreme prejudice? Now he is a dead criminal and I'm a happy 'lawful good' bandit. Saying that friendly fire shouldn't apply to melee is transparent class discrimination and short-range favouritism. Swords must be handled with care, not swung around willy-nilly.
The problem is, friendly fire creates a griefer's paradise, and saying mages should have to be careful while barbarians can act like drunken gorillas is simply unfair. If I'm going to get flagged because some tool intentionally gets in the way when he sees me begin casting, then I may as well go evil from the start and not worry about it. The PK 'culture' of early UO was largely grown out of players who got themselves accidentally flagged by friendly fire. Do we want a repeat of that?
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Take everything you are saying about fireballs and apply it not only to archers but the swordmonkeys too. Why shouldn't I be able to stealth up behind some BSF and wait to get nicked by his greatsword's backswing, allowing me to 'retaliate' with extreme prejudice? Now he is a dead criminal and I'm a happy 'lawful good' bandit. Saying that friendly fire shouldn't apply to melee is transparent class discrimination and short-range favouritism. Swords must be handled with care, not swung around willy-nilly.The problem is, friendly fire creates a griefer's paradise, and saying mages should have to be careful while barbarians can act like drunken gorillas is simply unfair. If I'm going to get flagged because some tool intentionally gets in the way when he sees me begin casting, then I may as well go evil from the start and not worry about it. The PK 'culture' of early UO was largely grown out of players who got themselves accidentally...
Nowhere in any of my posts ever did I say that friendly fire should apply to magic and magic only. Nowhere in any of my posts ever did I say that friendly fire should not take into account melee swings or ranged weapons. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say that someone should be able to stealth up behind another player and not get hit with a backswing. YOU said those things, not me, so stop putting words in my mouth.
SSI's 'gold-box' engine was used for what was probably the first graphical MUD, the original Neverwinter Nights. It was hosted on AOL, and only allowed 500 players on at a time. There was friendly fire, which produced the only PvP available in the game: magic-users (usually dual-classed with cleric) indirectly blasting one another. Of course, that was a turn-based system in which targeting was a calculation in a fixed environment, not an estimation in a fluid one. In other words, it's a false analogy and your grognard card is a weak argument from antiquity.
You really are Venomous when someone doesn't share your opinion.
I see you learned how to use wikipedia. So you mention the gold box games and their turn-based features, but you conveniently left out Bioware's Baldurs Gate series and Neverwinter Nights.In fact, Massive Multiplayer Online RPGs are the only online Multiplayer games that do not have friendly fire as a feature.
Multiplayer RPG's have Friendly fire, as mentioned with Neverwinter Nights (Bioware/Atari) and Baldur's Gate and even Dragons Age: Origins.
Real Time Strategy games generally feature friendly fire, it's wise not to send troops under an artillery barrage.
First Person Shooters also feature friendly fire, I couldn't imagine playing Left4Dead with my friends and not worrying about whether they are in my firing line of not, it takes away half of the fun. In Left 4 Dead, you have a split second to decide where you are throwing that Molotov cocktail, and you can be sure if you mess it up, your team mates will suffer.
Lastly, friendly fire was there from the pen and paper games first and foremost. You had time to react and plan where you placed your fireball, but that doesn't mean it can't be a fun feature in a PC game where you have seconds to make these decisions.
So really, labelling my opinion as one of antiquity is just a matter of your archaic opinion and refusal to shift from the days of multi-user dungeons and whatever MMO you come from.
You guys also have to consider how much trouble it will be to program FF into not only AoE spells, but all types of attacks. I'm no programmer but I know that if a concept is too complex for the game to process and keep track of, or if the programmers all just decide "to heck with that, we just won't include that feature". Then all the theoretical talk is just wind. How do you get a Dev to respond with their current thoughts on FF? I know of no way if they are staying out of a topic.
In a FFA game, having friendly fire apply to all types of attacks makes perfect sense. does it make sense in the world GW is creating? Only they can answer that with certainty.
Putting up a poll, to see how the majority feels about the friendly fire possibilities that have been discussed here would give us, and the Devs a sense of how everyone views the topic.
Personally I'm for FF for all sorts of attacks. But given the potential for griefers to use it to grief others, I don't know if such a system is the wisest course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nowhere in any of my posts ever did I say that friendly fire should apply to magic and magic only.
Then address friendly fire as it applies to all attacks, instead of calling out fireballs specifically.
You really are Venomous when someone doesn't share your opinion. I see you learned how to use wikipedia.
Ironic... I'm the venomous one when you're stooping to call me a liar.
So you mention the gold box games and their turn-based features, but you conveniently left out Bioware's Baldurs Gate series and Neverwinter Nights.
Both able to be paused and thus effectively turn-based.
In fact, Massive Multiplayer Online RPGs are the only online Multiplayer games that do not have friendly fire as a feature.
Maybe because friendly fire creates a griefer's paradise in a realtime environment?
Multiplayer RPG's have Friendly fire, as mentioned with Neverwinter Nights (Bioware/Atari) and Baldur's Gate and even Dragons Age: Origins.
Not real-time; irrelevant.
Real Time Strategy games generally feature friendly fire, it's wise not to send troops under an artillery barrage.
First Person Shooters also feature friendly fire
There are no long-term consequences for such mistakes, unlike in an MMO where getting branded a criminal makes you a target to everyone.
Lastly, friendly fire was there from the pen and paper games first and foremost.
Again, turn-based rules don't work the same way in a real-time environment.
So really, labelling my opinion as one of antiquity is just a matter of your archaic opinion
Look up "argument from antiquity" or "argumentum ad antiquitatem", please.
You were implying your argument was 'right' because friendly fire rules have been around a long time. That's fallacious logic....whatever MMO you come from.
I come from a place called 'Earth', and so far as I can tell, it isn't an MMO. There were a few films about that concept, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'm not even going to respond to multi-quoting iBullies.
So it's bullying to address individual points? Odd, I thought lumping everything together into a wall of sound (or in this case, text) was the 'bully' tactic of debates. Duane Gish was so fond of using it that the tactic is often called the "Gish Gallop".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game in which you do not aim your attacks, the game assumes perfect aim on your target or abstracts it with a dice roll for hit vs miss.
AoEs specifically target an Area in which to apply the Effect. That is why some are arguing that all AoEs be subject to friendly fire.
Maybe it feels like spellcasters are being singled-out because everybody is familiar with the example of the AoE fireball and continues to use it as an expedient way to get the point across?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a game in which you do not aim your attacks, the game assumes perfect aim on your target or abstracts it with a dice roll for hit vs miss.
AoEs specifically target an Area in which to apply the Effect. That is why some are arguing that all AoEs be subject to friendly fire.
Maybe it feels like spellcasters are being singled-out because everybody is familiar with the example of the AoE fireball and continues to use it as an expedient way to get the point across?
Weapons have an area of effect too, just a smaller one. I wouldn't suggest quietly sneaking up to someone swinging a bat, a golf club, an axe, etc.
The same issue applies to all: if I can get in the way and cause myself to be hit, I can flag the mage, archer, or greatsword-monkey as an attacker (and possibly criminal, depending on where it happened) then 'self-defence' them to death, loot, possibly ding their reputation and alignment, and walk away as 'lawful good' as ever. They have a hard time retaliating unless they decide they no longer care about alignment.
It may be easier to grief-flag a mage because spells have slower casting times and it's easier to get in the way of a larger effect, but that would likely result in many dedicated mage players saying 'screw alignment' and banding together to turn PK. If you played early UO, you might have some idea of how much 'fun' it was to walk into a room to see half a dozen "Corp Por" coming at you from out of the shadows.
There are ways in the tabletop game to exclude friendly or neutral targets from an attack and to exclude hostiles from buffs. The main one is having time to examine an overhead view of the battlefield and a turn-based system, but there are feats that let you exclude targets. Those are the ticket to an in-story reasoning for having a way to avoid friendly fire incidents.
Just make target-exclusion skills available very early in a spellcaster's skill tree, and assume they use them as needed. Maybe a spell costs 5% more mana when it 'hits' non-targets and has to exclude them. That way, there's a cost involved in being sloppy, but it's a resource cost instead of an invitation for griefers to abuse the flagging system. Ranged weapon users would have something like precise shot, and some similar skill could be invented for the melee fighters, both of which could affect stamina usage. Those who actually want to be chaotic evil could just switch these skills off, always taking the chance of friendly fire, and never being charged extra mana or stamina for avoiding it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Adding in some of the selective targeting feats would be great, but I think this easily falls into the use the right tool for the job category. A fireball, is not the right tool if you're trying to avoid clouds off of the players around you. There are a wide variety of spells, single and multi-target to choose from, find another. ;)
Situational awareness and meaningful decision making are key here, hand-holding game mechanics.... not so much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Weapons have an area of effect too, just a smaller one. I wouldn't suggest quietly sneaking up to someone swinging a bat, a golf club, an axe, etc.In a game in which you do not aim your attacks, the game assumes perfect aim on your target or abstracts it with a dice roll for hit vs miss.
AoEs specifically target an Area in which to apply the Effect. That is why some are arguing that all AoEs be subject to friendly fire.
Maybe it feels like spellcasters are being singled-out because everybody is familiar with the example of the AoE fireball and continues to use it as an expedient way to get the point across?
In real life and in games in which you aim, yes, but what I'm saying is that they don't in any games in which you don't physically aim your single-target attacks. It is abstracted by clicking on the target and then using a hit/miss dice-roll.
In games where your character aims, it is assumed he/she knows how to use the weapon, and if his/her stats indicate otherwise, he/she has a greater chance to miss when the dice are rolled. In games where you aim, it's acceptable that you suffer the consequences for poor aim (using your mouse, not a bat/golfclub/axe; even in this case it is assumed that your character 'knows' how to use the weapon).
I can't think of an example of a video game where there is no aim in which your attacks have a chance of hitting something that you are not targeting.
I'm somewhat ambivalent about whether or not Friendly Fire makes it into the game. I just popped in to comment about how strange I felt your request that singe-target abilities be subject to Friendly Fire was. It might be interesting, but I don't think it has been done before, and I think it is much more radical to ask to change a well-understood and traditional mechanic in the genre.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Adding in some of the selective targeting feats would be great, but I think this easily falls into the use the right tool for the job category. A fireball, is not the right tool if you're trying to avoid clouds off of the players around you. There are a wide variety of spells, single and multi-target to choose from, find another. ;)
Situational awareness and meaningful decision making are key here, hand-holding game mechanics.... not so much.
That spell was an example, not my idea of the epitome of magic.
Most damage and many debuff spells besides magic missile would be easy to intercept by someone trying to get in the way. Ray and line spells could be intercepted almost as easily as cones and radius areas. Any damaging wall or other lingering effect is even worse than a fireball.
As I have mentioned time and again, 'friendly fire' issues would come up with ranged and melee weapons as well. It has happened throughout the history of human warfare. Are all weapons the 'wrong' tools for the job too?
As to 'hand holding'...
Well, I'll try not to stoop to returning your petty insults.
Spending training time to gain greater control over one's spells and combat skills is not coddling, it's training. PFO is supposed to have a lot of that. There are already feats to exclude targets, and expanding them a bit makes up for the fact that a MMO is not a turn-based game with an overhead view of combat and convenient little squares. Casters will still want to choose their spells wisely and target as carefully as they can, because the spell doesn't burn extra mana if it doesn't hit any unintended targets. If some idiot runs in the way, a little extra mana is charged and the idiot doesn't get to grief-flag the caster because the spell excludes him. The same type of system could apply to the missile and melee weapons, but with stamina or whatever other resource they use.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it has been done before, and I think it is much more radical to ask to change a well-understood and traditional mechanic in the genre.
It happened in early UO, though in that case people were jumping in front of creatures hoping to catch an errant double-click. That turned the formerly blue 'innocent' into a 'grey' notoriety character, making them a target to blues and reds alike, and often leading to them sinking into the PK playstyle.
I've also heard of recent MMOs that gave you an attack arc which had to intersect the model of your target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That spell was an example, not my idea of the epitome of magic.
And a great example it is, as are walls and other zone effects.
Personally I'd prefer a point where responsibility for the damage shifts from the caster to the guy dumb enough to jump into the wall of flame, like after initial damage is dealt perhaps.
Most damage and many debuff spells besides magic missile would be easy to intercept by someone trying to get in the way. Ray and line spells could be intercepted almost as easily as cones and radius areas.
I just don't see this. Rays and Cones and PBAoE are usually pretty freaking quick about what they do. You'd have to be a SSJ Cyborg Mind-reading Ninja to actively step into the path of a Beam or Cone. You deserve to grief others because you're so amazing. Seriously though, all generally considered close to instant travel of effect. Missile spells (excluding the unerringly accurate magical type) .. with enough distance and bad luck, yeah the travel time could be an issue.
So what about war? That hex is a war-zone, don't go in there or else.
This is a fairly escalated point though, I would hate to see wars cheapened by non-participants jumping in to hand out clouds.
As I have mentioned time and again, 'friendly fire' issues would come up with ranged and melee weapons as well. It has happened throughout the history of human warfare. Are all weapons the 'wrong' tools for the job too?
TT has pretty good explanations for who will be hit in which placements AND it translates well to a 3D game. Pointing out how weapons can be wielded like careless WiiMotes to strike passer-byes is not terribly constructive to the debate.
As to 'hand holding'...
Well, I'll try not to stoop to returning your petty insults.
<<You have failed in your attempt at not stooping.>> ;)
Blaeringr made an incredibly good point about a bit of thick skin going a long way towards getting things figured out. Please don't take comments personally or assume they were even derogatory to start with.
PC/Console games have spent a lot of time and effort in holding the players hands more and more over the years. Then a game like Demon Souls comes out and you realize how easy you've had it. Yes, choosing your targets for you is hand-holding. Slowing down the speed of a cursor as it nears and passes over a targets body so you are less likely to miss is also hand holding (yes, FPS games do this). It makes the game more attractive to the general audience who typically are not interested in devoting the time needed to become proficient enough in these systems for hand-holding to not to be necessary.
Spending training time to gain greater control over one's spells and combat skills is not coddling, it's training.
This is a really slippery slope back to hand-holding, or computer assisted control if you prefer. There's some precedence suggesting that spell effects and targets mostly have to be set in stone at the start of casting, meta-magic adjustments are no exception to this. Going by this, you would still need to know who you're excluding via 'training' ahead of time.
...makes up for the fact that a MMO is not a turn-based game...
Just thought I'd highlight that bit, it speaks for itself.
If some idiot runs in the way, a little extra mana is charged and the idiot doesn't get to grief-flag the caster because the spell excludes him.
And if 10-20 idiots run in the way, they just griefed the caster by wasting all his mana. You just came up with a new player created profession for LGs! (Disclaimer: not all LGs are idiots. =b)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it has been done before, and I think it is much more radical to ask to change a well-understood and traditional mechanic in the genre.It happened in early UO, though in that case people were jumping in front of creatures hoping to catch an errant double-click. That turned the formerly blue 'innocent' into a 'grey' notoriety character, making them a target to blues and reds alike, and often leading to them sinking into the PK playstyle.
I've also heard of recent MMOs that gave you an attack arc which had to intersect the model of your target.
The first case is the norm: Single-target attacks hit the target you select with your mouse. There is no chance for it to hit something else.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in the second. The only recent MMO that I have played like that is Planetside 2, which is a First-Person Shooter. Aim is one of the basic mechanics of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure what you're referring to in the second. The only recent MMO that I have played like that is Planetside 2, which is a First-Person Shooter. Aim is one of the basic mechanics of the game.
I believe Tera has a system like this. Its combat is all real-time (similiar to an action game like Devil May Cry or Monster Hunter) so it relies heavily on posistioning and active dodges and the like.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Darcnes - Referring to it as 'hand holding' is calling someone a child by implication. Calling an adult childish in that way is generally dismissive of their opinion. Pointing that out is not itself an insult, it's a way to make you aware of how you're coming across, so you have the opportunity to clear up any misunderstanding.
If there were targeting circles and cones that appear on the ground for the caster, and some kind of indicator for the targets considered to be 'targeted' at that moment, that might go a long way toward resolving my concerns about someone jumping in the way of long-ranged or long casting time spells.
However, that creates the issue of a stealthed party either showing up in the targeting graphic (making it abusable as a 'stealth scan', not showing and not being hit, or not showing but being hit. I would guess you're favouring the third possibility, but that creates the blue-griefer situation again and thus fails. There's also the problem of targeting an area or targeting individuals in that area. If the targeting sticks to the individuals, then they can't scatter effectively, but if it sticks to the area, you can't lead a moving target. This doesn't come up much in turn-based systems like tabletop or older computer games, but in those systems... well, you have a discrete turn. You also don't have flagging systems that screw up your gameplay terribly if you did accidentally hit unintended targets.
My 'precise shot'-like idea covers the in-story explanation and represents a cost to the attacker for excluding unintended targets. I wasn't proposing that there be an extra cost for each excluded target, just a cost applied if the skill had to be used. I suppose you could handle it like a toggle switch, so any effect which could potentially hit unintended targets gets the extra cost while the ability is turned on. Then when you're in a dungeon and not prone to interference from random players you could turn it off, and in cases where you think there's a risk of grief-flagging, you can turn it on. Would that make it acceptable?
If not... do you have a solution that provides verisimilitude you'd be happy with which does not also open the door to griefers abusing the flagging system? If the answer boils down to 'deal with it or don't play X', then there's no need to bother; it's been said many ways already.