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.
DDO uses attack arcs. There are others (especially some of the newer asian fantasy MMOs) but DDO is probably the closest thing you'll find, mechanics-wise, to pathfinder. Although DDO doesn't have friendly fire, and it's PvP is pretty lame, but ray spells occasionally misfire when a party member gets in the way. But that's a bug, not design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Skip to 4th paragraph for alternative solution.
@Keovar I really do stand behind the thick skin thing, hurt feelings over a perceived slight have no place in a rational discussion. I'm not advocating being rude, just not being ready to take offense.
I believe I gave ample context for hand-holding in this case. However you perceive the connotations of hand-holding, it boils down to the fact that if your hand ISN'T held you're likely to mess up, until you get better at it. Children are not the only subjects of hand-holding, it is present in nearly everything.. it is the essence of training wheels.
Call it "Precise Shot" or "We're going to help you not attack people your attack should normally hit" the essence is the same. I DO appreciate the whole not wanting to go Criminal on people you didn't even know existed, I just don't believe anyone should be able to stand in the middle of a fireball and not have damage applied. It encourages what I feel is sloppy play, in that if you can use Fireball without repercussions, it devalues other non-AoE abilities that are more selective. This isn't saying the scenario you laid out is considered sloppy play by any means, it could be completely warranted to nuke an area, unaware of the griefer trying to cause trouble. But the result is that if you don't have to worry about such things, you can use it more recklessly in other situations.
How about coming at the griefing standpoint from the stealthy angle. If you're stealthed, hitting you does not count as a Criminal act. Only while you're stealthed. If the attacker hits you a second time, now that you're visible, they go Criminal. Regardless, as a token to the attacker's lack of detection they do open themselves up to retaliation, but only to the stealthy targets they hit. At this point both parties have gotten off a free hit and an actual fight commences.
This stops being much in the way of a grief mechanic and more of a clever move on the stealthy characters part to open up combat without either party going Criminal. For those trying to grief the stealther, add that if a monster is in range to notice a stealther come out of stealth, they are also in range to notice the attack being done and recognize that there is more than one trespasser in the area, and for Casters that throw AoE's .. you really do have recourse. Wisdom casters have the option of spending time training perception at a reasonable speed. Arcane casters generally have means of detection available to them, like an alarm spell they lay down ahead of time.
Taking the onus off of the caster to be responsible about their attacks isn't something I can agree with, ESPECIALLY since there are mechanics to greatly reduce the chance such a thing occurs. Perhaps someone wants to run with this other idea and flesh it out in areas I haven't covered.
Goblinworks Founder
|
DDO uses attack arcs. There are others (especially some of the newer asian fantasy MMOs) but DDO is probably the closest thing you'll find, mechanics-wise, to pathfinder. Although DDO doesn't have friendly fire, and it's PvP is pretty lame, but ray spells occasionally misfire when a party member gets in the way. But that's a bug, not design.
While not the best example, Age of Conan was a FFA Themepark MMO with attack arc's, ranged LoS and Friendly Fire AoE to anyone outside your group or raid. It is also the perfect example of what can go wrong with friendly fire and a criminal system. At one point I remember a group of low level (50) players that would hang out at the entrance of a higher level zone (60) and position themselves in front of people specifically to ensure the higher level player would tag them by accident and get flagged criminal.
I would be interested to know Ryan's thoughts on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on old combat discussions, we know that PFO won't have the sort of 'actiony' combat that you describe in those games. It will be something much closer to traditional combat (excluding large-scale unit fighting). I would be surprised if 'hit or miss' isn't determined by a dice roll on the target you have selected.
This is why I thought it incredibly strange to ask for single-target attacks to hit something other than their intended target. It hasn't been done before in this context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Putting the responsibility on the stealthed character is interesting, but what about them cancelling stealth as the casting animation begins? What about those who are able to run in (expeditious retreat, haste, a mount, etc.) as the animation is going on?
If there were targeting circles/cones as in Dragon Age, would you only be responsible for what was in the target area at the moment you began casting, and those who run in are on their own? That seems to open casting up for griefing instead of a way to get yourself griefed. I guess the targeting zone could be made visible to nearby non-hostile players as the animation was going on, though that might open up issues too.
I'd still prefer to have the ability to train Selective Spell, Selective Channelling, and Precise Shot as a way to avoid ranged friendly fire mishaps if you turn them on, but at a small resource cost (or to-hit for archery). Those are already part of Pathfinder, and they provide a solution without creating more problems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why I thought it incredibly strange to ask for single-target attacks to hit something other than their intended target. It hasn't been done before in this context.
Mostly because people who only play melee shouldn't be exempt from having to deal with friendly fire repercussions if the rest of us are forced to deal with it all the time. If we can train selective targeting skills to make up for the fact that this is not turn-based with an optimal view for targeting, then I'd have no issue with melee being let off.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The best idea by far in this whole thread is that AOE attacks only apply to people tagged "Friendly" and "Hostile". Neutrals are ignored.
Solves many of the issues with griefing, while eliminating any concerns with lack of 'realism' from spamming AOEs.
I forget who suggested it, and don't want to dig back to find it now. But good idea!
The best idea by far in this whole thread is that AOE attacks only apply to people tagged "Friendly" and "Hostile". Neutrals are ignored.
Solves many of the issues with griefing, while eliminating any concerns with lack of 'realism' from spamming AOEs.
I forget who suggested it, and don't want to dig back to find it now. But good idea!
That was one of the GW guys who suggested it ;)
Here's the post
Stephen Cheney Goblinworks Game Designer Dec 3, 2012, 01:36 PM | FLAG | LIST
| REPLY
1 person marked this as a favorite. +Blaeringr wrote:
And if the game mechanics now work in such a way that someone not in your group gets hit by the explosion of a fireball (but is not the main target, just collateral damage), then you better cast detect invisibility before you throw any area of effect spells or some griefer might get you tagged as a criminal, not to mention placing a recurring bounty on your head.
Great thread, everyone. We'd been thinking about this pretty seriously, and I'm taking notes :) . The quoted point in particular is well worth considering.As some context, we're currently thinking of using a fairly standard Friendly/Neutral/Hostile breakdown for other PCs:
Friendly (Party Member/Company Member/Settlement Member/Settlement Ally/etc.): You can buff and heal this target. It is very hard for you to accidentally attack this character.
Hostile (Target you've attacked/Member of Settlement you're at war with/etc.): You cannot buff or heal this target. He or she will be a priority target very similar to hostile NPCs/monsters.
Neutral (Everyone else): You can buff/heal this target, but can also attack without too much difficulty. If the target attacks you or you attack the target, he or she appears as Hostile and you can no longer help.
And then there are some rough priorities for if a player falls into multiple criteria (usually defaulting to Hostile taking precedence even if the player would otherwise count as Friendly).Some things to consider specifically about AoEs:
Latency is a concern with any MMO and AoEs. Even in GW2, where they've put a ton of tech into trying to make the combat realtime, I'll regularly get tagged by AoEs where I saw my character run out of the area but the server obviously doesn't think I quite made it.
Players in a chaotic situation are never going to have the precision targeting possible in tabletop. An immense amount of time has been used by players in my games to agonize over the grid placement of a Fireball to catch the maximum number of enemies without hitting any party members. When everyone's running around, AoEs will have to become much more situational if they're going to hit allies.
We're currently thinking that most AoEs, particularly spells, will have longish activation/animation times. This allows them to have a better risk (you're provoking opportunity attacks longer and can possibly be interrupted) to reward (decent damage against a bunch of targets) tradeoff. And it means that it's going to be even harder for the caster to precisely place an AoE (as combat conditions will likely have changed by the time it goes off).
So a couple of questions for the thread:
With all that in mind, does it change your preference for friendly fire vs. AoEs ignoring Friendlies?
If we made damaging AoEs mostly set up so they had to center on an enemy (rather than ground targeted), and any collateral hits on other targets didn't flag you as an attacker/criminal (but would let them also attack you without getting said flag), would that be better as far as gaming the system vs. the scenario Blaeringr described?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why I thought it incredibly strange to ask for single-target attacks to hit something other than their intended target. It hasn't been done before in this context.Mostly because people who only play melee shouldn't be exempt from having to deal with friendly fire repercussions if the rest of us are forced to deal with it all the time. If we can train selective targeting skills to make up for the fact that this is not turn-based with an optimal view for targeting, then I'd have no issue with melee being let off.
Melee have AoE abilities as well, with the same benefits and consequences for using them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keovar Generally heroes know which end of a sword to hold and can mostly get by without stabbing themselves. They are trained and not clumsy buffoons. Accidental strikes from normal swings are considered beyond them. Doing some kind of whirlwind attack would naturally cease to be as precise.
It stands to reason that as long as they're aware of their surroundings they can generally make the correct tactical decision of when and where to use this ability, putting sole accountability of sneaking around a battlefield into the stealther's hands.
Don't ignore the fact that a caster should be able to cancel a spell up until the very cusp where latency plays a part in which spells finish and which don't. It's not like players have 10 seconds to lazily amble into the path of assault. It would have to be timed within about a half second and without knowing exactly where the area affected is going to be, though likely with an educated guess.
Anyways..
If we made damaging AoEs mostly set up so they had to center on an enemy (rather than ground targeted), and any collateral hits on other targets didn't flag you as an attacker/criminal (but would let them also attack you without getting said flag), would that be better as far as gaming the system vs. the scenario Blaeringr described?
This seems like a reasonably inexpensive solution. I still don't like people not getting hit that deserve it, and we could probably skip the first half of that sentence regarding forced targeting in the case of neutral parties simply not being hit, but it has the benefit of working in all situations. It also continues to make such feats as Keovar champions useful in that it can exclude friendlies, without making them play a critical use these or else rule that no fear in the game should have.
Perhaps something like what Stephen presented along with my stealth suggestions taking back seat in determining viable targets is a reasonable compromise. In this case stealth tagging is relegated to more of a single target version of what Stephen mentioned in allowing retaliation without a Criminal flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Keovar Generally heroes know which end of a sword to hold and can mostly get by without stabbing themselves. They are trained and not clumsy buffoons. Accidental strikes from normal swings are considered beyond them.
You're willing to let skill training work to prevent mishaps for melee, but not for ranged attacks. You seem to want turn-based, overhead view (with convenient boxes for everyone to stand in), and small party contrivances to apply in one case and real-time twitch play with thousands of players to apply in another case.
The feats I mentioned (which likely become skills in PFO) represent things ranged heroes can learn to do in order to prevent the same mishaps that you're assuming every melee character already knows.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Keovar I actually had started to think that's what you wanted based on your debate positions and points. I want and expect a system of personal accountability much as Being just said.
The suggestion Steven made does not satisfy this fully, but it is something I believe I can live with and that also meets how I view your expectations as being able to load up on selective targeting feats and AoE spam to your heart's content. That is my biggest worry regarding turning off friendly fire, is that it removes accountability from the player for the actions they are choosing that are not necessarily appropriate to the situation. I can admit that some concessions need to be made to it being an MMO, but I am not convinced this is one of them.
Using incompetent heroes as the basis of your counter-points just doesn't hold up in a world where heroes are anything but.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Anyways..
If we made damaging AoEs mostly set up so they had to center on an enemy (rather than ground targeted), and any collateral hits on other targets didn't flag you as an attacker/criminal (but would let them also attack you without getting said flag), would that be better as far as gaming the system vs. the scenario Blaeringr described?This seems like a reasonably inexpensive solution. I still don't like people not getting hit that deserve it, and we could probably skip the first half of that sentence regarding forced targeting in the case of neutral parties simply not being hit, but it has the benefit of working in all situations. It also continues to make such feats as Keovar champions useful in that it can exclude friendlies, without making them play a critical use these or else rule that no fear in the game should have.
I don't like that because it limits the strategic use of AoE effects. Whenever I've used an AoE damage effect, I hardly ever have it centred on a target, it's centred where it will hit the most enemies, which is not generally where someone is standing, but between them somewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, regarding coming out of stealth at the last second with ninja like timing to the shock of the caster that's already reached their latency threshold for cancelling the spell.. It's pretty easy to say that for 2 seconds or so after coming out of stealth that you're still a viable target for attack. I would rather see this than simply making neutral parties be exempt from powerfully destructive forces. System assisted targeting does nothing to inspire clever player created solutions to a perceived problem and instead gives them a crutch to lean on.
@Keovar For all that I disagree with your outlook and find fault with your methods of debate, I value that you have an outlook and are willing to stand up for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We don't have to like everything that will improve the game. But we should prefer to improve the game withal.The problem being that not everyone will agree on what "improves the game"
True, but if the 'improvement' is to scrap the core vision and do again what's been done dozens of times before, you're improving a fundamentally different game.