Goblin Squad Member
|
The same way you do it in other games. One guy picks a target, the others assist him on his target.Then the one guy is leading the formation, is he not?
Sure. Are you suggesting that the other players are not allowed to choose the same target unless the leader has the Leadership feat?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By the way GW designers: recommend that a unit in formation should see an alphanumeric designation for each opponent to facilitate efficient target coordination.
That way the leader can command 'focus Bravo' and his formation will all know easily which opponent he means.
Unless we aren't going to have common voice comms, in which case only the formation leader should be able to designate target with an icon or similar.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see close formations being able to prevent opponents from running past them without a specific effort to break the formation (or running around the formation).
/concur. In a game allowing PvP characters should block other charaters and NPCs rather than passing through one another.
Whole idea of a shieldwall after all.
I would like to see close formations being able to prevent opponents from running past them without a specific effort to break the formation (or running around the formation)./concur. In a game allowing PvP characters should block other charaters and NPCs rather than passing through one another.
Whole idea of a shieldwall after all.
It's been hinted at that player collision will be possible in PFO. It will be great to actually break a Calvary charge on your shieldwall, or punch through a enemies shieldwall with a well executed phalanx charge! :D you'll also be able to prevent your leaders from being gang mobbed, deny entry into fortified areas, all sorts of great things.
Yay player collision!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to see close formations being able to prevent opponents from running past them without a specific effort to break the formation (or running around the formation)./concur. In a game allowing PvP characters should block other charaters and NPCs rather than passing through one another.
Whole idea of a shieldwall after all.
It's been hinted at that player collision will be possible in PFO. It will be great to actually break a Calvary charge on your shieldwall, or punch through a enemies shieldwall with a well executed phalanx charge! :D you'll also be able to prevent your leaders from being gang mobbed, deny entry into fortified areas, all sorts of great things.
Yay player collision!
I have to say I was excited as well to learn that was at least planned to be in the cards. Now imagine if they added furniture collision to that, at least in the form of barricades and the like.
I agree. I personally hope consideration like high ground and fortifications have a real (non superficial) impact as well. It would be nice for there to be different tactics and variables depending on the conditions of the battle. A siege should look different than a match in an open terrain. High ground and guerrilla tactics should also have advantages and drawbacks that become a planning consideration.How about you reward the people that work together and they run through those that don't?
This is very much a co-op MMO. If players have to stay in formation and they don't the only thing a leadership ability could reasonably do is lessen the blow.
If you are in formation and your line gets penetrated, at that point of intrusion the enemy forces would gain some sort of flanking bonus. Leadership would lesson that bonus as the commander of the force would be compensating some how... changing the focus of the spell casters or ranged folks, shifting personnel that aren't yet involved in combat, transitioning ranged units to melee.
Now if someone outright just breaks ranks to flee, well that should have a bit more significant impact on the force that person was a part of.
The reason formations have histories dating back to over 4,000 years is because they worked and continue to work... albeit on a much larger scale see Maneuver Warfare. If kingdoms are going to go to war... it needs to be war, it needs to look like war, feel like war, and function like war. Not a clusterfied gank-fest that from afar could be mistaken for an disturbed pile of ants with special effects.
Really like both of these posts ideas.
Areas, a couple of the things you mention, the flanking bonus, and penalties to a unit that is routed, I think would be easily done. I feel that by making units positions apparent to its participants and overall to commanders, that a combat system will develop that wont involve the standard chaos melee that Wow fans so adore. I think by proving the benefits of unit combat to everyone involved, that we can sway all but the most ADD players. <grin>
And I've advocated for terrain playing a statistical part in effectiveness of combat in at least one other thread. I think it's really important to have this feature. Same goes for fortifications and cover. Imagine being able to kill an archery units effectiveness by sending their targets into a forest <wg>
guerrilla tactics vs. standard unit combat should for sure be options when considering battle, and they each should have their uses.
Really great stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Are you suggesting that the other players are not allowed to choose the same target unless the leader has the Leadership feat?Nope, not at all. But you either have one leader or you have six leaders, and six leaders means a fustercluck.
Which is an entirely metagame issue. That concerns player communication, not game mechanics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Leadership is command, control, and communications. Target designation should accrue only to the leader, although a soldier is expected to use some common sense if he sees aggro on the flank for example. A soldier isn't an automaton but he also uses communications discipline to eliminate unit confusion and improve cohesion. If there are no common voice communictions then the leader has to be the only one designating target or you'll get different primary targets as everyone tries to assert command.
There is a mechanical function if it is to function at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem with vent is when you have pickup groups, and the time it takes the new guys to establish a new 'bookmark', or even download the client and get it configured.
The game should provide a leadership mechanism where the skilled leader can designate objectives and targets another way than relying on comm software some in your army aren't going to have.
I suppose you could just exclude everyone who prefers a different comm utility, such as all the females who don't feel comfortable with their baratone giving them away.
The problem with vent is when you have pickup groups, and the time it takes the new guys to establish a new 'bookmark', or even download the client and get it configured.
The game should provide a leadership mechanism where the skilled leader can designate objectives and targets another way than relying on comm software some in your army aren't going to have.
I suppose you could just exclude everyone who prefers a different comm utility, such as all the females who don't feel comfortable with their baratone giving them away.
I think there should be a way for unit leaders to mark targets, or point them out. Likewise if a commander could designate targets the unit commanders could see, that would be great.
We don't know yet, but PFO could always integrate its own voice chat into the game, Eve recently put one in their game, would be nice to have that option.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Leadership is command, control, and communications. Target designation should accrue only to the leader, although a soldier is expected to use some common sense if he sees aggro on the flank for example. A soldier isn't an automaton but he also uses communications discipline to eliminate unit confusion and improve cohesion. If there are no common voice communictions then the leader has to be the only one designating target or you'll get different primary targets as everyone tries to assert command.
There is a mechanical function if it is to function at all.
I think the issue here is that the Leadership feat in Pathfinder has no combat applications so some of us are basing our opinions on that. Others are making suggestions as to what Leadership could be changed to in PfO.
I think that's why we're not on the same page.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The same way you do it in other games. One guy picks a target, the others assist him on his target.You mean a "Leader" picks a target?
Whatever you want to call him. Generally it's the tank. I guess I'd rather not see a feat required to do something that most games already have to make combat more user friendly.
/assist
Target of target
Most games have something like this as a UI option. Not a skill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The same way you do it in other games. One guy picks a target, the others assist him on his target.You mean a "Leader" picks a target?Whatever you want to call him. Generally it's the tank. I guess I'd rather not see a feat required to do something that most games already have to make combat more user friendly.
/assist
Target of targetMost games have something like this as a UI option. Not a skill.
I was admittedly confused for a bit, but I completely agree with that statement. No need to make what works more complicated.
I am not a fan of the leadership system in pnp, much less in an MMO anyway though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If they don't take the time to integrate voice chat into their audio system (see Dolby Axon) then I'd recommend an official Teamspeak server capable of handling everyone. We all meet up in there to form parties. Have like different rooms for each alignment, then break that down into party rooms.
One of the nicest things about having directional audio is the potential for hearing that sneak stealing up behind you if he misses his skill check.
If they don't take the time to integrate voice chat into their audio system (see Dolby Axon) then I'd recommend an official Teamspeak server capable of handling everyone. We all meet up in there to form parties. Have like different rooms for each alignment, then break that down into party rooms.
Many battles will be guild run, or run by a settlement. Both will likely have chat networks set up. Agreeing on a unified system might help matters, but I'm unsure whether that's wise to do at this point.
Other battles will be alliance run and likely involve several guilds and settlements, so these should come with chat structures already set up and ready to go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
just an aside, a leadership feat same as in pathfinder would be useful in PfO. for example, you get extra vendors (buying and selling) at your settlement, you have more workers for that large scale mining operation, you have more NPCs making those steel swords and such...etc.
I have no issue on leadership in the crafting / merchant sense. What I would prefer not to see is it used in combat. I didn't like the companion system in ToR, and generally think making everyone a pet class is a poor development choice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree. One of the reasons i quit ToR so soon was i could not stand HAVING to have a companion to compete.
Id say take the leadership feat, have it non combat, HOWEVER while the low level minions are doing low level minion stuff, your cohort is a powerful NPC that defends your settlement. That would give people an incentive to select it, but they would not be able to directly control the NPC.
if you break up the leadership feat into its own line of skills with the cohort as the "capstone" not everyone will be able to get it willy nilly.
in fact i kinda like the idea of a leadership career kinda like the soldier, only it would improve the NPCs and efficiency of your settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The same way you do it in other games. One guy picks a target, the others assist him on his target.You mean a "Leader" picks a target?Whatever you want to call him. Generally it's the tank. I guess I'd rather not see a feat required to do something that most games already have to make combat more user friendly.
/assist
Target of targetMost games have something like this as a UI option. Not a skill.
Well in a large battle situation, there is not going to be a base game mechanic that you have to move to X square to avoid Y effect. It will be much more fluid and realistic. So having a commander that has trained in the skills and can give his "squads" a bonus would make sense. Because he has been trained and is knowledgeable in war and tactics.
So commander X has trained skill A, which allows, if your squads are in position L, a boost to W/E.
This would be verse say newbie guy who just gets a group of people together that attack everyone. He and his soldiers would not get any bonuses to anything, because the commander is untrained.
Am I making sense?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That makes perfect sense. The hard part is for GW to make all aspects of their "formations" have constant and consistent functionality. That way the guy in position L stays in position L instead of moving to get in on the action that is happening at position T. He stays there because he's got something to do AND that something to do serves a purpose to the forces he is a part of in the battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That makes perfect sense. The hard part is for GW to make all aspects of their "formations" have constant and consistent functionality. That way the guy in position L stays in position L instead of moving to get in on the action that is happening at position T. He stays there because he's got something to do AND that something to do serves a purpose to the forces he is a part of in the battle.
Yet that 'hard part' is likely the only part they already have solved. My bet is that somebody had a brilliant idea while they were brainstorming either PFO or thinking about publishing a new sourcebook for P&P.
The same way you do it in other games. One guy picks a target, the others assist him on his target.You mean a "Leader" picks a target?Whatever you want to call him. Generally it's the tank. I guess I'd rather not see a feat required to do something that most games already have to make combat more user friendly.
/assist
Target of targetMost games have something like this as a UI option. Not a skill.
Well in a large battle situation, there is not going to be a base game mechanic that you have to move to X square to avoid Y effect. It will be much more fluid and realistic. So having a commander that has trained in the skills and can give his "squads" a bonus would make sense. Because he has been trained and is knowledgeable in war and tactics.
So commander X has trained skill A, which allows, if your squads are in position L, a boost to W/E.
This would be verse say newbie guy who just gets a group of people together that attack everyone. He and his soldiers would not get any bonuses to anything, because the commander is untrained.
Am I making sense?
They could take a page from Eve and have several skills related to unit combat, not just one Leadership skill. They may even break this down into branches of training that players could pursue, or just leave them as individual skills. But each skill gives bonuses to different aspects of unit combat, and the higher a player trains in that skill, the more benefit he gains for his unit when engaged in combat.
They can even avoid the biggest downside that Eve players face using such a system. In Eve skills are based on perquisites, needing skill X to be trained to level 4 before you can begin training in skill Y. This requires you spending the time training up skill X when your really after skill Y. They might not be able to totally do away with this, but they can lessen the pain in the butt factor somewhat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well in a large battle situation, there is not going to be a base game mechanic that you have to move to X square to avoid Y effect. It will be much more fluid and realistic. So having a commander that has trained in the skills and can give his "squads" a bonus would make sense. Because he has been trained and is knowledgeable in war and tactics.
So commander X has trained skill A, which allows, if your squads are in position L, a boost to W/E.
This would be verse say newbie guy who just gets a group of people together that attack everyone. He and his soldiers would not get any bonuses to anything, because the commander is untrained.
Am I making sense?
Yeah, absolutely. I just don't want them to call it Leadership. Maybe Tactics. My little brain will associate Leadership with the rpg version and it'll be screaming "you can't do that with Leadership" all day long.
Yeah, absolutely. I just don't want them to call it Leadership. Maybe Tactics. My little brain will associate Leadership with the rpg version and it'll be screaming "you can't do that with Leadership" all day long.Well in a large battle situation, there is not going to be a base game mechanic that you have to move to X square to avoid Y effect. It will be much more fluid and realistic. So having a commander that has trained in the skills and can give his "squads" a bonus would make sense. Because he has been trained and is knowledgeable in war and tactics.
So commander X has trained skill A, which allows, if your squads are in position L, a boost to W/E.
This would be verse say newbie guy who just gets a group of people together that attack everyone. He and his soldiers would not get any bonuses to anything, because the commander is untrained.
Am I making sense?
No reason it can't be called something else. Leadership is too narrow anyway.