Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Introduction
Formation Combat has the potential to make large scale battles viable and fun. If designed correctly from the bottom up, server load can be drastically reduced and hundreds of people can be on the battlefield at the same time. What follows is what I envision for fomation combat.
Scenario
You and five of your friends want to go adventuring together and are gathering in The Rusty Swagger. You receive word that an army is approaching the peaceful farming settlement of Farmville. The settlement is known for its wealth, being the only hex in the area capable of producing Willow Grain, the main component in a popular brew. Having no standing army of their own, they rely on mercenaries for defense and your group fits the bill. You jump up, head to the stables, and mount your horses for the short 2-hex journey. Along the way, you are put in charge and start setting up formations. Since three of your number are front line fighter types, you set up a simple formation with those three in the front and the more magical oriented in the back and set it as the default. You also set up a formation with two of the front liners in the front, one in the back next to the cleric who is wearing heavy armor, and the physically weakest side by side in the middle. When you get to Farmville you immediately leave the settlement and join the other groups who will meet the invading force on the road. Standing in formation along the road, you await the clash of forces with eager anticipation. Suddenly, around the bend come a squad of charging barbarians, intent on slaughter. Your fighters stand their ground and form a wall upon which the wave crashes. The three in the back sling spells and incantations, causing energy to tear into the flesh of the barbarians while bolstering your group with beneficial effects and healing. Having no healer, the barbarians are quickly dispatched, but looking around you noticed dozens of other battles and not all of them are going well for the defenders of Farmville. Suddenly, a battle cry from behind you fills the air as more attackers appear, and archers appear in front. Surrounded, you quickly switch to the second formation you set up while on the road, and one of the fighters jumps back with your cleric while the other two unsling tower shields from their backs. Forming a stalwart defense against arrows, the fighters with the tower shields are invaluable in allowing the fighter and cleric, along with the two wizards, to focus their attentions on the flanking enemy. Quick work is made of them and though the cleric was unable to reliably heal his allies because he was the one being targeted, not much damage was taken because of the defense given to the group by the tower shields. The battle is won shortly thereafter, and your group collects its generous reward from the people of Farmville.
Mechanics
I envision an information pane with dots representing each member of the formation. These dots would be silver if not in combat, or green/yellow/red/black depending on the health of the character, something like 90%-100%/50%-89%/1%-49%/0%. The leader of the formation should be able to select, create, modify, or remove formations through some sort of flyout or dropdown menu. Creating or modifying a formation would open a new focus pane where the player could either choose a predefined formation and drag party members to it or create a new formation by dragging party members' dots onto a blank slate. Formations containing the exact number of people in the party or more would be allowed, to allow for players losing connection or dropping from the group suddenly. If a new player is added to the group no change to formations will occur unless there are now more characters in the group than dots in the formation, in which case the formation will become blank and the leader will have to select or design a new formation. Facing is part of a formation, so that must be taken into account when designing the formation.
When a formation is selected, the group becomes one creature with many heads. Graphically, each person's character will run to its position and stand in formation, similar to Baldur's Gate and other such games. The leader of the group is the one that will control movement. The leader turning left or right without moving forward will not move the formation but moving forward or backward will move the entire formation and also cause the formation to reorient itself graphically.
When attacking a formation, it would be similar to attacking hit locations on a creature. Each zone of the formation is occupied by a separate character and that character takes damage if that zone is hit. The result is that it will look like you're hitting that character and that character will take damage, but in reality behind the scenes you're hitting the formation which is treated as one creature but the hit location causes the damage to be routed to that character. If a character dies its body is left behind if the formation moves and that zone is considered dead so cannot be targeted. If a character is immobilized or otherwise cannot move with the formation it is left behind if the formation moves and becomes its own entity and leaves the formation if the formation moves out of range. Characters can rejoin the formation any time they wish, as long as they are still in the group.
Characters in a formation can still take actions that do not include movement. For example, casting spells or targeting and firing a bow at an enemy or attacking an adjacent enemy in melee are all actions that can be taken. With few exceptions, there would be no mechanical difference when taking these actions in a formation, except that you don't move and you might get a bonus depending on the formation.
Efficiency
Because the formation acts as a single entity in terms of movement, the server and client both would be able to process the information more efficiently. Each character represents a zone within the formation, so location data only needs to be kept for the leader's position. It would be much more efficient to only have preset formations and not allow people to design their own, but there can be dozens or more of them to allow for versatility. Having predefined formations would allow both the server and client to reconstruct the formation with minimal data. For example, an array passed from server to client might look like this: {formation_id, x, y, z, player1_id, null, player2_id}. This would be for a formation of 3 with only 2 members present, in positions 1 and 3.
Formations would be treated in many ways like a character would. Damage done or spells cast by the formation would act as if a single character had done the damage or cast the spell. Location only matters for determining if someone is adjacent or otherwise in melee range using reach or something, and that can be calculated using the defined zones in the formation. For area effect spells the easiest and most efficient thing to do would be to affect the entire formation equally, but it could be done by zone instead if you wanted to differentiate between actual locations of each character.
Conclusion
I see formation combat being one of the big draws to the game from people who like very tactical combat. This can be used in both PvP and PvE, above ground and in dungeons depending on the space the party can move in. Entire armies could be assembled across a field from each other and clash in an epic battle using formation combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a bad feeling about formation combat. I am not expecting it in EE or even at launch. In other words don't hold your breath.
Why?
I fully expect it by the end of Early Enrollment at least, and probably as soon as they allow Settlements to be attacked.
I don't expect to be able to use it for clearing a dungeon, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree that time should be taken and effort should be made to design and implement it correctly. It's potentially a huge draw but also potentially something that people who want to put the game down will focus on if it's not done well. I, for one, would like to help in any way I can to make sure that formation combat is as good as it can be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Formation combat is great for a single player playing multiple characters, not so good for MMORPG's where each character is a real player. It would be too hard to implement and too many negatives. I don't see GW implementing this one as it's a black hole for development and would slow down the timeline.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a bad feeling about formation combat. I am not expecting it in EE or even at launch. In other words don't hold your breath.Why?
I fully expect it by the end of Early Enrollment at least, and probably as soon as they allow Settlements to be attacked.
I don't expect to be able to use it for clearing a dungeon, though.
I have to ask, "Why?" also. I can think up several of my own speculations:
1) It appears to be associated with the Dominion game and therefore subject to later development, I'd suspect (function of numbers and testing)
2) It has to work technically and be fun for each foot-soldier
3) It has to work additioally in the framework of strategy and declared battles during declarations of war or some other way to ritualise a battlefield?
etc. I was curious which reasons, in particular, avari3, you were thinking of?
The main considerations are what actions can individual players do while in formatio, what role does the leader take and how can teamwork and coordination with other formations work (ie UI). Perhaps as OP says, each character can individually target? Leader moves the formation object.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the posts I've read I don't think they're talking about "Formations" being an entity unto itself. They've talked about getting bonuses for being in a formation, as I recall.
So if 10 PC'S get all roman and form a Turtle formation they'll have an increaase in their AC (due to interlocking shield's yada yada)
ps. That would mean players can break formation..losing the AC bonus...and if enough break then the formation is no longer viable so no one gets AC bonus. At which point they get trampled by the formation that didn't break.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Formation combat is great for a single player playing multiple characters, not so good for MMORPG's where each character is a real player. It would be too hard to implement and too many negatives. I don't see GW implementing this one as it's a black hole for development and would slow down the timeline.
Agreed and I don't see why GW would choose to hang themselves with this rope. TT Pathfinder has teamwork feats which would be 10 x easier to implement and IMO would be more fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Formation combat is great for a single player playing multiple characters, not so good for MMORPG's where each character is a real player. It would be too hard to implement and too many negatives. I don't see GW implementing this one as it's a black hole for development and would slow down the timeline.
I disagree: If there is a Career: Soldier and the Dominion pillar of PFO has important hinges on declarations of war (which accord with settlement alignment rules etc) then I can see a very real niche for this part of the game. Secondly, every mmorpg I've seen with zergs bashing on keeps in sieges -> it seems such a formation system in combination or as a middle-ground to siege warfare would be an interesting way for Kingdoms to go about conquering/battling.
IE the war machine being a function of logistics and a professional army? Sounds superior to most mmorpgs mass combat to me. I suspect it's a later development however: Testing & iterating on that scale, as well as related to the maturation of PFO itself??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
etc. I was curious which reasons, in particular, avari3, you were thinking of?
The main considerations are what actions can individual players do while in formatio, what role does the leader take and how can teamwork and coordination with other formations work (ie UI). Perhaps as OP says, each character can individually target? Leader moves the formation object.
1. I don't see how a formation stays in formation without a lead character controlling them, unless you are planning on months of training. At the moment you lose control of your char it's not fun anymore.
2. I don't think mass MMO combat where everyone is a superhero lends itself to formation combat.
Teamwork feats just work better. In teamwork feat it's a bonus that only works if an ally with the same feat is within your radius. In other words, if two chars with shielding teamwork feat stay within 10' of each other, they get the bonus. I guess you could up that to an additional bonus if X amount are within 30' or have commander feats that increase radius or whatever, but that's the gist, personal AOE's that activate when they cross someone else's AOE.
Simpler system, just as fun, lends itself to tactic variety in different armies (different units requiring different teamwork feats) and we could see it much earlier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
agree with korvak's idea and the idea of teamwork feats
1. the point of a soldier skills would be to know more advanced formations (equivalent to more teamwork feats) so they can contribute to more advanced units.
2. the point of officer skills would be to command larger and more advanced units, possibly giving larger bonuses to an equivalent formation
3. noone loses control of their character, but those managing to act as a cohesive unit get rewarded for it. The point is to encourage orderly battles rather than the confusing mess typically seen in MMO large battles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't understand all what topicstarter said.
Nevertheless i don't agree with this conception formation combat, because it's too rigid. I think it's a right word for characterization.
Formation combat must be flexible to provide choises for player like:
What is better thing to do next? Keep formation? Or break formation and attack the fleeing enemy? Or break formation and kill your personal enemy until he is close?
But if you break formation it will take time to recreate it, and this action can easily cause defeat.
What i described can be realized by flexible formation system when players get bonuses while they keep formation.
And these bonuses will be depend on how good players keep formation.
For example unexpierenced players can barely keep bad phalanx, and they get small bonuses. At the same time veterans can keep good harmonious formation, and they will get big bonuses.
And there is only one idea.
I think we can come up with a dozen different concepts.
I definitely vote for the flexible formation system, not rigid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
etc. I was curious which reasons, in particular, avari3, you were thinking of?
The main considerations are what actions can individual players do while in formatio, what role does the leader take and how can teamwork and coordination with other formations work (ie UI). Perhaps as OP says, each character can individually target? Leader moves the formation object.
1. I don't see how a formation stays in formation without a lead character controlling them, unless you are planning on months of training. At the moment you lose control of your char it's not fun anymore.
2. I don't think mass MMO combat where everyone is a superhero lends itself to formation combat.
Teamwork feats just work better. In teamwork feat it's a bonus that only works if an ally with the same feat is within your radius. In other words, if two chars with shielding teamwork feat stay within 10' of each other, they get the bonus. I guess you could up that to an additional bonus if X amount are within 30' or have commander feats that increase radius or whatever, but that's the gist, personal AOE's that activate when they cross someone else's AOE.
Simpler system, just as fun, lends itself to tactic variety in different armies (different units requiring different teamwork feats) and we could see it much earlier.
I see, I'm unaware of TT rules. A quick search brings up some interesting ideas (shield wall, battle herald, outflank, coordinated maneuvers, allied spellcaster etc).
So
(1) One option is individuals working within each person's radius.
(2) Or if treating the unit as analogy to a large moving vehicle with different players operating different functions (eg speed, turning, weapons, defences etc)
Interesting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it depends on how they actually implement the system. I don't think they would be foolish enough to take control of your character away or not let you break formation or even force you to into formation.
I imagine that under certain circumstances (large scale battle) that the system would look at your positioning and recognize when you have moved into a formation and then based on the formation look at your skills to see what bonuses to apply to you.
For Example: A line of shield wielding characters followed by a couple wizards right behind them. This type of formation may grant the wizards bonus AC versus ranged attacks and bonus no to cast defensively (if there is such a mechanic) and grant bonus ac and attack to the fighters up front for working in unison. It is essentially granting them team work style feat bonuses based on their skills as a reward for holding formation, without forcing them to actually chose the team work feats.
This creates a more fluid idea of formations and would be interesting on the battlefield because you would be constantly weighing keeping your bonuses and holding formation against breaking formation because you feel your position is weaker than it would be without the formation because of the enemies battlefield position.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teamwork feats just work better. In teamwork feat it's a bonus that only works if an ally with the same feat is within your radius. In other words, if two chars with shielding teamwork feat stay within 10' of each other, they get the bonus.
I think, the formation system must solve a problem of uncontrolled confusing free-for-all battles.
Your idea doesn't solve this problem, because all players will just running around like big pile.
This creates a more fluid idea of formations and would be interesting on the battlefield because you would be constantly weighing keeping your bonuses and holding formation against breaking formation because you feel your position is weaker than it would be without the formation because of the enemies battlefield position.
i totally agree =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see, I'm unaware of TT rules. A quick search brings up some interesting ideas (shield wall, battle herald, outflank, coordinated maneuvers, allied spellcaster etc).
So
(1) One option is individuals working within each person's radius.
(2) Or if treating the unit as analogy to a large moving vehicle with different players operating different functions (eg speed, turning, weapons, defences etc)
Interesting.
Yup. It's all there. Teamwork feats for clerics/mages/archers/solidiers etc.
Making sure you are within each others radius takes practice to master but it's not something ridiculous like 10 players with different latencies trying to stay in a triangle amid the total chaos that is a mass MMO battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think (hope) what they are probably going to do is have a number of set formations for the leader of the group to chose from. This places a box, highlighted on the ground that each individual member of the group has to occupy in order to "be in formation". Boxes are added, determined automaticaly by the system based upon the number of players in the group.
The boxes move as the formation leader moves....formation movement will probably be alot slower then most players are used to in MMOS.
The number of players who are "IN FORMATION" (e.g. occupying thier boxes on each pulse) adds to the overal "formation cohesion". Each individual player fighting in the formation gets a combat bonus (probably a pretty significant one given the complexity/drawbacks involved) based upon the formations overall cohesion...different types of formations will add different types of bonuses. Ryan also mentioned something about players performing a specific action within the time pulse....so probably the players can perform some action that if registered within a set time pulse adds to the "formation cohesion".
The job of individual players is to maintain thier position within the formation (e.g. stay in the box) while performing whatever combat actions they normaly would. Players are free to break away from the formation at any point but they lose the formation bonus and don't contribute to the "formation cohesion"
This all assumes that there is something which makes the typical cirle-straff or jump-in, jump-out tactics that are prevalent in PvP in many MMO's not particularly effective in PFO against formations (and hopefully not particularly effective in PFO combat in general). My hope is that automatic AoO's for leaving a "threatened zone" in PFO, so a player that attempts the "circle-straffe" routiene ends up subjecting themselves to an increased number of attacks for doing so.
What that would mean would be that what melee players really want to do is engage and stick with target if they can fight that target (no AoO's) rather then running around like crazy bunnies hoping to attack and get out of the players attack range (or behind them) before the player could retaliate. It also makes positioning matter a bit more, even outside of formation combat....and means that the front line fighter doesn't simply get ignored in favor of the "squishes" because moving through the front line fighters threat zone to get at the squishy ACTUALY HURTS a good deal.
That sort of system also makes formations more workable, because an individual moving eraticaly and fast doesn't always prove an advantage.
For the ranged types, obviously they don't want to get engaged...but when they do, there is an actual price to pay in terms of moving out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's my take on it.
Paladin leader type guy has "Leadership" skill...that skill allows him to see different kinds of formations and their subsequent bonus's for all PC's that involved in the "Formation".
When he chooses a formation circles will appear on the ground in the formation desired. PC's will then be able to get into the circles to fill the formation to gain the benefit of said formation. It would only work with PC's you're "Teamed" up with.
At high level's of "Leadership" you would get larger formations. Think of it as starting out you're at "Squad" level, then you go up to "Platoon" level, then "Company" level. At each level you will see the circles, but only the one that is pertinent to your particular formation.
At Squad level the formation would be for the same number of people that can be "teamed up" (say max of 6 PC's). They would only see their circles. At Platoon level it would be for 4 Squads...so the Platoon Leader & Squad leaders could see the bigger circles on the ground for where their Squad's needed to be to fulfill the formation. At Company level the Company Leader and Platoon Leaders would see the even bigger circles for where their Platoon formations needed to go...etc ad nauseum.
And at each successive layer there's a stacked increase in the bonuses.
So at Squad level you could be in a Defensive formation getting an AC bonus, but at the Platoon level the formation is Offensive giving a bonus to your to hit & damage. So the Squad would geet both.
That make sense?
<Hehehe..Grumpymel and I posted the same idea at the same time...Kudo's to you , sir.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Introduction
Formation Combat has the potential to make large scale battles viable and fun. If designed correctly from the bottom up, server load can be drastically reduced and hundreds of people can be on the battlefield at the same time. What follows is what I envision for fomation combat.
...
Supurb post, Uthreth. Well done.
Recommendations:
Provide for the rogue who needs mobility to strike from the flank. This means your 'dot' UI needs to provide for individuals in th group who are expected to be mobile.
Remind those gloryhounds who protest that if they need to run around on their own that they still have the ability to break formation, but in doing so they will sacrifice the whole group's formation bonus. This means to include the recommendation that if a party member is in formation if he hits a movement button he will break formation. Soldiers in formation need focus only on their blocks and thrusts: the commander will maneuver.
The 'need' for flexibility is the need of a chaotic barbarian. Nothing intrinsically wrong with that, it just isn't formation combat. If they want to charge into the opposing line one at a time to prove their valor, the formation commander's best course is to choose more wisely next time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your idea doesn't solve this problem, because all players will just running around like big pile.
This is key. In fact, I'd say it would be a good thing to do for PFO combat in general.
Ryan mentioned before that most players don't like the idea of time dilation (i.e. actions not firing off as soon as you click them). So I think the real answer here is to make running around franticaly at top speed disadvantageous in combat....so players CAN do it, they just won't generaly WANT to do it. So the 3 things I can think of off the top of my head are:
- No attacking (melee, ranged or magic) while moving.
- Major Defensive penalties while moving (melee, ranged, magic)
- Automatic AoO's for moving out of an opponents "threatened zone"
That should voluntarly slow down movement WITHIN combat. Perhaps even better is that you remove said penalties while WALKING but apply them while RUNNING....so you still preseve some mobility in combat, it's just at a more measured/sane pace.
The only thing that might leave is the advantage in kiting for ranged combat characters (casters, archers). You could perhaps address that by adding in that it takes a few seconds to ready thier weapons/magic for usage after running...that at least means those casters have to figure the timing correctly and not cut things too close before they fall back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Reference matter: The value of formations is historical fact. Running around to demonstrate your independence end in loss, failure, and death. Self discipline and coordination leads to success, reward, and life.
Welcome to the army, boy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Teamwork feats would also work in dungeons. It works for groups of two and up so it's something you use in all activities of PFO.
I dunno, the AoE version is just SO much simpler than the stuff you guys are suggesting and it gives you pretty much the same dynamic. It forces a unit to stay close and move together just not in a pre-ordained shape or order. It gives the individual the freedom to actually move around and fight. It punishes those that break formation without punishing the ones that stayed (very important).
It's based on actual Pathfinder rules and best of all it's not a programming nightmare. Half of the suggestions in this thread sound really cool on the MB, but would be brutal to actually play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@avari3 - that is an interesting consideration, I agree. Simplicity and a form that reduces load on the server and involves player volition/ contribution all need to be in play - somehow.
One other way to conceptualise how formations should work is - delegation. So different zones of a unit perhaps those players are enlisted to deal with a particular function of the unit and so on??
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One part of me read the OP, and thought it was extremely cool. The rest of me cringed.
The first part came from a purely PvE standpoint. This could work well in PvE, even if it simplifies combat almost too much. Let's face it, when working in a group, chances are this sort of thing is going to happen anyways. Tanks to the front, casters behind. It's been a staple of MMO PvE since Everquest. What you're really doing here is sort of molding mechanics of an MMORPG into an RTS style of gameplay. Which is not bad in itself. Just awkward in some spots. Mostly from the standpoint of the commander.
Unless you're able to zoom yourself out so you have a view that's maybe 30 or 40 feet above your characters head, you're not going to be able to effectively see an entire battle at once. A third person zoomable camera could be put into the game, but it's something that I'd almost rather not see. Another problem would be actually keeping track of everything going on in a battle. You're going to have to watch everyone's health, everyone's magic pool (if there is one) along with their positions on the battlefield. And on top of that, keep track of what you yourself as the commander are doing. It's a lot of information to process. A lot of moving people around as little dots while watching a load of other health bars and where the enemy is. It's too much. I also feel it takes away from the skill of the individual player having any effect on a battle. If you're just sitting there mashing buttons while not in full control of your own character, it might even get boring.
But that's not to say the idea doesn't have merits. I'd rather see movement itself be given to the players completely, so that if they need to pull back they can, or adjust to fill a hole they can. Perhaps make the formation itself into some sort of big command aura. You stay within that command aura, you get the bonuses. You duck out, you don't.
Then there's the PvP side of me. The side of me that would never use this sort of mechanic. The problem with formations, even if you have a few different ones planned out ahead of time, is that they're too rigid. PvP (in most games) is all about adapting to your fight. Knowing when to ram everything you have into the few healers, or when to peel off and circle to a different target, or when to split up and go after different targets. It's nice to have one person calling out a single target, or objective, but the way each person goes about hitting it has to come from how their character works. And that's even another part of it. Since there's no defined class system in place, each person is going to be a bit different. No one will know their character as well as themselves. Direction in PvP is fine. But ceding any sort of control of one's character to another? No thanks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From what I recall the primary objective of formation combat is to give the server fewer object to keep track of. When they are talking about massive battles in a major war they want o be able to handle as many players as possible. Tracking the position of six or eight players by tracking only the formation commander would allow them to field actual armies of players simultaneously.
If only the commander uses his movement keys and ddecides when and where to move while his shieldmates just focus on blocking with shield, swinging their sword or mace, firing their longbow or casting their spell then there is still plenty for the players to do, plus they don't even have to watch where they are going. No getting in one another's way. And if the formations are in formations it gets to scale way up into the awesome region.
If everyone is charging off on their own out of formation you just have your basic server freezing Zerg. Confused horde versus coordinated soldiers is not really a contest.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I recall the primary objective of formation combat is to give the server fewer object to keep track of. When they are talking about massive battles in a major war they want o be able to handle as many players as possible. Tracking the position of six or eight players by tracking only the formation commander would allow them to field actual armies of players simultaneously.
If only the commander uses his movement keys and ddecides when and where to move while his shieldmates just focus on blocking with shield, swinging their sword or mace, firing their longbow or casting their spell then there is still plenty for the players to do, plus they don't even have to watch where they are going. No getting in one another's way. And if the formations are in formations it gets to scale way up into the awesome region.
If everyone is charging off on their own out of formation you just have your basic server freezing Zerg. Confused horde versus coordinated soldiers is not really a contest.
Actualy I don't recall them talking much about server resources. From what I remember Ryan was talking more about making combat look a bit closer to something out of Total War....then the typical MMO insane chaos frenzy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If everyone is charging off on their own out of formation you just have your basic server freezing Zerg. Confused horde versus coordinated soldiers is not really a contest.
You're also assuming that leaving people to actually move their own character, you'll have a confused horde. I've been a part of enough large groups that can work together that they'd never be called confused. Likewise, a bad commander can create a coordinated mess just as easily. Someone not familiar with the formation system, or who is just bad at it can still fail. It all depends on the leader.
From what I recall the primary objective of formation combat is to give the server fewer object to keep track of. When they are talking about massive battles in a major war they want o be able to handle as many players as possible. Tracking the position of six or eight players by tracking only the formation commander would allow them to field actual armies of players simultaneously.
I don't think it's really going to work that way. People's location will still have to be tracked. Weapon ranges and the like will matter when talking about locations. Same with spells and ranged weapons.
If only the commander uses his movement keys and ddecides when and where to move while his shieldmates just focus on blocking with shield, swinging their sword or mace, firing their longbow or casting their spell then there is still plenty for the players to do, plus they don't even have to watch where they are going. No getting in one another's way. And if the formations are in formations it gets to scale way up into the awesome region.
And what happens if your formation commander swings the formation just a little too wide so you can't block your shieldmate, or that you can't actually hit an enemy? I really think that putting everything for players on auto-pilot for movement leaves them with NOT enough to do. You SHOULD have to know where you're standing. You SHOULD have to watch out for your allies. Formations shouldn't be a hivemind. It should be a bonus for individuals working together.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From Goblinworks Blog: You're in the Army Now!:
Server Load
Generally speaking the ideas we've discussed in this blog represent no significant server load issues and may in fact reduce them somewhat.
Determining if a unit is or is not cohesive and is or is not taking cohesive action and to what degree that generates effects and Combat Power is a trivial amount of work. Having that happen in the context of a formation means it may actually be possible to reduce that load somewhat because the formation constraint makes it easy to eliminate a lot of cases where the unit has failed to maintain cohesion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be interested to hear more about how formations might influence the server load. It sounds to me like a fundamental place to start with any design of formations with respect to scaling battles towards larger & larger numbers of players and actions?
EVE, World of Tanks off the top of my head that I can think of the sorts of large numbers possibly envisioned for PFO. What about several armies (factions) of players clashing all at once, that's got to make things more complicated?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the first order question is whether or not cohesion is player action relative to a command, or relative to each other. As a very simple example:
1. In patrolling, you generally move in a modified column. You can project firepower outboard to the flanks, but are vulnerable to the front and rear.
2. If your patrol gets the jump on someone else and you go to a hasty ambush and get on line, the situation is reversed: you can project a lot of combat power to the front, but very little to the flanks, and very vulnerable to being flanked.
This is true regardless of what formation I as the PL call out.
That is, the benefits and drawbacks of a position are relative to the other members of the unit, not the commands/concepts of the leader.
One way to abstract the combat value of formations would be as the OP describes: unit leader calls out a formation, and the "job" of the members is to respond to the order.
The other way is to recognize what PCs in a group are doing relative to each other--for example if they are in a line, being able to project more power/defend better to the front. Whether and to what degree a given formation benefits the group would depend on the leader's skill: train in "Assault" and a line gives you combat multiplier facing forward, train in "Line" and you gain a defensive bonus to the front, etc.
The advantage of the latter system is precisely that it allows for initiative. If my unit responds to a threat from the flank fluidly and quickly--if we have a very fast OODA loop--the benefit is available to my unit instantly. Instead of waiting on commands, then executing them, the well-trained, experienced unit that has practiced what they will do over and over again, has a competitive advantage over less cohesive units.
I think (hope) what they are probably going to do is have a number of set formations for the leader of the group to chose from. This places a box, highlighted on the ground that each individual member of the group has to occupy in order to "be in formation". Boxes are added, determined automaticaly by the system based upon the number of players in the group.
The boxes move as the formation leader moves....formation movement will probably be alot slower then most players are used to in MMOS.The number of players who are "IN FORMATION" (e.g. occupying thier boxes on each pulse) adds to the overal "formation cohesion". Each individual player fighting in the formation gets a combat bonus (probably a pretty significant one given the complexity/drawbacks involved) based upon the formations overall cohesion...different types of formations will add different types of bonuses. Ryan also mentioned something about players performing a specific action within the time pulse....so probably the players can perform some action that if registered within a set time pulse adds to the "formation cohesion".
The job of individual players is to maintain thier position within the formation (e.g. stay in the box) while performing whatever combat actions they normaly would. Players are free to break away from the formation at any point but they lose the formation bonus and don't contribute to the "formation cohesion"
This all assumes that there is something which makes the typical cirle-straff or jump-in, jump-out tactics that are prevalent in PvP in many MMO's not particularly effective in PFO against formations (and hopefully not particularly effective in PFO combat in general). My hope is that automatic AoO's for leaving a "threatened zone" in PFO, so a player that attempts the "circle-straffe" routiene ends up subjecting themselves to an increased number of attacks for doing so.
What that would mean would be that what melee players really want to do is engage and stick with target if they can fight that target (no...
GrumpyMel, what about adding one of these 2 ideas to what your suggesting here. Taking the formation boxes that players stand in to fight. Movement seems pretty difficult to achieve, while maintaining formation anyway. There are two ways this could be made easier that came to me as I was reading your post.
One is that once the group is in position they automatically maintain that position moving when the leader moves, turning when he turns, similar to the /follow commands that some games have. So long as the players don't touch their movement controls they keep their formation and can fight, cast, block whatever. But they aren't locked into this position, like /follow they can simply touch their movement keys and they have complete control of their characters. If they hit The key by mistake all they need to do is get back in their box and remain within it for some set time, say 5 seconds, then they resume moving with the formation. This would eliminate people having to drill with their formation until they operate like a cohesive unit like the military used to do.
Another method, using the same example of a unit in formation needing to move 5 paces forward. The leader could either move forward 5 paces, or using his mouse click the ground where he desires the unit to move. Then the boxes that the players stand in would move 5 measured paces forward allowing the players to advance without having to watch the chat screen or look/listen for some sign of what they are supposed to do.
What do you think about these being added to formations as you describe them? I think sBeing and I are following similar lines of thought here, that's what I'm getting from what he's said.
What do you think about these being added to formations as you describe them? I think sBeing and I are following similar lines of thought here, that's what I'm getting from what he's said.Yep: As usual, Val, you understood me the way a hammer sinks a nail.
Ah well, at least I'm consistent ;). what do you think of these additions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Actually that addition makes perfect sense. It would relieve some of the tedium for the players trying to maintain a formation...but also allows them to break and reform if need be (like a strong flank attack threatening). The individual player's can reverse position in the formation without really breaking formation (shifting PC's from front to back to protect ranged PC's in the rear). Or Squad leaders can change the orientation of their Squad in relation to the Platoon and not really break formation.
That makes the BIG Guy in charge...in charge, but he doesn't determine facing etc of individual unit's or player's.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looks good to me, I think they're generally consistent with the little we do know, but then so could a half-dozen other systems I haven't thought of ;)
I do hope, if we are close to having the idea, that we get more tools than just six or eight blocks in line and column: formations like a phalanx, a wedge, a defensive star.
It would be good, too, to have something like a football lockerroom blackboard (probably whiteboard now) to go over playbooks we can create and save.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If my unit responds to a threat from the flank fluidly and quickly--if we have a very fast OODA loop--the benefit is available to my unit instantly.Yes, please!
It's what you and Ryan were getting at in in the Gnerational Warfare thread. What could be more boring, and farther from the point of cohesion, than an /autofollow box command?
I think the OODA loop is he key to mass combat. That's where the fun is, in my opinion.
And it addresses my concern over the social aspect of cohesion. An abstraction that makes cohesion mechanical--the equivalent of Rockband--is the lowest level and th eleast fun. But if cohesion is social and interactional--we are a fighting unit who are so close and tight we can work as one--that's something worth playing.
It's what you and Ryan were getting at in in the Gnerational Warfare thread. What could be more boring, and farther from the point of cohesion, than an /autofollow box command?
I suggested this with the thought of untrained, unpracticed Pug units in mind. A guild unit that's trained and worked together enough would have no need of such a tool. But eventually someone will be stuck leading groups of strangers, trying to get them into formations and keep them there. I guess that's.the difference between green troops and shock troops.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suggested this with the thought of untrained, unpracticed Pug units in mind. A guild unit that's trained and worked together enough would have no need of such a tool. But eventually someone will be stuck leading groups of strangers, trying to get them into formations and keep them there. I guess that's.the difference between green troops and shock troops.
It's what you and Ryan were getting at in in the Gnerational Warfare thread. What could be more boring, and farther from the point of cohesion, than an /autofollow box command?
Then they should (comparatively) suck and be decimated. If I gave you the 15 best civilian shooters in the US, I promise you any squad in 2/4 would cut them down most ricky-tick. Isn't that what we want from having a mass combat system as opposed to zerging?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps, down the road, if large nation-states in PfO can be overthrown or even crippled by a stateless force of seasoned veterens, then the game design will fail.
To prevent this potential a system must be made ready where that large state can field a credible military counter from its citizenry.
The formation system appears to be integral to that potential counter's core. It is a step toward risk management.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you trust your Leader? Formation combat would seem to only work if you trust your leader. If you can't trust the leader to make good decisions the unit is slower, hesitant, and at a sever disadvantage against an identical unit that does trust.
Do you trust the person on either side of you? Have you worked with the other members of the unit enough to trust that they will have your back within the formation? And do you trust them to follow orders in step with you following the same orders?
Training A unit needs to work together off the battlefield to make sure that they can trust each other and know the shortcut commands that make formation movement and reposition easier (and achievable).
Communication There will need to be some form of unit communication that allows easy (and most likely brief) communication from the leader to the unit, and from the individual members who need to make new information available to the leader. This communication should be subject to defeat by silence or similar spells. Fog cloud would also be effective against a small unit.
Massed fire The targeting of mass fire needs to be resolved.
Leadership Feats As has been said leadership skills could affect size of unit controlled, communication within the unit, tactics available to a particular formation, sophistication of formation and tactics, different formations, etc.
Teamwork Feats Teamwork feats are highly desirable by the individual unit members to support the member next to you. The leader has the units back but you have the back of the person next to you (and vice verse).
Observation and Orientation There needs to be some magic items that allow a leader an overview of the immediate situation. These will also need to have countermeasures.
Chartered Mercenary Companies What better place for characters to train together, learn tactics, develop communications structure, and raise up leaders can there be than a chartered mercenary company? Can you imagine the fees they could charge if they could prove their value as a fighting unit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be interested to hear more about how formations might influence the server load. It sounds to me like a fundamental place to start with any design of formations with respect to scaling battles towards larger & larger numbers of players and actions?
I don’t think that Formation Combat system should reduce the server load.
It’s much better to use Time Dilation system like in Eve, because the reducing of the server load requires a simplification. And simplification in general is a bad idea for battles.One is that once the group is in position they automatically maintain that position moving when the leader moves, turning when he turns, similar to the /follow commands that some games have. So long as the players don't touch their movement controls they keep their formation and can fight, cast, block whatever. But they aren't locked into this position, like /follow they can simply touch their movement keys and they have complete control of their characters. If they hit The key by mistake all they need to do is get back in their box and remain within it for some set time, say 5 seconds, then they resume moving with the formation. This would eliminate people having to drill with their formation until they operate like a cohesive unit like the military used to do.
I don’t agree with this conception.
Army is based on two principles:1) discipline
2) cohesion and mutual assistance
Army is a single organism, and if we add "automatically maintaining of position" we’ll destroy:
1) feeling of being part of this organism (satisfaction and fan)
2) difference between veteran and recruit
3) big piece of hardcore gaming. So the keeping of the formation will be boring.
These three points make formation system useless.
And that’s why I agree with Mbando.
I'd be interested to hear more about how formations might influence the server load. It sounds to me like a fundamental place to start with any design of formations with respect to scaling battles towards larger & larger numbers of players and actions?
I don’t think that Formation Combat system should reduce the server load.
It’s much better to use Time Dilation system like in Eve, because the reducing of the server load requires a simplification. And simplification in general is a bad idea for battles.One is that once the group is in position they automatically maintain that position moving when the leader moves, turning when he turns, similar to the /follow commands that some games have. So long as the players don't touch their movement controls they keep their formation and can fight, cast, block whatever. But they aren't locked into this position, like /follow they can simply touch their movement keys and they have complete control of their characters. If they hit The key by mistake all they need to do is get back in their box and remain within it for some set time, say 5 seconds, then they resume moving with the formation. This would eliminate people having to drill with their formation until they operate like a cohesive unit like the military used to do.I don’t agree with this conception.
Army is based on two principles:
1) discipline
2) cohesion and mutual assistanceArmy is a single organism, and if we add "automatically maintaining of position" we’ll destroy:
1) feeling of being part of this organism (satisfaction and fan)
2) difference between veteran and recruit
3) big piece of hardcore gaming. So the keeping of the formation will be boring.These three points make formation system useless.
And that’s why I agree with Mbando.
I guess I should have explained this initially.
I didn't suggest this to give everyone a crutch to make unit battles easier, nor eliminate the need to train and drill in formation fighting. I suggested it because there will be times when strangers will need to form ranks and fight. Say in the defense of a settlement, or if some rampaging horde seeking to overrun a large swath of land. Crafters, gatherers, various other paths that have never engaged in large battles but are forced into it now because they need every able body, it's now or never.
So a leader with decent skill could step in, take command and give these non-combatants a chance of saving their settlement. The leaders skill level could enable the box system as GrumpyMel described and I added to.
Or it could be that your settlements alliance is being threatened and volunteers flood in wanting to help fight for the noble cause. There are many instances where someone needs to lead untrained green troops into battle. I guess you guys would have them just get slaughtered? Also unit combat has never been done well in a MMO so the majority of people's only experience with large scale battles are arena brawls where everyone is fighting solo.
I joined a guild that already is planning on having drills and practice exercises to improve their skills and get used to working together, but not everyone will end up in a guild that does this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess I should have explained this initially.
Thanks for explanation, my English sometimes isn’t good enough for understanding difficult sentences.
Or it could be that your settlements alliance is being threatened and volunteers flood in wanting to help fight for the noble cause. There are many instances where someone needs to lead untrained green troops into battle. I guess you guys would have them just get slaughtered? Also unit combat has never been done well in a MMO so the majority of people's only experience with large scale battles are arena brawls where everyone is fighting solo.
I don’t agree with you. Ability of making formation and time of making formation is important parameters of armies.
And these parameters don’t depend on the mastery of the commander. They depend only on level of training of personnel. Even militiaman must be trained to working in formation. it is not an innate ability. This is what we must learn if we want to use it.That’s historically confirmed, logical and realistic. And of course non-combatant must not have that ability if he haven’t been trained.
I will give an example of table, which shows time of making the formation dependence on skill of personnel:
Time of making the formation-----------Name group of character
Unable to make any formation at all----non-combatant or solo fighter
10-20min(only on the training ground)--Beginner
10min----------------------------------Rookie or militiaman
5min-----------------------------------Soldier (among his brothers in arms)
2-3min---------------------------------Experienced soldier (among his brothers in arms)
0,5-1min-------------------------------Veteran (among his brothers in arms)
I wrote “(among his brothers in arms)” by the reason. Actions in a big group require knowledge of character's role in a group of fighters.
For example a veteran can not create a formation so quickly in an unfamiliar group.
I think that system can be realized someway. And I hope it will.
I joined a guild that already is planning on having drills and practice exercises to improve their skills and get used to working together, but not everyone will end up in a guild that does this.
It’s a pity that your guild has good neutral alignment, otherwise I would like to join it too =).