Goblin Squad Member
|
Not really a fan of the 'magical turbulence' idea, though I could see an element-specific temporary resistance, so you're better off using a variety rather than the same spell or same element over and over.
As to warning, I think it should work both ways. If there's a red circle as in Guild Wars 2, then the caster should also get a highlight on targets within that circle, whether they're friends, foes, NPCs, hidden, etc. If others can read the caster's mind to see the intended strike zone, then the caster should know all of the targets involved. If stealthed people can move into the AoE in order to flag the caster, then the spell becomes more trouble than it's worth in most environments and would primarily be limited to PvE dungeons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here's what I think:
This game is centered around war, in RL medieval war, you didn't sit back and fire single attacks, you fired giant rocks, flaming oil balls, or a volley of arrows. then once the lines get close enough to each other you break into melee combat to avoid killing your own men(most of the time). AoE attacks should be devastating and effective with a single target. If you throw a bomb next to someone, it should do descent damage, as should lighting a fire on the ground around them.
I HATE diminishing returns when it comes to BASE damage or healing, the only place I think it belongs is in crowd control and additional effects, because permalock is no fun, and being set on fire 5 times may make it worse, but the first application had the greatest effect.
The in-game justification for diminishing returns has a hole, it doesn't account for physical objects.
I don't think it is correct to say AoE is only good with 3 or more targets, maybe with a targeted explosion, but there are more types of aoe than that and they can come in different shapes and sizes. Every attack should more or less be equal, they may have different advantages, but in every attack with the same magnitude of advantage, the cost should be the same. What you end up with is single target attacks that do much higher damage or have much stronger effects than their AoE counterparts. I.E. Fireball deals 100 damage per target with a 5m radius, a more concentrated fireball witha 3m radius would deal 200 damage per target, a single target fire beam deals 500 damage to the target, and all of them cost the same.
Bomarding with AOE attacks should be how every fight starts, it's logical. Caravans shouldn't stand shoulder to shoulder while moving goods, they should spread out enough not to all die if they are bombarded.
AoE attacks should be more commonly used, there will always be a need for single target attacks. In Warhammer Online, I had my Bright Wizard(fire bomb AoE spike & dot) and my Shadow Hunter(long range archer), they had a system similar to what I described above, my brightwizard could put out a ton of damage, but my shadow hunter was the one that got the kills. AoE is easier to use, but single target attacks can take out specialized targets, and overwhelm healing effects.
As for DOT's and addition effects, they should simply re-apply when someone get hits again, and in the case of something like fire or acid, the additional 'stacks' should have diminishing returns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I honestly do not think that hitting someone whose presence was unknown to you merits any sort of alignment shift or penalty. That would never fly in a tabletop game, so why include it here?
This is what I was trying to say in my first post but couldn't find the right words. It can also be used to impose a penalty while the stealther can get a free kill and the mage's items (or even if the stealther happens to loses he can throw a death penalty on the mage) without any repercussions whatsoever since they technically got hit first. If this actually is an intentional thing that GW is expecting, got to say...not thrilled in the slightest.
It feels like exploiting the game mechanics to put the mage in an no win situation whatsoever that he potentially had no way to avoid (especially if he is just out killing npcs) simply because he uses an area spell.
The in-game justification for diminishing returns has a hole, it doesn't account for physical objects.
The IN-game justification is completely consistent: MAGICAL Turbulence leads to diminishing returns for MAGICAL AoE's.
I previously wrote that on an OUT-of-game balance basis, non-magical AoEs should reasonably have diminishing returns as well....But perhaps they can be balanced by other means, having lower damage but being spammable is one approach.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If one of the concerns about "friendly fire" is reputation/bounty, perhaps players should be allowed to negate some bounties. By "player," I mean the injured party. So if you drop a fireball and that generates 50 bounty (or whatever) for player X who cast the spell, Player W has the ability to issue a negation for that bounty. This way, you could allow for friendly fire, a party member could still attack another party member with purpose and gain negative notoriety for doing so, but you have a way out if the act was not malicious.
I honestly loathe everything about this blog. Friendly fire and diminishing returns on AoE... I don't think these things have a place in an MMO. Having a 300 to 500(that's .3 to .5 seconds to communicate with the server and have the info returned to your comp) ping isn't unusual depending on where you play from and what kind of internet setup you have access to. While I'm a pretty stereotypical computer geek and usually run with less than 70 ping, a half a second is FOREVER in pvp. Friendly fire is going to make a lot of people miserable.
I really like it in PRGP. It makes a lot of sense there. It's pretty easy to use AoE spells creatively when you have a few minutes before your turn to plan, and even easier when you know the spells your party uses so you can maneuver yourself to give your sorcerer/wizard a cleaner 'field of fire'. In an MMO, you have to make these decisions on the spur of the moment and you probably won't be playing with the exact same group every time like you do in tabletop. When you add in the chance of a stealthed, undetectable player using it to grief other players... I just think it's a bad idea. REAL bad. Maybe gamebreakingly bad. I guess we'll see.
The diminishing returns thing also annoys me a lot. This should only be an issue if spell casters can toss spells indefinitely, or if everyone can cast like a sorcerer. If you're required to memorize spells, this is much less of a problem. My initial reaction to it is just as negative as my reaction to friendly fire. I'll have to think about it some more. I guess I can see their point, since it's an open skill system. Some kind of limit has to be put on it or you'll have every high level character studying magic until they can cast fireball just so they can help to AoE nuke the unsuspecting enemy.
Maybe it's the mechanic. A 'forced' mechanic, made up specifically to deal with something is still 'forced'. It just 'feels' bad to me right now. I suppose I can understand the need for it, but it sort of feels like using a jackhammer to drive a nail. I guess I've just come to expect more elegant solutions from Pathfinder. The permadeath solution felt much more elegant to me - Pharasma has a lot to do with it, and it ties into in game things that are going on.
Bleah. This is the first thing I've read in the GW blogs that I wasn't instantly in love with. :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not really happy.
This on top of the last few. Dunno if I'll be playing.
We'll see what crowdforging does...
Crowdforging won't be a solution if you don't provide information about what problem you see in what has been described.
If you tell the doctor 'I am in pain' and nothing else what chance has the doctor to help? Saying 'I have a pain in my foot' will at least inform the doctor to have a look at your foot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will get the attacker flag for attacking your intended target anyway. Even if it is flagged, the attacker flag is for all combat... anywhere, any time. When we log off, the automatic shift is to Lawful, unless you turn that off.
Not true. You would not gain the attacker flag for attacking someone who is flagged. You would not get the attacker flag if the group you're targeting with the AoE had already attacked you. You would not get the attacker flag if you had a voluntary PVP flag and were working with its restrictions (a Champion attacking Evil, Bandits attacking after a SAD).
I agree, the chaotic alignment shift for Attacker is not really that big of a deal, though. The problem I see is the potential for abuse. Have one sneaky member of the party duck into another groups fireball. Now the unwitting party is flagged attacker. Gank freely.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem I see is the potential for abuse. Have one sneaky member of the party duck into another groups fireball. Now the unwitting party is flagged attacker. Gank freely.
OK... Let me plot this scenario out.. bear with me, I will be walking down the "Path of Ridiculousness" heading to the "Land of Not Likely Going to Happen."
I am the stealthy guy.
I stealth my way into a horde of 20 Goblins, and hope that I pass 20 x perception rolls to do it.
OMG, I did it.... Now I just have to hope, someone comes along....
Waiting...Hoping...Waiting....Hoping...
Crap... 20 x Perception checks...... OMG! Still stealthy!!
Waiting... An Adventure's party!!! I see!!
I hope they notice this group of Goblins....Hope....Wait...
Good, they see them....I hope they have a Magic User....
Oh yeah, one with a freaking fire ball.... waiting... hoping..
He has one!!...I hope he drops it on me... I know he has almost 7 groups of 3 to choose from, but I'm right in the center
BLAST!!!! Yes I have the flag!!!!!
Wait... Now I'm down by 40% hit points and my ass is on fire... I'm surrounded by 10 Goblins with their asses on fire, and they are upset.
I hope that the Gobs don't turn on the closest target, ME!!
Waiting... Hoping... Dead!
I mean not to mock too much, and Dario this response was not spontaneous, just waiting for your post. I had this response in my head since last night. Your post was just the most recent to express this concern.
People, that is a whole lot of waiting and hoping to get a flag to freely attack your group, when I can freely attack your group under the Outlaw flag anyway.
If anyone does this "exploit" as you call it, report them but also inform them that they are stupid and can enable an Outlaw Flag to do the same thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean not to mock too much, and Dario this response was not spontaneous, just waiting for your post. I had this response in my head since last night. Your post was just the most recent to express this concern...
So you were stealthily hiding right in the center of the argument waiting, hoping, for a posting party to come along with a Dario so you could get him to flag himself, eh?
The man is... nefarious.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the objections to the diminishing returns of the AOE:
I know not all of the same people are expressing the same reservations about the same things, but this is something I see as odd, as a community.
GW has stated that they want to reduce the potential of massive alpha strikes with AOE, particulrly coordinated multiple strikes, so that an entire party can not be instantly killed, without any active defense, because that is unfun for the victim(s).
For those that follow my record of posting, the bold typed pieces will clue you in where I am going with this.
"Assassins can't have Critical Backstab damage because that is instant kill"
"Thieves can not have Pick Pocketing, because that can't be actively defended."
"Any form of instant death or sole reliance on passive defense is unfun for the victim"
But.... Its O.K. for a group of Magic Users to NUKE! an entire party! Boy, won't that be fun for the victims?
Can we please try to have some consistency?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I mean not to mock too much, and Dario this response was not spontaneous, just waiting for your post. I had this response in my head since last night. Your post was just the most recent to express this concern...So you were stealthily hiding right in the center of the argument waiting, hoping, for a posting party to come along with a Dario so you could get him to flag himself, eh?
The man is... nefarious.
No, I was actually sleeping from between 2:00 AM to about 7:30 AM. I'm on vacation, so there no telling when I may strike!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the objections to the diminishing returns of the AOE:
I know not all of the same people are expressing the same reservations about the same things, but this is something I see as odd, as a community.
GW has stated that they want to reduce the potential of massive alpha strikes with AOE, particulrly coordinated multiple strikes, so that an entire party can not be instantly killed, without any active defense, because that is unfun for the victim(s).
For those that follow my record of posting, the bold typed pieces will clue you in where I am going with this.
"Assassins can't have Critical Backstab damage because that is instant kill"
"Thieves can not have Pick Pocketing, because that can't be actively defended."
"Any form of instant death or sole reliance on passive defense is unfun for the victim"
But.... Its O.K. for a group of Magic Users to NUKE! an entire party! Boy, won't that be fun for the victims?
Can we please try to have some consistency?
I don't have a problem with diminishing returns by itself as a limiting mechanic. And 'magical turbulence' seems a novel idea to explain that limitation. I do have a problem with the combination of AOE nerfs when it's already subject to that limitation. Remember, the blog ALSO proposes letting everyone see the ground (hopefully 3D!) targeting, friendly fire with attendant rep/alignment repurcussions and a longer casting animation to allow for spell interruption. Why spell AOE should be singled out from the get-go for this much nerfing seems to me inconsistent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no problem at all with friendly fire. I find your fireball being able to differentiate between targets in the same AoE far harder to swallow. I think such spells should be used with discretion.
I'm still on the fence about it's potential for abuse. Waiting for those with far more PvP experience to hash this out.
A related question - I have seen at least one poster bring up multiple target melee attacks. I will toss missile fire into the mix. Many games have archers using skills where they are able to shoot many arrows at once to hit multiple targets in an area. Would something like this be handled the same way? What about line-of-sight single shots...can someone get in the way of your target and be hit with your friendly fire?
I seem to be asking a lot of "what ifs" lately...hope they help promote discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If...there is a concept of diminishing returns associated with magical AOE...AND there is friendly fire with concurrent alignment/rep permutations...AND any bozo in the world can see where AOE is targeting beforehand...AND AOE spells take longer to cast and are easier to interrupt...what the heck does Goblinworks have against evokers? A staple of D&D, Pathfinder, MMOs, and lovers o' magic everywhere? Apparently the devs think AOE has the potential to be REALLY overpowered and needs to be REALLY nerfed.
The big difference between PfO and TT in regards to AoE is the Vancian resource limitation of the level-relative 'big' AoE in TT.
You can't chain-cast Fireballs in TT due simply to the limited number of uses you get per day. If you go with the as-designed four combats per rest period, even at 9th level I only get one 3rd level fireball per combat in TT! You could always use wands and such to spam it a bit more, but it is a pretty expensive proposition until you are high enough level that your enemies pretty much shrug off Fireballs anyway.Since PfO will not use Vancian magic, there must be some limitation on the power of AoE spells. I love that AoE are the "nuclear option" spells in TT, but they are only pulled out when appropriate since they are precious resources at that point in the game. To give them the same relative power in PfO and then allow them to be cast-at-will would be bad design.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not really happy.
This on top of the last few. Dunno if I'll be playing.
We'll see what crowdforging does...Crowdforging won't be a solution if you don't provide information about what problem you see in what has been described.
If you tell the doctor 'I am in pain' and nothing else what chance has the doctor to help? Saying 'I have a pain in my foot' will at least inform the doctor to have a look at your foot.
I may agree that there's no point.
There have been pages and pages of why friendly fire in an MMO is a bad idea, from in-game RP repurcussions to techincal difficulties.It's been hashed to death, but they're still going with it.
Diminishing returns on AOEs is silly, and the friendly fire is in melee, but not for magic spells...explain the logic. A guy swinging a big twohander can somehow avoid hitting people he doesn't intend to but magic can't?
B@%@$$~s.
Between this, the flagging, the alignment and reputation stuff, it's clear that this 'sandbox' will not cater to varied playstyles, and quite the opposite, will only cater to a few select playstyles.
It just doesn't sound fun anymore.
I'm not mad that I pledgeed money, that was done to support Ryan and Lisa, Paizo and GW. I don't regret that decision at all.
I just may not count myself amongst PFO's players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, I shouldn't just complain and not offer a solution :). I say try magical turbulence and FF and leave it at that. A hidden or stealthing caster could be spotted in the same way as anyone else and be subject to those rules. There's just no good reason anyone can read a casters' mind about where she/he targets a spell. Also, don't make AOE any harder to cast than other magic. Thus both the problem of stacking AOE damage is dealt with and both sides in the combat must react with teamwork to mitigate AOE damage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree Sepherum, no targeting circles (for the wizard or the opponent.) Just a targeting point and you'd best have a good idea of what 30' looks like before you cast. This is supposed to be a skill-based game. Since AoE takes the least amount of skill then we should take away all of the training-wheels (like targeting templates.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I, too, think the targetting circles should not be visible. Possibly it should be visible for the caster to simulate judgement and experience but even there either the accuracy of the targetting ring or its stability should vary with the caster's skill and power. A very accomplished mage should find his control and power simplicity itself in light of his mastery, but a novice should be challenged to control the power he or she wields.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I, too, think the targetting circles should not be visible. Possibly it should be visible for the caster to simulate judgement and experience but even there either the accuracy of the targetting ring or its stability should vary with the caster's skill and power. A very accomplished mage should find his control and power simplicity itself in light of his mastery, but a novice should be challenged to control the power he or she wields.
I agree. I don't think there should be any warning signs like red circles in the ground to notify everyone except for maybe those that have slotted spellcraft skills etc. Of course those persons could warn others on chat, which in my opinion is an interesting idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Generally, I like the concepts put forth in the blog. Here are my thoughts on some specifics:
1. Friendly fire should definitely be included. Latency and lag are issues that need to be factored in, but shouldnt be the reason for removing friendly fire. This game has always been promoted as being mature and in the spirit of PF PnP. Using actual tactics rather than 'aoe the tank' is a big part of that. I think itll differentiate skilled players if its used correctly.
2. Paladins and rep loss from AoE: How often will a paladin be throwing around a fireball indiscriminately? Even if they can slot a fireball + Smite Evil, if theyre using an AoE spell indiscriminately, then theyre not really acting like a paladin and any collateral damage should definitely count against their 'Paladin Code'. GW have stated that they are still considering how melee AoE attacks work (e.g. Whirlwind) so its quite possible that those wont be any issue for aligned classes.
3. AoEs should not be putting large circles on the ground. This is not a twitch response game. Targeting is likely to be difficult as is (assuming FF is included). I think thats likely to provide enough of a balancing factor once you take into account saves, spell resistance and abilities like evasion. At most, perhaps party members can see where your fireball is going (explained as communication with the mage) and get out of the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If...there is a concept of diminishing returns associated with magical AOE...AND there is friendly fire with concurrent alignment/rep permutations...AND any bozo in the world can see where AOE is targeting beforehand...AND AOE spells take longer to cast and are easier to interrupt...what the heck does Goblinworks have against evokers? A staple of D&D, Pathfinder, MMOs, and lovers o' magic everywhere? Apparently the devs think AOE has the potential to be REALLY overpowered and needs to be REALLY nerfed.The big difference between PfO and TT in regards to AoE is the Vancian resource limitation of the level-relative 'big' AoE in TT.
You can't chain-cast Fireballs in TT due simply to the limited number of uses you get per day. If you go with the as-designed four combats per rest period, even at 9th level I only get one 3rd level fireball per combat in TT! You could always use wands and such to spam it a bit more, but it is a pretty expensive proposition until you are high enough level that your enemies pretty much shrug off Fireballs anyway.Since PfO will not use Vancian magic, there must be some limitation on the power of AoE spells. I love that AoE are the "nuclear option" spells in TT, but they are only pulled out when appropriate since they are precious resources at that point in the game. To give them the same relative power in PfO and then allow them to be cast-at-will would be bad design.
Yeah, Micco, I should have proposed a solution in the same post. It's true that in TT even a sorcerer with high charisma can maybe blow up a combat or two per day...then be pretty useless until the next day. Now, I assume that casting a fireball would use up most of a casters' 6 seconds worth of endurance or energy or whatever it's going to be called-but that's still not much of a limitation. I was calling into question the sum total of nerfs proposed for AOE spells. All taken together, except for specific pve situations, why would you bother? Keep magical turbulence. Keep FF which makes sense to me on the face of it. Eliminate visible targeting. Don't make AOE any more interruptable than other spells. On the first hit, all things being equal, say that max damage would be 40% of health plus attendant effects (burn,stun,knockdown,etc.) modified/possibly negated by buffs, resistances, saves, what have you. The MT flag then applies. Damage is automatically halved and no additional attendant effects. A second tick on the flag halves damage again, then a third tick grants full immunity to AOE for a full 6 second round. By this time everyone should have moved, dispersed, be counterattacking anyway. Note that even if you just stand there like a bozo and don't save or resist you would still have 30% health after the third round and perhaps be knocked back or something if the attacker had those options and spammed AOE. You would also be immune to all AOE for the next 6 seconds. When you then lose the MT flag the combat in earnest should be in full swing and going back to AOE shouldn't be profitable to either side; but that's up to the tactics of either side. Note that per the blog stacking AOE doesn't get around the above proposed system-the mechanics determine the order of AOE hits and you just reach each successive tick faster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf, I absolutely agree with you that mages alphanuking a party into oblivion is no more acceptable than assassins alpha-backstabbing a prty into oblivion. I like to think I'm consistant in objecting to anything that doesn't give the defender a chance to, well, defend.
As for the scenario you described, let me try this alternative.
Two parties intersect in the woods, they look each other over, and part peacefully. Party A is secretly fairly confident they can take Party B, and enjoys causing problems for other people. They turn around and follow party B at a distance, sending their sneakydude in closer.
Party B comes across a group of six goblins. Party B's mage says to himself. "Gee, a bunch of lesser opponents. This seems like the ideal time for an AoE. Let me look around. Nope, I don't see anyone." And begins the long casting time of his AoE that was discussed in the blog.
Seeing the mage begin to cast, and his allies hanging back a moment, Party A's sneakydude ducks toward the enemies. He's only got to get close enough to get clipped by the AoE. The enemies might spot him, but even if they do, will the mage's party? If they do, will the mage pick up on it in time to cancel his spell (Assuming such is possible) to avoid clipping the guy actively trying to dive into the area?
The mage doesn't notice (or can't abort the spell in time) and clips the sneakydude. Now Party B is fighting the goblins *and* Party A. Party A focuses single target attacks on Party B so as not to draw the goblin's wrath. Party B goes down, and Party A is just left to mop up the goblins and collect their loot, smug in the satisfaction that they've shifted Party toward Chaotic, and if any of them went down in the fight, Party B is now more evil, has lost rep, and the deceased can now issue bounties to their buddies to give them excuse to kill Party B some more.
Less unreasonable?
Back to the discussion at hand, I agree that targeting circles should not be visible to anyone but the caster. The caster should probably get at least a general area, if not necessarily a pixel-precise target. Maybe a color block that starts out solid at the centerpoint and fades to the outside, making the exact determination of the terminus difficult in the heat of battle.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Overall I like the ideas presented in this blog. The magical turbulence is a novel way to handle a sticky issue in mmos.
As for the edge cases like a fireball striking a hidden neutral character. I'm not really a fan of the Attacker flag resulting in an automatic chaotic shift if the caster doesn't know the victim was there. There should be an attacker flag set, regardless of if the attack was intentional, but not the alignment shift.
As for things like mundane AOE, Friendly Fire, and Diminishing Returns I think it should mechanically work the same way. If the paladin is going to go ape with a whirlwind attack and his pals are in the way, they're gonna get smacked too. If there are multiple people executing AOE attacks, mundane, or magical, ranged or melee, those attacks are going to interfere with each other (swords hitting each other, targets dodging one attack and inadvertently dodging another, someone twisting away from one attack and getting hit by another, but at an angle where the damage is not as severe, etc) and diminish their overall effectiveness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see here one logical consequence of magical turbulence concept - diminishing returns must be valid for all involved parties. Magic didn't tell friend from foe. So clerical channeling also must be diminished in the next few rounds. This heightens the value of AoE bombardment considerably.
But I can live with that.
That's cool. Didn't think of that. But multiple limitations should offer multiple chances for tactical choices, which makes for a more interesting game. Or as Oberyn said, 'mature'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I, too, think the targetting circles should not be visible. Possibly it should be visible for the caster to simulate judgement and experience but even there either the accuracy of the targetting ring or its stability should vary with the caster's skill and power. A very accomplished mage should find his control and power simplicity itself in light of his mastery, but a novice should be challenged to control the power he or she wields.
An interesting skill path to train for an evoker-precision AOE.
Just to mention the tabletop context, AoEs like Fireballs don't distinguish between friend and foe, while common non-magical melee 'AoEs' like Great Cleave, Whirlwind, etc., DO distinguish between them. GW has already stated that the melee ones are more difficult/situational to set up, and tend to have less enemies in the area, so for balance they don't think the same limitations should apply. I've mentioned up-thread how some magical AoE buffs/de-buffs may make sense to NOT use the friendly fire system, but it can be decided on a per-case basis how to treat each ability... Generally speaking though, I would expect magical effects Evoking destructive energies into an area to be prone to FF, as they are in the tabletop game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel the same rules should hold for melee, frankly. If a master swordsman can easily weave his blade to strike foe and spare friend, an inexperienced recruit should have a care lest he cut his own foot off. A novice archer may tremble and strain to draw his greatbow and misses his mark often. The neophyte stumbletongue may have difficulty setting the correct range for his recently learned fireball where the Archmage casts effortlessly and unerringly.
But few indeed are so wise as to see where the strike will go before it is already on the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to mention the tabletop context, AoEs like Fireballs don't distinguish between friend and foe, while common non-magical melee 'AoEs' like Great Cleave, Whirlwind, etc., DO distinguish between them. GW has already stated that the melee ones are more difficult/situational to set up, and tend to have less enemies in the area, so for balance they don't think the same limitations should apply. I've mentioned up-thread how some magical AoE buffs/de-buffs may make sense to NOT use the friendly fire system, but it can be decided on a per-case basis how to treat each ability... Generally speaking though, I would expect magical effects Evoking destructive energies into an area to be prone to FF, as they are in the tabletop game.
Pathfinder also has a decent number of pseudo-AoEs where Friendly Fire may not be appropriate. Spells that target with phrases "One creature per level, no two of which are more than 30' apart." Spells like Horrid Wilting, Mass Inflict Light Wounds, and Weird come to mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Being. I don't care how skilled you are with that huge sword - if you swing it in a circle, and both your opponents and your friend are in that circle, they're all getting whacked (unless they successfully parry, evade, etc.).
Most of the discussion thus far has been about accidentally hitting your own party (likely your CC mates or at least members of the same settlement) - people who will most likely forgive you for FF damage. But I wonder how this will play out with allied settlements, especially those with tenuous alignments? Think of the potential repercussions of your poorly timed/aimed fireball should those tenuously aligned allies be injured or killed. And don't get me wrong, I'm not asking to nerf FF for fear of this happening...I like the possibility of conflict arising as the natural consequence of in-game action.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stephen,
The mechanic sounds really good and workable. In terms of alignment and reputation hits for unintentional freindly targets (hidden or just bad timing)..... I'd suggest a mechanism whereby the damaged target is given the option to "forgive" the attackers attack, if they wish. I'd suggest this mechanism exist IN GENERAL for alignment/reputation hits caused by "hostile" actions. I think it would help address many other corner cases in conflict such as "duels" or "combat training" where the individuals are using thier weapons against the target with the targets permission. That would mean that would also reduce alot of the immediate pressure for designing special mechanics to handle such things, as the players would simply "forgive" each other.
Note that it still doesn't take away the sting/negatives from careless casters....as "forgive" is entirely at the discretion of the target, they don't have to do it if they felt the attacker was being uneccesarly reckless....and, of course, it still means that your own sides combat power is reduced in conflict situations...as "forgive" simply removes the alignment/rep consequences for hitting a freindly NOT the damage itself. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stephen,
The mechanic sounds really good and workable. In terms of alignment and reputation hits for unintentional freindly targets (hidden or just bad timing)..... I'd suggest a mechanism whereby the damaged target is given the option to "forgive" the attackers attack, if they wish. I'd suggest this mechanism exist IN GENERAL for alignment/reputation hits caused by "hostile" actions. I think it would help address many other corner cases in conflict such as "duels" or "combat training" where the individuals are using thier weapons against the target with the targets permission. That would mean that would also reduce alot of the immediate pressure for designing special mechanics to handle such things, as the players would simply "forgive" each other.
Note that it still doesn't take away the sting/negatives from careless casters....as "forgive" is entirely at the discretion of the target, they don't have to do it if they felt the attacker was being uneccesarly reckless....and, of course, it still means that your own sides combat power is reduced in conflict situations...as "forgive" simply removes the alignment/rep consequences for hitting a freindly NOT the damage itself. YMMV.
Perhaps when one joins a party (as per the 'Looking For Group' blog) you would be given a 'forgiveness' flag option for damage. Of course, if there's a viper among you...but that would be one interesting risk you take and the reason we have a 'betrayer' flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem here is abuse, and at a certain point you just have to accept that it is going to happen. It will turn into something like DRM, it ends up causing more trouble for honest players.
AOE has to be in the game, it is a huge part of combat, especially large scale combat. In a large battle, a good chunk of enemies should be taken down with large powerful AOE attacks(most likely from seige engines)
I can see merits for having full-FF in the game, but it opens the door to much more abuse than non-FF, or selective-FF. You have magic as an explanation for anything, so you can really do anything. I suggest having selective FF that is disabled by default. You get a toggle called 'intent' that allows you do damage other non-flagged players. You can easily say that some god has blessed everyone making it so they cannot harm each other without expressing the will to do so, and I find that no more lore-breaking than PvP flags, and soul binding.
AoE where you have to carefully plan its placement is for the tabletop, where you have a good chunk of time to assess the outcome, can easily see what is in your target-area, and another character is not going to glitch across your target-area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Interference" of spells: Reminded me of my old physics lessons: Interference (wave propagation)
It's solid concept/lore reason for magic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Interference" of spells: Reminded me of my old physics lessons: Interference (wave propagation)
It's solid concept/lore reason for magic.
So with good timing people could make their attacks more powerful!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How would the system detect a stealthed character, and accurately proclaim he purposefully got caught in an AOE attack?
Maybe the stealthed character was stalking the same group of goblins, when the wizard came along?
Maybe the stealthed character was setting the trap for the wizard?
I don't understand how the system will detect motive. Even you can't do that, unless you are familiar with this particular character having done this before.
One of the best solutions I have read so far is the "Forgiveness" option. If you accidently hit an friendly, they can choose to let it go, or hold the grudge. If it is a neutral character to yourself, then he may do the same, but would probably demand some form of compensation.
If you end up with an uninetended attacker flag, that will sometimes happen. If you are a generally good aligned charcater, you will be able to recover quickly from the small alignment / reputation hit anyway.
Perhaps GW needs to rethink its Alignment / Reputation system, since it is causing more fear than death itself in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the simple solution is if you are stealthed then if you get caught in an AOE your attacker does not gain the attacker flag vs you. Intent is irrelevant, but the fact that your are stealthed is known on the server. While stealthed you cannot be targeted via direct attacks, so if you happen to get caught in an AoE it is no ones fault but your own, as AoE users literally have no idea you are there. It doubly shuts down flag abuse, and makes it more dangerous to run around a battlefield while invisible. Both if witch are desirable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system doesn't need to detect intent. It should not apply penalties for hitting someone you didn't know was there. If the person is stealthed, and possibly for a second or so after coming out of it, hitting them with an AoE does not produce the attacker flag (unless you get it already for some other reason). I suggest a second or so after so that someone doesn't get around it by unstealthing as the fireball flies toward them. Now, if the stealthed character becomes visible and the caster keeps AoEing or attacking them, then absolutely slap them with all the appropriate penalties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How would the system detect a stealthed character, and accurately proclaim he purposefully got caught in an AOE attack?
Maybe the stealthed character was stalking the same group of goblins, when the wizard came along?
Maybe the stealthed character was setting the trap for the wizard?
I don't understand how the system will detect motive. Even you can't do that, unless you are familiar with this particular character having done this before.
One of the best solutions I have read so far is the "Forgiveness" option. If you accidently hit an friendly, they can choose to let it go, or hold the grudge. If it is a neutral character to yourself, then he may do the same, but would probably demand some form of compensation.
If you end up with an uninetended attacker flag, that will sometimes happen. If you are a generally good aligned charcater, you will be able to recover quickly from the small alignment / reputation hit anyway.
Perhaps GW needs to rethink its Alignment / Reputation system, since it is causing more fear than death itself in PFO.
Yeah, I think any time you use an untargeted attack, you are going to have to accept that there is some level of risk involved. However, frankly I don't see it as a particularly great deal for the "stealther", you probably just lost stealth, you are injurred and in close proximity to hostiles yourself....and you've probably just PO'd the wizard who at this point probably doesn't have much compunction NOT to mess with you further, if he thought you did it purposefully. I'd have to figure there's got to be an easier way to wreck someones day then that....like waiting for someone to use up all thier manna on multiple hostiles and then jump out of hiding to attack them? YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mel, it's not a great deal for the stealther that just ate a fireball. It's a great deal for his half dozen buddies hiding in the woodline who come out and rock the caster now that he's flagged. Clipping someone who's stealthed with an AoE is, at best, an accident on both parts, and at worst a deliberate action on the part of the stealthed character. Punishing the caster and not the stealthed character doesn't make much sense. The only way it makes any sense at all is if someone else saw through the stealth, but the caster didn't, and they told the caster where the stealthed person was. Which is something they're already trying to figure out how to deal with in the stealth system.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clipping someone who's stealthed with an AoE is, at best, an accident on both parts, and at worst a deliberate action on the part of the stealthed character.
Just doing a drive by on the thread because there's information you don't know that might change this opinion :) .
There will almost certainly be cantrip AoEs that do less damage than Spells, but can be used far more often. So it might be possible to depth charge for Stealthed characters (e.g., "I think there's a Rogue over there, but his Stealth is way too high, someone drop a few AoEs over there"), which would totally be intentional on the part of the caster.
And that seems like something that's at least as likely to happen as Stealth-based characters trying to get in on an AoE to flag the caster.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So it might be possible to depth charge for Stealthed characters (e.g., "I think there's a Rogue over there, but his Stealth is way too high, someone drop a few AoEs over there"), which would totally be intentional on the part of the caster.
The problem revolves around stealthed characters intentionally forcing another character to unwittingly flag themselves by standing where they expect that character to cast an AoE.
It's not really possible for a character using AoE cantrips to depth charge for stealthed characters to force those stealthed characters to unwittingly flag themselves.
If the AoE caster is intentionally trying to discover a nearby stealthed character, then they're almost certainly going to do something else to that character once they're no longer stealthed. That's the right time for the flag to apply.
IMO.