Goblinworks Blog: I Fell into a Burning Ring of Fire


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

If 7 wizards are dropping 7 different AOE spells at one time, they should be able to Nuke! An entire party.

No matter how hard GW tries to eliminate the 1shot, players will just form larger groups in order to archive it. The 1-shot is a legitimate military tactic, especially in large scale warfare.

How will they stop the AOE combination of magic and catapult fire, simultaneously brought down on the same clustered group as part of an alpha strike?

I hope GW doesn't try too hard to gimp good tactics and execution, in order to protect less organized groups from their own lack of preparation, tactics and or execution.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
@ Jiminy: Okay, I can buy that Bludd was being sarcastic.

Sorry Being. I posted and then saw that Bluddwulf had beaten me with his reply saying exactly what he meant, so I deleted my post.

Goblin Squad Member

There's something very unsatisfying about these solutions, and I expect the devs feel the same way.

1. Because the game systems are designed to identify the Attacker, and subject him to certain consequences, it's important that the game be able to correctly identify the Attacker when it comes to AoEs and Stealth/Invisibility.

2. If there is a valid reason to stop a party of 7 Wizards from being able to Alpha Strike an entire party, is there also a valid reason to stop a party of 7 Wizards from being able to Alpha Strike an individual character? What's going to stop 7 Rangers from being able to Alpha Strike an entire party?

Goblin Squad Member

My overall concern with the AOE (and alignment/rep and flagging) system, as laid out by GW so far, is that they seem fairly complicated. Generally the more complicated a system, the more difficult it is to get working as intended.

All of these issues have been discussed in a fair bit of detail already, but here are some tentative personal preferences with regard to the AOE design in light to the latest blog:

1. Friendly fire

I have no problem with the basic concept of AOE hitting everyone within the area of impact at the time the spell/skill goes off. I would, however, prefer at least the possibility of certain divine spells to be a little more selective as far as hitting friends or foes goes (it just does not seem right that if I would invoke the wrath of my god to strike down the evildoers, my LG friends would get the same treatment -unless to gods know something I do not). Obviously such selective AOE would need to be balanced (lower DPS/other downside) against undiscriminating AOE.

2. Attacker flag

I am fine with being flagged as an attacker if I unwittingly drop down AOE on someone, whether they were stealthed or just managed to run into my all consuming fire at the moment it went off. After all I did attack them and therefore they should be able to deal with me without consequences (and take whatever I am carrying as compensation for the bodily harm).

3. Alignment/rep hit

If and when hitting anyone (but my primary offensive target) with AOE is going to impose an alignment/rep hit on me, I would prefer such a hit to only apply in relation to players/NPCs I am conscious of hitting. If a child was hiding amid the evil goblins or a puppy managed to run into the AOE, I should not be penalized for hitting and/or killing them as I never intended to do so (as I never knew of their existence).

Assuming AOE spell/skill cast times are in the region of 2 seconds or more, this could be implemented e.g. by the system performing a ”AOE to hit” check, excluding characters that are flagged as stealthed, at the time I started casting and highlighting those players/NPC flagged by the “AOE to hit” check until the spell/skill would go off (or I would choose to cancel it). Alignment/rep hit would be administered only in relation to the players/NPCs who were flagged by the initial ”AOE to hit” check at the start of casting and only two such check would need to be performed by the system (one at the time the casting is started and another at the time the AOE would go off).

4. Diminishing returns (for Arcane/Divine Magic)

While I understand what GW is trying to do here, I am not convinced that what they currently have on the table is going to achieve the desired outcome. If anything the current design would seem to lead to Arcane/Divine AOE having to be fairly strong (not to make it totally irrelevant), which would seem to make it ideally suited for a strong alpha attack, particularly when combined with all the AOE/single target attacks, which are not subjected to such diminishing returns.

So while groups of mages (using primarily AOE) will likely be avoided (or have to be a little larger, as pointed out by Bluddwolf), players will just turn to the next best thing to achieve the same outcome.

Overall the current design would seem to make the use of AOE very situational -and even more so for good/lawful aligned characters.

Goblin Squad Member

100% agreed Bludd. The anti griefing madness has to stop. We just need good dev monitoring, some reasonable mechanics, and player policing. Not all these overly complex measures designed to essentially limit open pvp in an effort to stop griefing. I too see one shots and overwhelming force as legit tactics. If you need a fair fight, go play a game with structured pvp arenas or a duel system. And if you want to avoid pvp altogether, might want to reexamine why you want to play this mmo.

Goblin Squad Member

Would a radial distance system, where effects diminish the farther they are from the burst center, impose an unsustainable burden on the server?

It seems to me if AoEs are treated as area targeting, with a blast radius, rather than as precision fires, AoEs can still be full strength without worrying about a concentrated Alpha strike.

Basically, make AoEs more like a battery of mortars or gun tubes that can target an area, rather than a precision guided munition.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

If 7 wizards are dropping 7 different AOE spells at one time, they should be able to Nuke! An entire party.

No matter how hard GW tries to eliminate the 1shot, players will just form larger groups in order to archive it. The 1-shot is a legitimate military tactic, especially in large scale warfare.

How will they stop the AOE combination of magic and catapult fire, simultaneously brought down on the same clustered group as part of an alpha strike?

I hope GW doesn't try too hard to gimp good tactics and execution, in order to protect less organized groups from their own lack of preparation, tactics and or execution.

Ok, but you're not being clear what the scenario is: I suggest making a clear distinction between:

1) Random fight in random location - general small-medium size combat of variable group sizes and participant types.
2) Clearly organised, battlefield - specific large size combat (mass/army combat) of discrete groups of set sizes and specialist groupings + eg artillery support eg catapult.

These are entirely different discussions I suspect?
-

Coming back to 1-shot viable tactic. I think this is intended to be limited and restricted:

1) Limited: So that other tactics are required and diversity of decisions are included ie avoid "press the I win button".
2) Restricted: So that it does not scale beyond a certain number of players repeating the same action at the same time ie 14 (or 100) players press A and 7 (or 50) player press A and lose.

Sorry if that is all negative additions, but concerning the eg of 7 wizards AoE'ing together again, I think if the casting + animation time are suitably long and the initiation of the AoE almost immediate upon completion of the execution, that itself will help regulate AoEs towards being a "first strike advantage" > "first strike wins".

Greedalox wrote:
100% agreed Bludd. The anti griefing madness has to stop. We just need good dev monitoring, some reasonable mechanics, and player policing. Not all these overly complex measures designed to essentially limit open pvp in an effort to stop griefing. I too see one shots and overwhelming force as legit tactics. If you need a fair fight, go play a game with structured pvp arenas or a duel system. And if you want to avoid pvp altogether, might want to reexamine why you want to play this mmo.

Ok, agree that if a new poster says, "no pvp" that is obviously outside the scope of the discussion for PFO! But I do agree, that making careful decisions NOW saves a lot of time and problems later, regarding the problem of griefing/exploiting and reducing the viability of diverse build choices by players (long game) and fun of various combats (short game) if AoE nuke team MUST be included.

Philosophically, imo AoE should be very dangerous and inflict damage on a large area of players in that area. But it should not be AoE*10 = wipe in that area UNLESS you make magic very rare or some other penalty/cost/limit to it's use. If AoE's are fairly common, they have to be regulated in some way - like everything else.

Eg a catapult generally is stationary, takes an age to charge, cumbersome and "once hit - many times shy" of where it is and when it's due to strike again. IE a pocket catapult of such capacity is too OP. :)


Don't see the problem with a group of mages alpha striking other players.
True its not fair, but then a lot of PvP encounters are not fair, its common for larger groups to gank smaller groups, don't see 2 players trying to gank a group of 6 all that often.

Goblin Squad Member

It could be fair to rule that a character, whose AoE spell effects a stealthed character, is not flagged because of that unless the target of the spell is the caster himself. Stealthed characters obviously can't be targeted. I think this would leave minimal debate ie: rogue seems someone casting a spell and cancels stealth, that's a small window but exploitable, but the caster could also stop casting.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

There's something very unsatisfying about these solutions, and I expect the devs feel the same way.

1. Because the game systems are designed to identify the Attacker, and subject him to certain consequences, it's important that the game be able to correctly identify the Attacker when it comes to AoEs and Stealth/Invisibility.

2. If there is a valid reason to stop a party of 7 Wizards from being able to Alpha Strike an entire party, is there also a valid reason to stop a party of 7 Wizards from being able to Alpha Strike an individual character? What's going to stop 7 Rangers from being able to Alpha Strike an entire party?

I'm lacking the connection... alpha striking a party vs alpha striking an individual is a HUGE difference.

1 person being able to insta kill 1 person, is mostly agreed to be outside of the intent of mechanics.

7 people being able to instantly kill an equal group of 7 people, I see as equally bad.

7 people being able to kill 1 person... while I'm not saying it is good, I'm saying it is not equivalent. Being outnumbered by greater than 5:1 ratio, it is reasonable to expect your survival chances to be low.

If in a 7v7 all focus on one target, they have the advantage and disadvantage of the other 6 opponents who were completely unaffected still coming after them, the fight is far from over. The winning party has an extremely high chance to return to their corpse or get resurrected by one of the survivors.

As I said I'm not arguing in favor or against the common MMO tactic of "everyone pick the same target, take them out one at a time". But calling it equivalent to party A instakill party B. Is just plain inaccurate.

In my opinion I fully agree with the conditions that GW was trying for.

Goblinworks blog wrote:
All-caster artillery squads should not find it easy to flatten an equally matched group just by synchronizing their AoEs for a surprise attack.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm going to make some points and try to avoid the frustration of pvpers on the one hand and rather hysterical 'anti-griefing' measures on the other. Hysterical because some ideas put forth equate 'griefing' with tactics; i.e. 'if this bad thing can happen to me, it must be griefing'. 1) AOE should always spark the attacker flag, a possible 'forgiveness' mechanic notwithstanding. Dude-you just DECIDED to fill an area with magical fire or poisonous gas! 2) Damage should not automatically break stealth-but some other obvious effects should (Burn? Sleet? Ash?). If you bomb an empty area and gain the attacker flag, you'll know something's up. 3) A stealthed/invisible person who intentionally flags other people? Griefing? Sounds to me like an interesting combat. 4) Obviously gaining the attacker flag breaks stealth-there's no reason for this game to have greater invisibility or unbreakable hide in plain sight. 5) The rep/alignment hits for these situations by themselves aren't going to be onerous. Yes, sometimes you will drop an AOE in a tavern filled with not-just-enemies. It might be necessary to survive and win. And you ought to take a hit for it. 6) Why can spamming the equivalent of a 0 level spell break stealth? I don't allow characters to use the cantrip detect magic to ruin 6th level illusion spells in TT. People are going to spend RT XP to purchase stealth related skills-it should take a like amount of effort to gain stealth detection skills. Sorry for the wall o' text!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@All

Simple solution to AOE flagging. When the caster goes to place his AOE on the ground/target or however he targets it...the system WARNS him that there are non-hostiles in range of effect by changing color. If he goes ahead and casts anyway, no one can say it was UNINTENTIONAL.

Note, doing that doesn't break Stealth or Invisability....it just tells him at that point in time there is a freindly there.

Make the caster pay some small portion of MANNA (or power or whatever is used to control the amount of spells you can cast)....so it doesn't come as a FREE minesweeper to them.

You can rationalize it as all AOE spells come with some minimal ability to detect the presence of living beings in thier area of effect.

Again, this doesn't reveal the stealther or tell the caster who they are, or even exactly where...just that there is something freindly within area of effect.

Goblin Squad Member

@ AvenaOats

I do agree that there should be limitations, so that there is reasonable balance. But not to the exclusion of a good one shot. Timers, diminishing returns, and body count could all be used in the equation to ensure the game doesnt deevolve into aoe spam. For instance maybe the more targets you hit the less damage done to each infividual, it could be spacing so that 10 targets get nailed but due to timers or body count aoes are off the table for a while and now the group of aoe mages have to deal with the other 20 angry individuals with no AoE to hide behind. There are many ways they could limit it so its not used aa the end all be all military solution spam, while not eliminating the possibilty of being able to one shot at all

Goblin Squad Member

I'm ok with the system that the Dev Blog has laid out as well. But, that includes the possibility that the Magic User will pick up an uninteded flag, if he accidentally hits a target he did not see or expect to move into the area of the affect.

I'm ok with the friendly fire aspect as well. AOE attacks have always had the potential to hurt your friends in PnP D&D, AD&D and PF TT. If the Magic User accidently kills his friends, he will suffer the Alginment / Reputation consequences. If his friends forgive him, they can grant some or even all of the Rep loss back.

Magic Users have to be aware that AOE spells are powerful, have unintended consequences and require care in their use.

I can not see why there was an issue, and regret having tried to come up with a solution to a non problem to begin with.

"Do not feed the anti griefer trolls, by trying to change Dev compromised decisions, to appease them further."

The devs have the issue of griefing on their radar, they have said this often, I place my trust in them to do as they say.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My conclusions:

  • The stealthy should own responsibility for their sneaking and the consequences of their sneaking where and when they sneak.
  • A successful perception check should reveal the sneaker to all (holds up a tennis shoe for all to see).
  • If a thief is seen in the target area of an AOE the caster of that AOE should accept responsibility for the effect of his spell.
  • If a player character is in stealth but caught in a an AoE blast they should have a chance to remain in stealth even if damaged.
  • The amount of damage inflicted determines whether they are revealed or remain hidden.
  • A caster should not be held responsible for collateral damage where there was no possibility they could know a character was concealed in range of the AoE, unless:
  • There was no visible valid target in the blast radius of the AoE.

  • Goblin Squad Member

    Greedalox wrote:

    @ AvenaOats

    I do agree that there should be limitations, so that there is reasonable balance. But not to the exclusion of a good one shot. Timers, diminishing returns, and body count could all be used in the equation to ensure the game doesnt deevolve into aoe spam. For instance maybe the more targets you hit the less damage done to each infividual, it could be spacing so that 10 targets get nailed but due to timers or body count aoes are off the table for a while and now the group of aoe mages have to deal with the other 20 angry individuals with no AoE to hide behind. There are many ways they could limit it so its not used aa the end all be all military solution spam, while not eliminating the possibilty of being able to one shot at all

    Definitely, let the testing begin! ;)

    I think high-level perspective is how the experience of combat plays out: in a FPS game with grenade, rocket-launcher, all these AoEs are insta-kills iirc watching my former flat-mate in 'Black Hawk'. But in PFO, the AoE idea is more about tracking lots of things at once with an unfolding situation and manipulating decisions during that time. Idk, I think that's a sort of reason why the "1 shot" is considered a bad idea via just one means of attack*N. I think AoE should be functional: maximise the number of free hits in the given area when there are lots of players densely packed. But not multiply the damage done by number of AoEs in play. Possibly it's a good idea to discourage lots of AoEs at once which causes tech issues... ?

    Goblin Squad Member

    Mbando wrote:
    Would a radial distance system, where effects diminish the farther they are from the burst center, impose an unsustainable burden on the server?

    I don't think it would be much of a burden, just another line of code checking distances(which is probably already being done to determine a 'hit') and scaling them by whatever equation GW chooses for the ability. Instead of 'deals 500 damage' you have 'deals 5*(distance/4) damage'

    Goblin Squad Member

    From a game balance/fairness standpoint, I think a lone assasin with a higher chance of critical success plus additional effects like poison is fine for an ALPHA strike. Ditto with 2 or 3 spellcasters getting off a good coordinated shot of AOE damage before magical turbulence grants immunity for a time. Beginning a fight in these ways would be well worth it without resulting in one-shoting a PC or TPKing a group. It's just an issue of combat scaling. The devs certainly have the experience for it.

    Goblin Squad Member

    @Mbando, I like the idea of having some explosive AoE attacks, but I think there still needs to be room for Rain-type spells which logically really should apply equally over the entire area of effect.

    @GrumpyMel, I really, really like your suggestion to warn the caster. This is in line with Ryan's promise long ago that we would never unwittingly be slapped with an Attacker flag. Giving the caster the option to cancel the casting, but still pay the full casting cost, seems like an exceptionally good idea. Of course, the targets would have to be fixed at the time of casting rather than at the time the spell lands, and the warning would have to be very short and require quick action by the caster to cancel. Excellent suggestion.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Being wrote:

    My conclusions:

  • The stealthy should own responsibility for their sneaking and the consequences of their sneaking where and when they sneak.
  • A successful perception check should reveal the sneaker to all (holds up a tennis shoe for all to see).
  • If a thief is seen in the target area of an AOE the caster of that AOE should accept responsibility for the effect of his spell.
  • If a player character is in stealth but caught in a an AoE blast they should have a chance to remain in stealth even if damaged.
  • The amount of damage inflicted determines whether they are revealed or remain hidden.
  • A caster should not be held responsible for collateral damage where there was no possibility they could know a character was concealed in range of the AoE, unless:
  • There was no visible valid target in the blast radius of the AoE.
  • What if the stealthed target was stalking the group, that the caster just threw an AOE into; not only damaging the stealthed character, but also taking him out of stealth and having the Goblins (lets say) turn on the stealthed character (closest target)?

    This is the two groups simultaneously coming accross the same target, at the same time scenario.

    Or better yet, it is me and my bandits getting ready to spring on a caravan, when the Magic User and his group comes along.

    Explain, why shouldn't the Magic user get the attacker flag, for attacking?

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    If you are on fire, you can still remain stealthed? Wow, now that is some level of focus on staying in shadows and moving silently.

    As long as bandits get to do what we do, I'm fun with whatever GW decides to do with AOE.

    Well said, in both cases.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Bluddwolf wrote:
    Being wrote:

    My conclusions:

  • The stealthy should own responsibility for their sneaking and the consequences of their sneaking where and when they sneak.
  • A successful perception check should reveal the sneaker to all (holds up a tennis shoe for all to see).
  • If a thief is seen in the target area of an AOE the caster of that AOE should accept responsibility for the effect of his spell.
  • If a player character is in stealth but caught in a an AoE blast they should have a chance to remain in stealth even if damaged.
  • The amount of damage inflicted determines whether they are revealed or remain hidden.
  • A caster should not be held responsible for collateral damage where there was no possibility they could know a character was concealed in range of the AoE, unless:
  • There was no visible valid target in the blast radius of the AoE.
  • What if the stealthed target was stalking the group, that the caster just threw an AOE into; not only damaging the stealthed character, but also taking him out of stealth and having the Goblins (lets say) turn on the stealthed character (closest target)?

    The bandit is responsible for his use of his skill and where he went, not the Caster. The caster has no idea he is there. How can he be blamed the thief exercised poor judgement and the thief chose to ignore the tactical situation. The thief has all the choices in the situation, so the responsibility is his own.

    Bluddwolf wrote:


    This is the two groups simultaneously coming accross the same target, at the same time scenario.

    Or better yet, it is me and my bandits getting ready to spring on a caravan, when the Magic User and his group comes along.

    Explain, why shouldn't the Magic user get the attacker flag, for attacking?

    You'll have to give some more detail on your second scenario there, Bludd: there isn't enough to work with there. Was the bandit group visible? Apparently they must be unless the mage's group was interdicting the caravan themselves, otherwise the mage would not be tossing fireballs around. If they were visible and the mage cast fireball then naturally the mage gets the attacker flag.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Being,

    The second scenario. My bandits and I are stealthed, ready to attack a caravan. The magic user and his group come along. They also attack the caravan, hitting both caravan and my group with AOE.

    Why shouldn't the magic user get an attacker flag for hitting us?

    Third scenario: my bandits and I are protecting a caravan. We choose to use stealth so, would be attackers will not know our true numbers. They attack with an AOE Spell, damaging us and taking us out of stealth. Again, the magic user and his group get a free attack, against stealthed characters?

    You see, there is a reason the Dev Blog does not exempt the magic user from the attacker flag. Again, trying to find a solution around that is giving into the anti griefer hysteria that every PVP (combat or non combat) issue gets bogged down with.

    Why can't we just accept, Dev Blog working as intended?

    Goblin Squad Member

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    Being,

    The second scenario. My bandits and I are stealthed, ready to attack a caravan. The magic user and his group come along. They also attack the caravan, hitting both caravan and my group with AOE.

    Why shouldn't the magic user get an attacker flag for hitting us?

    Third scenario: my bandits and I are protecting a caravan. We choose to use stealth so, would be attackers will not know our true numbers. They attack with an AOE Spell, damaging us and taking us out of stealth. Again, the magic user and his group get a free attack, against stealthed characters?

    Under those scenarios, why wouldn't they already have the Attacker flag for attacking the caravan?

    Goblin Squad Member

    Second scenario: The caster would already have the attacker flag from casting at the caravan. I haven't seen anything saying attacker flags stack, have you?

    Third scenario: Same as the second. When the attack they have attacked.

    I can accept the dev's situation. I do have difficulty accepting that if you are hidden but stick out your foot and trip me it is somehow my fault.

    The thief should hold responsibility for his own choices and his own situational awareness.

    ~~edit~~ Dario I did not know you were a ninja!

    Goblin Squad Member

    Problem is Being that you can't get past the Information Disclosure aspect. The server can determine that the Mage casting the AOE doesn't "see" a stealthed character but it can't determine that he doesn't know precisely where they are...because SOMEONE knows where they are and has relayed that information via out of band method (e.g. Teamspeak) to the Mage.

    So you end up giving the Mage a free attack. It's just the inverse of the problem of the origional problem you are trying to address (getting flagged for attacking someone you didn't know was there).

    As I mentioned earlier....the only way I can see getting around this target is having the server inform the Mage that there are non-hostiles within range of the attack BEFORE he executes the spell... that way there can be no uncertainty about what he knows or not.

    Edit: Alternatively you could allow Casters to set a toggle on thier AoE's which tell the server "If there are non-hostiles that would be hurt at the time of casting, then abort...and the spell doesn't get cast".
    Again, this removes any uncertainty about the Mage's INTENT which is what counts.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If I sneak around in a warzone and get blown up, it's my own fault for being an idiot and sneaking around somewhere people are liable to deploy munitions.

    Just saying.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Thinking more about the the warning that GrumpyMel suggested, I actually think it needs to be a player option to "Allow un-targeted attacks to apply Attacker Flag". If the option is True, then the player assumes all the risk, and gets the Attacker flag if he hits a stealthed player. If the option is False, then the AoE spell simply fizzles, although I agree it should still consume resources.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Kobold Cleaver wrote:

    If I sneak around in a warzone and get blown up, it's my own fault for being an idiot and sneaking around somewhere people are liable to deploy munitions.

    Just saying.

    From what I understand "Flagging" will not apply in active "warzones" (i.e. territory controled by a settlement that is at war with you).

    In this case, Johhny is sneaking around in the middle of a peacefull woodland hunting deer....and somebody just started lobbing 40mm grenades all over the terrain.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Being the same holds true for the magic user. Take responsibility for the use of his magic. Besides, there are no red circles, so how is the thief to know the magic user is casting or has cast the aoe?

    Dario, they may not be in the same group for a variety of reasons. So you could end up with attacker flag from one or more groups at the same time.

    Again, why all of the mental jujitsu? All a magic user has to do is use his AOE with care, and accept responsibility for unintended consequences. Isn't that situational awareness as well?

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    GrumpyMel wrote:

    Problem is Being that you can't get past the Information Disclosure aspect. The server can determine that the Mage casting the AOE doesn't "see" a stealthed character but it can't determine that he doesn't know precisely where they are...because SOMEONE knows where they are and has relayed that information via out of band method (e.g. Teamspeak) to the Mage.

    So you end up giving the Mage a free attack. It's just the inverse of the problem of the origional problem you are trying to address (getting flagged for attacking someone you didn't know was there).

    As I mentioned earlier....the only way I can see getting around this target is having the server inform the Mage that there are non-hostiles within range of the attack BEFORE he executes the spell... that way there can be no uncertainty about what he knows or not.

    That is a risk of being stealthed. If the mage gets a free attack because of teamspeak, then that's ok. The stealthed character took the risk of loosing an attack in hopes of the reward of observing the party unseen. The mage getting a free attack because the stealthed spy got caught in an aoe need not escalate further. One the hidden character is visible, neither side has a flag. If the mage or his party continues to attack the hider, then they will gain the attacker flag. If the hidden character runs away, then nothing happens. If the hidden character was there to try to bait an attack to bypass the flag system, then they are out of luck and can either try to draw a second attack while visible or attack themselves.

    Sneaking around in the path of artillery or bombing ranges is not a good idea. Likewise, sneaking around next to the likely strike area of an AoE is not a good idea, and a stealth user intentionally trying to become a victim of an AoE to bypass flagging and reputation penalties should not be allowed.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Nihimon wrote:
    Thinking more about the the warning that GrumpyMel suggested, I actually think it needs to be a player option to "Allow un-targeted attacks to apply Attacker Flag". If the option is True, then the player assumes all the risk, and gets the Attacker flag if he hits a stealthed player. If the option is False, then the AoE spell simply fizzles, although I agree it should still consume resources.

    Yeah, I think that's a better option then my first suggestion Nihimon...as this way the server doesn't need to do the calculations in advance of targeting.

    I could see a Caster reasonably picking either option....as sometimes it may just be worthwhile to eat the Flag...or even hurt party members if you are in a tough jam.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Bluddwolf wrote:

    Being the same holds true for the magic user. Take responsibility for the use of his magic. Besides, there are no red circles, so how is the thief to know the magic user is casting or has cast the aoe?

    Dario, they may not be in the same group for a variety of reasons. So you could end up with attacker flag from one or more groups at the same time.

    Again, why all of the mental jujitsu? All a magic user has to do is use his AOE with care, and accept responsibility for unintended consequences. Isn't that situational awareness as well?

    Being grouped or not is irrelevent. If you get the attacker flag, you have the attacker flag. Anyone can then attack you for the duration of the attacker flag.

    Quote:

    Attacker

    The character has attacked another character outside of a war situation, and the target character did not have a PvP flag.

    Attacker is a PVP flag.

    Quote:
    Anyone killing a character with Attacker does not suffer reputation or alignment loss.

    Emphasis mine. Both from the I Shot A Man In Reno... blog.

    Goblin Squad Member

    GrumpyMel wrote:

    Problem is Being that you can't get past the Information Disclosure aspect. The server can determine that the Mage casting the AOE doesn't "see" a stealthed character but it can't determine that he doesn't know precisely where they are...because SOMEONE knows where they are and has relayed that information via out of band method (e.g. Teamspeak) to the Mage.

    So you end up giving the Mage a free attack. It's just the inverse of the problem of the origional problem you are trying to address (getting flagged for attacking someone you didn't know was there).

    As I mentioned earlier....the only way I can see getting around this target is having the server inform the Mage that there are non-hostiles within range of the attack BEFORE he executes the spell... that way there can be no uncertainty about what he knows or not.

    Edit: Alternatively you could allow Casters to set a toggle on thier AoE's which tell the server "If there are non-hostiles that would be hurt at the time of casting, then abort...and the spell doesn't get cast".
    Again, this removes any uncertainty about the Mage's INTENT which is what counts.

    That information disclosure is the responsibility of the stealther because the caster has no other way to know he's there. Responsibility only obtains where something could have been done to avoid an action.

    In maritime law it is the responsibility of the more maneuverable craft to get out of the way of the less maneuverable craft. The stealther has control of who knows he is there. He is still the responsible party so long as his stealth holds.

    Your objection would be overruled, Mel.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Imbicatus wrote:
    GrumpyMel wrote:

    Problem is Being that you can't get past the Information Disclosure aspect. The server can determine that the Mage casting the AOE doesn't "see" a stealthed character but it can't determine that he doesn't know precisely where they are...because SOMEONE knows where they are and has relayed that information via out of band method (e.g. Teamspeak) to the Mage.

    So you end up giving the Mage a free attack. It's just the inverse of the problem of the origional problem you are trying to address (getting flagged for attacking someone you didn't know was there).

    As I mentioned earlier....the only way I can see getting around this target is having the server inform the Mage that there are non-hostiles within range of the attack BEFORE he executes the spell... that way there can be no uncertainty about what he knows or not.

    That is a risk of being stealthed. If the mage gets a free attack because of teamspeak, then that's ok. The stealthed character took the risk of loosing an attack in hopes of the reward of observing the party unseen. The mage getting a free attack because the stealthed spy got caught in an aoe need not escalate further. One the hidden character is visible, neither side has a flag. If the mage or his party continues to attack the hider, then they will gain the attacker flag. If the hidden character runs away, then nothing happens. If the hidden character was there to try to bait an attack to bypass the flag system, then they are out of luck and can either try to draw a second attack while visible or attack themselves.

    Sneaking around in the path of artillery or bombing ranges is not a good idea. Likewise, sneaking around next to the likely strike area of an AoE is not a good idea, and a stealth user intentionally trying to become a victim of an AoE to bypass flagging and reputation penalties should not be allowed.

    You are making assumptions about the situation that just can't be made Imbacitus....you don't that it's an area that the stealthed character would expect to be attacked under...you don't know why they are stealthed....and you don't know who or what else is in the area that can take advantage of the Mages initial attack.

    Imagine this scenario..... Ranger/Rogue is in a hex controled by thier own settlement. They are out hunting or observing mobs (PVE) and are stealthed. Two normal looking fellows come strolling along the path...ungrouped. All of a sudden the Ranger/Rogue gets a fireball dropped in thier lap (because 1 guy spotted them and told the other guy, the caster in Teamspeak)....The Ranger/Rogue is now badly injurred, burning (goodbye stealth) and in aggro range of a bunch of hostile mobs. They get killed while the 2 guys sit there and laugh as they watch the scene...unflagged. Yet they get to get away with the attack....and ultimately the Ranger/Rogues death...because of the exception you just made to the attack mechanics.

    Again, this need not happen at all...by simply having each caster set a toggle flag so there can be no uncertainty about thier INTENT to harm innocents or not.

    Basic Hunter Safety rules....be sure of your target and what's around your target before pulling the trigger. Tough to do in the context of an MMO...so you provide a simple tool (the toggle to harm non-hostiles or not) that acts as a safety and doesn't let the attack take place if it would hurt freindles and result in a flagg. Caster still has the option to overide that safety...if they want.


    GrumpyMel wrote:

    From what I understand "Flagging" will not apply in active "warzones" (i.e. territory controled by a settlement that is at war with you).

    In this case, Johhny is sneaking around in the middle of a peacefull woodland hunting deer....and somebody just started lobbing 40mm grenades all over the terrain.

    The warzone was a real-life scenario. The translation in this case would be "sneaking around when there's a party of crazed wizards ready to start fighting the goblins I'm nearby".

    Goblin Squad Member

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Do the developers have to build mechanical responses to solve problems players could have avoided by applying a bit of common sense? I don't believe that is a very sandboxy approach. Let the stealther be responsible for his own choices.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Being wrote:
    GrumpyMel wrote:

    Problem is Being that you can't get past the Information Disclosure aspect. The server can determine that the Mage casting the AOE doesn't "see" a stealthed character but it can't determine that he doesn't know precisely where they are...because SOMEONE knows where they are and has relayed that information via out of band method (e.g. Teamspeak) to the Mage.

    So you end up giving the Mage a free attack. It's just the inverse of the problem of the origional problem you are trying to address (getting flagged for attacking someone you didn't know was there).

    As I mentioned earlier....the only way I can see getting around this target is having the server inform the Mage that there are non-hostiles within range of the attack BEFORE he executes the spell... that way there can be no uncertainty about what he knows or not.

    Edit: Alternatively you could allow Casters to set a toggle on thier AoE's which tell the server "If there are non-hostiles that would be hurt at the time of casting, then abort...and the spell doesn't get cast".
    Again, this removes any uncertainty about the Mage's INTENT which is what counts.

    That information disclosure is the responsibility of the stealther because the caster has no other way to know he's there. Responsibility only obtains where something could have been done to avoid an action.

    In maritime law it is the responsibility of the more maneuverable craft to get out of the way of the less maneuverable craft. The stealther has control of who knows he is there. He is still the responsible party so long as his stealth holds.

    Your objection would be overruled, Mel.

    Yup and in FireArms safety it's always the responsibilty of the person pulling the trigger to be certain of his target...and WHAT'S around his target...or he doesn't take the shot. You would be over-ruled there.

    However this isn't EITHER maritime law or fire-arms safety. It's an MMO and fortunately because of that it provides the ability to impliment things that aren't really possible in real life.

    For instance the ability of the caster to set a safety toggle...that EXPLICITLY lets the server KNOW his intent....by aborting attacks that would harm a freindly and result in flagging him. The toggle can be turned on or off at the casters choice.

    Now what could possibly be your objection to that?

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    GrumpyMel wrote:
    Imagine this scenario..... Ranger/Rogue is in a hex controled by thier own settlement. They are out hunting or observing mobs (PVE) and are stealthed. Two normal looking fellows come strolling along the path...ungrouped. All of a sudden the Ranger/Rogue gets a fireball dropped in thier lap (because 1 guy spotted them and told the other guy, the caster in Teamspeak)....The Ranger/Rogue is now badly injurred, burning (goodbye stealth) and in aggro range of a bunch of hostile mobs. They get killed while the 2 guys sit there and laugh as they watch the scene...unflagged. Yet they get to get away with the attack....and ultimately the Ranger/Rogues death...because of the exception you just made to the attack mechanics.

    A single AoE should not be capable of killing a player. If the Ranger is in aggro range of the mobs, then they are likely close enough to get tagged by the aoe as well, thereby causing the goblins to aggro on the wizard, not the ranger. If they aren't then the ranger should be far enough away from them to flee back to their settlement or the point of interest in the hex to heal up. If the caster and the ungrouped fried decided to finish him off, then they would get the attacker flag.

    The system can be abused either way, but it makes more sense to me for the act of stealth to put yourself at risk than to change the way magic works to try to avoid the problem, or to allow stealth users to trick casters into getting an attacker flag when they are using AoEs against legitimate PvE targets.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Kobold Cleaver wrote:
    GrumpyMel wrote:

    From what I understand "Flagging" will not apply in active "warzones" (i.e. territory controled by a settlement that is at war with you).

    In this case, Johhny is sneaking around in the middle of a peacefull woodland hunting deer....and somebody just started lobbing 40mm grenades all over the terrain.

    The warzone was a real-life scenario. The translation in this case would be "sneaking around when there's a party of crazed wizards ready to start fighting the goblins I'm nearby".

    Kobold,

    You may not even KNOW they are there...those "wizards" could be stealthed or invisable too you know....

    OR you could have EXPLICITLY let then KNOW you are there by yelling out "Hey Guys....don't fire off anything...I'm over here by the bushes"

    Followed by an acknowledgement from the wizards of "OK, no problem...we'll find some other goblins"

    Immediately followed by BAM! SNICKER! "I guess we'll hunt those goblins after-all".

    Goblin Squad Member

    Being wrote:
    Do the developers have to build mechanical responses to solve problems players could have avoided by applying a bit of common sense? I don't believe that is a very sandboxy approach. Let the stealther be responsible for his own choices.

    That's EXACTLY the FUNCTION of Developers...at least good ones. To build mechanisms that prevent the application from performing in ways neither the user or the developer INTENDED.

    In this case.....

    - We don't want users to get flagged for attacking someone they didn't intend to attack. Correct?

    - We also don't want users to INTENTIONALY attack someone without getting flagged. Correct?

    - We want people to be able to use both Stealth and AOE magic within the game. Correct?

    - Finaly we want a tacticaly deep game where casters need to consider how both thier allies and enemies will be effected in thier selection of attack spells in any given selection? (Hence why FF is in at all). Correct?

    These are all design specifications that I understand the Developers have for how they want the application to function...and have been echo'd by many players here as well.

    The answer to those concerns is rather simple....since we can't ASSUME what intent the caster has when casting a spell, we can build in a mechanism for the caster to EXPLICITLY INFORM us of his intent.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Imbicatus wrote:
    GrumpyMel wrote:
    Imagine this scenario..... Ranger/Rogue is in a hex controled by thier own settlement. They are out hunting or observing mobs (PVE) and are stealthed. Two normal looking fellows come strolling along the path...ungrouped. All of a sudden the Ranger/Rogue gets a fireball dropped in thier lap (because 1 guy spotted them and told the other guy, the caster in Teamspeak)....The Ranger/Rogue is now badly injurred, burning (goodbye stealth) and in aggro range of a bunch of hostile mobs. They get killed while the 2 guys sit there and laugh as they watch the scene...unflagged. Yet they get to get away with the attack....and ultimately the Ranger/Rogues death...because of the exception you just made to the attack mechanics.

    A single AoE should not be capable of killing a player. If the Ranger is in aggro range of the mobs, then they are likely close enough to get tagged by the aoe as well, thereby causing the goblins to aggro on the wizard, not the ranger. If they aren't then the ranger should be far enough away from them to flee back to their settlement or the point of interest in the hex to heal up. If the caster and the ungrouped fried decided to finish him off, then they would get the attacker flag.

    The system can be abused either way, but it makes more sense to me for the act of stealth to put yourself at risk than to change the way magic works to try to avoid the problem, or to allow stealth users to trick casters into getting an attacker flag when they are using AoEs against legitimate PvE targets.

    You are still making assumptions...

    - That the mobs will get harmed by the AOE if the "stealther" is when the caster is EXPLICITLY trying to avoid that effect.
    - That mobs will choose damage over proximity in thier attack order.
    - That a badly injurred character will be able to escape from a group of hostiles.
    - That simply driving a character away by use of violence does not warrant a flag of some type.

    There is a reason the Dev's put a flag (and chaotic shift) in not just upon a death but upon Attack. In the above situation you are circumventing that reason....and needlessly so, because you can easly provide a mechanism for the caster to explicitly signal thier intent to the server rather then always assume it is innocent or always assume it is hostile....either one of which assumptions will be inaccurate some portion of the time.

    CEO, Goblinworks

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    GrumpyMel wrote:


    - We don't want users to get flagged for attacking someone they didn't intend to attack. Correct?

    I don't know if I agree.

    If you throw a hand grenade, you accept liability for the results regardless of your knowledge beforehand of who or what you might hurt.

    Using AoE effects means you're taking risks. Don't want the risks? Don't fire off an AoE.

    RyanD

    Goblin Squad Member

    Are all spells going to have 6 second or higher casting times?
    if we're following the 6 sec combat round idea from the TTRPG, this would also allow for folks to cancel their spells n such before loosing them on accidental targets.

    Goblin Squad Member

    NineMoons wrote:

    Don't see the problem with a group of mages alpha striking other players.

    True its not fair, but then a lot of PvP encounters are not fair

    And that's that. My pilot in EVE can win a fair fight against many EVE enemies but I never once found one. The open world PvP value system abhors a fair fight, you're doing something wrong.

    I like friendly fire. It makes sense. And like damage the flags and rep considerations should apply to everyone you hit regardless of intent.

    Maintaining stealth when you get hit with damage it's up in the air if you can keep your cool, like, saving throw time. Moving around unseen on fire doesn't really make sense (unless magical invisibility covers that too).

    Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

    GrumpyMel wrote:

    You are still making assumptions...

    - That the mobs will get harmed by the AOE if the "stealther" is when the caster is EXPLICITLY trying to avoid that effect.
    - That mobs will choose damage over proximity in thier attack order.
    - That a badly injurred character will be able to escape from a group of hostiles.
    - That simply driving a character away by use of violence does not warrant a flag of some type.

    • If the mabs are in range of the attack then, yes they will be be armed by the effect.
    • It has been stated by devs that mobs that have aggroed a character they will run past other characters in order to go after thier target. If the stealthed ranger hasn't attacked yet, then if they were damaged by the aoe, they would run towards the wizard.
    • It depends on if there was a critical hit applied an injury that slowed the movement rate. For a standard hit, damage is just damage, no debuffs. If the ranger runs and the mobs don't have effective ranged attacks, the ranger should be able to flee. Especially since the devs have stated that running away should always be an option.
    • It does warrant a flag, the attacker flag. But the attacker flag is pretty severe, and it shouldn't be applied if there was not an intent to damage the character hit.


    The problem with your intent toggle is it gives spellcasters a cheap way to overcome stealth. AoE cantrip depth charge would have almost no cost to spam. If it fizzles, then hey, there is a stealthed character there. Detecting stealth should be a spell or working on increasing perception with xps that require a bigger investment than a cantrip.

    Goblin Squad Member

    Ryan Dancey wrote:
    GrumpyMel wrote:


    - We don't want users to get flagged for attacking someone they didn't intend to attack. Correct?

    I don't know if I agree.

    If you throw a hand grenade, you accept liability for the results regardless of your knowledge beforehand of who or what you might hurt.

    Using AoE effects means you're taking risks. Don't want the risks? Don't fire off an AoE.

    RyanD

    So Ryan, you would consider the potential to get flagged for unintentional damage one of the balancing factors against the power of AoE spells? Is that your design intent?

    Sorry, if I was guilty of making assumptions myself. I was going off what I believed the general intent of the flagging system was.

    I guess with AoE attack spells, you would consider the casting of them an inherently reckless act....and thus warranting a potential attacker flag and Chaotic Shift?

    Goblin Squad Member

    I'm done debating this issue..... I see no problems with the Dev Blog as it is. If the magic user is flagged with an attacker flag anyway, open to PvP by anyone, then what the Hell is the issue?

    The Devs have gotten it right then. Stealthed or not stealthed, the rogue and his buddies could attack the magic user at will. This was one thing that I said said long ago. I would have just moved in, near the end of the fight, "Outlaw Flagged", and attacked to loot them all or offer a SAD to the winner to take some of his loot and then loot the husks if he defeated party.

    Goblin Squad Member

    GrumpyMel wrote:
    ...Yup and in FireArms safety it's always the responsibilty of the person pulling the trigger to be certain of his target...and WHAT'S around his target...or he doesn't take the shot. You would be over-ruled there.

    Not really. The first rule is don't walk downrange. Second rule is to check target.

    Why do hunters wear red (or orange)?

    Goblin Squad Member

    Imbicatus wrote:
    GrumpyMel wrote:

    You are still making assumptions...

    - That the mobs will get harmed by the AOE if the "stealther" is when the caster is EXPLICITLY trying to avoid that effect.
    - That mobs will choose damage over proximity in thier attack order.
    - That a badly injurred character will be able to escape from a group of hostiles.
    - That simply driving a character away by use of violence does not warrant a flag of some type.

    • If the mabs are in range of the attack then, yes they will be be armed by the effect.
    • It has been stated by devs that mobs that have aggroed a character they will run past other characters in order to go after thier target. If the stealthed ranger hasn't attacked yet, then if they were damaged by the aoe, they would run towards the wizard.
    • It depends on if there was a critical hit applied an injury that slowed the movement rate. For a standard hit, damage is just damage, no debuffs. If the ranger runs and the mobs don't have effective ranged attacks, the ranger should be able to flee. Especially since the devs have stated that running away should always be an option.
    • It does warrant a flag, the attacker flag. But the attacker flag is pretty severe, and it shouldn't be applied if there was not an intent to damage the character hit.


    The problem with your intent toggle is it gives spellcasters a cheap way to overcome stealth. AoE cantrip depth charge would have almost no cost to spam. If it fizzles, then hey, there is a stealthed character there. Detecting stealth should be a spell or working on increasing perception with xps that require a bigger investment than a cantrip.

    It doesn't overcome stealth since it doesn't break it or identify the stealthed creature. It just reveals one or more exists within the area of effect. Much more powerfull if it actualy broke stealth.

    Or look at it this way, Glitterdust is an unsave-able Level 2 spell that not only detects stealthed creatures but breaks thier stealth (effectively by applying a -40 modifier) and blinds them. All the Detect Alignment spells are only Level 1 and not only indicate presence but provide more detailed information as well. Would it really be that overpowering to consider that all AOE damage spells came with an inherint Detect Presence of Marked by Pharisma as well? I think not.

    The power isn't knowing something is stealthed within an area...it's being able to interact with that stealthed object in some way. YMMV.

    151 to 200 of 415 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: I Fell into a Burning Ring of Fire All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.