Goblin Squad Member
|
- 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
Now we have it from two Devs...... "Let's move along please, nothing to see here".... Dev Blog, working as intended.
1. Magic User will have attacker flag no matter what target he hits, friend, foe or unintended.
2. Diminishing returns to eliminate stacking alpha strike. I'm not crazy about it, but it is a compromise.
3. Magic Users need to use AOE with care, and deal with the consequences.
If you believe the consequences are too harsh, a couple if weeks after EE, explain to me why every magic user will have fire ball at the ready? Yes I know this is an assumption, but I think it is a safe one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Fair enough. But let me give you an alternate scenario:
A Bandit guild is grouped up and attacking a caravan. The guild has a member not join the party and stay stealthed solo in the middle of the of the bandit horde. If someone is using the intent flag to let the spell fizzle, then any wizard guards on the caravan cannot use AoEs against the attacking bandits because there is a stealthed non-combatant there, causing the Fireball/web/cloudkill to fizzle.
Edit:
The system can be abused either way. I prefer putting the risk on the person who decides to be stealthed while in the line of fire. It looks Like the devs are going to put the blame on the aoe users instead. It will allow people to manipulate the system to cause AoE users to accidentally gain an attacker flag. What I see it doing is just forcing spellcasters who want to be "Good" to never use AoEs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...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)?
Um...not sure where you are getting your rules from, but they don't match any from any course I've ever seen or participated in...
http://www.nssf.org/safety/basics/
http://training.nra.org/nra-gun-safety-rules.aspx
http://www.remington.com/pages/news-and-resources/safety-center.aspx
http://www.georgiawildlife.com/node/2371
Hunters who carry firearms wear Hunter Orange as a safety precaution. (Red's actualy a bad idea as it can get you mixed up with a male turkey and also causes more problems for folks with color blindness.)
However Firearms hunters are NOT the only ones out in the woods in Fall. You can easly encounter hikers, fishermen and mountain-bikers to name just a few....and most of those won't be in safe colors. Additionaly bow-hunters will be in full camo...including thier faces painted normaly. So you can't rely on just making sure you don't see orange.
Nope the ultimate responsibilty ALWAYS lies with the person behind the trigger....no excuses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Bandit guild is grouped up and attacking a caravan. The guild has a member not join the party and stay stealthed solo in the middle of the of the bandit horde. If someone is using the intent flag to let the spell fizzle, then any wizard guards on the caravan cannot use AoEs against the attacking bandits because there is a stealthed non-combatant there, causing the Fireball/web/cloudkill to fizzle.
I don't get it, why can't the wizard caravan guards use their AOEs?
What is the concern about the non combatant stealthed character?
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
But AoEs are tricky enough as it is. Why should you be penalized because some idiot is sneaking around next to a number of targets? At most, I can sort of see the caster only getting the Attacker flag, but I really think even that's stupid. Anybody who attacks the caster over a mistake is overreacting and should therefore himself earn the Attacker flag.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A Bandit guild is grouped up and attacking a caravan. The guild has a member not join the party and stay stealthed solo in the middle of the of the bandit horde. If someone is using the intent flag to let the spell fizzle, then any wizard guards on the caravan cannot use AoEs against the attacking bandits because there is a stealthed non-combatant there, causing the Fireball/web/cloudkill to fizzle.I don't get it, why can't the wizard caravan guards use their AOEs?
What is the concern about the non combatant stealthed character?
I was just point out what would happen under Mel's proposed intent flag from earlier in the thread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Fair enough. But let me give you an alternate scenario:
A Bandit guild is grouped up and attacking a caravan. The guild has a member not join the party and stay stealthed solo in the middle of the of the bandit horde. If someone is using the intent flag to let the spell fizzle, then any wizard guards on the caravan cannot use AoEs against the attacking bandits because there is a stealthed non-combatant there, causing the Fireball/web/cloudkill to fizzle.
Edit:
The system can be abused either way. I prefer putting the risk on the person who decides to be stealthed while in the line of fire. It looks Like the devs are going to put the blame on the aoe users instead. It will allow people to manipulate the system to cause AoE users to accidentally gain an attacker flag. What I see it doing is just forcing spellcasters who want to be "Good" to never use AoEs.
Yup, removes your ability to select AoE's as a spell of choice...same as if some innocent was actualy stuck in the middle of that Bandit group....or you'd have to try experimenting with hitting different parts of the group instead of always globbing the center. In any event....you've already elimated one potential hostile from contributing to the fight before it even begins.
Edit: Or you could just open up with a GlitterDust or See Invisable or something like that, so you know where the hoser is, and can target around him...change up tactics to adapt.
Hunters who carry firearms wear Hunter Orange as a safety precaution. (Red's actualy a bad idea as it can get you mixed up with a male turkey and also causes more problems for folks with color blindness.)However Firearms hunters are NOT the only ones out in the woods in Fall. You can easly encounter hikers, fishermen and mountain-bikers to name just a few....and most of those won't be in safe colors. Additionaly bow-hunters will be in full camo...including thier faces painted normaly. So you can't rely on just making sure you don't see orange.
Nope the ultimate responsibilty ALWAYS lies with the person behind the trigger....no excuses.
Oh, and I've gotta agree with Grumpy here--I live right by a wildlife refuge. The responsibility lies squarely with the idiot with the gun. Sure, walkers should wear orange, but the hunter has to be careful about where he shoots.
I do see a difference, though, since the equivalent of the Stealthed character is a walker wearing camouflage skulking around by the deer. Or, in the case of the griefing Stealther, a walker who likes to jump right in front of the hunters at the last second.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But AoEs are tricky enough as it is. Why should you be penalized because some idiot is sneaking around next to a number of targets? At most, I can sort of see the caster only getting the Attacker flag, but I really think even that's stupid. Anybody who attacks the caster over a mistake is overreacting and should therefore himself earn the Attacker flag.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
Kobolds,
I fell into forgetting this point myself. The attacker flag is a universal flag. Once you attack one party, anyone can attack you provided they flag up or were flagged up already.
So the Mage getting he attacker flag is not the issue. What is the issue then?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- 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
In the legal system, intentional torts are punished worse than torts of negligence.
However, I agree with Ryan. If you use AOE, prepare to be responsible.
Perhaps negative consequence from AOE can be divided. Like a single attack gives you -100 rep. That same attack hits 4 people its -25 rep per person. Or even better, its scaled by the percentof damage that person took. For example, if the bad guy target takes 70% of the damage and your three brothers in arms accidently took 10% of the damage each, the rep would be -70,-10,-10,10.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The more i read the comments raised, the more I feel that the problem lies in the 'anti-griefing' stance more than anything else. All the points are revolving around trying to stop 'griefers' from gaming the system. However, 'griefers' will ALWAYS find a way to game the system with differing levels of success. Id say the real response to it is get some buddies to track him down or throw a bounty/death curse on him. Problem solved.
I had some thoughts to share, then realised that they got hopelessly tangled when factoring in all the flags and possibilities. Going to have to think about it some more before sharing.
The bold is a great way of wording of what a few of us have been trying to say. The same can be said about hackers and just general exploiting. "Where there is a will, there is a way." I am in supporting of finding ways to minimize griefing and other unwanted behavior, but I also believe in the true strength of the gamer and would rather support strong in-game tools to defend/defeat those who choose to "play" (And I use that term loosely) the game that way.
You bounty hunters want someone to hunt and good guys need a bad guy's plot to foil, but your SOOOOO scared of griefing that you would rather nerf and control us "Bad guys" into the ground so there is 0 desire to play those type of characters and therefor less/no content for you. Some of this "concern" needs to be swallowed and the understanding that there will be risks and undesirable situations from time to time needs to be accepted.
Use the system. File reports with the devs and GMs in-game when instances occur. And use your numbers and in-game abilities to grief them back. There are ways around it. In WoW, people would travel in groups or call guildies to come to their aid. in some cases, it lead to some interesting and fun world pvp event, and that type of thing COULD happen here. How do you think wars are started?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At some point we need to accept that the proper way to handle abuse of the rules is through customer service. The "civilians" who space themselves out int the mass of outlaws hoping to be hit by the outlaws' victims' AoE effects are clearly such a case. Since they are already breaking the rules, the rules do not need to account for them, even as an edge case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At some point we need to accept that the proper way to handle abuse of the rules is through customer service. The "civilians" who space themselves out int the mass of outlaws hoping to be hit by the outlaws' victims' AoE effects are clearly such a case. Since they are already breaking the rules, the rules do not need to account for them, even as an edge case.
I'm still not getting what the issue of this is, or even why the "outlaws" would do this? Or why, if it is a deterrent against AOE, why everyone won't do it? I'm guessing you realize that not only the "good guys" will have magic users with AOE spells.
So I ask again, what are the ramifications that you fear?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...Everyone is whining... PVE carebear world so that they don't have to suffer from their bad choices...PVE care bear, Mommy is here to hold your hand and save you from the "bad man" ...Wouldn't the point have been better made without all the inflammatory descriptors? Does it in any way improve an argument to offend and antagonize the people you ostensibly are trying to convince? No.
You are right and I apologize. I wrote that post in a foul mood and while it is the raw truth of my feelings, your right that it really accomplishes nothing. I just want a game to be enjoyable and fun for EVERYONE, the bad guys included. Not just because I intend to play one of these "bad guys" but because without them, there is less content for everyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... I just want a game to be enjoyable and fun for EVERYONE, the bad guys included. Not just because I intend to play one of these "bad guys" but because without them, there is less content for everyone else.
I am wholly with you in this desire. The game is going to depend on you 'bad' guys.
I've noticed in literature that heroes cannot shine brilliant without either magnificent villains or awful catastrophe. There will be no story without conflict.
Best wishes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Um...not sure where you are getting your rules from, but they don't match any from any course I've ever seen or participated in...The rule about not walking on the firing range is tacit. Common sense. Take a walk downrange sometime and see what the reaction is. Better yet, think about it rather than doing it.
I do think that removing the Chaotic consequence of gaining the Attacker flag (for hitting a character you couldn't be aware of in your AoE) would be a sufficient compromise here. That would be dependent on other characters (that you are aware of) being in the AoE in order to 'demonstrate' that you had some other valid purpose of the AoE, if there are no other visible targets of the AoE then that is just 'depth charging' and it should be treated like any other attack.
This still means you gain the Attacker flag for accidentally AoE'ing an undetected character (along with other unaffiliated visible targets), so the (stealth/invisible) character hit by the AoE /can/ 'fight back' without gaining the Attacker flag themself. If things develop to a fight, and you end up killing the originally stealthed/invisible character, I'm not sure if you should gain the Evil/Low-Rep consequences... I would say that since simple 'depthcharging' has already been excluded from this rules variation, it seems reasonable to not apply those either. But at least you DO have the choice to run away if you want to avoid that outcome, unlike for the initial AoE for which you had no informed choice in the matter.
This is still even leaving SOME room for 'exploits' by enabling somebody to avoid gaining the Attacker flag (and all subsequent consequences) against somebody who didn't want to attack/fight them. But it does address Alignment-griefing via stealthing around PVE areas with Monsters to grief Lawful/Good characters when they use AoEs on Monsters, weakening them or their settlements by endangering Alignment-dependent abilities or force-kicking them from their Settlement, while evading any such consequences for yourself.
The only exploit I see on the other side (the AoE caster) is if they have an ally (technically associated with them or not in-game) who CAN see a stealth/invisible character and can move towards said character and 'call in' an AoE on the area (also hitting the stealthed/invis character), then that is an approach to avoid the Evil/Low-Rep consequences of attacking and killing somebody (although you still would get full Chaos consequences, just for attacking a different character, your buddy). But that seems just much more situational and rarer to set up (you're also giving up the advantage of your buddy getting a first hit in on top of damaging him), as well as being less disruptive to the over-all game since it's simply evading a consequence for yourself, not screwing somebody else over with consequences they couldn't see and avoid... So over all, it seems like an improvement to me. /my2c
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- 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
Thank you. I agree 100%. Just like in TT, stuff happens and if you don't want to accept the consequences, don't use them.
I realized my last post wasn't distinguishing well enough between removing the Chaotic consequence from the Attack flag and the removal of Evil/Low-Rep if the invisible target ends up getting killed by the AoE caster, I didn't intend to link the two concepts together so strongly.
Ultimately, I think removing Chaotic consequence for AoE vs. Invisible/etc but retaining the Attacker flag itself AND retaining the Evil/Low-Rep consequences for Killing them with Attacker flag is the best bet, it avoids further exploit scenarios (including intra-party PVP) because the strongest consequences (Evil/Low-Rep) for Killing still apply. If you saw a character enter stealth/invisibility then there should be a time-window where they still count as visible for this purpose, since you should know there are still in the immediate area.
I did realize that even if Invisibles ARE exempted, Chaotic AoE casters are still at a tactical advantage vs. Lawful ones, since Lawful can not freely include allies in AoE attacks when that is tactically beneficial, which is usually something covered by 'party agreement'. I guess I can accept that... But I don't think that on top of situations which players can choose to avoid (AoE'ing visible party members) we need to apply Chaos alignment shifts for actions that couldn't have been foreseen (invisible), especially when that enables related Alignment and Attack-flag griefing methods.
It is one thing to use a tactic so you can avoid gaining the Attack flag and it's consequences yourself, it is another to use griefing tactics which apply penalties/consequences to others with they couldn't have foreseen and didn't choose. I rejected making exceptions for Evil/Low-Rep Killing consequences because of exploits that would be enabled by such exceptions, but I think simply removing the Chaos consequence for Attacking invisible characters results in the best gameplay and least exploits/griefing.
Question: If including an ally (visible or invisible) in an AoE gives you the Attacker flag, then would the ally continue to be treated as an ally of yours? What happens if you then use some effect which targets only enemies, would it affect that ally even if they continue to count as your ally (since you have the PVP Attacker flag vs them)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quandary,
The chaotic shift you get for the attacker flag, when you accidentally hit that rare un intended target, will be wiped away when you log off for he night. By the time you return, the next day, you will likely have shifted lawful enough to wipe it out.
But that is really besides the point. I had recently put forth the idea that players are more concerned about lose of reputation or shifts in alignment than they are in their character actually having their characters killed.
This I feel is something that GW might have to clarify or retool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- 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
As long as that applies to all forms of offense, that's fine. Sure, a greatsword has less range than a fireball, but if a rogue can be stealthed in the fireball in order to flag the caster, then they should also be able to stealth into the paladin's backswing to flag them too. Of course, you could also absolve both the spellcaster and paladin of their responsibility for targets they couldn't see.
|
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.
If your tactics cause way unfun to others, (and they sometimes would) GW is trying to mitigate the unfun part. Sounds like the party getting attacked will still take plenty of damage, so don't fret too much. Organized attacks will work, but I am hoping the day of the one shot kill is over. One shots suck for everyone...it doesn't add to any game. It detracts from the experience.
Will Siege Engines, or simple Bow & Arrow, or magic, be able to target out of line-of-sight, which would presumably work via map targetting since you can't target each characters or the area they are in directly? Or would there be 'forward spotters' who gain the line of sight and pass on that location info to the Siege Engine/etc somehow?
- 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
+10!
Accepting responsibility for your actions, YES! I'm totally behind this. In too many games they remove even the chance of having responsibility, much less being held accountable for your actions.
What is the responsibility/consequence of stealthing near monsters that other players are attacking with AoEs, and then attacking/killing these players without gaining an attacker flag or any other consequence yourself, and they can't put a bounty on you (but you can on them, if you lose)? You take a first AoE, but they also have aggro vs. monsters while facing an unexpected PVP combat. You can also act like 'oh, that must have been a mistake, it's OK', walk away and heal while they fight the monsters a bit more, and re-engage combat while the Attack flag is still active.
What is the responsibility/consequence for stealthing and moving into melee vs. monsters that your ally is AoE'ing without informing your ally of your intentions and where/what monsters you will be engaging in melee? Sounds like a great way to initiate intra-party PVP WITHOUT gaining the Attacker flag yourself, or Chaotic/Evil/Rep consequences... I'm not really clear on the Traitor flag, but it seems like it could very well be applied to your AoE ally and not you.
I dialed back the idea of removing Evil/Low-Rep consequences for Killing after gaining the Attack flag because it would just allow for other exploits. Not applying the Attack flag would be the way to negate these exploits, but would allow other ones. The idea to just remove Chaos repurcussions wouldn't actually prevent the above exploits though, it just doesn't leave the exploit victim with a penalty even if they run away.
My point is, there will be ways to avoid consequences, so not applying Chaotic consequences to somebody who didn't intend to do something and doesn't take further hostile action/runs away from a griefer (to kill the griefer would yield Evil/Low-Rep consequences if you gained the Attacker flag first) just isn't that far out. If we can't stop exploits, at least we can make it less bad for victims of them.
I pretty much totally dislike the entire 'automatic alignment drift' concept anyways, but it isn't enough to counteract this. For one, depending on the alignment of each party, the amount of Chaos gained will change, a very Lawful griefer would mean more Chaos shift. Secondly, whatever amount of Chaos that the 'alignment drift' counter-acts is Chaotic actions that you otherwise would have been OK doing, and now you are faced with Alignment change and loss of class abilities/settlement status. Since your own moral choices didn't change, the onus is still on the griefing for this outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Definitely agree with Ryan, though getting an attacker flag will immediately reveal a not so damage hidden character. I say if a target is hidden, the attacker only gets the attacker flag only when the target is revealed: invisible spell effects ends, character decides to reveal, takes enough damage to loss concentration, etc. damage resulting in concentration loss, could have a concentration check done. If character dies from the effect while concealed, the attacker automatically gets the attacker flag.
The hidden characters also need to be responsible for going into dangerous locations, besides the character dropping AoE attacks in the area. Still give the hidden characters a chance to remain hidden, unknown if they have not been seen until point of receiving damage, as the attacker flag automatically reveals hidden characters just because they got hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
my understanding was you are eligible to place a bounty on anyone who killed you, not just those under the effects of a flag at the time. I could be mistaken, but that was my understanding.
@Hardin The biggest issue I have with removing the 1 shot ability is then you limit the ability to fill certain roles, like the assassin. Please explain to me how an assassin is meant to fulfill a contract to kill someone who resides inside a settlement (Hostile to the assassin) and rarely if ever leaves? Never mind the fact that he has to stealth in and out again, which is a challenge of itself, but now you expect him to give a full fledged fight to his target, in the middle of a hostile settlement, and be able to survive?
I don't mean to derail the topic, but it does apply, being 1 shot sucks, I agree. But it has it's place. In the assassin thread I put my suggestion as I see it being fair and balanced to allow 1 shot without making it "for everyone" or an "I win" button. As for AOE spells and rocking a party of "x" number of magi all timing AOE to wipe a whole party instantly, unlikely but possible. The balance comes in the form that Magi need to be limited in some way, like how they are in TT. Put long CDs on spells, or something that will balance them to everyone else.
in TT, the weakness of mages was their limited spells. Once a mage cast their allotted spells, they were almost useless till they rested. Obviously that won't work as a direct transplant from TT, but I feel the concept should be used. Magic is meant to be powerful and god like in strength, but it is draining and taxing to the mind and body. look at some of the most powerful spells as example. Power word: death anyone? Wanna talk about 1 shot. There are several examples on both arcane and divine spells that are save or die, or similarly powerful. For a game where no one wants 1 shot chances, where do those fit in? Do we just lack them and make magic another "weapon" like a sword or bow? Then, IMHO, it is boring and takes away from the majesty and power that the mage commands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"The hidden character needs to be held responsible for where and when he stealth's somewhere." I keep hearing this and it makes no sense. If your driving through an intersection and someone runs a stop sign and hits you, how are you responsible? Now, if you KNOW he will run the stop sign, and you still drive through and get hit, are you still responsible? According to the law, no cause he ran the sign. The fact is this, Anyone who uses stealth, and then wonders into the path of a AOE or other hazardous region, weather intentionally or not, should be treated the same as if he had been walking upright and seen by all. Why should a stealthed person be treated any different from a visible person? Weather the stealthed person we there because he wanted the mage to get flagged, or he just happened by and got caught, the fact is he is there and so he got hit. Mage gets flag (sorry stuff happens) and the rogue gets damage. Rogue can then attack mage, or yell "stop, im sneaking here, or just run away and like his wounds. Mage can apologize (if he de-stealths him) or continue to nuke away and tell the rogue to watch where he walks.
As ryan said, if you throw a nade at the enemy, and then find a child hiding under the table the bad guy is standing at, you still "attacked" the child right? Even though you didn't know he was there? Why do people want this to be treated different?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I was in the military, or on a shooting range now, I was responsibile for what direction my rifle was pointing; I was responsible for what target I fired at; AND.... I was responsible for who or what I hit!
All weapons that have the potential to hit multiple targets carry with them the responsibility of the user to have "situational awareness" when using them.
The consequences of the flags and or of the reputation hist, and especially for death, are so small...why all of this worry??
If you acciedntly hit a target that was unflagged himself, and you are so worried that you will now lose reputation if you are forced to kill him. Ask for his forgiveness.... "hey sorry dude, I did not see you there". If he starts to attack you, then either defend yourself and kill him; run away; or if you have all threaded gear - just stand there and let him kill you. The death is less costly then the rep loss, right?
This is going to be such a rare occurance, really... some of you think that stealth is so OP that someone can stand in a group of MOBS and pass multiple Perception checks, over and over again, until you happen to wander by..... really?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would be highly surprised, if a mage, before looking to start a fight, has not cast Arcane Sight or True Sight. I mean there is nothing more frustrating in the TTRPG than trying to fight improved/perma invis casters without any detection. Invis detection is something you should have precast before an engagement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as that applies to all forms of offense, that's fine. Sure, a greatsword has less range than a fireball, but if a rogue can be stealthed in the fireball in order to flag the caster, then they should also be able to stealth into the paladin's backswing to flag them too. Of course, you could also absolve both the spellcaster and paladin of their responsibility for targets they couldn't see.
I don't have an issue with this for specific melee attacks (such as whirlwind), but it shouldn't apply to all swings of a weapon.
As others have stated above though, I think we really need to move away from the over complication of every mechanic in an attempt to stop griefing. Report them and move on, or let Andius know and move on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
- 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
+10!
Accepting responsibility for your actions, YES! I'm totally behind this. In too many games they remove even the chance of having responsibility, much less being held accountable for your actions.
It seems incongruous to me that responsibility is proposed to accrue not to the player making the choices (to be unseen and in the target area) but to the one who cannot be aware of the stealther's presence and decides to lob a fireball at a sextet of goblins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Being
I don't usually try to connect real world with game worlds but in this case I believe it applies.
When ever a shooter fires his weapon, he is solely responsible for what he hits.
Besides, read my post above.... What is the likelihood of the scenarios some seem to be so fearful of?
I can guess by the Dev's responses, they feel it will be so rare that they have not even acknowledged the concern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The choices in the scenario belong to the stealther. Responsibility springs from choice.
So Ryan says the caster chose to cast an AoE and you say the shooter chose to throw the grenade or squeeze the trigger. Yet the caster did NOT choose to hit the guy he could not have known was there.
It is injustice that is my concern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The choices in the scenario belong to the stealther. Responsibility springs from choice.
So Ryan says the caster chose to cast an AoE and you say the shooter chose to throw the grenade or squeeze the trigger. Yet the caster did NOT choose to hit the guy he could not have known was there.
It is injustice that is my concern.
But when he throws that AOE, he knows that there is a chance that someone else is hiding there (albeit he must have probably passed god knows how many stealth checks to remain hidden).
That is the risk he takes, that he hasn't taken the time to cast a glitterdust/see invis/true sight/arcane sight and is instead choosing to drop the hammer on a group of targets. A lot of those are low level, long duration spells, so there is no reason why they wouldn't have access to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A lot of people seem to equate stealth and invisibility. Stealth checks take penalties from light and movement, is countered by scent, tremorsense and a decent perception check among many others skills and abilities.
How people think a bandit/rogue/assassin is able to simply 'hide' in a group of enemies is beyond me. And an invisible caster is unlikely to want to use himself as fireball bait.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess there is no convincing some pepole how almost impossibly rare this scenario will be.
The game system can not account for such a rare occurance, and at the same time accurately predict the motive of the stealthed character at the same time.
As I have said repeatedly, the stealthed character could be minding his or her own business. Not setting a trap for anyone, but perhaps stalking the group of Mobs himself. Then some wizard comes blundering along, throwing fire balls indiscriminantly, and not only injures the stealthed character, but reveals him to the now irate Mobs. And some say, it is not the responsibility of the Wizard, but the stealthed guy minding his own business.
Wizards get a free attack, at will, on anyone as long as they use aoe. It is a free attack, because if you did not have "situational awareness" to know that a) he is a wizard b) he has a fire ball spell c) he may target the group you are stalking d) you should have seen the wizard to begin with e) the Wizard is not required to use any discretion himself... and so on, with perhaps hundreds of reasons why the attacker is not at fault.
All of your assumptions are based on one, unprovable premise, The stealthed character is there to trick the Magic User into AOEing him.
Some of you like to use scientific reasoning, where is your data? That shows that in every circumstance, your assumption is 100% correct.
The only practical solution is the one the Devs have come up with. Throw the AOE and accept the consequneces. If you don't like it,don't use AOE in a situation where there is even the remotest chance that you can hit an unintended, unseen target.
Final note: A funny aside, perhaps.....
What if the stealthied / invisible character is Druid, studying the mating rituals of Goblins or other dangerous goblinoids, in their natural setting.
And then "Psy-feros" the Pyro Wizard comes along, and nukes "Jane Goodall".... And then she gets eaten up by sex deprived, hungry goblins with their butts on fire?
Psy-feros... "It wasn't me!"... "Not my fault"... "You should have been more situationally aware, foolish little Druid."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The stealther has absolutely no responsibility for choosing to sneak around close enough to those goblins to be caught in a fireball from the party he can plainly see a few yards off.
They cannot see him: he can see them if they have LoS to cast an AoE.
Oddest thing in the world that you apparently have absolutely no idea what is wrong with that. Either that, or you simply aren't admitting that you do. That latter wouldn't be because you want that advantage for the stealther to exploit a flag-infliction opportunity, would it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wizards get a free attack, at will, on anyone as long as they use aoe. It is a free attack, because if you did not have "situational awareness" to know that a) he is a wizard b) he has a fire ball spell c) he may target the group you are stalking d) you should have seen the wizard to begin with e) the Wizard is not required to use any discretion himself... and so on, with perhaps hundreds of reasons why the attacker is not at fault.
This part is at least partially wrong, well depending on what you are meaning by "situational awareness", I believe at least assuming nothing is changed, in more cases than not you will be able to identify a wizard.
It's unlikely that there will be much benefit to "scouting" adventuring parties. The character in the robes will be a wizard, the character with the holy symbol will be the cleric, etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The stealther has absolutely no responsibility for choosing to sneak around close enough to those goblins to be caught in a fireball from the party he can plainly see a few yards off.
They cannot see him: he can see them if they have LoS to cast an AoE.
Oddest thing in the world that you apparently have absolutely no idea what is wrong with that. Either that, or you simply aren't admitting that you do. That latter wouldn't be because you want that advantage for the stealther to exploit a flag-infliction opportunity, would it?
The answer to your final question is "No"... Reason should be obvious...... Too many perception saves to be made to hide amongst a group of mobs, waiting for who knows how long, for a group that just happens to have a magic user with a fire ball, in the hopes that he I'll happen to hit me with a fire ball, so that I can then attack him, so that I don't get a reputation hit....... Really?
No..... I would wait on the sidelines..... Wait for both the wizard and his group to engage the goblins. As both sides. Wear eachother down, and as soon as the Wizard, having spent his mana and his companions being all nicked up, finish off the last of the goblins, that is when we will strike.
Then, under my Outlaw Flag, I propose a SAD to the group.... I either take a portion of their loot, but they will likely put up a fight. In their weakened state, easy kill..... I get no reputation loss, because they turned down the SAD, and my company of bandits loot their corpses, leaving what is left of their threaded gear to be destroyed. We then loot the goblin corpses as well.... Oh me oh my... We will get the Thief Flag... Lol....
Best of all, I don't have to take a fire ball in the face to do that. I also don't have to sit and wait for them to come to me, I could be the one traveling ( hunting) , and seizing that opportunity when I come across them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The stealther has absolutely no responsibility for choosing to sneak around close enough to those goblins to be caught in a fireball from the party he can plainly see a few yards off.
They cannot see him: he can see them if they have LoS to cast an AoE.
Oddest thing in the world that you apparently have absolutely no idea what is wrong with that. Either that, or you simply aren't admitting that you do. That latter wouldn't be because you want that advantage for the stealther to exploit a flag-infliction opportunity, would it?
It isn't that the stealthy character has no responsibility for where he stealths, it is just a situation of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. As bludd and others have said, having someone stealth into a group and stand there waiting to get AOE'd isn't a likely situation where this would happen. Allow me to present a different situation that I feel would be more likely to involve this situation.
A rogue is stalking a caravan and decides to move in a pick pocket the guards and maybe try to rip off the caravan itself without anyone noticing. While he is among the caravan, another group, involving a mage with fireball, decide to attack the caravan instead of using the SAD mechanic. opening with a fireball attack, followed by everyone rushing to fight the guards, the rogue gets caught in the initial fireball.
In this situation, would the mage still be flagged as attacker for attacking the rogue? nevermind that he has it for attacking the caravan. I think he should because he still attacked him, as it is a hazard of using aoe attacks. compared to real world, lets not use the nade example, if you missile a building, or bomb an area, did you not attack everything in the blast radius regardless of known residents?
I don't see how it is the unknown resident's "fault" for being there. And it would incur too much overhead for the server to attempt to decide everyone's intent for their moves and actions. Maybe he was afk and the goblins moved in around him when the mage fireballed them. Is he still at fault? he wasn't even at his keyboard? I could come up with a hundred examples of honest "wrong place wrong time" just as I am sure you can give 100 examples of why he intended to be there and flag the mage. There needs to be a consistent and realistic rule that best covers both sets of scenario's and I am 100% in favor of being responsible for your own actions. if you wanna use a potentially powerful ability such as fireball, then you run the risk of hitting an unknown target and must live with those consequences.
So I'm not quite clear on this. Will there be any penalties for accidentally hitting someone other than the Attacker flag?
I think even assigning the Attacker flag is lame, but I can see I'm a minority there, so I want to be sure that that's the worst an evoker will have to put up with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So I'm not quite clear on this. Will there be any penalties for accidentally hitting someone other than the Attacker flag?
I think even assigning the Attacker flag is lame, but I can see I'm a minority there, so I want to be sure that that's the worst an evoker will have to put up with.
The worse case scenario is that the Magic User could then be killed by the stealthed character, without the stealthed character losing reputation for it.
The Attacker flag is not the issue, because the Magic User would have a global, 1 minute, Attacker flag for attacking anyway.
I don't see why you are opposed to the Attacker Flag, when the Mage attacked. That is what the flag is for.
In my scenario above, the character stealthed, if a bandit, would be better off not hiding in the middle of the Goblins, but off to the side. And then when the two sides are done fighting, SAD the surviving side, kill them if they don't accept and not lose any reputaion anyway.
I would rather be an "Opportunist Ganker" than a "Hoping to be Bait" sitting duck!
Oh.... and before I raise the ire and tears of some of the softer folk....
Ganking is not griefing, it is not unfare, it is what all military forces plan to do. For those that need to know:
Ganking is the use of superior numbers or fire power to reduce the risk and increase the likleihood of victory in a conflict of arms. No competent military commander ever plans to fight a fare fight, they plan to fight to win. Any commander that plans to fight fare, belongs in a military prison or at the end of a noose.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly, after all, if only 1 bandit was to hold up a caravan, even if it was just the merchant and 1 guard (a fair fight) would the merchant risk the 50/50 that his guard can take the bandit in a fight at the risk of losing a portion, or will he give into the demands of the SAD and pay the toll? Now if the same merchant +1 meets a group of 10 bandits, he is more inclined to consider the SAD more carefully, effectively ganking him with the SAD. It is the same concept of overwhelming force.
If you want to combat overwhelming force, bring overwhelming force. Every heard the saying "There is safety in numbers"? Don't hirer 1 guard for a caravan, bring 5 or 6.
The game system can not account for such a rare occurance, and at the same time accurately predict the motive of the stealthed character at the same time.
Who is suggesting an alternative approach that depends on accurately predicting motives? All the different approaches I have seen posted here are based solely on game mechanics that are trivial to resolve.
Exactly what is stopping the game from not applying Chaotic repurcussions in specific circumstances? You may not like doing so, but the advisability of doing so is it's own issue apart from whether it 'can' be done or not, I simply don't see the basis for claiming the game 'can not' do this... Of course, if there is some inherent impediment preventing this, you clearly have nothing to worry about, because no matter how much everybody else including GW would want to implement such a change, they simply 'can not' according to your claim.
I didn't go into every scenario in detail, but changing the mechanic to either not trigger the Attack flag per se, or remove Evil/Rep consequences for killing, just opens up other exploit scenarios (since resolving motive apart from basic game mechanisms is unrealistic to accomplish), so I would advocate against any such measure, as I previously wrote.
STEALTH is NOT infallible. It requires REGULAR checks by ALL opposing enemies/groups. You CANNOT just 'stealth' around in a group of goblins indefinitely...
Well, you pretty easily CAN in the tabletop game, Nat 20 doesn't apply to skills.
Regardless, even if your stealth doesn't always work that doesn't have a bad effect on you because you are still unflagged and at worst simply may deal with a fair fight, if they attack you first then they gain the Attack flag which is the entire point of the exploit, if you don't attack them first and they don't then nothing happens. If they are CE themselves, then the exploit is much less signifigant since they shouldn't have any problem with attacking and killing you unprovoked anyways, and if you are worried about winning that fight then there is no point in setting up this exploit.
The exploit works best vs. Good, especially LG players, and it's minimal consequence for them even when a PVP fight isn't pursued (Chaotic) can lead to class ability loss, settlement expulsion, or at minimum restricting what other actions they may take (to counter the alignment shift). It is trivial to focus your actions in areas and against specific groups that are highly likely to be LG, and just the minimal consequences (Chaotic) can be significant for settlement vs. settlement conflict (e.g. LE vs. LG with the LG being dependent on being able to use their LG focused abilities, not to mention not lose settlement members).
Monster hordes (who you could even be on friendly terms with their Faction so they won't attack you) don't need to be a signifigant challenge/danger for the exploit tactic to work, it's fairly simple to use the exploit in scenarios that don't present a danger to you in case of stealth failure, in fact the weaker the monsters are the weaker the AoEs the other players are likely to use on them (and you, accidentally). You never even addressed the intra-party PVP Traitor exploit scenario.
The only real change that removing the Chaotic repurcussion for AoEs vs. invisible targets is that you can run away from an exploiting ganker, and use control and other such attacks to help you run away, without penalties for yourself. There will likely be some sort of exploits possible regardless of approach, but we can at least work to minimize them, and certainly try to prevent exploits leading to negative consequences for their victims (rather than simply the exploiter evading consequences themself).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps a solution could be that all AOE spells are considered chaotic in nature, the possibility of them hitting unintended targets would suggest as much. So a wizard using AOE spells would not worry about any chaotic shift, he would likely wish to have it, so that he could train his chaotic spells to higher levels.
Well, as I mentioned earlier, if hitting allies with AoEs leads to Attack flag and Chaos shift (even if your allies say "Yes!, Hit me with the AoE too if it's tactically beneficial!") then at least we can say that Chaos will be able to use AoE to better effect more consistently and without worries. Now, the idea that preferring Law to Chaos means that you may pass up some opportunities is kind of inherent to Law/Chaos, and we wouldn't WANT to get rid of that distinction, but what is being discussed here is removing EXPLOIT scenarios (and scenarios with invisible allies who neglected to warn the AoE caster of their position) that uniquely penalize Lawful/Neutral characters.
If we DON'T want AoEs to be inherently Chaos-aligned, then removing the non-necessary Chaotic exploit consequence for Lawful/Neutral characters seems advisable to me. If GW WANT AoEs to be inherently Chaotic, then I don't see any conflict with the status quo (Blog), but if that's the case they really should go whole-hog about it, which would probably make the mentioned Chaotic shift nearly superfluous compared to simply using the ('Chaotic') AoE attacks all the time. I don't see any evidence that AoEs are intended to truly be Chaotic aligned, so a minor change making it so exploits at least don't Chaotically penalize the victim seems like a clear net win for the game.
