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 get why you bring up this example over and over again. But it's a lost cause. No one else comes out supporting it, it would require a lot more coding for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either.
No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie though. It's your party.
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, I could live with mages being able to AoE without flagging when hitting someone they were unaware of - as long as my assassin can do the same with his AoE attack. Poisoning a settlements water supply might prove to be great fun. After all, I was only after my mark, and was unaware that all the other folk living in town drink water ;)
I may not be responsible for killing hundreds of people since I didn't intend to poison them, but I am damn well accountable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So for those who don't want the magic user to get the attacker flag for AOE used on stealthier characters, how do you stop that being used as an exploit?
What Stephen Cheney called the "Stealth Depth Charge", is why he said the magic user would have to get the attacker flag. Otherwise magic user would just throw these does around indiscriminantly, with no recourse for the stealthed characters hit by them.
Us I know, you are all mind readers and know exactly why everyone is stealthed, they are always waiting to trick magic user to AOE them. But just for a moment, set aside your extraordinary mind reading capabities and entertain for a moment that there maybe other purposes.
It's hardly much more coding.
For AoE attacks there is a check of the 'visible' state of the target (which is already needed to track whether or not characters are displayed for you to target with non-AoE attacks) and the Chaotic penalty applies depending on that is visible or non-visible. The activation of stealth affects direct vision/targetting immediately, and changes the Chaos consequence for AoOs N seconds later, to give a bubble of protection since anybody reasonably should still know the character is the area after entering stealth. That's it.
That only addresses the Chaotic consequences of the exploit for the victim, it doesn't prevent other benefits of the exploit for the exploiter, but that seems unavoidable to me... or at least any other approach which would negate those other benefits of the exploits would just enable some other exploit, so there's no reason to change things there. But at least we can remove the inherent penalty on the victim of the exploit (/accidental targetting of invisible allies) so they don't lose even if they choose to not pursue the fight further and flee (maybe with control effects to enable doing that vs. an exploiting 'attacker' who wants to fight them).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like friendly fire AoE's to a point. They feel more realistic, match the paper game rules better, and force players to think. Here are some ways you can reduce abuse:
1. Instead of "all or nothing" effects, give AoE attacks maximum effect near the center, and reduced effect on the edges. This is hard to calculate "live", which is why the paper rules don't work this way, but trivial for a computer. This also helps solve the "too good" AoE spell problem - If a spell hits five enemies, it is probably doing reduced damage to 2 or 3 of them.
Example: 20' radius Fireball. Approach 1: Anyone caught within 5' of the center gets no saving throw. 5' - 15' from center saves for half damage. 15' - 20' saves for half or no damage. This is a simplified approach that could also be used in tabletop play.
Approach 2: Same spell. Within 0' - 10', normal rules apply (full or half damage based on save). 10' - 20', targets take reduced damage scaled according to the distance. So a party member caught "on the edge" of a Fireball may get singed, but probably only for a few points of damage. And the player won't really know if an enemy moved out of range just in time, or was on the edge and took minimal damage.
As for friendly fire and alignment/reputation, an AoE spell in a non-combat area (such as a friendly town) should be penalized. (There might need to be an exception if the town is under attack - In that case, revert to normal combat rules following). An AoE attack in combat that barely singes a party member should be acceptable, but one centered on several friendly characters should be penalized. You can also provide a system that lets players downvote a "friendly" player who has acted chaotically. That's also useful as part of a social reputation system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So for those who don't want the magic user to get the attacker flag for AOE used on stealthier characters, how do you stop that being used as an exploit?
What Stephen Cheney called the "Stealth Depth Charge", is why he said the magic user would have to get the attacker flag. Otherwise magic user would just throw these does around indiscriminantly, with no recourse for the stealthed characters hit by them.
Us I know, you are all mind readers and know exactly why everyone is stealthed, they are always waiting to trick magic user to AOE them. But just for a moment, set aside your extraordinary mind reading capabities and entertain for a moment that there maybe other purposes.
I already suggested a two-fold approach to that.
A) Plain damage should not auto-break stealth. At best, it should force a new check with some penalty relative to the damage done. This already reduces the value of the "Depth Charge" maneuver by leaving weak, mass cast cantrips near to unable to break stealth.
AND
B) Flagging checks should go as follows: If there are targets in the area that the caster is aware of (either visible targets, or stealthed targets the caster was able to detect normally), the flag as appropriate for the known targets. If there are no known targets in the area, then include hidden targets in the flagging calculation, as the caster had no valid basis for the attack other than assuming something hidden was there.
With these in place, depth charging is less valuable (does not auto-break stealth) and will still result in appropriate flagging for the caster (because there are no valid targets).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What about my idea of having AOE spells and devices requiring chaotic alignment? They are in a way a chaotic use of magic, carrying with them unintended consequences. This way the magic user would be happy with the flag, because he would make it easier to continue his chaotic based training.
As I said earlier, repeatedly, if the stealthed character was looking to bait, that us really an unnecessary and honestly stupid way to play it. Better to sit back, let sides A and B fight it out, then SAD the survivor as soon as the fight is over.
That eliminates all of the needed perception rolls
Eliminates having to take an AOE attack
Eliminates having to fight as part of a three way fight
SADs a weakened opponent
Kills that opponent if SAD us rejected, with no Rep loss
Allows for looting of both parties, although one will flag us a thieves
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like friendly fire AoE's to a point. They feel more realistic, match the paper game rules better, and force players to think. Here are some ways you can reduce abuse:
1. Instead of "all or nothing" effects, give AoE attacks maximum effect near the center, and reduced effect on the edges. This is hard to calculate "live", which is why the paper rules don't work this way, but trivial for a computer. This also helps solve the "too good" AoE spell problem - If a spell hits five enemies, it is probably doing reduced damage to 2 or 3 of them.
Example: 20' radius Fireball. Approach 1: Anyone caught within 5' of the center gets no saving throw. 5' - 15' from center saves for half damage. 15' - 20' saves for half or no damage. This is a simplified approach that could also be used in tabletop play.
Approach 2: Same spell. Within 0' - 10', normal rules apply (full or half damage based on save). 10' - 20', targets take reduced damage scaled according to the distance. So a party member caught "on the edge" of a Fireball may get singed, but probably only for a few points of damage. And the player won't really know if an enemy moved out of range just in time, or was on the edge and took minimal damage.
As for friendly fire and alignment/reputation, an AoE spell in a non-combat area (such as a friendly town) should be penalized. (There might need to be an exception if the town is under attack - In that case, revert to normal combat rules following). An AoE attack in combat that barely singes a party member should be acceptable, but one centered on several friendly characters should be penalized. You can also provide a system that lets players downvote a "friendly" player who has acted chaotically. That's also useful as part of a social reputation system.
I like the addition of a "friendly area" as that fits with friendly fire - how the group of allied players interact with each other.
Definitely diminishing returns on AoE. Perhaps the gradiant of damage is a good inclusion. But effectively it should be: A base damage that less than Single-target attack, but adds up over the total players underneath. I guess different AoEs will damage different amounts depending in part on the mix of targets underneath. So choosing the best AoE comes into play.
-
Has there been a consideration of casting the same AoE on your own players to an enemies that cancels original AoE out where they coincide or even 2 AoEs cast ats cancel/reduce each other? So players get hit and wait a few seconds for the effect to return a damage, meanwhile another cast can fit in that window to negate it, meanwhile a second and final AoE of same type is thrown in to balance back to a +1 AoE in play etc?
I apologize, Bluddwolf. I've been arguing without understanding what the Attacker flag actually was. That's a waste of time and energy, and it delayed the resolution of this issue. The Attacker flag is fair enough for an accidental strike. The kobold was wrong.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
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?
A group of bandits approach, such that they are in a good position for a fireball, and attack a larger group. Hiding in that group are a few 'noncombatant civilians'. The fireball aimed at the attackers damages at least one of the 'civilians', giving the defending group the attacker flag for attacking him. The aggressors then change targets and kill the 'civilian', who then places a death curse against the person who cast the fireball.
THAT is why allowing someone to get an attacker flag without specifically deciding to can be a major problem.
You are right, though: There is no reason to believe that outlaws will be more likely to pull something like this than any other group. It also doesn't strictly require stealth, but it seems a lot like the alleged practice of siting air-defense artillery on schoolyards...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are ways to make the practice safer IF GW wants to do so. However, it seems they want to classify AoE Damage attacks as INHERENTLY reckless actions....and therefore place the burden and risk of shifts due to said attacks solidly upon the caster. That does seem a legitimate interpretation (IMO)...if one considers such attacks are relatively powerfull.
I believe that you WILL likely be able to use them with Freinds/Allies in the area of effect but that will likely be dependant upon the willingness of the Friends/Allies to accept such attacks....as I strongly suspect GW will, at some point, be willing to put in something like a "forgiveness" mechanic....for freinds/allies to forgive the alignment ramifications of damage that was consentualy delivered. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have come to fully accept that the Caster is always responsible, and accepts the risks by casting the AoE spell. However, I think this should be very clearly spelled out in-game, so that new players who don't pay much attention to the guide still know the risks they're assuming. And I think it's a good idea to have a setting that causes AoEs to fizzle if they would have applied the Attacker Flag.
I believe that you WILL likely be able to use them with Freinds/Allies in the area of effect but that will likely be dependant upon the willingness of the Friends/Allies to accept such attacks...
They've said as much in the blogs. Friendly targets inside your AoE will take damage, but this will not apply the Attacker Flag.
Hitting a target with an AoE will be treated exactly like a single-target attack for purposes of flagging, reputation, alignment, and so on (except possibly for members of your party, as those have the easiest recourse to deal with you if you start team killing).
Hrm, looks like it wasn't as clear as I thought it was. Still, I hope they do this, and expect they probably will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone will look for a way to game every rule. Plugging one hole, preventing one exploit, will just pave the way for another exploit. From what I've read, it sounds like GW will have GMs on the lookout for exploiters.
"There comes a time in every project when you have to shoot the engineers and go into production." Obviously PFO is nowhere near that point as a whole, but I think we've gnawed this particular bone to powder. My vote: Let's see how GW's current system holds up in EE before we ask for more adjustments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fixed:
Hitting a target with an AoE will be treated exactly like a single-target attack for purposes of flagging, reputation, alignment, and so on (except possibly for members of your party, as those have the easiest recourse to deal with you if you start team killing).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So for those who don't want the magic user to get the attacker flag for AOE used on stealthier characters, how do you stop that being used as an exploit?
What Stephen Cheney called the "Stealth Depth Charge", is why he said the magic user would have to get the attacker flag. Otherwise magic user would just throw these does around indiscriminantly, with no recourse for the stealthed characters hit by them.
This point keeps getting brought up, but I don't see it as particularly useful.
Isn't the caster depth-charging so he/she can kill the guy? So after he/she get's the guy out of stealth, isn't he/she going to attack him anyway?
The only time when this is a disadvantage to the stealther is when the caster takes him out of stealth AND then begins a long cast timer AND the stealther has no ability to avoid the cast (leave Line Of Sight, leave cast distance, defensive ability), forcing the stealther to attack the caster and gain the attacker flag.
That seems like it could be a fringe case. And, as pointed out in other posts, the stealther is likely the most prepared party in the fight, and so is able to minimize the likelihood of their own disadvantage. The caster's only option is to not AoE.
I can see good reasons to put the responsibility on either party. My guess is the devs simply picked one =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't like the friendly fire idea. But if you're going to do it then I would encourage a red circle around the impact area to let friendly's know its coming.
Why? You mean you don't intend to use TS/mumble/vent with the people you and playing with? And if you don't, are you saying you don't intend to inform your party that you have the ability to aoe and if giving the chance to inflict massive damage on the enemy at the cost of damage to 1 friendly, you intend to do so and they should be prepared for those instances? Combat is hectic and crazy, and stuff happens. That is why communication is so vital.
If that is how you feel, your welcome to your feelings, but your not being realistic. I posted on another thread about risk vs reward. It applies here too. Risk = damage friendlies and gain attacker flag vs them, reward = doing damage to several enemies and possible turning of the battle in your favor. I think it is worth it, and if you tell people upfront about what you CAN do so they are ready, the healer can see the fighter is surrounded by goblims so this would be a great time for a fireball, I better have a heal ready. or the fighter, same situation, says ok, NOW!!!! and runs away. Communication is key. VOIP is best and most expedient (GW might even add an in-game party VOIP like some games do) but a quick type "INCOMING!!!" will work too.
I agree that allies should have some idea of where the fireball is going to land, though I think all they should see is a bead at the center.
The thing is, it's very hard for allies to keep an eye on their wizard while fighting. The bead is the equivalent of the wizard yelling, "FIRE IN THE HOLE!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Communication is key. VOIP is best and most expedient (GW might even add an in-game party VOIP like some games do) but a quick type "INCOMING!!!" will work too.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I am staunchly against requiring teamspeak or any other voip to be effective in this game. My gametime is spent in a family room and I will not use it. I've found that team chat and shout emotes are more than adequeate to cover team tactics. I will never join a group or play a game that requires VOIP to to be competitive.
If GW implements an in-game voice chat, then those who physically can not or do not choose to use it are de facto second class citizens.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am not saying VOIP is required or absolutely needed, but in any game, but mainly anything happening in RL, talking is much easier they taking the time to type, especially if your a slow typer. As far as those not using VOIP are "second class citizens" the same can be said to those not wanting to type. I was just saying it takes 1-2 secs to say "I am dropping a fire ball on the fighter (or name of character) but to type it requires a varied time based on typing speed but the main thing is you can't move or attack or anything else while your typing, when talking (Using VOIP) you can. Overall, it is a more efficient way to game and work together. I am by no means saying you HAVE to do it that way, but it is faster and easier.
I hate to say it but any game that isn't turn-based is extremely difficult to be "competitive" without some sort of VOIP or phone calling or something. Being competitive involves being as effective and as efficient as possible, or at least being more so than your opponent. Name a single FPS that is competitive without using VOIP? What about MWO? (MechWarrior Online for those unfamiliar) Any Real-Time Team based game?
I don't see PFO being to that level that it would "Require" VOIP like those types of games do, as long as planning is done beforehand. Large scale wars where a large group is assaulting a city or something, I can see VOIP being useful, but again, not needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Continuing the story of March being all about The Road, this week finds Mark Kalmes, Mike Hines, and I in San Francisco for the Game Developers Conference. While we're here, we'll be investigating software to help make the game bigger, better, and faster as well as keeping an eye on the competition and networking ferociously.
Any chance you bumped into Raph Koster? Advisory might be fun!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will never join a group or play a game that requires VOIP to to be competitive.
If GW implements an in-game voice chat, then those who physically can not or do not choose to use it are de facto second class citizens.
I had played an MMO with somewhat competetive PVP, who happened to be unable to speak. Listening was enough, and he just typed what he needed to.
Obviously, if you are not in a leadership role, listening is the far more important aspect than speaking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AvenaOats,
Thank you for posting the link to Raph's blog. Way back in UO, I interacted often with his neighbor - this player's son and Raph used to play guitar together. The blog had an e-mail link and so I thanked him for all the past days of UO fun, for SWG before it went to pot, to pass along a hello to our mutual acquaintance from those bygone days, and to urged him to take a look into PFO. I think his experience and his love for community based MMOs would be a wonderful addition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I retract my support for the magic user not getting the Attacker flag for affecting stealthed characters with an AoE.
1) Every scenario presented so far (except one) will have the caster receiving an Attacker flag whether there is a stealthed character there or not. The odd example is when a caster is casting AoE with no target. They are fishing and should get the flag.
2) Someone with the Attacker flag can be attacked by anyone, not just by the characters affected by the AoE.
An additional question does arise. It appears that the arguments against one-shot-kill coordinated attacks presumes that all effects within a 6-second combat slice occur simultaneously. Do we actually know this for a fact? Is there an initiative mechanic involved with the ordering of effects?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An additional question does arise. It appears that the arguments against one-shot-kill coordinated attacks presumes that all effects within a 6-second combat slice occur simultaneously. Do we actually know this for a fact? Is there an initiative mechanic involved with the ordering of effects?
There is no implication by GW that attacks or damage will only be applied once every 6 seconds, merely that the quantity and type of attacks will be limited by stamina, which will refresh every 6 seconds and in the event that you are attempting to use your most powerful attacks, your stamina will require you to slow down and throw in some weak attacks. As far as I know the attacks themselves will more or less be resolved in as close to real time as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
THis one can be exploited, but it is a thing that really must be. If you set an empty building on fire to watch it burn, what happens when the authorities find it was occupied. You started the fire.
If you are casting in an area, expect the flag. Instead of spamming fireball, try a Reveal spell, or Light or some other non-hostile spell like Faerie Fire. But if you cast it, you suffer the consequences.
I expect seige warfare to be the same, without the benefit of the reduction in damage due to "Magical Turbulence". Hurling giant rocks or explosive urns of fire will hurt every time, and they care not who they hit. If the guy pulling the level on the trebuchet doesn't mind getting an attacker flag, he should pull like his life depended on it!
I fully expect in most large combat scenarios, most everyone will get flagged and could be attacked by not only opponents, but allies and members of your party as well, because these events are very chaotic. Just try to travel with people you trust so they don't gank you.
I don't see how letting the allies see the AoE's center is "playing easy", honestly. They still have to work out what sort of spell it is all by themselves--do they assume it's lightning bolt and run out of the way, or do they assume it's fireball and try to scatter? Or do they just keep fighting and hope it's low-level?
Which I think would make things more interesting--only one of them notices the bead, and he bolts, and his friends are all annoyed--then they notice the bead just before the spell takes effect.
The bead rewards those who pay attention and gives a chance to avoid the spell without the wizard slowing himself down to type in a warning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate to be a naysayer, but I there are some aspects of this that I find fun-diminishing. For the record, I'm ok with Friendly Fire. It's an effective tactical choice. But there's the rub: it's a choice. It should be used judiciously and for maximum effect. Here's what I mean:
(Apologies in advance for the Wall of Words)
1. By using the diminishing returns mechanism (which I hate), you are forcing certain tactical choices rather than allowing or even rewarding creative tactical choices from the players. In the TT game, fireball is a powerful spell, but its power grows with caster level. It'll scorch a big bunch of folks, but is unlikely to outright kill anything of equivalent level. Two, three, four of them dropped on a group will kill...but it should. If wizards are going to cluster as artillery, stealthed rogues will form hunting parties to kill them. That's part of smart tactics. Cavalry causes infantry to bunch up for protection, while artillery causes them to spread out for the same reason.
2. Reconnaissance by fire is also a valid tactic. Can't see the sniper? Blast the area where you think he is hiding. I'm ok with AoE flagging the caster as attacker. He made a conscious choice to drop boom somewhere without (completely) knowing what was there. I'm also ok with hidden players staying in stealth, subject to damage effects or amount of damage (loss of concealing foliage, smell of burning hair, screams of agony, etc.).
3. Magical Turbulence is making the issue more complicated than it ought to be. I suspect that following that path will also utilize dev resources that could be utilized elsewhere. IMHO, the system should reward players for smart choices, rather than protect them from stupid ones. There are other ways to balance that don't even leave the issue to the players: make AoEs scale with level and start with lower damage, use longer refresh time or fewer uses, have magical armor debuffs against AoE, etc.
4. While I appreciate the devs striving for game balance and "doing something cool", the less PFO looks like Pathfinder, the less many fans, myself included, will be interested.
To summarize: Friendly Fire=good; Diminishing Returns=bad.
Completely unsolicited suggestions, many of which echo other posters:
While casting an AoE, a special animation procs. Those with high Spellcraft will see a specific glyph they know to be an AoE, like fireball.
While casting, caster sees the area of effect (ball, cone, etc.) that he can aim and place. The area of the aim turns yellow if NPCs are in the effect. Caster can still choose to cast.
AoE procs the attacker flag against unseen PCs, but there is no rep hit until follow-up actions. There is rep hit for damage to NPCs, regardless of visibility.
Another thing the magical turbulence will do is cut down on the furious spell casting that comes in the midst of battles. What I mean is often during battles you'll have many casters all casting various spells, buffs, shields, protections etc.. On their group. Well these will suffer from the turbulence as well if the casters are casting on targets grouped together.
So much thought will have to go into who casts what and when or you'll end up with say a shield spell that should offer +30 to say fire only giving +10 and other lessened effects. We don't know if different disciplines are all considered one for purposes of turbulence, if they are then the heal spell that should have been +150 might only be +20.
A lot to consider.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well and convincingly stated, Jason Mayberry. Smart tactics should be rewarded, dumb moves should not be rewarded.
Stealthing into an area under high threat of fireball seems pretty dumb to me, but okay. Even though the caster can't see the thief there he should have, I dunno, swept the area or tossed glitterdust before lobbing a fireball if he wanted to be sure he didn't hit an innocent.
Just pardon my rolling eyes it is a congenital condition.
Well and convincingly stated, Jason Mayberry. Smart tactics should be rewarded, dumb moves should not be rewarded.
Stealthing into an area under high threat of fireball seems pretty dumb to me, but okay. Even though the caster can't see the thief there he should have, I dunno, swept the area or tossed glitterdust before lobbing a fireball if he wanted to be sure he didn't hit an innocent.
Just pardon my rolling eyes it is a congenital condition.
Well a responsible spell caster would place markers around the fireball area Before they cast the spell. /chuckle
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Part of the issue is that Table-Top is designed as PVE not PvP and for very small scale conflicts (e.g. 6 characters fighting on the PC side).... when you switch around to conflicts where you've got players on both sides of a fight...and you might scale out to 60 combatants on a side rather then 60, things that worked perfectly well in the TT rules...don't make for such entertaining gameplay in the MMO. So new mechanisms, like "diminishing returns" need to be designed to deal with those factors. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Diminishing returns is an abstraction of mitigating actions and events that could affect the outcome of a player or group of player's actions. This is not a simulation, not everything can (or should) be represented on screen. The good thing about abstractions, and why they are necessary in games like this, is you can balance the effects of that abstraction across a wide variety of players, actions, and environments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Mana Wastes are already established as having magic turbulence in pathfinder. I like it, and would even like to see wild magic appear from excessive simultaneous magic use in a single area.
Just try to stay as close as possible to the original pathfinder rules, and don't try create exceptions. solid consistent rules work best :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just try to stay as close as possible to the original pathfinder rules, and don't try create exceptions. solid consistent rules work best :)
I can't agree with this, there are simply too many things that will not or cannot translate. Tabletop RPGs are turn-based, free-form, free-world, closely governed, small group endeavors. An MMORPG, especially a single world sandbox like GW is bringing, is about as far from that structure as you can get. Many rules will not work, especially when they are applied to 60 or 600 people competing in the same area. The best we can hope for is something that feels like the Pathfinder we know while balancing the issues that accompany such a massive project. So far I would say they're doing a pretty good job!
|
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 [will pretend to] get why you bring up this example over and over again [even though this is more my perception than a reality]. But it's a lost cause [or I want you to think so because I don't agree]. No one else comes out supporting it [and by that I mean I don't, and since mine is the only opinion I care about...], it would require a lot more coding [though I can't back up this claim] for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either [and they've repeatedly told us to sit down and shut up].
No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie [for a second time] though. It's your party [but your opinion is invalid so shut up].
As long as it's clear that using AoE spells will inevitably make you evil, no problem. I'll just play that way to start with, just as so many others are apparently going to do. It's just Eve with swords, after all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 [will pretend to] get why you bring up this example over and over again [even though this is more my perception than a reality]. But it's a lost cause [or I want you to think so because I don't agree]. No one else comes out supporting it [and by that I mean I don't, and since mine is the only opinion I care about...], it would require a lot more coding [though I can't back up this claim] for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either [and they've repeatedly told us to sit down and shut up].
No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie [for a second time] though. It's your party [but your opinion is invalid so shut up].
As long as it's clear that using AoE spells will inevitably make you evil, no problem. I'll just play that way to start with, just as so many others are apparently going to do. It's just Eve with swords, after all.
I guess there's a reason why you added all the bracketed stuff into my post? Wry humor maybe? Covert sarcasm? Demon possession?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. By using the diminishing returns mechanism (which I hate), you are forcing certain tactical choices rather than allowing or even rewarding creative tactical choices from the players.
The intention is to discourage the specific tactical choice of spamming AoE's, plus finding the correct power level for AoEs (powerful in right situations, but not generally superior). I don't see this as forcing tactics.
With diminishing AoE returns, mixed unit tactics, versatile spellbooks and other creative tactics) seems [to me] to be rewarded over 'default caster tactics'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
True. AoEs need to be powerful (though Fireball is less important than Color Spray or Sleep in this respect) but should not be a no brainer at all.
The reason for this is that you this serves to soften the impact of strength in numbers. A highly mobile and fast and well coordinated small team with a powerful alpha strike can hope to make it worth their while when attacking a chaotic zerg.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I guess there's a reason why you added all the bracketed stuff into my post? Wry humor maybe? Covert sarcasm? Demon possession?As long as it's clear that using AoE spells will inevitably make you evil, no problem. I'll just play that way to start with, just as so many others are apparently going to do. It's just Eve with swords, after all.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 [will pretend to] get why you bring up this example over and over again [even though this is more my perception than a reality]. But it's a lost cause [or I want you to think so because I don't agree]. No one else comes out supporting it [and by that I mean I don't, and since mine is the only opinion I care about...], it would require a lot more coding [though I can't back up this claim] for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either [and they've repeatedly told us to sit down and shut up].
No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie [for a second time] though. It's your party [but your opinion is invalid so shut up].
Just letting you know how it came off. I recall saying something similar in one other thread, months ago, and you're presenting it as if it were a daily thing. Since we're not even in alpha yet, a request for equal treatment between weapon types (swords, arrows, spells, etc.) is not a lost cause, but the 'flogging a dead [horse]' phrase implies 'shut up'.
I'm not asking for them to prevent friendly fire, I just want things treated equally, and that could be as simple as having invisible/stealthed targets not apply flags.
I guess there's a reason why you added all the bracketed stuff into my post? Wry humor maybe? Covert sarcasm? Demon possession?As long as it's clear that using AoE spells will inevitably make you evil, no problem. I'll just play that way to start with, just as so many others are apparently going to do. It's just Eve with swords, after all.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 [will pretend to] get why you bring up this example over and over again [even though this is more my perception than a reality]. But it's a lost cause [or I want you to think so because I don't agree]. No one else comes out supporting it [and by that I mean I don't, and since mine is the only opinion I care about...], it would require a lot more coding [though I can't back up this claim] for the Devs and none of them have come out in favor of it either [and they've repeatedly told us to sit down and shut up].
No reason you can't continue to flog the dead beastie [for a second time] though. It's your party [but your opinion is invalid so shut up].
Just letting you know how it came off. I recall saying something similar in one other thread, months ago, and you're presenting it as if it were a daily thing. Since we're not even in alpha yet, a request for equal treatment between weapon types (swords, arrows, spells, etc.) is not a lost cause, but the 'flogging a dead [horse]' phrase implies 'shut up'.
I'm not asking for them to prevent friendly fire, I just want things treated equally, and that could be as simple as having invisible/stealthed targets not apply flags.
Ah ok. To be honest I don't remember saying something about this before, had I remembered I wouldn't have posted. We have different interpretations on what "beating a dead horse" means. I see it as pursuing something that can't be attained, or a futile action.
Btw, I totally think arrows and crossbow bolts, thrown weapons, spears should all be included in FF. yes it would make those players jobs harder, but I am all for putting thought back into gameplay rather then removing it as most MMOs have done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not asking for them to prevent friendly fire, I just want things treated equally...
This will surely happen (though there will be not eb that many skills that allow you to make AoE attacks with arrows or swords).
The thing is that AoE offers great advantages IF you look beyond damage!
Spells like Sleep or Power Word: Stun need a distinct disadvantage and having them to use carefully is one of these.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The blog outlined why magical AoEs are potentially going to be treated differently from others:
This clearly applies only to magical AoEs, but we're okay with that—magic will be the primary source of area effects and have the most variety of AoE attacks.
-Arcane sources will have a pretty deep well of AoE options, divine sources will have a decent collection of them, and mundane sources will use them very sparingly (generally with a requirement of getting into melee range or using up a lot of arrows).
-Melee-range and some other point-blank AoEs may not have friendly fire (as it's hard enough to deploy them and hit a lot of people anyway), but most AoE attacks will hit any target regardless of friendliness.
They are more powerful, more versatile, less costly, and there are more of them. That seems to make sense to me, especially considering my experience with AoEs in other games.
I played WoW at a high level a couple years ago. Every class had an AoE. Once tanks had the gear to tank a group of mobs, every non-boss fight became 'gather them up, cast AoE, cast AoE, cast AoE. Rinse. Repeat.' It wasn't very fun (unless you were the tank).
In PFO, content won't necessarily be gated by group size, there is no xp from monsters so the only downside to bringing more people is getting a smaller % of loot, and there can be massive PvP battles. I feel like GW knows what they are doing here, and I think most will appreciate it when they see how it works in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The blog outlined why magical AoEs are potentially going to be treated differently from others...
There's another reason that magical AoEs should be treated differently.
From I Put a Spell on You:
... spells, due to their limited nature, will be using a much more powerful algorithm than attacks you can use repeatedly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know how it should work with NPCs, but with PCs, if you get hit with friendly fire you ought to have some sort of message in your queue that says,
"Hey, you got hit by your ally XYZ. Choose one:
1. I don't blame XYZ.
2. I suspect XYZ might have done it to hurt me, but it could have been an accident.
3. I saw it as a hostile action.Your decision will affect XYZ's reputation."
I really like this idea. That solves one of the problems of friendly fire concept, and allow the system to distinguish
attacker's intentions and apply or not the penalties.