| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm hoping it's more like DAoC's eight. That was big enough to alleviate the Holy Trinity focus - plenty of room among eight people for "support" roles. It made for some very interesting mixes.
Yea. The 8-man was Perfect.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there even trinity in TT? Don't online games just do trinity because "it worked for WoW"? Is it planned for PO? I hope not.
It's been a while since I did anything D&D but there wasn't trinity then. Some ran towards a bad guy, some away, some hid, but there was nothing like a specialized meat sack with taunts taking steady heals during the encounter and others who's only job in the world was to stab face.
I much prefer the old (new? according to GW2) method of teamwork with support and control that's more fluid, tactical, and in line with the system of feats and abilities than MMO trinity.
In that vein, I'm down for 6-8.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there even trinity in TT? Don't online games just do trinity because "it worked for WoW"? Is it planned for PO? I hope not.
We're going to focus design effort on the Hate mechanic and on other ways that PvE content interacts with players with an eye towards avoiding a feedback loop that would trap us in the Trinity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are so many more roles than just Tank, Healer, DPS
DPS can be broken down into several roles:
Bruiser
Assassin (Burst Dmg)
Stealth
Carry (High Sustained Dmg)
And the role of Support is limited to just Healing instead of:
Modifier adjustment (Skills, Attacks, etc..)
Crowd control
Area Control
In an 8 man team you could have a versatile team that would truly reflect what is possible in PFO. I would love to see groups of mixed purposes where individuals took on a role during one fight and radically adjusted strategy to pursue another role afterward. AKA A Wizard taking on the Assassin Role (Burst Dmg) during one fight and then switching to a support role afterwards to perform Crowd Control.
Just my Two Cents
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given that there will be very little instanced content I'm going to assume that there will be no limit or a very high one...like EVE fleets (not sure if there is a limit there but it is more than 15-20)
EDIT: But there will most likly be a limit to the number of PCs that can enter a given dungeon...and I hope that is a variable number based on the dungeon 4-8-16-24 I think that would work best.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has often referred to Companies as "permanent Groups". I think it's reasonable to think the Group size might be the same as a Company size. If so, I hope they don't try to show health bars for everyone...
This consideration has led me to a tentative conclusion that larger 'companies' should probably plan for such a contingency by having a well-considered plan to reform themselves as a coalition or alliance of subgroups that can fit company size limitations. This may entail a comprehensive organization chart patterned after military organizations and robustly managed businesses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
2+ for me please...
if you are in non-US timezone, the time spent finding a good group (and waiting for the last two people to turn up) often seems longer than the time actually playing with that group. The larger the group, the larger the problem.
In PFO the design seems to be that larger group beats smaller, with no real cap on max group size. The question then is more about "minimum viable group".
If combat synergies are designed so that you only need 2+ to get most of the effect, and parties don't need to have all roles/skills filled for PVE, then group size would be defined by time/connections/pop.density/manag.skills rather than an artificial limit.
|
Goblinworks Game Designer
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're currently thinking up to 8 for the standard PvE party size. Additionally, we currently have penciled in the idea of "units" that can have more members, but which are useful for formation-scale PvP (essentially, the unit being the group that you're going to put into a formation).
The difference between the two is that a party might count for certain things (party-only buffs, loot sharing, etc.) that units don't; the bigger group is to help coordinate formations and other large-scale content, and is probably similar in a lot of ways to a raid group in other MMOs.
Since we're not trying to delicately balance PvE content that expects a certain number of characters, our party sizes are likely to be based on UI and coordination convenience more than balance concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're currently thinking up to 8 for the standard PvE party size. Additionally, we currently have penciled in the idea of "units" that can have more members, but which are useful for formation-scale PvP (essentially, the unit being the group that you're going to put into a formation).
The difference between the two is that a party might count for certain things (party-only buffs, loot sharing, etc.) that units don't; the bigger group is to help coordinate formations and other large-scale content, and is probably similar in a lot of ways to a raid group in other MMOs.
Since we're not trying to delicately balance PvE content that expects a certain number of characters, our party sizes are likely to be based on UI and coordination convenience more than balance concerns.
What about PvP raid groups that are not looking to use formation combat?
I'm specifically thinking of bandits or raiders attacking caravans, outposts and POIs.
Any team based buffs, loot sharing or special tactics for these groups?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
We're currently thinking up to 8 for the standard PvE party size. Additionally, we currently have penciled in the idea of "units" that can have more members, but which are useful for formation-scale PvP (essentially, the unit being the group that you're going to put into a formation).
The difference between the two is that a party might count for certain things (party-only buffs, loot sharing, etc.) that units don't; the bigger group is to help coordinate formations and other large-scale content, and is probably similar in a lot of ways to a raid group in other MMOs.
Since we're not trying to delicately balance PvE content that expects a certain number of characters, our party sizes are likely to be based on UI and coordination convenience more than balance concerns.
What about PvP raid groups that are not looking to use formation combat?
I'm specifically thinking of bandits or raiders attacking caravans, outposts and POIs.
Any team based buffs, loot sharing or special tactics for these groups?
Form multiple parties, for one. Your opponents would have the same options and limitations that you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Form multiple parties, for one".
What does that mean?
Was it supposed to be "Form multiple parties, from one"?
But, even that has nothing to do with what I asked.
Let me try this....
Will there be non formation PvP groupings, that will still grant some type of buffs?
I'm thinking along the lines of EvE Online's Leadership Skills and Gang Buffs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope that the previously described "units" are not specifically only for formations, but instead an adjustable meta-grouping that can optionally use formations. One system for a raiding party, a formation of soldiers, a large group of gatherers, or any other larger scale group of characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am tempted to think of the settlement as my community, rather than the company. I can see a company of clerics providing services around the clock to the community rather than a company of mixed skills who do not have a common focus. As I understand there will be ONE CC for each settlement that RUNS/ADMINiSTERS the settlement. THEy have the skills to do that and should be spread around the clock (it is not where you live but when you play -- my best mates were in New Jersey, New Zealand, and east coast Australia [no pacific islanders!]. THey were playing when I was!).
But when I come on, I do not want to be required to be there for my company as that utility player. But there should be one from the community to play that <time zone> that night, or maybe not. If I come on a night where my company is celebrating a local/country/social event, I should be able to play with others in the settlement for an "adventure".
I Truly hope the design also for they looser play, even brining in those from other communities. Of course the wider the group, the more some will distrust and drop out. THat should be their choice vs prohibition ad hoc groups. (Players should have access to reputation [story] (more than just rep) that their CC has for a particular character (not necessarily player).
Of course my most rewarding TT I have had have been groups of 8, 12, but < 20 player. Early on with fewer players, each had more than one character. Small or large, inevitably, the team split up (characters of same player required to stay together or assigned to another player) and players were moved into other rooms, patios, …, coming back together as "you see a couple humanoids down the hall"
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
"Form multiple parties, for one".
What does that mean?
Was it supposed to be "Form multiple parties, from one"?
But, even that has nothing to do with what I asked.
Let me try this....
Will there be non formation PvP groupings, that will still grant some type of buffs?
I'm thinking along the lines of EvE Online's Leadership Skills and Gang Buffs.
I meant, one thing that you could do if you had >8 players in a PvP encounter is to form more than one party, and get the benefits which apply to parties. Or were you asking if there was some additional extra benefit to having lots of people other than the ability to create a formation?
We're currently thinking up to 8 for the standard PvE party size. Additionally, we currently have penciled in the idea of "units" that can have more members, but which are useful for formation-scale PvP (essentially, the unit being the group that you're going to put into a formation).
The difference between the two is that a party might count for certain things (party-only buffs, loot sharing, etc.) that units don't; the bigger group is to help coordinate formations and other large-scale content, and is probably similar in a lot of ways to a raid group in other MMOs.
Since we're not trying to delicately balance PvE content that expects a certain number of characters, our party sizes are likely to be based on UI and coordination convenience more than balance concerns.
So wait, why would you run an 8-man in PvE and not PvP...
And @ Proxima Sin: We're officially not friends anymore. WoW DID NOT invent the Holy Trinity Ohmehgahd.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're currently thinking up to 8 for the standard PvE party size. Additionally, we currently have penciled in the idea of "units" that can have more members, but which are useful for formation-scale PvP (essentially, the unit being the group that you're going to put into a formation).
The difference between the two is that a party might count for certain things (party-only buffs, loot sharing, etc.) that units don't; the bigger group is to help coordinate formations and other large-scale content, and is probably similar in a lot of ways to a raid group in other MMOs.
Since we're not trying to delicately balance PvE content that expects a certain number of characters, our party sizes are likely to be based on UI and coordination convenience more than balance concerns.
So wait, why would you run an 8-man in PvE and not PvP...
And @ Proxima Sin: We're officially not friends anymore. WoW DID NOT invent the Holy Trinity Ohmehgahd.
A lot like Edison didn't invent the light bulb, though the perception persists. Innovation that popularizes something ends up getting false invention credits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am tempted to think of the settlement as my community, rather than the company.
That's right in line with the way Ryan has talked about it.
I think the Settlement will be the primary focus of most social activity, and the Settlement one belongs to will be much more important than the Chartered Company.
For a long time, I struggled trying to map my own preconception of "Guild" onto a Company or a Settlement. I've gradually come to realize that my preconception of "Guild" doesn't really have an exact mapping to any in-game construct, and that's okay. There's actually a lot more complexity that's supported by not trying to box folks into a cookie-cutter social organization, such as a full spectrum of Alliances ranging from Blood-Sworn Brothers in Arms to Occasional Trading Partners.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And @ Proxima Sin: We're officially not friends anymore. WoW DID NOT invent the Holy Trinity Ohmehgahd.
@Qallz Stop drinking the bong water and read what I wrote. I said they did not invented; while I was making the point that most features in most MMOs since 2005 are there just because WoW did them and the other games want to duplicate that formula of success rather than the feature playing a cognizant role the game's concept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Since we're not trying to delicately balance PvE content that expects a certain number of characters, our party sizes are likely to be based on UI and coordination convenience more than balance concerns."
This is SO SO good to hear! I hate that all MMORPG's balance content to expected group sizes. Just get your group together and go, be it 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 23 people.. whatever (a reasonable limit due to UI concerns is fine). Larger groups can tackle harder content, but since the DPS of those mobs is likely very high it can lead to some very hairy encounters. My favorite MMORPG to date (which none of you have ever heard of) works this way and it's fantastic. Group up with friends and go, no trying to fill out the best group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My interpretation of Steven's post while reading it was:
squad:fleet as party:unit
He didn't specifically confirm or deny unit-wide buffs etc. from sources separate than where parties get their party-wide buffs, but that should be because the unit ideas are only in pencil right now. But it makes sense to me that a character trained as a military leader/unit leader will end up with some sort of fleet command link analog.
If you want more than eight people connected but not use formations there might be a selection of other buffs available, but I haven't seen that as a stated design goal so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a long time, I struggled trying to map my own preconception of "Guild" onto a Company or a Settlement. I've gradually come to realize that my preconception of "Guild" doesn't really have an exact mapping to any in-game construct, and that's okay. There's actually a lot more complexity that's supported by not trying to box folks into a cookie-cutter social organization, such as a full spectrum of Alliances ranging from Blood-Sworn Brothers in Arms to Occasional Trading Partners.
In my mind I go back to the military structure (not ranks, but the feeling of the "brotherhood"). Active duty elements (Army, Navy Marines, Air Force, Coast Guard) might give each other crap, rib each other, get into bar fights, and compete in sports, but if an outsider screws with one, all the rest will come to their defense.
The retiree and veteran groups are similar. The VFW, American Legion, AMVETS, Wounded Warriors all fall into the "mess with them, you're messing with us all" mentality.
Settlements should gel into that sort of relationship if the groups talk to one another. Since there will be one global server, making an effort to communicate regularly with players from other cultures, nations, and languages will give that settlement/kingdom a much larger pool of players to recruit from. In cases like that, it is good to be bold and make the effort. It really pays off.
As far as largest party goes, 12 is about as large as I have enjoyed. Once it gets larger than that, chaos seems to be the default setting.
And @ Proxima Sin: We're officially not friends anymore. WoW DID NOT invent the Holy Trinity Ohmehgahd.@Qallz Stop drinking the bong water and read what I wrote. I said they did not invented; while I was making the point that most features in most MMOs since 2005 are there just because WoW did them and the other games want to duplicate that formula of success rather than the feature playing a cognizant role the game's concept.
I was drinking Diet Pepsi...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is one of the areas where modeling it off of the EVE system makes sense. The EVE system is designed to allow a sensible command structure for very, very, very, large groups.
For the majority of situations it doesn't make sense to have a limit on group size because this is an open world game, and people will run multiple groups working together via voice comms if you limit the size. So building a system that can't support hundreds or even thousands of players is just short sighted. In dungeons, it may or may not make sense to have group size limits, since those will likely be instanced.
If there are group size limits on dungeons it should be based on the dungeon rather than standardized. Personally I'd rather see a difficulty slider based on how many people you bring.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was drinking Diet Pepsi...And @ Proxima Sin: We're officially not friends anymore. WoW DID NOT invent the Holy Trinity Ohmehgahd.@Qallz Stop drinking the bong water and read what I wrote. I said they did not invented; while I was making the point that most features in most MMOs since 2005 are there just because WoW did them and the other games want to duplicate that formula of success rather than the feature playing a cognizant role the game's concept.
I'm not up to date on your drug culture or what kind of thrill you get from loading your hookah with Diet Pepsi. I was imploring you to increase your critical reading comprehension before making critical comments Ohmehgahd. WOW didn't even invent pandas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is one of the areas where modeling it off of the EVE system makes sense. The EVE system is designed to allow a sensible command structure for very, very, very, large groups.
For the majority of situations it doesn't make sense to have a limit on group size because this is an open world game, and people will run multiple groups working together via voice comms if you limit the size. So building a system that can't support hundreds or even thousands of players is just short sighted. In dungeons, it may or may not make sense to have group size limits, since those will likely be instanced.
If there are group size limits on dungeons it should be based on the dungeon rather than standardized. Personally I'd rather see a difficulty slider based on how many people you bring.
As mentioned, the group size limits are largely to support group buffs and ally-only abilities in a way such that you have single casters boosting whole armies. Seeing how some spells, especially divine ones, tend to be able to be selective about targets being affected in ways that your typical sci-fi weapons are unable to discriminate on, it makes solid mechanical sense to simplify the selection of allies vs. foes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As mentioned, the group size limits are largely to support group buffs and ally-only abilities in a way such that you have single casters boosting whole armies. Seeing how some spells, especially divine ones, tend to be able to be selective about targets being affected in ways that your typical sci-fi weapons are unable to discriminate on, it makes solid mechanical sense to simplify the selection of allies vs. foes.
The EVE system supports that too. It allows for a squadron, wing, and fleet commander, who can set a squadron, wing, and fleet booster. Those boosters only have an effect if the commander has the skills to lead a group of the size they are leading.
1-5 of Squadron command allows 2 members in a squadron per level.
1-5 of Wing command allows 1 squadron per level.
1-5 of Fleet command allows 1 wing per level.
So with maxed out fleet, wing, and squadron commanders you can have a fleet with 250 members and up to 3 boosters per member.
The only adaption I would make, is I would separate Squad, Wing, and Fleet level boosts (And not require specific squad boosters so that both the bard and the paladin can grant their bonuses to the whole squad), and I would have a 4th tier of commander can lead an unlimited number of fleets.
Oh yeah, and I would obviously change the names of Squadrons/Wings/Fleets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't even think you'd need to limit the size of the lowest organization - at least not below 8 people. The basic/max size could be 8, to limit the group buffs, and the party leader might not need special skills. The level above that could be the equivalent of squadron, limited by commander proficiency.
For names I'd offer Party (8) - Band (max 80?) - Legion (max 400?) - Host (max 2000?!)
To join organizations above party level might require training (if required by leadership), but the absence of training could instead just make some formation buffs not work for the entire formation. A band of 6 parties, for example, might be able to get a formation bonus iff everyone has training in that formation and leadership at each level has training in commanding formations.
Even without training, all members of a 50-person militant company should be able to group together as a band (subgrouped as parties) for example, on the first day of EE. They might not get bonuses above party level without more training, of course.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I think that figuring out the tradeoffs between UI and group size is going to be a huge element of Crowdforging. There's a lot of resistance to the idea that we need an "overview" type approach like CCP uses within the design team (and frankly a bit with me too; it's one of the most unappealing things about EVE Online from a design standpoint). We may need to try for a new paradigm - the WoW style "heads & bars" limits us to about a half-dozen (8?) or so "party members".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that figuring out the tradeoffs between UI and group size is going to be a huge element of Crowdforging. There's a lot of resistance to the idea that we need an "overview" type approach like CCP uses within the design team (and frankly a bit with me too; it's one of the most unappealing things about EVE Online from a design standpoint). We may need to try for a new paradigm - the WoW style "heads & bars" limits us to about a half-dozen (8?) or so "party members".
And even just bars such as when you get into their larger groupings can be fairly unappealing. Definitely a space for innovation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
With respect to overview, I think having some sort of omniscient grasp of the shape of any unit is a bit off for swords-and-sorcery. If you force units to manage it through voice comms, they'll find a way through the chaos, I imagine.
I would offer that standards or battle flags might be a setting-appropriate marker of unit status, for the echelons above "party". If a standard is still carried, the higher commander can see the unit is still in play; if it falls and isn't picked back up, the unit can be considered combat ineffective.
Even grunts might be able to see their own standards and standards of adjacent units as part of their status view (along with the 8 heads & bars from their own party, maybe). Or perhaps we need to unlock that level of situational awareness with training, so rookies aren't that aware, but veterans might have such visibility.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the top level, I think a general should see the general status of all of his corps, a Lt. general should see his divisions and equal-level corps, down to a squad leader being able to see a summary statement of all of the squads in his platoon, and everybody seeing more detailed information about all of the characters in their squad.
The way I would implement that is to have a series of skills that allow one character to become a 'field officer', who can serve to link some number of groups such that the field officer and each group leader gains basic information about each group and the ability for those group formations to work together better.
The way I see to avoid becoming a spreadsheet exercise is to lose depth of information to get breadth of information; when a group disbands, the only thing the company commander sees is a sudden drop in platoon strength, and all the platoon leader sees is that the group dropped; it's up to the individual members to report what happened through non-automatic means.
(Organizational terms stolen from the Army; there are probably better terms, but this isn't about terminology.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With respect to overview, I think having some sort of omniscient grasp of the shape of any unit is a bit off for swords-and-sorcery. If you force units to manage it through voice comms, they'll find a way through the chaos, I imagine.
I would offer that standards or battle flags might be a setting-appropriate marker of unit status, for the echelons above "party". If a standard is still carried, the higher commander can see the unit is still in play; if it falls and isn't picked back up, the unit can be considered combat ineffective.
Even grunts might be able to see their own standards and standards of adjacent units as part of their status view (along with the 8 heads & bars from their own party, maybe). Or perhaps we need to unlock that level of situational awareness with training, so rookies aren't that aware, but veterans might have such visibility.
A simple Green/Yellow/Orange/Red indicator might be cool. Each color would span roughly 25% of the HP spectrum and give a general indicator of how "beat up" someone looks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At the top level, I think a general should see the general status of all of his corps, a Lt. general should see his divisions and equal-level corps, down to a squad leader being able to see a summary statement of all of the squads in his platoon, and everybody seeing more detailed information about all of the characters in their squad.
The way I would implement that is to have a series of skills that allow one character to become a 'field officer', who can serve to link some number of groups such that the field officer and each group leader gains basic information about each group and the ability for those group formations to work together better.
The way I see to avoid becoming a spreadsheet exercise is to lose depth of information to get breadth of information; when a group disbands, the only thing the company commander sees is a sudden drop in platoon strength, and all the platoon leader sees is that the group dropped; it's up to the individual members to report what happened through non-automatic means.
(Organizational terms stolen from the Army; there are probably better terms, but this isn't about terminology.)
I'm a huge fan of this idea. I think regardless of what rank you are, you should see your own group of 8 or less in health/stamina bars. But if you're a squad leader or higher you should see a single status bar (or something similar) for each other group, the way DeciusBrutus describes.
If you're the general equivalent in rank you shouldn't see each squad, and if you're a squad leader you might see your company or platoon general status but not other companies or platoons. It's all about battlefield perspective and scope.
Alternatively, have the info available but you have to dig for it. In case you want someone on voice chat calling out sudden drops.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well. How about this. The standard party size is 10. As is the max amount of players a squad can hold. (Going to use the EVE terms for the sake of being easier to understand.)
The difference is squads, wings, and fleets are part of the formation combat system, since if you have that many players, you are likely to be in formation anyway.
Boosters from the EVE system are gone. Now all there is command bonuses, given by the commander leading the squad/wing/fleet based of their command skills. The command buffs may be buffs for the troops under your command, or they may unlock formation maneuvers. Think skills usable by a formation, unlocked by the commanders skills and the number of people with certain equipment and abilities in the formation like shield wall or ranged barrage.
General buffs like bard songs and paladin auras apply to anyone in your party or squad, and are completely separate from formation buffs.
As far as UI goes. The squad can see squad members, with detailed party information. The squad commander can see the name of the wing commander and their own squad members. The wing commander can see the names of their squad commanders the number of players in each squad and the name of the fleet commander, as well as the detailed info on their own squad mates. The fleet commanders can see the names of the wing commanders and the number of players in each wing and the overall commander as well as the details on their own squad mates. The overall commander can see the names of the fleet commanders and the number of players in each fleet as well as the details on their own squad mates.
Each commander can see the squad maneuvers and orders they may execute/issue, and everyone may see any orders they are supposed to follow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Modern squads are typically between 8 - 12, but that is based on a system of fire and manoeuvre. If we are using formation combat that may very well be different. A Macedonian syntagma was 256, and even if you break it down file by file, a logarchos was in charge of 16. I'm not suggesting that 256, or even 16 will be the norm in formation combat, but I'd be wary of drawing comparisons with the modern world as a basis for discussion about what will be the norm in PFO, especially since the whole modern system of suppressive fire and movement is unlikely to work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lhan,
Agreed on the "suppressive fire" point. That is unless, ranged combat could do significant enough damage to make someone seek cover. Then that cover must actually provide protection (at least visible if not physical).
Formation combat is going to be less common than a roving band of yahoos. So the generic group size is going to trend smaller 256 or even 16, in my opinion.
"8" seems to be a good number to hope for.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
8 is a good initial number because it just exceeds the number of things that the top 10% of the population can keep in working memory. At that point, without memory aids or visible reference, almost nobody can keep track of how everybody is doing. Much more than that, and most human brains have trouble associating the results and indications with a person, and the mental modal shifts towards spreadsheets.
Individuals working memory and ability to associate symbols with individuals may vary, but most people overestimate both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A simple Green/Yellow/Orange/Red indicator might be cool. Each color would span roughly 25% of the HP spectrum and give a general indicator of how "beat up" someone looks.
I wonder if knowing status of comrades should be a skill. Does the average grunt know much more than Green/Orange/(Black), unless his buddy tells him? Maybe the healers and leaders will want to put XP into seeing the Yellow and Red indicators, and eventually a bar, then numbers.
Likewise, how does anyone see their buddy's stamina to any level of detail? And power level - that seems to be pretty private, although some people might be able to train up to see the subtle cues that someone else's power is flagging.
Note: all of these trained cues should apply to enemies like they do to friends. It should be harder with enemies - they're hiding their status to you (or trying) while friends are more open.
