Goblin Squad Member
|
It's hard to steer, I think I read that from GoblinWorks somewhere as I was downloading the client. Oh man where do I start?
50% of raiding and pvp is where you stand. Half of what makes melee pvp so broken right now is you cant get to position of two objects the right way to make melee contact.
Want to Hoist a target with Opportunity to get the knockdown affect? Good luck. If your target has taken four steps at any point since the Eisenhower administration the mechanics will find a way for you to slice air.
I push the Charge button, nothing happens.
A second or two later I Charge to where the target used to be when I pushed the button. But it's useless to make a follow up attack because the target has moved 20 feet since then.
A Simple And Pleasing Concept
When you press a button you move, when you release the button you stop the motion.
This is all I want. No overturn after I stop turning. No running past the target while closing to melee (then overturning trying to find them again).
Using a utility or attack feat that moves you does so instantly. (This leads into the other way combat is broken, the extreme delay in your attacks going out and more delay in seeing what affects it had, but that remains moot until you can stand in the right spot).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember there are 300ms delays included in various places, which some people barely notice and others find equivalent to swimming in oatmeal. The Great and Powerful Zog and our friends in Oceania might be quite glad they're there, even while others gnash their teeth.
300 ms is lag city.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
300ms is less than a third of a second, I dare you to blink more than twice in 1/3 second even trying to go fast. It is a very short time not enough for me to think, "Ok why aren't I charging? Shouldn't I be moving now? Crap that guy is moving! Did I push the right button? Should I re-activate the skill? Oh there I go." which counting refreshing visual information from the screen takes a second or two to think, which is 3-7 times longer than the heartbeat.
They've already said they're going to keep working on this subject I wanted to try to summarize the key points from a player perspective.
Overmovement after a button release when we wanted to stop the motion.
Excessive delay between user input and seeing the result.
The reason it's important and deserves wall to wall attention and follow-up is that it will be difficult to run a successful pvp-based game if they're not perfectionists about providing exceedingly smooth and gratifying combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the same note, mouse turning is very clunky and counterintuitive. If there are no facing-based mechanics in the combat engine, there should be no issues with letting my character change facing as quickly as my mouse moves.
Yes! Please, please, please let our characters turn as quickly as our mouse can turn.
If there's some reason you don't want to do that, please at least make the arrow on the mini-map face the way the camera is facing rather than the way the character is currently facing. I often use the mini-map to orient my character to run, for example, north. However, because of the delay, it's a pain to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there are no facing-based mechanics in the combat engine...
This is a close relative of the basics because I've heard that repeated yet also that rogues will flank to get their Sneak Attack. Isn't flanking without a facing mechanic called "attacking"? And how will I know if I'm in the right spot for my Cleave feat to get all those guys? Without facing isn't that a Whirlwind?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't flanking without a facing mechanic called "attacking"?
Flanking requires positioning, not flanking. I'm flanking you when you're between another attacker and me.
I'm not sure that's the way it'll be implemented in PFO - they might just require you to not be targeted by your victim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no facing in the tabletop Pathfinder game. You don't rotate your figure away from the basilisk gaze as a move action, for example(although one of my friends wishes this were so last Sunday!) Thus, no 'backstabbing', although we constantly say "hey, can you flank this bozo so my Rogue can get a backstab?" I think that a stealth mechanic that allows you to navigate the game unseen within about bowshot range is certainly useful; in a pvp game populated by thousands of people-as long as you don't appear on the minimap and Perception is line-of-sight. It's not what some are used to, certainly. But, as to whether the game will ever be populated by thousands of people...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't flanking without a facing mechanic called "attacking"?Flanking requires positioning, not flanking. I'm flanking you when you're between another attacker and me.
I'm not sure that's the way it'll be implemented in PFO - they might just require you to not be targeted by your victim.
Which, btw is MUCH more powerful and consistent for damage dealing than relying in quasi-invisibility for an alpha strike.
Quit ure whining rogues. It's a rogue, not a ninja.
300ms is less than a third of a second,
Yeah, I mean, this statement is a fact, but in a game if you have a server that receives info only three times a second, that's pretty slow, no matter how many blinks or heartbeats it is perceived as being.
Am I misunderstanding the terminology here?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately I have not been able to play in Alpha so I must make assumptions based on what I read here and then ask for clarification from those who have played.
Am I reading correctly that W & S are forward and backward but turning is controlled by A & D not by Mouse-look? How does one side step?
If the above is true, then I have to say that it is game shatteringly unplayable.
Turning in this type of game should always be controlled by mouse-look so that I can run forward and turn naturally as i move my mouse to look at my targets. the A&D keys should be for side stepping, or strafing as its called in the FPS world.
The other system of control works fine for vehicle simulators where field of view is dictated by vehicle facing, but in a walking/running environment it is much more comfortable and familiar to use mouse look to turn and require some other control (middle-mouse for example) to free look so that you move independently from your facing.
PFO uses the MMORPG standard of A & D to turn, but when holding down right-mouse to mouse-look, A & D become strafe instead. I usually bind Q & E to the turn commands for when I'm lazy while running from point A to point B and A & D to strafe, but I haven't done so yet in PFO because keybinding required exporting, editing a text message, and importing, and it wasn't worth that much effort. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
300ms is less than a third of a second,Yeah, I mean, this statement is a fact, but in a game if you have a server that receives info only three times a second, that's pretty slow, no matter how many blinks or heartbeats it is perceived as being.
Am I misunderstanding the terminology here?
From my understanding MMOs often have a built in latency like that and work on entirely different principles than other online games due to the sheer number of players and commands it needs to process. Most of what you see MMOs do is flashy animation tricks and cooldown design to obfuscate the clunky feeling that could be perceived from the actual latency.
I assume that a combination of actual relatively high latency connections to the servers (essentially adding your latency to the built in one) plus their system still being rough accounts for most of the 'clunky' feelings. The actual 'feeling' that will resemble launch should hopefully come with the new servers and the new builds, which I hope will be an improvement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't flanking without a facing mechanic called "attacking"?Flanking requires positioning, not flanking. I'm flanking you when you're between another attacker and me.
So you're a rogue with a warrior friend on the other side of me, I'm looking right at you, and you're flanking me. That makes sense... in no logical stretch of imagination. I am flanked, but not by the rogue I'm looking straight at and giving the majority of attention to.
If it's not-targeting-the-rogue then it's no longer a movement issue apart from staying out of melee range, and you will see lots of rogues being the first to get blown up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't flanking without a facing mechanic called "attacking"?Flanking requires positioning, not flanking. I'm flanking you when you're between another attacker and me.So you're a rogue with a warrior friend on the other side of me, I'm looking right at you, and you're flanking me. That makes sense... in no logical stretch of imagination. I am flanked, but not by the rogue I'm looking straight at and giving the majority of attention to.
If it's not-targeting-the-rogue then it's no longer a movement issue apart from staying out of melee range, and you will see lots of rogues being the first to get blown up.
FF the Rogue. Geek the Mage :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the Tabletop mechanic assumes as long as your opponent is not being stealthy you are aware of both parties and actively attempting to defend against both hence why they get bonuses against you; it's easier for one of them to get a hit in even if you only focus on one of them during your turn.
You could rearrange how the math is applied but it generates a bunch of extra busy work and minute decisions that ultimately don't matter that much.
For example instead of both of them getting the flank bonus the unfocused one behind you would just get 2x or 2.5x the default bonus since you aren't paying attention to them.
One could argue then who is in which position matters a lot more and causes cascading issues concerning the topic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're a rogue with a warrior friend on the other side of me, I'm looking right at you, and you're flanking me. That makes sense... in no logical stretch of imagination. I am flanked, but not by the rogue I'm looking straight at and giving the majority of attention to.
The conceit in Pathfinder is that because you know there are two people there, you can not give the rogue your undivided attention. During the round, at some point, you will move your eyes for a fraction of a second to see what the other attacker is up to, the rogue is uniquely able to take advantage of that momentary lapse in attention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Right now there is no facing, and the game is not checking whether line of sight exists. You can fire an arrow right through a hill, and putting a tree between yourself and a goblin or skeleton means absolutely nothing.
Rogue attacks deal extra damage when enemies have conditions like flat footed or unbalanced, not when the rogue is behind the enemy or another player is targeted by the enemy.
Some of these things will almost certainly change, but some of them probably won't. I think that success as a rogue will be about inflicting and taking advantage of conditions, much more than it will be about correct positioning.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the Tabletop mechanic assumes as long as your opponent is not being stealthy you are aware of both parties and actively attempting to defend against both hence why they get bonuses against you; it's easier for one of them to get a hit in even if you only focus on one of them during your turn.
You could rearrange how the math is applied but it generates a bunch of extra busy work and minute decisions that ultimately don't matter that much.
For example instead of both of them getting the flank bonus the unfocused one behind you would just get 2x or 2.5x the default bonus since you aren't paying attention to them.
One could argue then who is in which position matters a lot more and causes cascading issues concerning the topic.
You have real combat and then you have table top gaming rules that somewhat simulate that. Then you have the video game interpretation of the table top rules. Trying to go full circle and explain the video game with real combat seems a futile exercise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My assumption is they would base it on the TT example if anything, then change it depending on whether or not they had some problems. I think ultimately Flanking will not be in the game per a literal translation of TT rules, I could instead see them applying something like a 'flanking' bonus if you are simply being hit by multiple entities at the same time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The conceit in Pathfinder is that because you know there are two people there, you can not give the rogue your undivided attention. During the round, at some point, you will move your eyes for a fraction of a second to see what the other attacker is up to, the rogue is uniquely able to take advantage of that momentary lapse in attention.
If I was the GM of a tabletop game, and a flanked player wanted to argue that he was giving the rogue his full attention so as to deny sneak attack, I would allow him to do it at the cost of being helpless vs the fighter.
If you think a couple extra d6 of sneak attack are worse than a coup de grace, go for it.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a rogue in a party, find out what conditions your party members will inflict most often, slot feats that take advantage of those conditions, and keep an eye out for the sweet flashes of green that allow you to unleash the big damage.
On a related note, I hope the cold start, (some sort of nerf to Overdraw,) and the increased numbers of players in each Alpha build will encourage the formation of parties. In Alpha 6, I never saw any party larger than a pair of PCs, and I never saw anyone looking for a party in General or Local chat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I quite like the feel of the turning, none of this instantly facing which ever direction the mouse moves.
I am getting used to it. Didn't like it at first, but it is growing on me as a stylistic touch.
But I am 100% behind Nihimon's earlier comment - if we are going to keep slow turning, the arrow on my minimap really needs to match camera facing (or have a separate indicator for camera facing) as right now I am having a massive 'oversteering' issue when trying to orient myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rogue attacks deal extra damage when enemies have conditions like flat footed or unbalanced, not when the rogue is behind the enemy or another player is targeted by the enemy.
Minor correction, but the Rogue Feature "Cut-Throat" grants "Sneak Attack on Untargeted", which I'm pretty sure means the Rogue does extra damage if his target is targeting someone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I quite like the feel of the turning, none of this instantly facing which ever direction the mouse moves.
Like I said, I'd be quite satisfied if they'd just let the mini-map arrow face the way the camera is facing, rather than the way my character is currently facing while waiting to catch up to the camera.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Rogue attacks deal extra damage when enemies have conditions like flat footed or unbalanced, not when the rogue is behind the enemy or another player is targeted by the enemy.Minor correction, but the Rogue Feature "Cut-Throat" grants "Sneak Attack on Untargeted", which I'm pretty sure means the Rogue does extra damage if his target is targeting someone else.
Nice. Glad to hear it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I quite like the feel of the turning, none of this instantly facing which ever direction the mouse moves.Like I said, I'd be quite satisfied if they'd just let the mini-map arrow face the way the camera is facing, rather than the way my character is currently facing while waiting to catch up to the camera.
Yeah, I've found this a little frustrating, less so as I became accustom to it but it would help a lot if there wasn't a disconnect between camera and arrow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My assumption is they would base it on the TT example if anything, then change it depending on whether or not they had some problems. I think ultimately Flanking will not be in the game per a literal translation of TT rules, I could instead see them applying something like a 'flanking' bonus if you are simply being hit by multiple entities at the same time.
Once D&D moved to a map based game with a grid and flanking got super technical in terms of what flanked especially with reach weapons and partial cover to the point you had arguments with the gm about it - it started to get silly anyway.
Never understood why being shot at from behind wasn't distracting enough for a flank anyway :D
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not remotely satisfied with it yet, because I can turn and get my facing and view changed in a blink in actual physical life and having that taken to such sub-reality extremes is a huge bother. Even if it's not whipping around non-stop however fast you can swipe a mouse or they want mouse turn to equal keybind turn speed it shouldn't be that slow.
Causing Flatfooted and taking advantage of it (which is totally cool) is entirely different than using a term defined entirely by a particular directional arrangement of objects in a proposed connotation that facing has no affect. If that is a rogue mechanic to balance their incredible squishieness that's fine by me just call it something else with less cognitive dissonance (NOT Opportunity, or Debuffed, or Vulnerable, or any other word that already has a specific meaning in this context).
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The real problem with implementing a flaking check in PFO is that it requires that "enemy" and "ally" be somehow codified.
At the tabletop, the DM can make a ruling regarding how three mutually hostile parties flank with each other. Writing the complete set of rules for when any combination two player characters can flank with each other is not feasible; when my friend the cleric steps up behind me and prepares to cast a spell on me, he shouldn't cause me to be flanked. When the same character steps up behind my foe and prepares to cast a spell on him, he should cause my foe to become flanked.
Suppose that said cleric is a friend to both combatants who are hostile to each other; should he flank with them, or not?
"Untargeted" closely approaches the same behavior, but replaces all of the complicated friend/foe logic by checking the target's target.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue attacks deal extra damage when enemies have conditions like flat footed or unbalanced, not when the rogue is behind the enemy or another player is targeted by the enemy.Minor correction, but the Rogue Feature "Cut-Throat" grants "Sneak Attack on Untargeted", which I'm pretty sure means the Rogue does extra damage if his target is targeting someone else.
Minor correction, extra damage if the rogue isn't targeted by the target. The target doesn't have to have some one targeted for this condition.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Flanking in TT only requires there be two attackers on opposite sides and threatening the target. An extra feat and then position doesn't matter at all if there is 3 ppl threatening.
And yes, being blasted through a building by a mage pretty much destroys all thinking of being melee type of character. It needs fixing soon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Minor correction, extra damage if the rogue isn't targeted by the target. The target doesn't have to have some one targeted for this condition.Rogue attacks deal extra damage when enemies have conditions like flat footed or unbalanced, not when the rogue is behind the enemy or another player is targeted by the enemy.Minor correction, but the Rogue Feature "Cut-Throat" grants "Sneak Attack on Untargeted", which I'm pretty sure means the Rogue does extra damage if his target is targeting someone else.
Quite right. Thanks for the clarification :)