Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Gradishar

Friendly Fire...let's talk about this for a minute...

Recommended Posts

leonardo-di-caprio-biting-his-own-fist.j

 

So you disagree with the OP. Care to elaborate... at all? Because I haven't yet heard a good reason to go 100% FF.

 

It rewards small teams with coordination and tactics.

It punishes massive zergs without coordination or tactics

It increases the skill ceiling thus gives longer playability to the game

It heightens the risk involved in engaging an enemy and thus makes pvp decisions carry more weight 

 

There. You got me to actually respond to this terrible terrible thread. I feel disgusting now.

Edited by vucar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with realism, its just silly design when a mechanic like FF can be avoided due to arbitrary rules like being in a party.

 

The optimal way to play would be to just constantly invite everyone around you so can free fire with the best DPS combos and never kill friendlies. I can be in the middle of casting a massive AOE and just /invite the guy in front of me to avoid FF? C'mon man, its just silly. In fact its actually punishing people who play in set groups or solo since they can't just constantly /kick or /invite as they see fit so they have to hold back or just kill friendlies and weaken their own side.

 

Hence why everyone is vulnerable or nobody is. Its the only way to make sure everyone is subjected to the same rules and limitations regardless of playstyle.

 

Its also unconfirmed what the group size will be. I doubt 5-man groups will be the final size in a largecale open world pvp game. If a platoon of 30 people or more can be in a group and avoid FF -  it becomes completely pointless anyways.

 

If the max group size for FF immunity is 5 then you aren't just going to be able to invite everyone who could potentially stand in your way. If they implement FF immunity for party members I would assume the party would only allow for a small number of players (because that would make sense).

 

I have no idea how this punishes players who play in set groups?

 

A case can be made that it punishes solo players. However this game isn't a solo game and forcing people to group up and make friends isn't a bad thing. Almost all of the nostalgia eras people remember in MMOs have one thing in common. There was always a huge emphasis on group play and you HAD to make friends and play with other players in an MMORPG to accomplish your goals.

 

The whole idea of having friendly fire group immunity is that the groups are small. You could make large raid groups but they'd be divided up into parties (similarly to how WoW raid structures work for example).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something that trumps both reason and common sense.  That thing is experience.   After playing so many pvp MMORPGs, a pattern emerges.

Players exploit algorithmic boundaries.  Often these abuses lead to the boundary doing the opposite of the intention.   Also, complex combat systems have more failure modes.

 

Full friendly fire solves several problems endemic to MMORPG pvp.  First, it solves the problem of zerg mechanics where large groups of people 'stack' on one spot causing distortions in the gameplay.  Friendly fire weakens the zerg.   Also, friendly fire solves the worst of the griefing problems.  If someone is doing something wrong (and abusing the arbitrary 'marked as friend boundary'), you can kill them anyway, just like they are the enemy, even if they are on your own team, in your own guild, and in your own squad.  But it also increases political intrigue; is Bob just bad when he accidentally killed the guild leader, or is he a spy?    

 

Next, having multiple game mechanics in different modes is exponentially more complex than one mechanic for everything.  Even if that one mechanic is complicated to perfect, it is still less complex than getting all the possible combinations correct.  (eg In Wow, the resilience mechanic for PvP combat caused all sorts of balancing grief when it interacted with other game mechanics, and Blizzard says they regret it)  For Crowfall, balancing skills around sometimes damaging friends and sometimes not doubles the number of combat scenarios.  Every special case doubles the number of cominations as they interact with all the other corner cases, thus the exponential math.  (ex adding non-FF mode doubles the number of modes, adding resilience doubles the amount of modes, adding both quadruples the amound of modes)

Edited by kroked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Arawulf's interview with Thomas Blair they essentially said they are happy with the size of the cones/projectile sizes and think that once they get the client side prediction software dialed in the game's performance will be pretty good (paraphrasing but it went something like that)

 

Essentially the attacks are going to be fairly large for latency reasons, which makes sense.

Cones aren't the only possible change, it was just the example I used.


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cones aren't the only possible change, it was just the example I used.

 

Care to elaborate? That doesn't really help anyone.   :P

Edited by Zybak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Care to elaborate? That doesn't really help anyone.   :P

Your counterpoint hinged on the idea that the developers have claimed that the cones will not be changed. The idea likely being that: since I suggested a cone-change as a possible fix, evidence against that happening would de-legitimize the entire argument as the cone-change example was used as a... well, an example, within it. However, that was all it was, an example, and successfully disputing one of multiple sub-suggestions/examples does not de-legitimize the rest of the point.

 

Basically, you disputed a minor part of the arguement with the hopes that being right on the one point would suggest being right on the entire argument. Doing this (at least this alone) doesn't add much to the discussion other then a "Haha, I disproved a sub-point!!!".

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fixes seem to be rather simple(smaller cones etc.)

 

All I asked was what your other simple fixes were other than smaller cones...?

 

Like...? Why the hell are you over complicating this? 

 

IpjEL7e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I asked was what your other simple fixes were other than smaller cones...?

 

Like...? Why the hell are you over complicating this? 

 

IpjEL7e.png

Damage changes, better telegraphs, modified physics system, more heals. There are a myriad of minor modifications that change the whole dynamic of the game, and some of these new dynamics accommodate FF better better then others.

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leonardo-di-caprio-biting-his-own-fist.j

 

 

It rewards small teams with coordination and tactics.

It punishes massive zergs without coordination or tactics

It increases the skill ceiling thus gives longer playability to the game

It heightens the risk involved in engaging an enemy and thus makes pvp decisions carry more weight 

 

There. You got me to actually respond to this terrible terrible thread. I feel disgusting now.

 

I would wholeheartedly agree with those benefits if aiming was precise with narrow projectile hitboxes. It's not, though, and dev comments would seem to suggest they like the size of aoe cones, projectile hitboxes, etc... just the way they are.

 

Use Confessor as an example since that's the only ranged caster we have so far. (2) and (5) are both wide AOE's. (3) does substantial splash damage assuming none of your melee groupmates accidentally body block it, LMB does as well. (4) doesn't really have much of an aiming component so if the enemy has any confessors you're just as likely to purge and snare your own teammates as the enemy. So basically, unless you're rolling a range-only spec, Confessors don't really have much/any utility regardless of coordination. Are you going to coordinate your melee to leap away from a target so you can charge in on your squishy fessor and 2E+5 with no shield or any allies in range to support you (because they all had to back out so you didn't wreck them with aoe FF)? Are you going to stay at range and use your (1) on a 20s CD and try to get LOS on your LMB?

 

Granted, discipline abilities can't be accounted for in that scenario but it's hard to imagine ACE negating the majority of Confessor's base kit and drastically gimping the "massive sieges" they want to see in the interest of unlimited FF.

Edited by Drenath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is something that trumps both reason and common sense.  That thing is experience.   After playing so many pvp MMORPGs, a pattern emerges.

Players exploit algorithmic boundaries.  Often these abuses lead to the boundary doing the opposite of the intention.   Also, complex combat systems have more failure modes.

 

Full friendly fire solves several problems endemic to MMORPG pvp.  First, it solves the problem of zerg mechanics where large groups of people 'stack' on one spot causing distortions in the gameplay.  Friendly fire weakens the zerg.   Also, friendly fire solves the worst of the griefing problems.  If someone is doing something wrong (and abusing the arbitrary 'marked as friend boundary'), you can kill them anyway, just like they are the enemy, even if they are on your own team, in your own guild, and in your own squad.  But it also increases political intrigue; is Bob just bad when he accidentally killed the guild leader, or is he a spy?    

 

Next, having multiple game mechanics in different modes is exponentially more complex than one mechanic for everything.  Even if that one mechanic is complicated to perfect, it is still less complex than getting all the possible combinations correct.  (eg In Wow, the resilience mechanic for PvP combat caused all sorts of balancing grief when it interacted with other game mechanics, and Blizzard says they regret it)  For Crowfall, balancing skills around sometimes damaging friends and sometimes not doubles the number of combat scenarios.  Every special case doubles the number of cominations as they interact with all the other corner cases, thus the exponential math.  (ex adding non-FF mode doubles the number of modes, adding resilience doubles the amount of modes, adding both quadruples the amound of modes)

 

1. First, I disagree with your original assumption... that experience trumps both reason and common sense. Just because you've experienced a phenomenon, does not mean you understand it, or have the ability to prevent it from happening again. Yes, players will exploit boundaries, game mechanics and even the systems which are intended to curb their most destructive behaviors. However, that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and abandon the goal of creating a fun and exciting gaming experience. 

 

2. Second, I disagree with your your assertion that complex combat systems have more failure modes. While I agree that the more complex the system, the more potential for failure...however, that doesn't presuppose failure...nor does a simple system guarantee success. Flipping a coin is the simplest of combat systems. Its the most difficult to abuse...but only if you are gauging success on the basis of the ability to abuse the system. Flipping a coin to see who wins, while simple, is also boring as hell. A certain amount of strategy, skill and complexity is necessary to get the "fun factor" which is necessary for true success. 

 

3. Third, having 100% FF does not "solve" the problem of Zergs. The Zerg will still stack all 100 of their toons to fight your 20 toons. The only difference with full FF is that none of the Zerg will use AoEs. They will use focus fire to still overwhelm their enemies. More problematic, is that the 20 toons will similarly be limited to avoiding AoEing...or trying to go on single suicide runs to get their AoEs off inside the zerg. However, taking away group FF immunity...instead of this being a 2 groups vs 10 groups fight (certainly a difficult challenge) where 2 optimal groups who excel in using their synergistic powers and abilities to be more powerful than the sum of their parts...this is a 100 individuals vs 20 individuals...and the 20 don't stand a chance. 

 

4. Fourth, as I said before...griefing or killing the annoying toon is completely irrelevant to this discussion. You can still kill anyone at any time. One extra click of "kick from group" or "disband group" is all you need to have to kill the annoying toon who looted that Ruby Chest Plate of Uberness when it wasn't his turn.

 

5. Fifth... political intrigue. Bob killing the GL...err...Bob can still kill the GL...and be bad at targeting or a bloody spy...if he's in the neighboring group. The small loss of that all so engrossing in-group-political-intrigue from friendly fire deaths...is worth it IMHO...to have effective group combat and archetype interdependence. 

 

6. Yes...its more complex. Yep...conceded. Don't care. Complexity is good. Flipping a coin is simple...but its not how combat should be organized. Having a system that is compelling, enjoyable and effective...is worth the complexity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a more sensible solution to have some attacks that can incur friendly fire, and others that cannot?  Thus preserving some as 'safe' to use around allies, perhaps to clear things away from allies, and others, likely the more potent of them, to be the ones that do in fact cause friendly fire?  I apologize if this was mentioned previous, I likely skimmed a few points that started to get super repetitive. 

 

This way, players are still able to use some skills for one purpose, and the others to counter larger groups, initiate combat before things get to melee range, etc. 

Simply denoting that all abilities and spells with area effects must either be one or the other seems terrible limiting, and to my knowledge, Crowfall is trying to break a lot of common limitations we see in MMO's.  Let there be both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the max group size for FF immunity is 5

 

That is a huge assumption. The majority of largescale pvp games allow for much larger group sizes.

 

I have no idea how this punishes players who play in set groups?

 

They have to be more careful to not hit allies whereas a more fluid group or bunch of people on a teamspeak server who are smart can constantly switch up who is grouped to get around the FF mechanic and max dps with no consequences. Sure it requires more micro, but its an advantage.

 

A case can be made that it punishes solo players. However this game isn't a solo game and forcing people to group up and make friends isn't a bad thing.

 

Sure its not a solo game, but solo players will still make up a sizable portion of the population, and many people first check the game out as a solo. This is shown in ArtCrafts own analytics post (part 2) if you want proof. They will be totally gimped if groups do not have FF and they do. When different types of players are subject to different rules it breaks the system.

 

 

You are banking on the idea that people will play in a traditional way and not try to abuse the system to their benefit.  Full FF won't work in the current game, imposing a half-baked system won't change that.

Edited by jacobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, while reading this thread, what would you guys think of the opposite to Friendly Fire? I'm calling it Enemy Enhancement because can't think of another e or f word that means the same thing. Anyway, it basically would allow you to buff your enemies. Since FF allows you to hinder your allies, why not mechanics to assist your foes? Not that I'd really want to see it, mind you, just a thought that popped into my head.


giphy.gif

You Can't Be A Genius, If You Aren't The Slightest Bit Insane.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn, I tire of ppl evading existing subjects so they can showcase their opinion while evading all the discussion that already exists on the subject. The flimsy excuse about new information is BS, as some of these threads are fairly recent.

 

Moderators should have merged these threads. Though I will admit that most of these deep threads devolve into repeated banter.

 

This like many other threads is an unfit host though, as it fails to acknowledge the progress of the subject thus far.

 

Honestly any new FF subject needs to begin with a collection of official statements and recognition of genuine possibility space.


a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

leonardo-di-caprio-biting-his-own-fist.j

 

 

It rewards small teams with coordination and tactics.

It punishes massive zergs without coordination or tactics

It increases the skill ceiling thus gives longer playability to the game

It heightens the risk involved in engaging an enemy and thus makes pvp decisions carry more weight

 

There. You got me to actually respond to this terrible terrible thread. I feel disgusting now.

Well, this basically.

 

Also you're all bads/zerglings/carebears/suckers ;D


Member of The BlackHand Order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...