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

Is friendly fire still happening/is a thing?

Recommended Posts

I hope they put friendly fire in, it keeps most people from mindlessly spamming their attacks; the direction combat seems to be going, I don't think they can implement it the way they initially intended.  

 

Between no friendly fire and damage splitting it's like they're priming this game for the inevitable zerg. 


Hg0LXwa.png

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Todd. Given the size of the character models, number of characters on screen in these battles, the way collision, targeting and physics work in this game I don't see how full on friendly fire would ever work and be fun. You can do lots of different limited versions of friendly fire and I think it would work just great. These include group immunity, nation immunity or reduced damage percentage to allies or group members with friendly fire otherwise active.

 

However given the size of engagements and extremely limited range of engagement especially, you just end up with a ton of people in very small areas all while collision is fully active with physics.

 

It would make pure friendly fire a total poorly made socksshow IMO.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a system like this (no 100% friendly fire, doesn't seem like it would work with this combat system):

 

God's Reach (3 faction) = your faction is green

Infected (12 faction) = your faction is green

Shadow (NvN) = your nation (guild+subguilds) is green

Dregs (GvG) = your guild is green

Veteran Dregs (FFA) = your party is green

 

Party-based immunity is essentially what we play in Hungerdome, and it works fine - it's fun small team pvp. "Veteran Dregs" would be for guilds that want more challenge, and can pvp at a higher level of skilled teamwork and organization. I feel like we could fill at least one Dregs CW with this ruleset.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't add in friendly fire and start balancing around it, the entire meta of all pvp on release will be reduced to zerg size and blob rolling.

 

"How many do we have?"

"20"

"And how many do they have?"

"30"

"Well f*** it lets just go home then, this is over"

 

I disagree with your notion that FF is/should be the be-all-end-all of zergs.

 

Having a larger force should be a valid (and arguably effective) tactic against your enemies. It has worked in history, so why not in a strategy-based game? What's important is that ACE provide the tools and abilities to win outnumbered fights. I.E. hit and runing, kamikaze-ing, choke pointing, these should all be usable to hinder a larger force and possibly cripple/defeat them.

 

And if ACE is still planning on full environmental destruction, I would like to see using the environment to kill your foes, like dropping a boulder on them, or getting them caught in a landslide. These should all be things to stop zergs, not just FF, even if FF is the most effective deterrent.   


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

Thinking they will follow the SB model. Certain archtypes/abilities will only exclude caster.

An example would be the Fury class from Shadowbane, who's persistent AOEs would hit party members as well as enemies. Other casters like druids and prelates had ranged AOEs as well, that excluded party members.


92nKl2f.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, they NEVER said that there would be friendly fire. They NEVER said that. They said "the fire will affect friendlies", which is completely different, obviously.

 

Your fault for interpreting it wrong. Duh.

Go read the FAQ and an early thread called " friendly fire explained" with an answer from a dev.

 

Edit: sorry for missing the irony, I read this way too early in the morning on the phone! At least Remlap posted the references so I guess it's fine how it turned out. :D

Edited by Fenris DDevil

y9tj8G5.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go read the FAQ and an early thread called " friendly fire explained" with an answer from a dev.

 

I do believe you've missed the joke.

 

However for the sake of the conversation allow me to link these things you spoke of.

 

 

15. DOES THAT MEAN THAT I CAN BE HIT BY FRIENDLY FIRE?

 
 

Wherever possible, yes -- but we have to make sure that this is balanced. Some rules sets (like the infected worlds, which are Faction based) divide players automatically into teams. We have to make sure that players can't join teams specifically to take advantage of friendly fire to grief their own "teammates."

Our plan is to try and apply debuffs to players for doing damage to or killing their teammates (the gods curse you for your incompetence). If this proves not to be a good enough deterrent, however, we may have to turn friendly fire off for particular Campaign worlds.

Source

 

 

I'm not entirely sure how you can read an FAQ that mentions the possibility of turning off friendly fire on 1 or 2 of the announced rulesets, and to you that translates to "only FFA has friendly fire". 

 

Make no mistake, we'll be working and testing this area heavily and we'll find what works best for each campaign ruleset. We might find a way to execute it well on all of them, we may not. 

 

It's best not to jump to hyperbolic conclusion's when we're being very forward and open with our thinking with you on this. 

 

 

[–]bramhendriks 4 points

 

5 months ago  

How do you think Friendly Fire will work with the current combat system having a lot of AoE skills?

 

[–]JtoddcolemanArtCraft Ent. Creative Director 5 points

5 months ago  

I'm hesitant to answer this one, because we have a pretty significant change coming down the pipe that will fundamentally effect how movement feels.

That said, your point about AoEs is valid. We are still committed to experimenting with FFA, and this may even require some changes to our targeting (decreasing diameters, narrowing cones, etc.) It will also require teams to change the way they approach engagement.

Source

Edited by Remlap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this game was made to appeal casuals or the "mass", we wouldn't be here.

 

Friendly Fire and how it plays out in CF has no correlary to "casuals".

 

It does however correlate to a segment of the player population.  Whatever "casual" is.  So subjective just as "hard core" is.

 

Anyway . . . personally, Imma wait and see.  I think FF is one of those "holy grail" topics some people latch onto without working through all the possible effects, particularly in group combat.

 

This is where the ACE team comes in leveraging their experience whilst tapping fingernails on teeth looking over input from the Testers.


“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they don't add in friendly fire and start balancing around it, the entire meta of all pvp on release will be reduced to zerg size and blob rolling.

 

"How many do we have?"

"20"

"And how many do they have?"

"30"

"Well f*** it lets just go home then, this is over"

 

Friendly fire will be true for both sides, so my guess is numbers will still play the role it always has as advantage vs disadvantage.


“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly Fire and how it plays out in CF has no correlary to "casuals".

 

It does however correlate to a segment of the player population.  Whatever "casual" is.  So subjective just as "hard core" is.

 

think FF is one of those "holy grail" topics some people latch onto without working through all the possible effects, particularly in group combat.

 

 

Absolutely correct, for some odd reason some people think that less features = more hardcore or more inconvenience features makes your a better player, both of which are completely untrue, adding large mechanics like friendly fire can add more annoyance than depth to the game. If you're going to make an argument for friendly fire please don't give "because its hardcore" as a reason.

Edited by Uyathefox

Sugoi ! - Head of Disciplinary Committee


YhuWX9S.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly Fire and how it plays out in CF has no correlary to "casuals".

 

It does however correlate to a segment of the player population.  Whatever "casual" is.  So subjective just as "hard core" is.

 

Anyway . . . personally, Imma wait and see.  I think FF is one of those "holy grail" topics some people latch onto without working through all the possible effects, particularly in group combat.

 

This is where the ACE team comes in leveraging their experience whilst tapping fingernails on teeth looking over input from the Testers.

Completely incorrect. 

 

Friendly fire forces logistics upon you that are much more challenging and require much more awareness than otherwise.  Generally casuals gravitate towards casual features, which are usually more easy, require less investment and thought, and less challenge.  This is why, for example, a raid that is tuned to casual players will be significantly easier than one tuned to a hardcore progression guild.

 

It's much easier not to worry about your spells harming your teammates than it is to worry about them... it changes how the game is played and what level of awareness and understanding is required to excel.

 

As I said before... let the more hardcore rulesets have their hardcore features, if people need something softer then make rulesets for them as well.

 

Hardcore rulesets are never the most popular... but since this game was billed as that hardcore pvp game they need to give hardcore players at least their own little playground to have fun in.

 

My concern in regards to the hardcore features is that you have casuals parading as hardcore pvpers who will try to dumb down the hardcore rulesets just so they can convince themselves they are hardcore.  If someone can't see why friendly fire is more hardcore, that's fine... but give those that are actually hardcore a chance to have our fun.... Don't force us to be muzzled by casual features just because they don't understand.

 

I wouldn't even care if ACE paid zero attention to friendly fire, and then just turned it on as a switch in certain rulesets... Some theorycrafters claim that would be a horrendous experience and wouldn't work out at all... but hardcore pvpers seek challenge and competition, they would adapt to it and the meta and tactics would be completely different from rulesets where ff is off.

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wouldn't even care if ACE paid zero attention to friendly fire, and then just turned it on as a switch in certain rulesets... Some theorycrafters claim that would be a horrendous experience and wouldn't work out at all... but hardcore pvpers seek challenge and competition, they would adapt to it and the meta and tactics would be completely different from rulesets where ff is off.

The most recent theorycrafter to say that was J Todd Coleman.

 

And I agree. They'll almost certainly turn it on. I can't wait to try it. That said, the game is fairly obviously designed without FF in mind and I think it will flop pretty hard, personally. We'll see.

 

Edit: to be clear, I am only referring to full, pure friendly fire. I'm fairly sure some form of FF will be in every campaign. I just don't think full FF will work well in light of the design of the existing powers, character models, collision, etc. I'd like to try it regardless.

Edited by coolwaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OP,

ACE has promised FF for AoE attacks at least for the inner bands. This may or may not affect splash or chaining attacks.

ACE has never promised FF for AoE buffs or heals for any rulesets.

Personally I think it would be detrimental to discourage teamwork in any way. For this reason I think only AoE attacks should be subject to FF rules.


I think the K-Mart of MMO's already exists!  And it ain't us!   :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm cautiously optimistic we'll see FF on all the bands to a certain extent. They recently changed the DMs of all abilities to rectangular for what I assume is the potential to integrate FF. I'm all for FF long as they can fit it within the context of the game and it works.

Edited by helix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely incorrect. 

 

Friendly fire forces logistics upon you that are much more challenging and require much more awareness than otherwise.  Generally casuals gravitate towards casual features, which are usually more easy, require less investment and thought, and less challenge.  This is why, for example, a raid that is tuned to casual players will be significantly easier than one tuned to a hardcore progression guild.

 

It's much easier not to worry about your spells harming your teammates than it is to worry about them... it changes how the game is played and what level of awareness and understanding is required to excel.

 

As I said before... let the more hardcore rulesets have their hardcore features, if people need something softer then make rulesets for them as well.

 

Hardcore rulesets are never the most popular... but since this game was billed as that hardcore pvp game they need to give hardcore players at least their own little playground to have fun in.

 

My concern in regards to the hardcore features is that you have casuals parading as hardcore pvpers who will try to dumb down the hardcore rulesets just so they can convince themselves they are hardcore.  If someone can't see why friendly fire is more hardcore, that's fine... but give those that are actually hardcore a chance to have our fun.... Don't force us to be muzzled by casual features just because they don't understand.

 

I wouldn't even care if ACE paid zero attention to friendly fire, and then just turned it on as a switch in certain rulesets... Some theorycrafters claim that would be a horrendous experience and wouldn't work out at all... but hardcore pvpers seek challenge and competition, they would adapt to it and the meta and tactics would be completely different from rulesets where ff is off.

The danger in correlating "friendly fire" or not with hardcore or casuals . . .

 

. . . is that it's a disingenuous attempt to arbitrarily assign the idea that anti-friendly fire = casual.

 

And that may absolutely not be the case. There are functional reasons to evaluate the pros and cons of implementing friendly fire sans any attempts at slogan-induced emotional tweaking. Thus, it's not a given someone "anti" FF is anti because they are "casual".

 

Whatever your personal definition for hardcore or casual is:

"Hard Core" players will still be hard core players without friendly fire.

"Casuals" will still be casual with friendly fire.

 

There is no correlary between the identification of "casual" versus "hard core" and friendly fire IMO. It is not a core criterion that establishes that play style for any given player.

 

As far as making any kind of "detailed" breakout of how Friendly fire alters "logistics", that's too early to articulate clearly. Sure, there are the obvious issues, particularly given AoEs. But my expectation is:

 

Combat is going to work out like two mobs of kids rushing each other, soon to be mixed like a deck of shuffled cards. Which renders "logistics" for some (AoE) pretty binary: Any form of group combat = no AoEs.

 

After that it's going to be a mosh-mess of people trying to take their targets in the shoulder-to-shoulder crowd on single target.

Edited by Bramble

“Letting your customers set your standards is a dangerous game, because the race to the bottom is pretty easy to win. Setting your own standards--and living up to them--is a better way to profit. Not to mention a better way to make your day worth all the effort you put into it." - Seth Godin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't like FF in general because it isn't fun to me and a lot people will abuse it by trolling and destroying your game. But i would accept it in a seperate campaign with FF in the ruleset. Everyone should chose how they want to play by choosing the campaign they like.


One Ring to Rule them all, One Ring to Find them, One Ring to bring them all an in the darkness and bind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your notion that FF is/should be the be-all-end-all of zergs.

 

Having a larger force should be a valid (and arguably effective) tactic against your enemies. It has worked in history, so why not in a strategy-based game? What's important is that ACE provide the tools and abilities to win outnumbered fights. I.E. hit and runing, kamikaze-ing, choke pointing, these should all be usable to hinder a larger force and possibly cripple/defeat them.

 

And if ACE is still planning on full environmental destruction, I would like to see using the environment to kill your foes, like dropping a boulder on them, or getting them caught in a landslide. These should all be things to stop zergs, not just FF, even if FF is the most effective deterrent.   

 

I agree with you, I just think that having a larger force is already an advantage in itself. With more people, you have more dps, healing, etc. So there's no reason why other game mechanics should encourage stacking numbers by giving it even more of an advantage than it already has by default. Damage splitting and AoE caps usually work this way. The more people you stack, the harder it will be to kill each one individually due to damage splitting and such. So on top of one side already having larger numbers, they also get an advantage of being harder to kill and being able to "hide" inside those numbers (AoE caps). I think at least a few more powerful spells should be free of AoE caps. I don't have this urge to see full on friendly fire implemented, I'd be happy with a partial version of it as long as it's still meaningful (like it doesn't affect group members for example). 

 

Because again, that's one more thing that encourages and promotes zerging, when zerg balls can just roam around spamming AoE and heals with no consequence for stacking, PLUS the advantage of damage splitting which makes them harder to kill. I think stacking numbers should be a valid strategy, but it shouldn't be the absolute no brainer only way to win, it should come with certain dangers as well. 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...