So... how's that Friendly Fire going?

[bahamutkaiser 2,377]

We can't all be Courant

[mythx 983]

JTodd recently said that the Shadows/Dregs would likely be combined into a single band because it most closely represents the SB type environment.

 

How recent is that source?

I wish ACE revealed that information and came to that conclusion at a much earlier date, and that is unfortunate.

 

I`m interesting to hear more about this new version of Dregs in near future. 

[miraluna 2,436]

From the May AMA on Reddit:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/4i09af/crowfallartcraft_ama_with_ace_founders_coleman/d2tw5cl

[coolster50 2,144]

Oops, well that escalated quickly.

 

Where to start? Well J Todd said FF would be in, and somewhat present in all modes, get a sleuth to dig it up for you if you like. ACE also made a bunch of back pedaling remarks afterward, being insincere doesn't win any awards though, it just demonstrates unreliability.

 

"Should it be more strategic?" They said it was a strategy game more so than an action game too, to an audience that probably stopped participating already due to their demonstration thus far.

 

"It won't work here". You bet it won't, and ACE doesn't have the talent to make a system it would work in. I'm not going to argue the practicality of shoe horning in FF with this sloppy system, it was heavily discussed during Kickstarter, and alarms were raised during initial play testing asking WTH is up with combat and FF, and we were told to wait.

 

Wait until now, where we know we aren't getting what we were offered, and at this point it's fraud.

 

Saying "maybe I'll be faithful" to your spouse some time after you've vowed to be faithful doesn't absolve you if your previous promise, nor does it make it less offensive when you cheat, saying maybe alone is offensive if you made a commitment.

 

And ACE made a lot of commitments during their advertisement campaign, dismissing anything and everything they fail to deliver as changed during production isn't dignified. It's all the way down to their original FAQ for the game, real physics, projectile collision, friendly fire, and more.

 

Fixating yourself with what they're engulfed in now doesn't absolve them of these statements.

 

Friendly Fire belongs in this game, the only reason I don't expect it from them is because I don't think they're talented enough to accomplish it. It can be done, right, and not some trash tack on with no design implementation, but not by ACE, I'm not even seeing a level of quality such as Wildstar or Tera which they imagined to imitate. And those don't have many of the features solicited by ACE, those games couldn't even include these features.

 

They can either admit they aren't/can't do it, or they can pull some BS and apply it in some ungodly fashion and pretend they've fulfilled their claim, either way they've failed.

 

But shame on me for trusting Todd, the same guy who said their art was an accurate representation of what they'd have in game, a week before admitting that the Centaur jousting a knight art was not actually part of the game. Psh wings?, why would you even imagine they'd include flight, silly me right? Just life it was silly to think Centaur would be a DPS >.>

 

It's kinda like, he'd say anything to get a sale. #No Man's Lie

 

So what do I care right, I got no reason to be here and disapprove right? You must be joking right? Everyone here paid for this game already, premium, to support production and fund it. Money collected, on lies.

 

But hey, "things will change in development", working excuse for everything they fail to do. Betcha the cost doesn't change :-/

 

Remember your excuses when your expected features are cut, at least No Man's Sky wasn't Kickstarted.

 

...Things are liable to change. In fact, they are almost guaranteed to change!

[headlight 5,741]

Cmon now Headlight, if it was such a pivotal game design feature that the developers felt was important, they'd be talking it up every video.

They're not.

 

Why? No idea ... maybe they don't want to disappoint the percentage of people who were looking forward to having / not having it in place. Maybe they are focused (with blinders on) on the task at hand and don't want to muddy up the waters with sidebars.

 

Now then ... If 100,000 people registered to be a part of this community and 99,947 of them are 'missing', who is to say that they left because they reached a "breaking point"?

 

I 100% respect your right to state your opinion and post anything you'd like to say on the forums. I would never say otherwise. However, when I keep reading things like "the majority" and "they decided what their breaking point was" ... you're making HUGE assumptions about them even HAVING a breaking point.

 

Maybe 99,918 of them simply decided that they didn't want to read any more posts about friendly fire until October 18th, 2016? That's also a valid assumption.

 

You've obviously contributed a lot to these forums with your post count. I recognize that a lot of what you say has merit and is well thought out and carefully written. I thank you for your many contributions. However I think you would do yourself a solid by understanding that you speak for yourself and not suggesting that the silent thousands of other people who aren't responding in the forums secretly agree(d) with your opinion.

 

 

TL;DR: I speak for only me. Say no to Friendly Fire!

 

Why do people feel the need to get triggered and post pages in response to my paragraphs? There's some real disability spreading on these forums and one of the obvious symptoms is a lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say that thousands of people left because of Friendly Fire. I stated that thousands of people left because for them, there was a reason for them to leave. Even if it was to take a break. There were 16,776 Kickstarter backers (roughly). Making the crazy assumption that the same amount of people bought packages since the kickstarter, that's ~33,000 players. Now, it's safe to assume 50,000 players called it quits. Not over friendly fire. It could be for a myriad of reasons ranging from not enough PvE to Tully leaving. Hundreds of reasons. I'm not Courant. I can't bring you the massive math and flow charts.

 

And it's also safe to say thousands of missing players secretly agree with me since they are silent and don't disagree either.

 

On topic: Friendly fire was brought up as an initial promise among a hundred over promises. I think players are just curious as to the state of friendly fire. No harm in asking. Except 10 pages of discourse.

 

EDIT: we got jamesgoblin putting in work now.

Edited September 13, 2016 by headlight

[Scree 1,856]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a promise... they've made few outright promises. They did indicate they'd like to make friendly fire one of their "knobs" as Jtodd spoke of in that recent May AMA response.

 

As long as it exists in general, this game is better off. Yet, Friendly Fire alone isn't going to save this game or make it better. We still have to deal with a floppy-soft combat that at best will earn lukewarm praise from diehard fans. From anyone else? this is likely to be what they quit over 2 months after buying into the hype.

 

Friendly Fire existing or not in Crowfall, won't even be an afterthought at that point.

[VIKINGNAIL 5,680]

I'd rather people just argue the actual merits of FF than make claims of ACE leaning one way or another.  They said they want to try it, they never guaranteed it, they never scrapped it.

 

We know that combat is the most important aspect of this game, as repeated by ACE over and over.  Friendly fire would enhance the combat and create a higher skill-ceiling.  Let's hope it makes it in.

 

It gets really boring to me when people just magically claim it can't work, when they really mean they don't know how to utilize tactics with it implemented in certain systems. 

[codex 22]

 Somebody must have have burned a hole in your grammar skills with a FF fireball.

Oh, I'm sorry... didn't realize people from other countries were obligated to write perfectly in a foreign language... this is the internet not a f... English exam.

[Eaden 719]

I stepped away from this topic when I came upon it the first time, and it was just 2 pages long. Now, for some reason, I had to know what it was all about. After roughly 1 hour of reading, I got through the 10 pages of love, hate, debate, constructive and destructive comments you guys (you all) have posted.

 

Before someone quote me and add a "you should have stayed away" sort of response, please take a minute to read my post, as I took the time to thoroughly read yours, and as I will try to be constructive and reasonable.

 

 

What I will NOT talk about:

 

- what have been, or have not been, promised / said / speculated / theorized / thought about during the KS campaign, because I have no knowledge of it, and it would be irrelevant today in my opinion. However, I understand that some may be disappointed, as their expectations will not be met, or may have not been met yet.

 

- the whole debate about vocal minority, vast majority, the Wizard 101 public, who is right, who is wrong, who can quote links and proofs, who cannot, etc. We are all players, with different experiences, different backgrounds, different expectations from CF, different ways of enjoying gaming. In this regard, we will obviously always find point of disagreement. That is the way of things. Know now something, if CF development would be a democracy (which is not really), then we have elected the ACE team to develop it by voting with our money. So we may approve or disapprove their work, but we have to embrace it, or withdraw our money.

 

- other games, and other FF game mechanics. I cannot compare with games I have never played. To me, CF would be the first game to introduce these mechanics. So I am an innocent virgin when it comes to FF. The good news is, I will be also candid approaching the subject.

 

 

Now, what I want to talk about:

 

- skill ceiling: Does adding FF would improve the skill ceiling per se? If we take the pure definition that has been posted earlier, no it would not.

 

Now, the way I understand skill ceiling / skill cap (mainstream meaning), and the way I would like to talk about, is that, to me, skill ceiling refers to the maximum potency of a player to make good use of its gaming tools: i.e. being a "good" player. This means:

> controlling its character correctly

> making appropriate use of his skills in a timely manner (countdown management, resource management, combo order)

> selecting and focusing on the good targets at the right time

> being aware of its surrounding, and the battlefield evolution, to make strategic choices

In this regard, implementing FF (of some sort) would raise the "skill ceiling", as players would have to be attentive to new elements, such as friend or foe, in selecting targets, timing correctly their actions, reading the battlefield, etc.

 

This being said, will also hinder the impact and interest of FF during a combat:

- latency

- FPS

- root motion

 

- back stabbing and politics: this is to me one of the most important face of FF, the ability to plot against short or long time alliances, to take advantage of a situation, etc. But this will happen anyway, with or without FF. It will just not take the same form (the same "dramatic" form I would say)

 

- the "perfect" anti-zerg solution: to my opinion, the root motion and the current gameplay is already doing a good job at it. Collisions, choke points, crowd "move" abilities, falling damages, and the variety of archetypes, force players to spread withing an area for maximum efficiency, as well as choosing carefully where to position themselves depending on their role and the fight unfolding.

 

From my experience of SP and HD so far, the more a team clutters closely, or at the other extreme the more it spreads randomly, the less chance it has to win a fight. It is even truer when siege machinery are part of the deal. This being said, I've only experience 20+ players game, with almost never more than 15 players in the same fight (roughly 3 teams FFA). I have no idea what would happen in a 50+ player fight.

 

However, I am quite sure that currently, a good team, or a couple of good teams, could make a serious dent in a 50+ zerg in the game with its actual setting without FF. This being said...

 

---

 

My humble opinion and desire:

 

I currently think that FF would not add much to the game in its current alpha setup. I think that FF would mix badly with current FPS of the alpha phase to start with. But...

 

Is it compatible with current combat system? I think it definitely is compatible. It would just require us, alpha-testers to relearn what we know of the game. And may need a few tweaks from the dev too of course.

 

Would it be a pain for some range and caster classes to deal with: yes, most probably.

 

Would it be a pain in melee to deal with too: yes, most probably.

 

Would AoE, cone, line, etc. skills become less "spammable": yes, but it would actually be a good thing. I think they are the main thing that should be modified to allow a proper FF. These skills should be game changers when used correctly. High on countdown, high on resources / channeling / preparation, but also high on damage / effect. But that is another topic.

 

Should we keep theorizing about FF? I think we should stop. We are in Alpha, now is the time to give it a try instead.

The incoming campaign module will be the perfect opportunity in my opinion. SP and HD being already too "close-quarter" and messy, adding FF would not help to figure out if it is adapted or working with the current combat system, and even less if it is fun at all.

 

Could we imagine different sets of rules for FF? I think this is actually the best answer we could start brainstorming about.

We will have different types of campaign, with different engagement rules. Is not excluded the possibility to have different set of combat rules (i.e. with FF, without FF, with any sort of FF hybrid, where some skills/attack/action or groups/friend/gathering could be partially/completely/temporary immune to FF) withing the same type of campaign. Why not giving the joy of FF for players who wish to have it, as long as it would be on specific campaigns, and clearly stated from the start? It would be, at the very least, an honest way to give a fair chance for FF to be field tested.

 

---

 

Now, for the upcoming posts and answers to my post: I will not debate my answer, or try to justify it whatsoever. As far as I am concern, I am done with this topic.

 

This is only my opinion, and I bring it to the table to give some material to think about. Nothing less, nothing more. I will of course keep an eye on it.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Eaden

[mythx 983]

What you will not talk about cover most of the sensitive content in this thread, and that include a combat system which is limited in that regard compare to the original game design vision about different world campaigns, but it`s fine @Eaden.

 

I`m positive that will see some sort of FF version in Crowfall - which also had a major part in that old Shadowbane game.

 

- I`ll create a topic about the new version of Dregs. What is interesting to include or exclude, or perhaps what we thrive to see with the current combat system and Vessel system. I`ll also mention the resource system, because economy and crafting is another major pillar in the design which will be essential in a campaign world as well.

[Xenotor 297]

Why do people feel the need to get triggered and post pages in response to my paragraphs? There's some real disability spreading on these forums and one of the obvious symptoms is a lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say that thousands of people left because of Friendly Fire. I stated that thousands of people left because for them, there was a reason for them to leave. Even if it was to take a break. There were 16,776 Kickstarter backers (roughly). Making the crazy assumption that the same amount of people bought packages since the kickstarter, that's ~33,000 players. Now, it's safe to assume 50,000 players called it quits. Not over friendly fire. It could be for a myriad of reasons ranging from not enough PvE to Tully leaving. Hundreds of reasons. I'm not Courant. I can't bring you the massive math and flow charts.

 

And it's also safe to say thousands of missing players secretly agree with me since they are silent and don't disagree either.

 

On topic: Friendly fire was brought up as an initial promise among a hundred over promises. I think players are just curious as to the state of friendly fire. No harm in asking. Except 10 pages of discourse.

 

EDIT: we got jamesgoblin putting in work now.

TL:DR watch the vid im terrible at explaining.

 

Everything i wrote here is my personal opnion that is based on experience that i gathers in that past 15+ years of playing mmorpgs.

 

 

I play tested both the hunger dome and SP and found both to be boring as there is nothing to win there its just gimping around with unbalanced classes. Im here for an MMO not an arena battle ground and from what i heared most people i talk to are the same. Most dont even go to the Forum hell even in very succesfull games most people dont go to the forum cuz they dont want to spend time on useless ranting or flaming and instat play the dam game or if the game isnt out jet play another game.

I remember a few years back a head dev said that he people on the forum make only about 10% of the playerbase at most.

 

From what i heared most backed the game with the KS vid of the crowfall vision in mind. Its about politics , betrayal , economic and information warfare as well as terretory controll in a campain with set win loose conditions.

 

All that matters is the final product. It may be better then the initial vision... it may be worse. Some will like it others dont. Devs will never make everyone happy at one time in game dev they have to finalize some features and cut others out because they no longer fit. Will these make people angry? Offcoure is will. Will this make the game a failure? Not really. What makes a game succesfull and what makes a game a failure? You could as 1000 people about it and get 1000 different answers. Some answers may overlap in certain areas but every answer will be different. Now who are you to judgle whats the right answer for everyboddy? Your opinion is as mutch valuble as mine and everyboddy else.

 

Here is an interesting topic from TB about gamers and games. To sum it up there are 2 types of games that are unhealthy for a game. The fanboy and the anti fanboy. I wanted to make a sumary of both but TB is a lot better at this then me so just watch the vid its less about No mans lie and more about gaming and game deverlopment in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCG9YLeIB98

[Jah 6,718]

- I`ll create a topic about the new version of Dregs.

 

I don't think there is a "new version of the Dregs" so much as the difference between the Shadow and Dregs was never really defined in the first place.

[Soulreaver 1,700]

*graps his popcorn, leans back and starts munching *

 

On a scale from 1 to 10 how indifferent do you think ArtCraft are, cause personally I think you lads need to renew your subscription - and I don't mean to the game either.

[Bramble 744]

I'd rather people just argue the actual merits of FF than make claims of ACE leaning one way or another.  They said they want to try it, they never guaranteed it, they never scrapped it.

 

We know that combat is the most important aspect of this game, as repeated by ACE over and over.  Friendly fire would enhance the combat and create a higher skill-ceiling.  Let's hope it makes it in.

 

It gets really boring to me when people just magically claim it can't work, when they really mean they don't know how to utilize tactics with it implemented in certain systems. 

 

Maybe.

 

Or, perhaps we are debating / focusing on the wrong thing.  Relative to "skill ceilings" I don't see FF as raising the skill ceiling.  It's a tertiary consequence:  You didn't hit what you were aiming at and hit something else (single target scenario).

 

In that case there are a whole lot of Skill Ceiling factors that go into that:  Max Range + projectile speed + projectile arc (or not) + insta cast versus cast-time, etc.

 

It seems to me we want to talk about FF or not AFTER the baseline combat mechanics (skill ceiling calibrations) are set, so that when people are running around the MECHANICS flow properly in combat (meaning, as example, if the Skill Ceiling calibrations are off for single target ranged only 10% of the players are hitting intended targets at Max range reasonably, and maybe the desire is to see more like 50%.  So you speed up projectiles, you change the Skill Ceiling calibrations so that ranged point-and-shoot isn't too ez-mode but isn't abysmal either.  Again, made up theorycraft example for illustration). 

 

If you start talking about AoEs, melee cleaves and such, this is another ball of wax, yes?  We can say it takes a different type of skill, that being judgement (when to use, when to not), but there's no real Skill Ceiling factors involved there.  No technical skill ceiling factors to adjust.

 

Do I have the proper definition and understanding of "Skill Ceiling" understood? 

 

We all know how Friendly Fire works, yes?  Your attacks have the ability to strike and deal damage to Friendlies.  Based on what I suggested above, it circles me back to the same thought above:  Friendly Fire can be seen as a Consequence to poor game play, lack of skill, or collateral damage (if you will) to poor Skill Ceiling calibrations.  But it's not a root-cause, is it?

 

Shouldn't we be spending more energy in discussion about how combat is looking?  Ranged, hows that feel at all ranges including Max?  Melee, can you close reasonably?  Melee, how do you feel about your MIX of single target attacks versus multi-target and/or AoE? Etc.

 

So, you wanted to talk about the benefits FF brings.  That's actually a good suggestion, because there's some unintended misinformation occurring in that department (maybe), that being Friendly Fire is "Anti-Zerg".  Another poster, I forget who now, pointed out what it really is, and I think they have that right.  Anyway:

 

Friendly Fire:

 

More realistic, it's what happens IRL.  I agree with the poster pointed that out in another post.  That's actually one of my happy points with the idea of FF.

 

Is Anti-BLOB (not Anti-Zerg, see the next point).

 

Forces larger battle groups to think (more often) about Formation.  The feedback to the "Battalion" is to engage in a way via positioning, spreading out, etc., to avoid a problem.  As others have pointed out, a shift more in the direction of thought-out / planned positioning, not rolling Blobs of players.

 

"Raises the Skill Ceiling".  I don't see it raising any skill ceiling factors, I think, but the spirit of the idea is valid:  You need to think about what you are about to throw if we assume you intent to fight your opponent, not backstabbing your fellows.

 

What else that I've missed that's the Pro side of FF?

 

There are several potential Cons . . . . but I want to set those aside for the moment.  Mostly because, in my mind, a lot of that is made smoother I guess if the baseline combat mechanics are operating reasonably.

 

Because, again with a made up example, if you had for instance a crap-tastic set of calibrations in place for an Archer making it almost impossible to hit what you are shooting at (Skill Floor is too high), then introduce FF too, you'd have all kinds of screaming about FF sucks.  But in that example it's not a FF issue.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bramble

[checkyotrack 4,607]

They deleted my post but I feel yall should know I still haven't read this TL;DR nonsense.

[VIKINGNAIL 5,680]

Maybe.

 

Or, perhaps we are debating / focusing on the wrong thing.  Relative to "skill ceilings" I don't see FF as raising the skill ceiling.  It's a tertiary consequence:  You didn't hit what you were aiming at and hit something else (single target scenario).

 

If the game removes the technical limitation of friendly protection then you must be more aware of the entire environment and how you react to it.  It's really pretty obvious to top pvpers how this changes things like positioning, timing windows, and general tactics.

 

In that case there are a whole lot of Skill Ceiling factors that go into that:  Max Range + projectile speed + projectile arc (or not) + insta cast versus cast-time, etc.

 

It seems to me we want to talk about FF or not AFTER the baseline combat mechanics (skill ceiling calibrations) are set, so that when people are running around the MECHANICS flow properly in combat (meaning, as example, if the Skill Ceiling calibrations are off for single target ranged only 10% of the players are hitting intended targets at Max range reasonably, and maybe the desire is to see more like 50%.  So you speed up projectiles, you change the Skill Ceiling calibrations so that ranged point-and-shoot isn't too ez-mode but isn't abysmal either.  Again, made up theorycraft example for illustration). 

 

If you start talking about AoEs, melee cleaves and such, this is another ball of wax, yes?  We can say it takes a different type of skill, that being judgement (when to use, when to not), but there's no real Skill Ceiling factors involved there.  No technical skill ceiling factors to adjust.

 

Your definition of skill-ceiling is really not efficient, unfortunately... It's like it was made by some network administrator that doesn't have any real pvp experience.  You must learn to accept the connotation within this context.  This isn't melvin's definition of skill-ceiling, this is skill-ceiling as understood by competitive gamers.  Language changes based on connotation, you can't just adhere to what you read on wikipedia at all times. 

 

Do I have the proper definition and understanding of "Skill Ceiling" understood? 

 

Nope not at all in this context. 

 

We all know how Friendly Fire works, yes?  Your attacks have the ability to strike and deal damage to Friendlies.  Based on what I suggested above, it circles me back to the same thought above:  Friendly Fire can be seen as a Consequence to poor game play, lack of skill, or collateral damage (if you will) to poor Skill Ceiling calibrations.  But it's not a root-cause, is it?

 

Shouldn't we be spending more energy in discussion about how combat is looking?  Ranged, hows that feel at all ranges including Max?  Melee, can you close reasonably?  Melee, how do you feel about your MIX of single target attacks versus multi-target and/or AoE? Etc.

 

So, you wanted to talk about the benefits FF brings.  That's actually a good suggestion, because there's some unintended misinformation occurring in that department (maybe), that being Friendly Fire is "Anti-Zerg".  Another poster, I forget who now, pointed out what it really is, and I think they have that right.  Anyway:

 

Friendly Fire:

 

More realistic, it's what happens IRL.  I agree with the poster pointed that out in another post.  That's actually one of my happy points with the idea of FF.

 

Is Anti-BLOB (not Anti-Zerg, see the next point).

 

Forces larger battle groups to think (more often) about Formation.  The feedback to the "Battalion" is to engage in a way via positioning, spreading out, etc., to avoid a problem.  As others have pointed out, a shift more in the direction of thought-out / planned positioning, not rolling Blobs of players.

 

"Raises the Skill Ceiling".  I don't see it raising any skill ceiling factors, I think, but the spirit of the idea is valid:  You need to think about what you are about to throw if we assume you intent to fight your opponent, not backstabbing your fellows.

 

What else that I've missed that's the Pro side of FF?

 

There are several potential Cons . . . . but I want to set those aside for the moment.  Mostly because, in my mind, a lot of that is made smoother I guess if the baseline combat mechanics are operating reasonably.

 

Because, again with a made up example, if you had for instance a crap-tastic set of calibrations in place for an Archer making it almost impossible to hit what you are shooting at (Skill Floor is too high), then introduce FF too, you'd have all kinds of screaming about FF sucks.  But in that example it's not a FF issue.

[rajah 1,602]

They deleted my post but I feel yall should know I still haven't read this TL;DR nonsense.

[Bramble 744]

@Vikingnail

 

 

Your definition of skill-ceiling is really not efficient, unfortunately... It's like it was made by some network administrator that doesn't have any real pvp experience.  You must learn to accept the connotation within this context.  This isn't melvin's definition of skill-ceiling, this is skill-ceiling as understood by competitive gamers.  Language changes based on connotation, you can't just adhere to what you read on wikipedia at all times. 

 

Do I have the proper definition and understanding of "Skill Ceiling" understood? 

 

Nope not at all in this context.

 

You've just backstopped into being snarky again.  You have a bad habit, stop that, it's not necessary.  As far as language goes there's never anything wrong with attempting to be clear, as opposed to turning ambiguity on and off.  My first MMO was FFA, red everywhere, even in your guild hall.  Differences of opinion <> the other guy not understanding language or l33t-Viking PvP.

 

Scenarios may require more or less skills (variety) of players within a domain, all the while moving actual Ceilings not one bit.  Needing to exercise more skill is not necessarily equal to raising a game platform's Skill Ceiling in a particular mechanics area.

 

"Skill Ceilings and Floors

Skill ceilings and floors are terms given to the skill levels at which a player controlled unit is capped by the game mechanics. 

• They are often mistakenly used to describe the effectiveness of a unit at various skill levels."

"Skill Ceilings

Skill Ceiling - This is the term for the maximum amount of skill that can be applied to a player controlled unit with regards to its technical limitations.  Similarly, you can say that it is the point at which an additional application of skill will yield no additional effectiveness due to the limitations imposed on the unit through the game mechanics."

 

If we want to talk about what's important for PvP in Crowfall, lets try a test.  The point being FF isn't at the top of the list, nor IMO does it need to be:

 

1) No Lag is priority 1 (others posted this, I agree)

2)  Stable Client and Servers, no disconnects / crashes.  Right on top of #1

3) Clean combat mechanics with all their Skill Ceilings (see what I did there?  heh-heh) adjusted properly.  As Examples:  Ranged able to hit what they are aiming at "reasonably", from all ranges, not a case of almost never.  If trajectory/arc is implemented, it works, Projectile speeds tuned properly - assumed to be the case if To Hit as previously mentioned.  Instant cast versus cast time skills melee or ranged, again, balanced. Melee skills balanced, both single target and multi/aoe.  Cooldowns overall.  Effect durations.  Etc.,

4) Movement.  In combo with 3, how do our characters move, at what speeds?  Teleports, dashes, blinks?  Balanced and smooth.  Herky-jerky or even too fast trashes your ability to hit squat, or increase hitting stuff you didn't mean to, right?  (Think Skill Ceiling here Viking).

5)  Class Balance - In General.  I hated putting this one in because it's a potential Pandora's Box, but, my intent here is what it should NOT be in-game:  One or two classes owning all most of the time, or so durable they can simply shrug off FF.

 

and finally

 

6)  Friendly Fire.  This item is dependent on all five above, not the other way around no matter it does act as a perception/judgement modifier as a combatant.

 

Friendly Fire adds an additional consequence to poor or unskilled playing.  It adds a (potential) incentive for players to modify their conduct in group PvP (e.g. don't ball up), assuming they are willing to do so.  It more accurately represents how things work in the real world (I agree with one of our posters on this).  It discourages Blobs (it doesn't discourage Zergs).

 

But I don't see it as a Centerpiece Skill Ceiling Holy Grail at this point.  Other aspects of combat are, IMO, more foundational.

 

Because if FF "doesn't work" I'll still be sending ACE my money and playing a PvP game as a gamer who enjoyes PvP if all the other stuff is reasonable.  But if any one of 1 - 5 is screwed up enough, the PvP experience drops into the toilet.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Bramble

[bahamutkaiser 2,377]

I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a promise... they've made few outright promises. They did indicate they'd like to make friendly fire one of their "knobs" as Jtodd spoke of in that recent May AMA response.

 

As long as it exists in general, this game is better off. Yet, Friendly Fire alone isn't going to save this game or make it better. We still have to deal with a floppy-soft combat that at best will earn lukewarm praise from diehard fans. From anyone else? this is likely to be what they quit over 2 months after buying into the hype.

 

Friendly Fire existing or not in Crowfall, won't even be an afterthought at that point.

The subject goes back further than May, this year, or last year, follow up insincerity doesn't deflect the expectations originally set when they were actually collecting the money.

[coolwaters 4,841]

The idea that FF, as the OP wants, is realistic is pretty funny. I can't imagine trying to hit a guy with stick and instead of striking 3 of my friends by accident. That sounds like something out of the three f****** stooges.