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

Friendly Fire Needs To Be Universal

Recommended Posts

Don't know why this is so complicated, the OP makes a plain point that the burden of having several different variations of the games balance will become impractical at some point.

 

The balance of an MMO and features like asymmetric archetypes in a competitive setting can be infinitely complex, you see major Esports altering the game constantly throughout their lifetime just to get one isolated mode of play balanced. ...

 

Friendly fire is just another knob or switch for them... like many other knobs and switches it will be adjusted in many ways and play differently in different rulesets...

 

Pretty sure too that FF is a minor concern to the developers. Especially when compared to some worrisome topics like making VF + Unity + servers + other tech work together, performances during large scale battles, projectiles registration, EK/CW cohesion, impact of the latency on combat, export mechanics, tournament system... ACE is strong, they'll achieve it!  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really see this as a problem. This is not like the classic PVP/PVE design problem where designers have to balance out mechanics for two drastically different types of gameplay I feel. Instead, with friendly fire, it being off balances out any design issues with it being on. So the focus should only be on balancing mechanics around friendly fire being on imo.

 

So for example, there's been a lot of talk about using CC on each other to get resolve prior to a battle. This is not a problem at all with friendly fire turned off. So the focus should really should be limiting how it's applied in a friendly fire situation.

Edited by purplestreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty sure too that FF is a minor concern to the developers. Especially when compared to some worrisome topics like making VF + Unity + servers + other tech work together, performances during large scale battles, projectiles registration, EK/CW cohesion, impact of the latency on combat, export mechanics, tournament system... ACE is strong, they'll achieve it!  :P

Ya I honestly don't think FF is a big deal... even if classes are stronger or weaker based on how far the FF knob is turned... so what?  The rulesets were never meant to all play the same with the exact same states of balance...


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya I honestly don't think FF is a big deal... even if classes are stronger or weaker based on how far the FF knob is turned... so what?  The rulesets were never meant to all play the same with the exact same states of balance...

 

If we get about 50 campaigns running simultaneously at launch, I agree that it would probably not be too complicated to tweak certain numbers of the CWs, one by one. They've to do it only once anyway, at the beginning of the campaign, since they've said they won't be making adjustments while the world is running and will rather let the players experiment with the unbalances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be tough to know exactly how friendly fire will affect the overall game until we get to test it. I've been reading several sides of the topic, and most of them make sense. Concerns about friendly fire range from griefing to the technology's ability to pull it off. I persosnally thing that if it can be done right, it would add some great fun to the game. If done wrong, it's just going to frustrate people. In my mind, I chalk this up to something that needs to be tested before I can settle in on how I feel about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure what the technology's ability to pull it off has to do with anything?

 

When you swing your sword, you hit anyone in front of you. PC or NPC.

 

Sorry, am I missing something?

 

This makes combat about a million times more interesting for everyone, at least in my opinion. If you're on a CW world where you have pre-determined allies, then you should be punished severely for damaging them.

Edited by xaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've yet to see a multiplayer game, where strengths/weaknesses in different envirtonments getting balanced individually per class/champion per environment.

 

The best example is PvE/PvP difference, where in PvP defence/CC matters more. 

 

League of Legends example:

Another example is League of Legends, which is balanced around the single map, Summoner's Rift. It might appear that different maps shouldn't be a big deal, but they are. There are Twisted Treeline, Dominion and Howling Abyss (ARAM) modes, which all have strong champions and outsiders, compared to default mode. Also, new modes they test (like URF) are quickly removed before people build meta for them, highlighting at least half of champions pool to be weak/unusable. They try to make some balance adjustments on secondary modes by changing available equipment and global rules, like mana regen (to offset mages domination in ARAM), but to no good effect. Sona is still the best champion in ARAM, due to healing and group buffs -- the more important aspects in ARAM compared to default mode.

 

 

On the one side of the scale is confusion for players with double standards on numbers calculations (this way is avoided by most developers).

On the other side there's possibility that some classes will flood one environment (FF on), while others could only be met in other (FF off).

 

What do you hate more? Choose your side.

Edited by Gremour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs explicitly said they weren't going for a perfect balance situation. This leads me to believe that they're going to let certain classes be stronger/weaker with different rulesets. 

 

The big selling point of Crowfall is the campaigns with different objectives and rules. There's no way they can balance all of the classes around 1 game mode, much less 5 game modes, and definitely not 5 game modes with different rules in those specific game modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're misunderstanding. It isn't a question of balance between archetypes. It's a question of balance of individual abilities within the game. This is so simple:

  • We can all agree that a rapid-cast AoE spell that does infinite damage in a one mile radius is probably rather over-powered for either ruleset, but especially Friendly Immunity, right?
  • So they would need to balance that ability, against the other mechanics of the game, to have appropriate radius and damage output, right?
  • But what radius and damage output is appropriate is probably not the same in both Friendly Immunity and Friendly Fire, because in Friendly Fire a larger radius in a more spread-out field of battle and higher damage that might hit friendlies is probably acceptable, if not desirable, right?

Or how about another example:

  • We can all agree that a wedge-shaped AoE melee attack is a reasonable kind of ability, right?
  • And in Friendly Immunity, it might make sense for it to have a fairly wide angle in order to hit several enemies, right?
  • But in Friendly Fire, it might be desirable to narrow that angle a bit so the ability is more targeted and reasonably able to be used without hitting friendlies, right?

Sure, you can argue that all abilities should be identical across rule sets and suggest that that will simply drive different ability use profiles for each archetype according to the rule set. But we aren't talking about archetypes with dozens of abilities. We're talking about archetypes which, if even one or two of their key abilities is rendered ineffective, can become essentially useless in a certain rule set. Do we really want this game to make archetypes irrelevant in some rule sets? Is that good game design?

 

So do you understand now? Are you thinking about what's actually going on here? Does the concern make sense to you finally?

 

EDIT: Down with bukkombat!

Edited by hamopeche

I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're misunderstanding. It isn't a question of balance between archetypes. It's a question of balance of individual abilities within the game. This is so simple:

  • We can all agree that a rapid-cast AoE spell that does infinite damage in a one mile radius is probably rather over-powered for either ruleset, but especially Friendly Immunity, right?
  • So they would need to balance that ability, against the other mechanics of the game, to have appropriate radius and damage output, right?
  • But what radius and damage output is appropriate is probably not the same in both Friendly Immunity and Friendly Fire, because in Friendly Fire a larger radius in a more spread-out field of battle and higher damage that might hit friendlies is probably acceptable, if not desirable, right?

Or how about another example:

  • We can all agree that a wedge-shaped AoE melee attack is a reasonable kind of ability, right?
  • And in Friendly Immunity, it might make sense for it to have a fairly wide angle in order to hit several enemies, right?
  • But in Friendly Fire, it might be desirable to narrow that angle a bit so the ability is more targeted and reasonably able to be used without hitting friendlies, right?

Sure, you can argue that all abilities should be identical across rule sets and suggest that that will simply drive different ability use profiles for each archetype according to the rule set. But we aren't talking about archetypes with dozens of abilities. We're talking about archetypes which, if even one or two of their key abilities is rendered ineffective, can become essentially useless in a certain rule set. Do we really want this game to make archetypes irrelevant in some rule sets? Is that good game design?

 

So do you understand now? Are you thinking about what's actually going on here? Does the concern make sense to you finally?

 

EDIT: Down with bukkombat!

I think you're misunderstanding that abilities will be abilities... whether they hit teammates or not just changes the way the players play and perfect balance will never be achieved nor are they trying to achieve it. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

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...