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

Friendly Fire isn't something you tack on at the end...

Recommended Posts

Guys, let's also not forget that the endgame of any MMORPG is guild drama, and friendly fire can only enhance drama.

 

That's subjective.  I've found "Guild Drama" to be a large detractor in gaming, because (too often) it's fueled by nitwits who enjoy pissing on people around them (in some cases) more than actually competing / gaming.

 

There is some grey area there, which makes this tricky at times to perceive.  "Drama" must be expected in any venue where groups of people are rubbing shoulders, so there's no need to try and "make it happen".  It'll be there all by itself regardless.   

 

Consider:

 

"Drama" is just a word relating to human interactions.  What's more important to understand is there are negative/destructive interactions, and constructive or positive interactions.  Pasting a blanket "Guild Drama-zors!" title over things is a sheeple-mislead we should be careful with.

 

And if what amounts to a school yard full of rampaging 6th graders all shooting spit-wads at each other whilst swearing like a Sailor is your "End Game" in gaming. . .

 

. . . that's not much of a standard to shoot for..

 

Now, the reality is that's what you end up with when content is burned out and a game isn't providing any more challenges.  All the kiddies do what humans do and fill the void by pissing on each other.  Because that's all that's left, the dregs of the playerbase.  The smart ones value their time in actual gaming and competition will have moved on by that point.

 

You shouldn't confuse a (possible) eventual condition as "End Game".  IMO.

 

Apologies if this seems negative, but you have to realize the terrible paradox in your claim:  A)  It's the Internet, B.) It's going to be a game open to the Public, C)  Read A) again.

 

If you read A) twice, then think through pasting a blanket title of "Guild Drama" as explaining away, globally, what "End Game" should be in this, what is supposed to be, new generation cutting-edge MMORPG..  It takes a little more thought than that, including the full-circle service end-game should be bringing as an enticement to the life-blood of any game . . . a consistent influx of new players.

 

Garbage in, Garbage out.  The % of humans capable of actually putting together meaningful content is remarkably TINY.  While you can be guaranteed a huge % of people off the street engage in . . . erm . . . "friendly fire at every opportunity".

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

"Friendly fire at every opportunity" is what drives all player generated content, if that's what you meant Bramble. What made UO fun wasn't killing every person you saw (well sometimes it was) it was the possibility of conflict that made it memorable and entertaining.

 

This is completely untrue.

 

That's like saying the only way to get from one place to another is by bicycle.

 

"Player driven content" can take almost any form.  Assuming of course the game supports the outlets (e.g. crafting, music, economy), not to mention the twists a human player can put to all of that.

 

The trick here is to understand there are different personality types that come into an MMORPG.  And just because YOURS happens to be pew-pew exclusively including shooting your comrades in the back, to the exclusion of all else, . . . doesn't necessarily make it so for everyone else to the arbitrary and absolute degree you've promoted.

 

I was also being facetious, that quote clearly a politic way of saying "nonsense".    That doesn't translate well to "Nonsense is what drives all player generated content" . . .

 

. . . wait . . . . (scratches head)

 

"friend·ly fire
noun
Military
noun: friendly fire
weapon fire coming from one's own side, especially fire that causes accidental injury or death to one's own forces."
 
:blink:
 
And yeah, PvP is going to be a big part of Crowfall. Note however the post of mine you responded to was targeted at the idea "Guild Drama is End Game for any MMO", which I disagreed with.  This is different than the possibility of tactical combat on a red map.
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

Without the threat of conflict no game would be very fun, but maybe you like Candy Crush? In my comment about UO I meant to say that most of the time I didn't go on a shooting spree and kill everyone (though some times I did) and the best interaction was when when you met someone in a dangerous spot and weren't sure which way things would go down. Met a lot of friends that way once we got talking. That wouldn't have happened without the threat of conflict. We would have ran past one another on the grind to the next level, stuck in our own world.

 

CF will be a little more organized in that people in a CW will be fighting for resources and working towards common goals within their alliance. The FF and threat of conflict will come more from group conflict than individual like in UO but it will still be driven by player actions. Just because you can kill everyone doesn't mean you should all the time but the threat needs to be there to make it enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without the threat of conflict no game would be very fun, but maybe you like Candy Crush? In my comment about UO I meant to say that most of the time I didn't go on a shooting spree and kill everyone (though some times I did) and the best interaction was when when you met someone in a dangerous spot and weren't sure which way things would go down. Met a lot of friends that way once we got talking. That wouldn't have happened without the threat of conflict. We would have ran past one another on the grind to the next level, stuck in our own world.

 

CF will be a little more organized in that people in a CW will be fighting for resources and working towards common goals within their alliance. The FF and threat of conflict will come more from group conflict than individual like in UO but it will still be driven by player actions. Just because you can kill everyone doesn't mean you should all the time but the threat needs to be there to make it enjoyable.

 

I responded to your claim that "Friendly Fire is what drives  . . . ALL . . . player driven content"..

 

That statement is worlds apart from saying "threat of conflict" can enhance the fun factor in a game.

 

Which is it?

 

I disagree with the first statement, while also agreeing with the second one.  There is no conflict betwixt disagreeing with the one, and agreeing with the other.

 

Of course "friendly fire" is a whole different layer to the Onion.  My prediction is it will not be in the game at all, or for very long if implemented.

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

It will drive all content worth doing. You're right in a strict sense (you seem to like definitions) and so yes, players can do whatever they want without ff and it's still player content. But its boring and socky.

 

Imagine you are in a scary forest and run into an adventurer like yourself! You both decide to not kill eachother and group up. Two possibilities exist, no FF in group and FF in group.

 

Without FF you're protected and can get low health or be vulnerable and not be too worried, yes the guy can leave group but the threat isn't the same and the experience isn't as fun and memorable.

 

With FF and no arbitrary protection against friendly attacks, you are constantly on guard and opportunities will arise where you can either be taken advantage of or take advantage of someone else. Better friendships and enemies will be made in this system due to your ability to act (or not) in those situations.

 

No matter which way you swing it, even if you're sitting around playing musical instruments for socks and giggles, if FF isn't a possibility and you are "magically" protected from each other because you're in a group, the experience is less than what it would be with it in. And this is what will make the player driven content fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see this game going either way, and still be fun and satisfying, but I have to agree with what many have said here. If we are going to have FF, we should start testing with it sooner rather than later; I'm glad we are getting the basics down first, and building the programming is pretty key right now, but FF is pretty game altering and the game should be designed with it in mind. Having some AoE that can hit allies is fine, but we would need some more precise attacks as well. I love the idea of the champion's "spin to win" being high-risk/high-reward with big damage though indiscriminate in its targeting; that said, it would would suck playing a champion if every ability was an AoE or large cone that killed your teammates as well. Yes, players will change tactics to adapt to FF, but we really need to keep FF in mind from early on if it is going to be a feature.

 

Relatedly, I would much rather FF be the default (perhaps even always on), than a sometimes feature, as players would be more likely to learn how the system works. Cross balancing between FF campaigns and non-FF games would be a nightmare as well, which further encourages either having FF be just the way the game is (not something that pops up in certain campaign), or just not there at all. Of course, since I'm interested in what FF would be like, I'd still check it out if it came around in a campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on the Kickstarter info, the Dregs ruleset is the "Core Module" for the game.

 

I feel we absolutely need friendly fire in this ruleset as an anti-zerg mechanic and to raise the strategic skill level of combat. The sooner we can get it in testing the better, and then we can move forward with FF as the baseline.

 

I honestly don't care if FF just gets turned off in the outer 2 faction bands. Players choosing those rulesets most likely want a more "co-op" pvp experience. I'd rather the Dev team not waste a bunch of time making a complex flagging/karma/punishment system that will get abused, and instead focus on making the core module (Dregs) with FFA + FF competitive and fun.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the reaction to FF being off for people in a group.  Say max group size was 10, so for the 9 other people in your party they didn't take FF but the other 20 people in your guild could?

 

For me this feels like a Shadows setting, and I'm all for the Dregs being completely FF.  But your more than likely going to find me in the GvG areas anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should not build the game around FF, nor would they need to to make it work anyway...

 

Most of the players will not be playing in the dregs whether it is the core module or not... Just simple gaming trends make that pretty obvious.  The dregs should obviously be the harshest environment, where people simply are forced to adapt to harsh FF and the good survive while the weak do not.  With FF getting less harsh the further you move out in bands. 

 

Because most pvpers do not seek out the harshest settings, focusing so much on FF would be inefficient... they just need to make sure it's hardcore for those who want a hardcore ruleset... they can let those players figure out how to play around it...


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should not build the game around FF, nor would they need to to make it work anyway...

 

Most of the players will not be playing in the dregs whether it is the core module or not... Just simple gaming trends make that pretty obvious.  The dregs should obviously be the harshest environment, where people simply are forced to adapt to harsh FF and the good survive while the weak do not.  With FF getting less harsh the further you move out in bands. 

 

Because most pvpers do not seek out the harshest settings, focusing so much on FF would be inefficient... they just need to make sure it's hardcore for those who want a hardcore ruleset... they can let those players figure out how to play around it...

If-I-ignore-it-maybe-it-will-go-away_o_3


aka honeybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Todd said in an old interview that FF wouldn't be active on God's Reach.

Find it. I consider that very unlikely, given the other things he's said on the topic. And we know backers are rather prone grossly to misinterpret what ACE says in interviews.

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

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...