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

That isn't correct. FF will be on a campaign by campaign basis. There will be campaigns in the Dregs that have FF and campaigns that don't. Probably the same for the Shadow rule set. I doubt you'll see any FF campaigns in God's Reach or Infected. Faction based PvP and FF is just a bad combination.

 

Do, please, share any evidence whatsoever for this claim.


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

that's the whole point...

 

A combat system that works with FF, will work just fine when it's turned off.

A combat system that has FF just enabled without much thought put into it, will NOT work.

 

 

So the tests will have to be done with FF enabled.

It does not matter that some campaigns will have minimal/no FF. The combat has to be tested WITH that feature. If people have less fun while testing, then tough luck. You're supposed to test and not have fun. The goal should be an excellent endproduct. Your personal fun while testing is secondary at best.

Stop bringing up that CWs will differ form each other. That fact is completely irrelevant when it comes to testing!

Edited by freeze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's the whole point...

 

A combat system that works with FF, will work just fine when it's turned off.

A combat system that has FF just enabled without much thought put into it, will NOT work.

 

 

So the tests will have to be done with FF enabled.

It does not matter that some campaigns will have minimal/no FF. The combat has to be tested WITH that feature. If people have less fun while testing, then tough luck. You're supposed to test and not have fun. The goal should be an excellent endproduct. Your personal fun while testing is secondary at best.

Stop bringing up that CWs will differ form each other. That fact is completely irrelevant when it comes to testing!

 

A good portion of the critics of the developers decision to not turn on FF yet all point to it being turned on to be more fun.

 

That said, I disagree with FF being turned on ASAP because of how they have their testing already structured and planned out.  The hunger dome in its current form does not support FF and would discourage people from playtesting.  This isn't a traditional alpha test where only a handful of people were invited directly to TEST the mechanics of the game and they understood this role.  The fact that people have bought into the game, there is an existing expectation of playability and "fun".

 

It is counter to what we are familiar with, but it's the reality of the STEAM EARLY ACCESS era of gaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is chock-a-block with super duper scaredy cats who are absolutely terrified that Crowfall will have Friendly Fire, and they are all slinging around random, baseless, false claims of what is and isn't going to happen, validating each other's garbage and reinforcing how completely wrong they are, all to stave off the looming fear that the game will be more hard core than they think they're capable of handling.

 

YOU ARE WRONG

 

We have scant information from ACE about where, when, and how they're going to implement some form of divergence from Friendly Fire. What little information we do have can only be read to indicate that Friendly Fire is the default case for Crowfall, and they will do things, only as necessary, to keep things fun, only if they discover that it is necessary. In particular, they have indicated that they will disincentive harming your friends as a preferred option over enabling Friendly Immunity. That means that, in the most likely scenario, even in cases where the game isn't total Friendly Fire, including God's Reach, there will still be Friendly Fire, and offenders will simply be debuffed.

 

So go ahead and tell each other there are no monsters in the closet, but there are monsters in the closet. Friendly Immunity is not remotely guaranteed to exist anywhere in Crowfall. It may very well be that the entire game has Friendly Fire, and any modification of that state is far more likely to be based on discentives rather than Friendly Immunity.

 

I'm sure you'll keep lying to yourselves, though, since it makes you feel safe.


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

I agree with valor about hunger dome not supporting FF since the mechanic itself basically supports stack and mash. But it's not about winning the match and I think it would be funny as hell everyone chopping each other to bits before the hunger claimed them. Better than being pushed into the hunger and dying. Looks like the best time to implement would be 2.0 with client controllers. We can only hope...

 

Although it would be fun for the last test to have it on regardless and see everyone get chopped to bits. TTK would go way down in a stack lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is chock-a-block with super duper scaredy cats who are absolutely terrified that Crowfall will have Friendly Fire, and they are all slinging around random, baseless, false claims of what is and isn't going to happen, validating each other's garbage and reinforcing how completely wrong they are, all to stave off the looming fear that the game will be more hard core than they think they're capable of handling.

 

YOU ARE WRONG

 

We have scant information from ACE about where, when, and how they're going to implement some form of divergence from Friendly Fire. What little information we do have can only be read to indicate that Friendly Fire is the default case for Crowfall, and they will do things, only as necessary, to keep things fun, only if they discover that it is necessary. In particular, they have indicated that they will disincentive harming your friends as a preferred option over enabling Friendly Immunity. That means that, in the most likely scenario, even in cases where the game isn't total Friendly Fire, including God's Reach, there will still be Friendly Fire, and offenders will simply be debuffed.

 

So go ahead and tell each other there are no monsters in the closet, but there are monsters in the closet. Friendly Immunity is not remotely guaranteed to exist anywhere in Crowfall. It may very well be that the entire game has Friendly Fire, and any modification of that state is far more likely to be based on discentives rather than Friendly Immunity.

 

I'm sure you'll keep lying to yourselves, though, since it makes you feel safe.

 

jeremiah_johnson_nodding.gif


aka honeybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FF is a major feature set for the PVP community - We all agree here but there are far more important things to focus on before the FF hurdle is reached.

 

​There is no PvP Community inside a PvP game. There can only be a PvE/Carebear community inside a PvP game and they're quite vocal. Just look at the threads, invading them on their dinghies with banners like Greenpeace trying to stop the big japanese PvP whale assault train.

Edited by Qbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for friendly fire. It's a pretty fantastic equalizer when it comes to trained small group vs zerg hivemind. Also, sometimes I like to be a jerk and light my friends on fire just because. But at this point in the game where we're at "Lets make combat actually work" and not "let's balance it" I don't necessarily agree with the argument that it needs adding NAOW!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for friendly fire. It's a pretty fantastic equalizer when it comes to trained small group vs zerg hivemind. Also, sometimes I like to be a jerk and light my friends on fire just because. But at this point in the game where we're at "Lets make combat actually work" and not "let's balance it" I don't necessarily agree with the argument that it needs adding NAOW!

This is correct, there is no point in adding it now... maybe later on in the beginning of beta since beta is really where the balancing push begins. 

Edited by VIKINGNAIL

Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There seems to be confusion about what would happen if Friendly Fire (FF) were introduced to the game now or later in the development phase. In general, there seems to be two different schools of thoughts of Game Development in general. One side saying that the mechanics should complement a FF game and one side saying that the strategies and tactics of the players should complement it. In addition, they are both correct, to an extent. VikingNail is correct in saying that adding FF will force players to play more carefully and tactically (which is a good thing, in my opinion).

 

 

However, that does not mean that the designs of the game should not also complement it (assuming FF will be a standard). I am going to paint a hyperbolic picture to explain my point: 

 

Imagine a game with FF where every spell is a large AoE and movement is slow. Obviously, the players will try not to hit their allies and it will force them to play more tactically, but since the game design does not complement it, it still makes for bad game play. Letting the players fix bad game design is not always enough. 

 

 

Now, I haven't played the game myself yet - currently waiting for my alpha 2 invite - so I can't say much about the current state of the game and whether it should be changed to accommodate FF more or not. However, from what I have seen, it does seem a little too slow paced for it. I will write more after I have actually tried playing the game, though. 

 


o8WHnLc.png

THE most active European guild. Join us now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There seems to be confusion about what would happen if Friendly Fire (FF) were introduced to the game now or later in the development phase. In general, there seems to be two different schools of thoughts of Game Development in general. One side saying that the mechanics should complement a FF game and one side saying that the strategies and tactics of the players should complement it. In addition, they are both correct, to an extent. VikingNail is correct in saying that adding FF will force players to play more carefully and tactically (which is a good thing, in my opinion).

 

 

However, that does not mean that the designs of the game should not also complement it (assuming FF will be a standard). I am going to paint a hyperbolic picture to explain my point: 

 

Imagine a game with FF where every spell is a large AoE and movement is slow. Obviously, the players will try not to hit their allies and it will force them to play more tactically, but since the game design does not complement it, it still makes for bad game play. Letting the players fix bad game design is not always enough. 

 

 

Now, I haven't played the game myself yet - currently waiting for my alpha 2 invite - so I can't say much about the current state of the game and whether it should be changed to accommodate FF more or not. However, from what I have seen, it does seem a little too slow paced for it. I will write more after I have actually tried playing the game, though. 

 

Yea but there is a difference between mechanics complimenting FF (it's actually very hard for game mechanics not to), and claiming it is some pressing matter that must be addressed very soon... which it simply is not. 

 

I'd like them to implement FF in early beta, and then i'd like to compare the performance of players at that time to their beliefs about FF at this time...


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

​There is no PvP Community inside a PvP game. There can only be a PvE/Carebear community inside a PvP game and they're quite vocal. Just look at the threads, invading them on their dinghies with banners like Greenpeace trying to stop the big japanese PvP whale assault train.

 

Qbs - I can see where you've come to this conclusion but remember, the ones who are constantly vocal have very little invested in this game.  Carebear bloated guilds and/or zergies will always try to get their agenda across.  The worse case scenario for these folks is they will end up on several KOS lists..


The Balance - Nation of Equilibrium

"You can run but you'll DIE tired.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do, please, share any evidence whatsoever for this claim.

I can't find the quote, but I think it was Todd who said that the picture they used for the KS showing the different bands and rules was just an example. Just because a campaign is in the Dregs, doesn't automatically mean it will have FF.

 

You can choose to believe that or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't find the quote, but I think it was Todd who said that the picture they used for the KS showing the different bands and rules was just an example. Just because a campaign is in the Dregs, doesn't automatically mean it will have FF.

 

You can choose to believe that or not.

It's in a youtube video of theirs somewhere, but we also don't know how they will handle it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a quote on that from Todd:

 

These are all separate design knobs.  They aren't tied together.  We intend to have different rules settings for different Campaigns WITHIN each band. Not all "Dregs" campaigns are going to be the same.  The illustrations were only intended to get example settings that we think will work well together; not to say "every World in this band works exactly like this."

 

 

Technically none of the "rules" we have seen for The Dregs are written in stone. However, The Dregs is not likely to ever be a factional, non-FFA, non-FF campaign in my opinion.  The core concept behind The Dregs is "highest risk, highest reward."


IhhQKY6.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a brief summary of this topic for JTC - Battlefield 4 is really frustrating if you don`t enable friendly fire.

And label it hardcore mode; I don`t care, but it`s essential for the shadows & thedregs campaign worlds are based on FF, and the entire risk vs reward CF concept related to resource system in CF.

MQfHl7c.png

Crowfall Game Client: https://www.crowfall.com/en/client/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FF will be hard to do in this game. I see it being a bit like SB where some abilities hit everyone some don't. As a player you have to decide in the moment what to use, how to use it, and what kind of collateral damage is acceptable. Want avoid having all the ranged characters spending all their time trying to find a safe lane to participate in. Based on how often I get cussed out for standing in a confessors way now, when there are no consequences for them attempting a shot on goal, it will be much worse with FF. I like FF but I don't see this as a all or none issue, ATM. Which means to me they could begin introducing 1-2 abilities per Archetype that has FF enabled. 

 

BTW, if you're going to have full FF then I would argue that AOE heals affect your enemies as well as allies.


Crowfall: The Official Game of

crowfallwiki.com

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...