Friendly Fire
-
@jairone said in Friendly Fire:
...all of which means a random person can maliciously force themselves into distanced attacks that have AOE to harm people in a way that is completely against the intended game mechanics...
Good point! And lag being lag, I could see issues there as well, even if nothing malicious is happening.
I do feel like FF should be off for guildmates or alliances, even on Tartaros.
-
I think you're forgetting that it's not 2 sides like in many games. Evil characters can defend good town if they want to and good can attack (tho it will be very hard as they cannot harm good or neutral). And definitely there will be neutrals on both sides. Now if you want FF off then who should be hit by AoE?
And if FF would be on for good alignment then they wouldn't be able to safely use it at all. So it would be a big advantage for evil chars.
What's more most of Syndesia should be neutral so complaining about good being OP is kind of... not wise. Especially since we don't know how powerful AoE skills will be.
-
Friendly fire must be an issue
-
I know I might now necro an old thread, but I need to leave my opinion on Friendly Fire topic. It seams that to some people Friendly Fire as concept means different things. Generally it means possibility to attack own party members. It can also contain guild and alliance members, all who goes under word friendly. So I would say hitting accidently random people in open world is something else.
Friendly fire seams to be heavily argued matter also in Fractured and it actually divides opinions a lot in many games. Now in Fractured there is also alignments pulled to the same soup and I have to say this looks now as a mess. I am surprised if devs knows how FF will be implemented.
Friendly Fire can be cool feature, but it brings a lot of issues with it. Some abilities will drop for minor use, this causes a lot of quarrel between players and encourages people for toxicity actions and griefing. So imho FF takes more than gives. Fortnite for example decided to drop this feature because it caused too much troubles and complaints. Fortnite is not from same genre, but FF can easily be even bigger problem in group based MMORPG game.
-
If they kept up friendly fire it would be interesting. Then one could plan out real battle defences and strategies. Things like attack and defences positions and how healers would be used. Oh, this would be better actually. Raids would be so chaotic, best choice as other games I've found don't do this. Please don't change this.
-
FF needs to be in the game.
-
FF can be executed many ways, but in Fractured it can be quite complex when there are alignments and planets involved. I would really like to know how devs have planned to do this without hurting too much the game itself. Or what actually is their plan?
-
Yes the problem in Fractured is the possibility of good aligned players having huge advantage on battlefield, due to good alignment preventing them shooting each other. That would mean good alignment playing without FF while evil playing with FF, which would be completely game breaking, because a fair non 1 vs 1 combat would be impossible.
-
@Gothix That is true.
This also opens up good players possibility to exploit system and make neutral players flagged as aggressive, when just running in AoE effect (made by neutral player) for example, and after that good players can attack neutral ones without consequences (karma loss/flagged murderer).
-
Before implementing FF, devs needs to ask themselfs, why they want this feature to be part of their game? And does it bring enough value versus all the balancing and exploiting problems?
-
@Tuoni said in Friendly Fire:
Before implementing FF, devs needs to ask themselfs, why they want this feature to be part of their game? And does it bring enough value versus all the balancing and exploiting problems?
i'm pretty sure they've already said it was in the game. it and ability interaction with the environment is (a few reasons) why i've backed it.
-
@Jetah said in Friendly Fire:
@Tuoni said in Friendly Fire:
Before implementing FF, devs needs to ask themselfs, why they want this feature to be part of their game? And does it bring enough value versus all the balancing and exploiting problems?
i'm pretty sure they've already said it was in the game. it and ability interaction with the environment is (a few reasons) why i've backed it.
Maybe, but in what kind of form, would be nice to know. They have not tested Friendly Fire yet and seen what kind of challenges it will cause.
One thing is sure, FF changes combat a lot. Group content will become slower paced and cautious, and the most challenge comes with balancing melee combared to ranged. FF will place tanks and melee dps characters in very bad position and die a lot more than ranged damage dealers. This only was enough big reason for Albion dev team to leave FF feature away from the game.
Second reason was complications with reputation and flag system, which did not go together with FF. This same problem comes in Fractured, but even worse, because planned alignment system. This will cause good amount of exploit possibilities and contradictory situations especially in Syndesia.
Now if DS still decides after testing go with FF, I suggest devs to implement it only for Tartaros and leave Syndesia and Arboreus out of it. That would also leave option to leave alignments totally away from influencing FF.
So I am not personally fan of FF, because it does not bring enough value when compared for problems what it will cause. Actually I do not see anything good beside it can be cool feature in some situations. However, I am waiting that environment interaction as well and it sounds really interesting.
FF is not game breaking feature for me and if they keep that alignment system involved, then I will definitely benefit from this system and start hunting criminals and demons even more what I have planned.
-
This post is deleted!
-
it's based on the planet you're on and alignment.
no FF on Beast.
no party FF on human, otherwise FF can exist.
full FF on Tartaros. (might be no party FF on Tartaros too but I dont remember it exactly.)the idea is if a beast wants to swap alignment they'll have to be on the human planet to do that.
and it'll make invading the beast planet much harder for Demons.at some point we'll need to test it, of course, and i'm sure DS may iterate it a few times.
-
@Meiki If that is the easiest solution, how well every player in game will internalize that..
There is so much involved in Friendly Fire and it can become very complex and overwhelming system to understand correctly. Even this system could be done regardless of the complexicity. It will still have at least two huge challenges to face:
-
FF encourages people for grieffing and toxicity actions.
-
It breaks the balance between melee and ranged.
Oh well, I will just grab popcorns when FF is started to test out.
-
-
Where is the gain of friendly fire beside "realism" which isn't that useful in a game anyway? Friendly fire means hitting npcs by accident and suddenly a whole city hates you, because you accidently hit the wrong button. As this whole conversation shows, there is much to loose with friendly fire, but what is to win by it?
To the argument good aligned players have an advantage over evil aligned players: well done, if this is the case. Really, who likes evil players? If the system pushes people to behave at least some, I can't see an error. Evil guys can do whatever they want ... with consequences. Good aligned must behave at least some and get benefits doing so. Can live with that pretty well.
But as I said, I would prefer no friendly fire at all.
-
@Goemoe said in Friendly Fire:
there is much to loose with friendly fire, but what is to win by it?
I have thinking the same and I did not find anything reasonable. It is just a feature, which some people like and some people hate. It is nothing special tbh.
-
I just wish group combat will be balanced and not offer advantage to good aligned players, because if that will be the case, I will simply not play it.
Why the hell would anyone play something where he will be gimped compared to other players?
-
@Goemoe said in Friendly Fire:
Where is the gain of friendly fire beside "realism" which isn't that useful in a game anyway?
It adds far more tactical depth to group vs group combat and is a way to counter large unorganized zergs from dominating everything. Since the end game seems to be GvG fighting for territory control, large scale PvP balance is important.
-
@Target said in Friendly Fire:
@Goemoe said in Friendly Fire:
Where is the gain of friendly fire beside "realism" which isn't that useful in a game anyway?It adds far more tactical depth to group vs group combat and is a way to counter large unorganized zergs from dominating everything.
Well it makes fights just different, not better. Fights will turn with FF more cautions, and there will be more waiting and less action.. yeah maybe some people like that kind of gameplay and calls it more tactical.
FF is not that good anti-zerging mechanic, because it actually impacts also to smaller groups. Moreover, there is better options for anti-zerging mechanics which does not have any downsides. In addition, if the alignments are involved, then some groups can still run with huge zergs with no need to worry about friendly fire at all. So this will actually promote good alignment zergs. And if there is no party FF (like Jetah wrote) then it won't stop zergs at all.
