16 replies to this topic

[Bryn]

During group outings, will your character take damage from friendly fire?  The circumstance that immediately comes to mind is a mage casting an area affect spell that you happen to be in the middle of...   

[Seagull]

Such a feature could add a whole new layer to pvm strategies.  I recall one  game I played in which accidentally hitting an ally would not affect their health but would still cause a brief stun to occur, perhaps something like that will be present?

 

That possibility aside, I do not think friendly fire will be an issue outside of pvp environments.

[Xohn]

Hopefully there won't be any friendly fire(and most likely won't be). Griefing could possibly be a major issue if this was implemented. While it could "add a whole new layer to pve," it would probably just make the game much more frustrating(bad).

[l3fty]

Our realms require PvP to be enabled for negative effect spells to affect other players, so in the public realms this won't happen (They have PvP disabled).

PvP is currently confined to select realms (an arena and a battleground type realm).

If in the future we make some realms which blur the boundaries between PvE and PvP then this could happen. Group quests within areas where you could be attacked at any moment, reminds me of the low-sec missions in Eve

[iambrad]

I have nothing against 'friendly fire' but only if you are able to log into a specific server or when guilds become available so you are able to be with same players/groups or guilds that you have trust and friendship with.  If you are just jumpiing from server to server and never with same players then people may not care about if their fellow group members take fire from their spells since they may never see them again, or perhaps their 'friendly fire' kills off the party except for themselves and they get to keep the boss' loot for themselves?  Seems like a loophole.

[Crasken]

If friendly fire gets included to group questing / dungeons it should be limited to AoE attacks only. Being able to land single-target harmful spells/attacks on your teammates would be just stupid since most of groups are assembled by totally random people.

 

But even then player is able to kill his team with those AoE spells/attacks, and controlling that would be complicated. Better not to have friendly fire at all to prevent the mess..

[iambrad]

I like game mechanics with subtle variances and things you have to be careful of.  So having friendly fire can be good if and only if you can be with the same group of players consistently.  It leads to more teamwork, trust and intelligent decisions.  If not able to be with same players, then please do not let there be friendly fire, it would only lead to dissension with random players.

[Seagull]

Hopefully there won't be any friendly fire(and most likely won't be). Griefing could possibly be a major issue if this was implemented. While it could "add a whole new layer to pve," it would probably just make the game much more frustrating(bad).

 

 

I like game mechanics with subtle variances and things you have to be careful of.  So having friendly fire can be good if and only if you can be with the same group of players consistently.  It leads to more teamwork, trust and intelligent decisions.  If not able to be with same players, then please do not let there be friendly fire, it would only lead to dissension with random players.

 

Now that you mention it Xohn, in the game I referenced, even the accidental
stun inflicted on an ally tended to result in frustration on both ends. 

 

That being said, I still think friendly fire has the potential be an interesting mechanic in
some instances.  I think you presented that quite well iambrad, I am in full agreement.
 

[Neofito]

I'm not sure if I would like friendly fire feature (never have played a game with this feature), but I think that to be fair with all the different char builds, this system only should be implemented if Edelvin has an aim target system, because with the clasic "click" target system all chars builds would be careless about this feature except the chars using AoE skills (usually mages).

 

And also a question, if something is between the player and his/her target (a tree, a wall, a rock, a player, etc.....) will have effect the casted skill or it will be ignored?.

[Savanc]

I agree with iambrad, if groups mostly consist of random players then friendly fire will cause a lot of annoyance and anger.

 

Groups consisting of friends are more likely to avoid friendly fire, so if friendly fire exists then it will be less of a problem. Everyone in the group will know the others are trying to avoid causing friendly fire as hard as they can.

 

That's not always the case with groups of random players...

[SDGR]

Our realms require PvP to be enabled for negative effect spells to affect other players, so in the public realms this won't happen (They have PvP disabled).

PvP is currently confined to select realms (an arena and a battleground type realm).

If in the future we make some realms which blur the boundaries between PvE and PvP then this could happen. Group quests within areas where you could be attacked at any moment, reminds me of the low-sec missions in Eve

 

There are a ton of MMOs that force players one way or another into PvP zones because of PvE content (like questing). The worst of the bunch are the ones that have mandatory quests in open PvP zones. Please be smart and separate PvE and PvP completely. The only fun PvP is consented PvP; anything else will always ruin someone's gaming experience.

 

As for the "friendly fire" issue, IMO it's one of those ideas that might look great on paper but in reality have the potential to ruin the game. Such a feature will require experienced players 'cause not many folks will allow greenhorns to join parties, thus a lot of folks will be left out because they lack group fighting knowledge/experience - and they won't be able to learn because they can't join groups. In a perfect (virtual) world you make friends, join a guild and build a solid relationship, to the point of having large teams working like one, but if you have some MMO experience you prolly know this is not always the case; in fact, playerbase fluctuates, ppl come and go and often such "features" become more of a pain in the butt rather than a cool thing.

[D4VYJONES]

I think l3fty confuses friendly fire with pvp, and I think there's no friendly fire in this game which is a good thing. Some games like Shaiya with "die once and character get deleted" and Mortal Online's "die and everything get looted", they are just features used to attract people, and the features actually suck (at least for me).

 

There are a ton of MMOs that force players one way or another into PvP zones because of PvE content (like questing). The worst of the bunch are the ones that have mandatory quests in open PvP zones. Please be smart and separate PvE and PvP completely. The only fun PvP is consented PvP; anything else will always ruin someone's gaming experience.

I don't agree with you. If PvE and PvP are totally separated, people who PvP might have very little people to pvp with and lose interest. They will also be forced to PvP with the same person the whole time. People who only PvE will also have little chance to be exposed to PvP. PvE and PvP are just as important. PvE require admin to add content but for PvP, player make the content. For example a guild from a dominant kingdom invaded your guild castle, stole your crop, kicked your dog and killed everyone, that makes you angry with them and find yourself raging and leveling really fast. Suddenly, they noticed that you grew in power and became a threat, then they started to lose. And finally their kingdom fall apart, only to be replaced by your kingdom as the ruler of the continent. Based on a true story in a game, where free players can achieve great feats. So tell me, do you still think it's a bad decision to mix PvE with PvP?

[Xohn]

I think l3fty confuses friendly fire with pvp, and I think there's no friendly fire in this game which is a good thing. Some games like Shaiya with "die once and character get deleted" and Mortal Online's "die and everything get looted", they are just features used to attract people, and the features actually suck (at least for me).

I don't agree with you. If PvE and PvP are totally separated, people who PvP might have very little people to pvp with and lose interest. They will also be forced to PvP with the same person the whole time. People who only PvE will also have little chance to be exposed to PvP. PvE and PvP are just as important. PvE require admin to add content but for PvP, player make the content. For example a guild from a dominant kingdom invaded your guild castle, stole your crop, kicked your dog and killed everyone, that makes you angry with them and find yourself raging and leveling really fast. Suddenly, they noticed that you grew in power and became a threat, then they started to lose. And finally their kingdom fall apart, only to be replaced by your kingdom as the ruler of the continent. Based on a true story in a game, where free players can achieve great feats. So tell me, do you still think it's a bad decision to mix PvE with PvP?

We can have the best of both worlds if he had the game PvE from the start and then later the player gets options to switch to PvP(arena of some sort, which I think the developers are already making). The player is allowed to switch from PvP and PvE anytime they wished.

[SDGR]

I think l3fty confuses friendly fire with pvp, and I think there's no friendly fire in this game which is a good thing. Some games like Shaiya with "die once and character get deleted" and Mortal Online's "die and everything get looted", they are just features used to attract people, and the features actually suck (at least for me).

 

I don't agree with you. If PvE and PvP are totally separated, people who PvP might have very little people to pvp with and lose interest. They will also be forced to PvP with the same person the whole time. People who only PvE will also have little chance to be exposed to PvP. PvE and PvP are just as important. PvE require admin to add content but for PvP, player make the content. For example a guild from a dominant kingdom invaded your guild castle, stole your crop, kicked your dog and killed everyone, that makes you angry with them and find yourself raging and leveling really fast. Suddenly, they noticed that you grew in power and became a threat, then they started to lose. And finally their kingdom fall apart, only to be replaced by your kingdom as the ruler of the continent. Based on a true story in a game, where free players can achieve great feats. So tell me, do you still think it's a bad decision to mix PvE with PvP?

 

Yes, I still think it's a bad idea to mix PvE and PvP because I've played enough MMOs to know how bad it can get. Like I said CONSENTED PvP is ok - for that you have Duels, Arenas, Battlegrounds and so on. But I don't like to be forced to fight someone if I don't feel like it, and I certainly hate to be forced to go to an open PvP map/location to finish a critical quest just to see campers 1 shot my toon - simply because they can. For the record, by PvE I mean levelling (grinding), questing, gathering, crafting and the like. I don't see why this would need PvP mixed in.

 

Now your example refers to endgame PvP content - but:

1. it seems this game doesn't have a Guild system yet (let alone sieges or territorial wars) and looks like it will take a while to implement such a feature.

2. you assume your arch enemy will just conduct a random attack and then let you rebuild in peace; but what if they attack daily? Will you still be able to rebuild your guild and grow? What if they wait until you gather some resources and then hit you again, thus using you as a convenient supply source instead of doing that work themselves?

 

In most MMOs with a well featured guild system there are always certain guilds / groups / leagues / whatever that dominate the server; they constantly attract the best players and they make sure others don't grow big enough to become a real threat; kicking you while you're to weak to retaliate and preventing you from evolving and growing are common tactics. So don't expect everyone to play fair - most of the time, they don't.

[D4VYJONES]

2. you assume your arch enemy will just conduct a random attack and then let you rebuild in peace; but what if they attack daily? Will you still be able to rebuild your guild and grow? What if they wait until you gather some resources and then hit you again, thus using you as a convenient supply source instead of doing that work themselves?

It's mixed but not completely mixed... You can still level up safely in your kingdom area. Some quest like kingdom borderland escort have high pay off but is very risky. :|

[SDGR]

I get what you're saying, but with all respect, I stick to my opinion: PvE (especially questing/exploring) should not be mixed with PvP; if you're not in the mood for fighting, why being forced into it only for the other's amusement? If you like fighting that much, you can spend all day in an Arenas and such and still get your kicks from PvP. Chances are you will meet there an worthy opponent, instead of looking for an easy kill in key camping spots

 

There's a reason why certain games that had initially open PvP decided to add PvE only servers/realms/channels/etc. There are ppl that have no interest for PvP and they shouldn't be forced into it.

[Neofito]

I feel lazy, therefore I'll go with the easy way

I get what you're saying, but with all respect, I stick to my opinion: PvE (especially questing/exploring) should not be mixed with PvP; if you're not in the mood for fighting, why being forced into it only for the other's amusement? If you like fighting that much, you can spend all day in an Arenas and such and still get your kicks from PvP. Chances are you will meet there an worthy opponent, instead of looking for an easy kill in key camping spots

 

There's a reason why certain games that had initially open PvP decided to add PvE only servers/realms/channels/etc. There are ppl that have no interest for PvP and they shouldn't be forced into it.

Totally agree.