Area of Effect

[Mr. Magniloquent]

I think it would be a great pleasure to experience area of effects which recognized collision not merely with the environment, but with characters on the field. Typically, all creatures within a spells area of effect are hit, regardless if there is another character between them an the point of origin.

 

For example, it might make sense for a rogue directly behind a warrior to be shielded to some degree, if not totally, from a Cone of Cold spell or Dragon's firey breath originating perpendicular to the fighter. Some projected energy/elements like fire and cold could be blockable, which others such as poison gas or electricity would ignore collision with characters and strike all within the effective radius as normal.

 

Technically, this might be more trouble than it is worth for a game that is technically 2/2.5 dimensions. However, given one of the stated goals of Project: Eternity to revitalize tacticl party combat, this could be a feature which steps forward--rather than merely attempting to ressurect the past.

 

What do you other members think?

Edited May 19, 2013 by Mr. Magniloquent

[Lephys]

Splendid idea! ^_^

[rjshae]

Yes it might be difficult to implement and I'm not sure it's worth the effort. But a good idea for a detailed combat system.

Edited May 19, 2013 by rjshae

[Sensuki]

Probably not

 

Would require some kind of physics system that would be taking away from the core features of the game - starting to get too realistic IMO.

 

I can't think of too many spells where it would be applicable either.

[JFSOCC]

I think think it's difficult to implement at all, if you can have obstacles programmed (like walls) you can make PC's act like movable walls for gameplay purposes. I don't see that being too difficult to implement

[Lephys]

Probably not

 

Would require some kind of physics system that would be taking away from the core features of the game - starting to get too realistic IMO.

 

I can't think of too many spells where it would be applicable either.

?

 

If your character fires an arrow, it strikes an enemy and ceases its journey, OR it fails to strike an enemy and continues on until it strikes something. That already happens even without getting to magical stuff. The only difference between an arrow and a radiating AOE spell is that an arrow only travels in a specific direction, whilst the spell travels in all directions. It would be like firing a whole bunch of arrows at once, in every direction possible (with the arrows expanding as they spread, so as to never leave a gap).

 

I didn't think the suggestion would require any out-of-the-ordinary physics complexity.

[Sensuki]

Huh? As far as I am aware there are no such physics in the game, if you have a ranged weapon, you click within the selection circle of a target and the game rolls to hit. I don't think there's any pass through mechanics or anything like that, I actually asked about it ages ago and it was ignored.

 

Any kind of physics system like this is outside of the "IE-feel" scope of the game.

[Lephys]

Well, while I don't have any specific dev quote to cite for this specific scenario, I'm pretty sure if Enemy A is directly between yourself and Enemy B, and you fire an arrow at Enemy B without moving first, you at least have a chance of inadvertently striking Enemy A.

 

At the very least, the very existence of ground-targeted spells/abilities (as opposed to entity-targeted ones) means that the game is fully capable of simply aiming a projectile (even if it's a cone or wave) in a given direction, then detecting whether or not it strikes anything at any given location. I don't know what kind of engine mechanics are involved there, but it doesn't seem very complex, as I've seen that in oodles of games that are plenty old.

 

In other words, I may be mistaken, but I don't believe this would require anything that isn't already in the game. I could be wrong.

[Sensuki]

Such a system did not exist in the Infinity Engine games, therefore it probably won't exist in P:E - is what I am getting at.

 

Projectiles aside, I can't think of many AoE spells that wouldn't pass through a character

 

Stinking Cloud ? yep, Fireball ? yep, Lightning Bolt ? yep, Horrid Wilting ? yep, Entangle ? yep

 

etc

[Hassat Hunter]

Probably only would be useful for "cone-effect" type spells, like that paint spell or so.

 

I think for big AoE effects it would be too much, especially since it would clearly hamper the AI, realising which side of the 2 people they need to start dropping their spells for maximum effect. Or if it's not calculated allow players to cheese it, or making tanks way more vital against spells than they probably should be.

[Lephys]

Such a system did not exist in the Infinity Engine games, therefore it probably won't exist in P:E - is what I am getting at.

 

Projectiles aside, I can't think of many AoE spells that wouldn't pass through a character

 

Stinking Cloud ? yep, Fireball ? yep, Lightning Bolt ? yep, Horrid Wilting ? yep, Entangle ? yep

 

etc

Well, if we don't put anything in P:E that didn't exist in the IE games, then we'd basically just have an exact remake of the IE games, wouldn't we? That wouldn't be a very exciting way of doing things. And, having slightly more intricate AOE spells doesn't exactly oppose the IE-feel of the game, any more than having richer dialogues or better-quality graphics does. That's all I'm getting at, here.

 

Honestly, you'd think a fireball (or cone of fire-jet) would, at the very least, do lessened damage to in-a-row enemies. I mean, fire is physics-based, magic or no. So, if I'm just magically creating fire, and directing toward you, then someone standing right behind you isn't really going to get hit with fire. The fire isn't going to pass through you.

 

Now, if the spell simply creates and maintains some sort of ring of fire and, and simply expands outwards in a given radius (like a nova effect), then the fire isn't actually just being launched in an outward fashion and wouldn't be stopped by collisions. It's basically attacking everything from the sides at that point, and the circle would simply reform the second an entity wasn't breaking the "beam," so to speak.

 

That's why, for the most part, I would say it would need to be limited to projectile-type effects. Things that are created, then propelled in a direction.

 

This would be pretty interesting with things like fireballs and other-such explosions. Maybe if you have a big cluster of 10 enemies, and you hurl an explosive fireball into the center of them, it severely burns AND forcibly strikes the ones exposed directly to the blast, knocking them outward and into the 2nd "layer" of enemies, who don't get as burned, but who still suffer from the physical blow (and are possibly, in-turn, knocked into other enemies in their path of travel).

 

This supports the kind of spell utility variance I'd like to see, too. Maybe certain enemies are VERY susceptible to fire (like the Cean Gula from the most recent update, what with her dried, rotting "corpse" and her remnants of cloth attire), but aren't very susceptible to force (maybe the Cean Gula kind of floats/hovers, so she can't really be "knocked back/down" very easily, as some force is already suspending her in-place above the ground? *shrug). So, if you had 7 of these clustered in such a way that only 3 were directly exposed to an AOE blast, you'd want to probably use something else (like a wall of flames, etc,) to produce a greater effect upon the group of foes. However, if they were more spread out but still close together, and you could get 6 of them directly with the blast of fire, maybe you'd ignite those 6 to GREAT effect, so fireball would be a wise choice. Similarly, if you faced enemies who were immune to fire, even, but who were VERY susceptible to force (maybe they are crystalline enemies?), then, even though you'd think "Fireball" wouldn't work against fire-immune enemies, you could still use it to crack the enemies and perhaps shatter them outright, and/or cause their limbs to break off, etc.

 

This could also be enhanced by having ability-progression dynamic options, such as "more intense fire damage/longer ignition duration/larger radius" options as your Wizard levels, alongside "greater force/more focused force" options. So, two Wizards with the same Fireball spell could actually use it predominantly in DRASTICALLY different ways.

[Sensuki]

It doesn't matter that you think the feature would be cool. This is a IE-style RPG being made on a small budget with one dedicated gameplay programmer. This feature is pure scope creep in a project of this type. You seem to have ignored the point I made in my first post.

 

To me it just sounds like a shìtty realism-induced mechanic in a game like this and would introduce a bunch of problems with the gameplay, some of which Hassat Hunter outlined in his post.

[AGX-17]

Aren't successful hits by AOE spells/skills "collision" by simple definition?

 

Also, chest-high Fighters.

 

I just had to say that.

 

I don't disagree with the concept of utilizing party members as cover, though I have to question whether or not a game could be well-balanced given the possibility. If you charge into the dragon's cave and you've got a tanking fighter decked out with fire-resistant gear and just have your wizards and chanters and priests stand behind them while they negate all of the dragon's fire breath (after all, those unfazed priests can casually heal what little damage is taken by the human shield/s,) you've got the makings for a pretty dull fight. Practically, that would be tactically sound, but "real" combat (i.e. the kind that doesn't involve dragons or healing magic, but does involve bleeding out in a foreign land despite the squad medic's best efforts,) isn't about the fun of the challenge, anyway.

Edited May 22, 2013 by AGX-17

[Lephys]

It doesn't matter that you think the feature would be cool. This is a IE-style RPG being made on a small budget with one dedicated gameplay programmer. This feature is pure scope creep in a project of this type. You seem to have ignored the point I made in my first post.

 

To me it just sounds like a shìtty realism-induced mechanic in a game like this and would introduce a bunch of problems with the gameplay, some of which Hassat Hunter outlined in his post.

 

No, I addressed the point you made in your first post, and you simply believe that my doing so was insufficient, apparently (or you didn't read my post well enough to realize that I addressed it).

 

To re-iterate, this isn't a "feature" that we're proposing adding. It's simply a certain method of handling forces and mechanics that are already in the game. I already pointed that out with the ranged-attack-missing-and-striking-someone-else example. Which leads me to believe that, perhaps, you simply ignored that.

 

Hassat Hunter pointed out concerns with arbitrarily making all major AOE spells detect collisions, then stop (then goes on to point out that, apparently, if you allow abilities to be able to be used either effectively or ineffectively, this is a problem, because the AI is always going to try to use them effectively? *Shrug*). However, this is moot, since the only ones that would be affected are those that produce projectile-like effects that explode/radiate outward from a central point. There are plenty of AOE spells and abilities that don't do this. A summoned lightning storm, striking from above in a given radius, is obviously not going to care about whether or not it can go through people, as it has bird's-eye access to all heads within it's strike-ability circle. Nor will a circle of burning floor. In many RPGs, even when an ability that does something like this SHOULD only strike one foe in a given path, it continues on through the foe, magically, to strike all within a radius, no matter what. All the OP is suggesting is that we have a wee bit more detail in the handling of AOE spells, in that some of them actually only strike one thing. I hardly think that's reasonable, OR problematic. Unless you're suggesting that variety amongst spell function/utility is a bad thing? Every single AOE spell being "anything in this circle just-plain gets hurt. End of story." is pretty dull.

 

And AGX: If you can go an entire dragon fight with half your party hiding directly behind the other half of your party, without hindering your offensive capabilities/effectiveness, then methinks what you fought was actually just some kind of flame trap turret and not a friggin' dragon. Hint: your tanks probably don't have armor of backhand resistance, OR tail-slap resistance. And, I don't know what's worse; having your tank swatted out of the way and your squishy left behind, human-shieldless, or having your squishy maintain his positioning relative to the tank as they both smash against a nearby wall.

 

Not to mention that a jet of flame might actually still burn someone standing behind someone else (as, if I'm not mistaken, fire will actually sort of flow "around" things, pseudo-rejoining on the other side, kind of like airflow trying to equalize as it goes around an airplane wing). But, one would think that, when a jet of flame is forcibly propelled in a given direction, and it strikes something approximately as wide and tall as yourself, directly in front of you, that you'd take far less direct burn damage than that you-sized obstacle that's blocking the jet of flame from directly hitting you.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Lephys

[Randomthom]

As a concept it works and makes sense.

 

From a gameplay perspective I'd be skeptical however, largely because the fixed-perspective isometric viewpoint would sometimes make it difficult to see who is and isn't being targeted by it (unless you introduce a Dragon-Age style AoE that highlights characters affected by the AoE, one of the things I felt DA2 did well).

[Fearabbit]

Area of effect spells can be many different things. They can be earthquakes, gases, meteors, emotions... and they're all very different and only a small subset of them can be blocked by obstacles. Most notably light (not lightning though), gases and flames. And these would actually move around an obstacle a bit (just like there's always a bit of light behind an obstacle as well and the shadow isn't completely dark, it's basically the same thing).

 

Cone spells: These are mostly effects that shoot out of your hands in a certain direction. That's usually not an earthquake or a meteor, but something like light, gases, flames. So these are part of the "can be blocked" group as well.

 

I think the idea is good, but you'd have to be careful where to use it, because it can be very frustrating if done wrong. If my earthquake doesn't hit all enemies because some stand behind others, that's stupid. And I think the maximum damage reduction by a person shouldn't be more than 50%. It should not be possible to be completely safe from fire by having everyone stand behind one guy who has 100% resistance. Flames are hot and they move around corners.

[Lephys]

If my earthquake doesn't hit all enemies because some stand behind others, that's stupid. And I think the maximum damage reduction by a person shouldn't be more than 50%. It should not be possible to be completely safe from fire by having everyone stand behind one guy who has 100% resistance. Flames are hot and they move around corners.

Very true. But, obviously, it would be equally as silly for flying/floating enemies to be affected by your earthquake. Also, forget just spells for the moment, and imagine some kind of shrapnel bomb (like a Rogue specialty or something). Imagine if a shrapnel bomb goes off, and it the shrapnel just goes through 5 enemies and hits a 6th, simply because it damages everything equally within a 10-foot radius. That would also be silly. Or, an acid bomb. Acid exploding outward from a central point isn't going to travel around a person, then reconverge behind them to strike someone standing directly behind that person (I don't mean 3 inches behind their back. I simply mean that, directionally, they are directly in between the front person and the blast source point, whether they're 2 feet back or 15 feet back. The acid/shrapnel is only ever going to keep spreading from the origin point of the blast, unless the bomb is David Beckham).

 

It's a matter of intelligently handling spells and abilities according to their nature, rather than overly simplifying them all to "AOE -- they affect this area, no matter what, all in the exact same way."

 

Also, many of the examples made in this thread were regarding a person blocking an effect from hitting another person. But, if a rock formation roughly the size of a person would stop/divert something and shield someone, then why wouldn't a steel-armor-wearing whole person mass? Anything that would be stopped by a rock should also be stopped by an armored person (with the exception of knockback from force, like I mentioned, since a rock is anchored to the environment and a person is not).

[Fearabbit]

Handling spells and abilities according to their nature - yes, that would be great. I'm not arguing against it at all. But one has to consider the complexity of something like this. I was just thinking of a situation where I am the one casting the AoE fireburst and it fails to kill its most important target (say, a mage who's far away and buffing his allies but close to death) because the warrior in front of him blocked 100% of the damage.

And that would suck.

 

The good thing about oversimplification is that the rules are always clear and it's easy to see what's going to happen. The good thing about more complex systems, of course, is that they add new tactics to the combat and make it feel more realistic. But you run the risk of being not quite complex enough. Your human warrior hides behind your halfling thief and isn't hit by the shrapnel granade, things like that. It may sound obvious that this should be considered, but the more complex a system gets, the more things you need to consider, and I believe it might be some sort of an uncanny valley problem - you make it more realistic only to have the unrealistic bits stand out even more.

(Tables provide cover, but chairs don't? Why can't I flip the table for more protection? These questions weren't important before, but now they actually make a difference, they make combat easier!)

 

Buuuuut like I said, I'm not against it. If it's difficult to implement, however, then it's definitely not one of my priorities.

[Lephys]

Handling spells and abilities according to their nature - yes, that would be great. I'm not arguing against it at all. But one has to consider the complexity of something like this. I was just thinking of a situation where I am the one casting the AoE fireburst and it fails to kill its most important target (say, a mage who's far away and buffing his allies but close to death) because the warrior in front of him blocked 100% of the damage.

And that would suck.

A) It's not difficult at all, given that the game informs you that the spell Fireburst doesn't travel through obstacles, to say "Hmm, I should probably target the Mage with this if I REALLLLY want him to die, instead of targeting a point 10 feet away from him and hoping he gets hit by the blast simply because he's within the radius." Or, you know, "Maybe I should use Noxious Cloud instead, to make sure I kill the Mage?", or "Maybe I should just cast True Strike on my Ranger, and have him fire a Vital Shot at the Mage, to make sure he dies, instead of trying to use an AOE spell." This is a tactical dilemma that exists regardless of the way AOE abilities are or aren't handled.

 

B) I'm not arguing that all spells/abilities always get 100% blocked just because someone's standing in front of them. That's applying over-simplification to the idea of more in-depth spell/ability handling. And, as for the Halfling, many games already abstract characters/creatures into Small, Medium, and Large physical archetypes. Thus, a Halfling could easily be tagged as a Small character, and an Elf could be a Medium character. Thus, all the game has to do is say "Hmm... spell struck Small character? Only stop further directional damage against other Small characters." In which case, the fact that the Medium or Large character was standing behind the Halfling would result in even less deflection/stoppage of the spell's actual effect striking that character.

 

I already mentioned the idea of a jet of flame probably damaging someone behind someone else, just not quite to the full extent. For example, perhaps the person in front (the "blocker") takes full fire damage AND is ignited, suffering further burn damage-over-time until extinguished (a common status effect in RPGs). The person behind them still gets burned as the flames flow tightly around them, but they take less damage, AS WELL AS failing to be ignited, since its more the nearby extreme heat that's damaging them and not the direct "impact" of the fire itself.

 

In the case of the shrapnel... Like I said, Small character got hit? Any other characters along that same path who are larger than small take damage still. Small characters further along that path are fully missed by the shrapnel.

 

Come on, now... if the simple matter of a character blocking another character from damage from something was problematic, then large shields would be problematic. "Wait, you're saying that it struck my shield, so the person standing behind the shield was unharmed? NOW EVERYONE'S JUST GONNA STAND BEHIND SHIELDS ALL DAY!"

 

I also already mentioned the ludicrous amount of timing involved in ALWAYS having your characters scattered enough to use abilities effectively without striking each other in the backs, then ALWAYS having them back in a row behind some effect-resistant tank whenever a directional ability goes off. Seeing as how, A) I'm sure all AOE/directional abilities don't just absolutely kill everything instantly, and B) all that constant use of obstacle-mechanics to shield your party from every single attack via constant relocation and positional alignment is time NOT spent actually combating the enemy to any great effect, I'd say that there's a perfectly good trade-off there. The more time you spend making sure shrapnel never hits anyone but your tank, the longer it takes you to kill the thing throwing the shrapnel bombs, and the more shrapnel bombs he gets to throw. Not to mention what all the other enemies are doing, which is most likely not standing around and allowing you to line your whole party up behind your tank every 7 seconds.

[cleric Nemir]

Trees,stones and such,if present in the fighting area could also protect from AOE spells. And spells that target one creature(there are plenty of those as we well know) are a natural counter to any blocking of such,no problem in there whatsoever - this is an improvement in tactics.

 

This is a good idea,and it would definitely add spice. If the devs decide that they cannot afford to bother with it now,perhaps they will consider adding it as a mod they can dedicate to after the release. Every improvement to our beloved genre should be welcome,and this one is very good.

[Jarmo]

The OP and a few of the later posts bring up many more thoughts.

Like.. should shield offer protection against shrapnell or fireball?

 

Terrain.. already offers protection from area effects in some silly action games like skyrim.

People in front of you or your shield does not.

 

Does the game (intend to) have mechanics to allow.. say a wall to block a fireball effect?

Not that the game necessarily has fireball, but there'll be something similar anyway..

Dragon age didn't and that was a pretty sophisticated system, but area was area no matter the walls.

 

If there's already a decision to not make terrain block effects, the characters shouldn't either.

But if the terrain does block, the inclusion of characters blocking might not be impossible.

[AGX-17]

The OP and a few of the later posts bring up many more thoughts.

Like.. should shield offer protection against shrapnell or fireball?

 

Terrain.. already offers protection from area effects in some silly action games like skyrim.

People in front of you or your shield does not.

 

Does the game (intend to) have mechanics to allow.. say a wall to block a fireball effect?

Not that the game necessarily has fireball, but there'll be something similar anyway..

Dragon age didn't and that was a pretty sophisticated system, but area was area no matter the walls.

 

If there's already a decision to not make terrain block effects, the characters shouldn't either.

But if the terrain does block, the inclusion of characters blocking might not be impossible.

But Skyrim isn't a realistic reflection of how a shield works. A shield can block an arrow or some other kinetic impact without the user suffering harm, but Skyrim's use of simple damage resistance with a cap of 80% means that all damage still penetrates a shield and armor while blocking. In Skyrim, a copper dagger could damage a person wearing armor made from diamond.

 

If you were to block a direct fire attack with a substantial metal shield, the shield would absorb the heat. It would be weakened as a result, but the effects would be blocked completely if it was a substantial enough shield. Obviously if it's some gout of flame or AOE broader than the shield's surface area, the heat would still envelope the holder as it passed by the unshielded areas and heats the air around them, but it wouldn't be a direct contact.

 

After all, in the real world, human skin is enough to block alpha particle radiation entirely assuming no open wounds are exposed. It's only through inhalation or ingestion that one can be affected by that form of radiation.

Edited May 24, 2013 by AGX-17

[keysersoze]

This is a bad gameplay idea, it adds a level of randomness which might be hard to overcome with the isometric interface.

If you're playing easy mode this does not matter, but if you're playing at your limit and your permadeath character dies due to it, you will be very pissed off.

 

Also it would not be consistent, for example a shrapnel grenade should be blocked heavily, but a poison cloud will not. This would add confusion.

Also would an imp block less than an ogre ?, by right the size of the protected creature would need to be added to the equation, for example an imp will only block ~20% of the ogre.

[Lephys]

This is a bad gameplay idea, it adds a level of randomness which might be hard to overcome with the isometric interface.

 

How does it add randomness? It's not random whether or not a fireball's gonna go through an enemy or not. If you want to hit 10 enemies, and they're all lined up, you don't cast the AOE spell in front of the 1st enemy in the line, and expect it to hit all the rest. You'd cast it to one side or the other of the line. That's all. Precision isn't even an issue. You have like 2 spots where you don't want to target the spell/ability.

 

Not to mention there will be spells and abilities for which this isn't even a factor, since they'll either penetrate targets or will strike the whole area from above, below, or via permeation.

 

I don't see how making the game (which is already how it is) more reactive than cruder gameplay technologies have made games in the past is a bad idea.

 

Heaven forbid we have to consider tactical factors in a game with tactical party-based combat. Let's just have fireballs travel through walls, too, since it might be too random when SOMEtimes you cast a spell at an enemy, and the darn wall stops it, but other times you'd have a clear line of sight and the spell would connect. I mean, that's a lot to keep up with. You have to actually apply mental effort to whether or not you should cast fireball at that enemy, from where your character is standing. Gyah... Mental sweat, much?

[keysersoze]

Heaven forbid we have to consider tactical factors in a game with tactical party-based combat................ Gyah... Mental sweat, much?

 

 

Adding more complexity to a game does not necessarily make a better game. Games should be easy to play, hard to master.

 

New complexity

• Can add more depth which is a positive to experienced players and what your going for
• Makes the game harder to learn, which will turn off some players before they get to the fun (for them) parts. Turning too many people away and will hurt the chances of a PE2.
• Makes the game harder to balance. Bad balance hurts experienced players, as the harder difficulty levels need wider safety margins. So the feature ends up making the game easier, so less mental sweat (Gyah). This is the main problem I see with this idea. It makes the game more random, less easy to balance which leads to an easier cheaper less challenging (and less fun in my opinion) game on harder difficulties.

New complexity should add overall to the game, not take away and I think this idea takes away. 

 

For an example of less complexity/options adding to the game, look at Joshs ideas on weapons (that there are no terrible weapon types, e.g. mornstars are not automatly better than maces, daggers are reasonable mid and endgame unlike a lot of similar games)  

 

-------

 

If you want more complexity why not model the foot and hand grip. Warriors have a chance of slipping when running due to arbitrary factors x,y, and z. And archers have a chance of dropping their bow if they are too sweaty. Also better cut the hair of all your characters hair short because you want to reduce the chances of hair getting into their eyes, and the range werewolves can smell them from. And your characters have a chance to get a cold or flu the longer they stay in the cold dungeon, and and and.................................................

 

New complexities do not make a better game if they are not well thought out.