[Merged] Combat Friendly Fire

[Azure79]

It's a must for me as I find friendly fire offers another layer of complexity and tactics to the combat. It just gave me more options to approach a situation, such as giving all fire resist items to a lone fighter and sending them into melee while the rest of the party threw vials of explosion, fireballs etc. at the enemy. Or giving a fighter free action items then webbing the general area with my other party members using spells and missile weapons.

 

I encounters should be designed and balanced with FF in mind but you can turn it off if you want. I really liked the little AI on/off button in the IE games so simpler battles could be won with it on, but it could be quickly turned off when facing more difficult challenges where micro management was needed. An AI on/off button right in the main game screen would be great.

 

Since PE is based on a reputation system, I would like to see friendly fire implemented into it. Let's say an enemy party ambushes you in town if you're a good-aligned party. They start throwing around AOE spells which can harm bystanders and you are restricted, or blast one out as a last resort. Though the fight wasn't instigated by you the town/faction will still blame you for it which might lead to different consequences later on.

 

These are things I would like to see.

[ogrezilla]

I would really like friendly fire to be taken to the next level. Firing arrows into melee should risk hitting your companions. There could be a Safe Shot type of feat that would slow down your rate of fire but eliminate the risk of hitting friendlies.

 

Betrayal at Krondor had that as I recall. Realistic friendly fire just makes combat more engaging. Games these days are too dumbed down in this regard as they try so hard to be "fun" and "awesome". Well... having to use your head is fun and limitations are awesome.

archers would need to be made noticeably stronger if they were adding such a drawback to them.

[vril]

I would really like friendly fire to be taken to the next level. Firing arrows into melee should risk hitting your companions. There could be a Safe Shot type of feat that would slow down your rate of fire but eliminate the risk of hitting friendlies.

 

Betrayal at Krondor had that as I recall. Realistic friendly fire just makes combat more engaging. Games these days are too dumbed down in this regard as they try so hard to be "fun" and "awesome". Well... having to use your head is fun and limitations are awesome.

archers would need to be made noticeably stronger if they were adding such a drawback to them.

 

I do not see archers needing to be noticeably stronger. A trained archer would not really have an issue with missing firing into a crowd, this would more come into effect for untrained archer or potentially if that trained archer has a critical miss. It all depends on the RP system that they implement as well.

Edited September 27, 2012 by Jack_Deth

[ogrezilla]

I would really like friendly fire to be taken to the next level. Firing arrows into melee should risk hitting your companions. There could be a Safe Shot type of feat that would slow down your rate of fire but eliminate the risk of hitting friendlies.

 

Betrayal at Krondor had that as I recall. Realistic friendly fire just makes combat more engaging. Games these days are too dumbed down in this regard as they try so hard to be "fun" and "awesome". Well... having to use your head is fun and limitations are awesome.

archers would need to be made noticeably stronger if they were adding such a drawback to them.

 

I do not see archers needing to be noticeably stronger. A trained archer would not really have an issue with missing firing into a crowd, this would more come into effect for untrained archer or potentially if that trained archer has a critical miss. It all depends on the RP system that they implement as well.

 

so as long as your archer was well trained, they wouldn't really have to worry about the FF problem? That works for me I suppose. I just think friendly fire for auto attacks is unnecessary but if done right I guess I wouldn't mind.

[Shardbearer]

I think FF is a must for magic use and maybe ranged "abilities" like firing multiple arrows quickly in succession. I don't think you should have to worry about a basic attack arrow shot hitting you though, It's probably reasonable to assume your archers have a little skill. Similar with if you have 4 melee party members clustered around one enemy you shouldn't have to worry about friendly sword strikes, while in real life this would be a helluva risk. FF on magic can lead to some fun accidents though, or even better spell combinations on purpose in specific situations (trapping/rooting a feared/confused party member is incredibly useful).

[ogrezilla]

I think FF is a must for magic use and maybe ranged "abilities" like firing multiple arrows quickly in succession. I don't think you should have to worry about a basic attack arrow shot hitting you though, It's probably reasonable to assume your archers have a little skill. Similar with if you have 4 melee party members clustered around one enemy you shouldn't have to worry about friendly sword strikes, while in real life this would be a helluva risk. FF on magic can lead to some fun accidents though, or even better spell combinations on purpose in specific situations (trapping/rooting a feared/confused party member is incredibly useful).

ya, I think special abilities should have the chance to deal friendly fire damage. Spells already do in all the old games, but if they add more active skills to other classes I would expect them to have to use them with as much care as a mage does. Auto attack FF would likely just become a hassle.

[DocDoomII]

Just to be sure, since this is gonna be an "old school" type of RPG... there will be friendly fire at each difficulty level right?

I don't want to see something like friendly fire being off unless you select the "hardest difficulty" like Dragon Age II.

Edited October 4, 2012 by DocDoomII

[Amentep]

I like friendly fire, for the most part. Sometimes its implementation doesn't always work for me, but frankly if there is going to be area effect spells or chance of moving through line of fire, it makes sense to have to worry about that.

[LadyCrimson]

I'd rather friendly fire be either a fairly mild thing, or a stand-alone on/off option not tied to specific difficulty-tiers. It's not that I dislike the concept of friendly fire, but when dealing with a party of 5-6 and trying to give orders in real-time pause, real-time pause, where party-AI may move/react to my commands in sudden unexpected ways, I may find it a bit more than I want to try to manage all the time.

 

It heavily depends on the combat mechanics in the endgame, however. Like Amentep said, sometimes it works for me, sometimes it doesn't.

[RosesandAshes]

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

 

Anyways, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't mind it. If I think there's a chance I might blow my party up, I'll save beforehand, but I'd still like the option to turn it off.

[general_azure]

Didn't we already have a thread on this?

 

There you go.

[DocDoomII]

There you go.

Uh, I totally missed that.

Sorry

Edited October 4, 2012 by DocDoomII

[Mamoulian War]

Friendly fire in a RPG for me is a must, and I am for possible Critical Fumble or possibility of backfiring spells and weapons as well. If it is not planned to be in the game from the beginning, please consider about providing a checkbox for us for turning it on and off.

 

Thanks

[general_azure]

Uh, I totally missed that.

Sorry

 

Don't worry, happens all the time around here =P

[anek]

but when dealing with a party of 5-6 and trying to give orders in real-time pause, real-time pause, where party-AI may move/react to my commands in sudden unexpected ways [...]

 

Well, it shouldn't.

 

But that's not an argument against friendly fire, that's an argument against adding stupid party AI to the game.

 

Party AI should either be useful, smart and unobtrusive, or not exist at all.

In the InfinityEngine games, I always completely disabled party AI and managed everything myself ("auto-pause when finished casting a spell" and "auto-pause when target is dead" came in very handy) and I never found friendly fire to be an annoyance - just a tactical aspect of combat to consider and plan for.

Edited October 4, 2012 by anek

[Rink]

I agree with most guys here. Friendly fire is a nice addition that should be in games more often especially for magic that affects an area (like the fireball). I am not sure about friendly fire in case of arrows though, because that would make rangers and rogues really annoying for the fighters. Well at least they would have enough arrows after the fight again after they pulled them all from the fighters backsides.

[Tamerlane]

Love my friendly fire.

 

Just make it an on/off toggle independent of difficulty. And make the actual radius of a spell plain to see.

[Lady Evenstar]

I'd like friendly fire to damage allies on normal difficulty and above. How I feel about it affecting innocent bystanders really depends on how often we're going to be fighting in crowded areas. It's also possible that there will be special spells, like Holy Smite, that may be attuned only to attack hostiles. The same could apply to melee and ranged special attacks, so that accidental damage from a warrior's cleave doesn't rouse a hostile crowd.

Edited October 5, 2012 by Lady Evenstar

[Waywocket]

Why is there even a discussion

 

Because if everything people suggest here were made optional then the first thing every player would have to do is wade through 400 checkboxes to figure out which options they want. And I think this question is one of the ones least amenable to being made an option since it has significant implications for encounter design. Though I guess they could disable FF on super-easy mode (let's call it 'storybook mode') and not even bother about balancing the game for that mode.

 

Having an option for disabling FF seems sufficiently extreme that it feels a lot like just having an option for 'automatically win fights'. Well maybe we should have that too in storybook mode...

[DCParry]

Why is there even a discussion

 

Because if everything people suggest here were made optional then the first thing every player would have to do is wade through 400 checkboxes to figure out which options they want. And I think this question is one of the ones least amenable to being made an option since it has significant implications for encounter design. Though I guess they could disable FF on super-easy mode (let's call it 'storybook mode') and not even bother about balancing the game for that mode.

 

Having an option for disabling FF seems sufficiently extreme that it feels a lot like just having an option for 'automatically win fights'. Well maybe we should have that too in storybook mode...

 

That is not true, and you are just being hyperbolic. I always play with FF, but I think it should be an option. I think in NWN2 there was even a graduation of friendly fire? Something like 25%/50%/Full to friendlies which might good.

 

This is a single player game. Difficulty sliders and options should be quite varied. You are not a tough guy if you hate weenies who turn off FF. You just have a different playing preference, Get over your self and your video game "cred".

 

Oh, I also think it would be nice to have a FF toggle independent of difficulty level. Ideally, all the options (spawn numbers, AI, FF, resting restrictions - if resting is needed, please god, not this! ;-) - and so on) should be toggles. As you increase difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard, superterriblehard and such, that appropriate toggled should be activated. If there is something someone doesn't like, they can turn it off. Or on. Or whatever. There should no crap like achievements or other things anyways.

[Waywocket]

Why is there even a discussion

 

Because if everything people suggest here were made optional then the first thing every player would have to do is wade through 400 checkboxes to figure out which options they want. And I think this question is one of the ones least amenable to being made an option since it has significant implications for encounter design. Though I guess they could disable FF on super-easy mode (let's call it 'storybook mode') and not even bother about balancing the game for that mode.

 

Having an option for disabling FF seems sufficiently extreme that it feels a lot like just having an option for 'automatically win fights'. Well maybe we should have that too in storybook mode...

 

That is not true, and you are just being hyperbolic.

 

I'm really not.

 

How do you design encounters if you know that some people, on otherwise identical difficulty settings, are going to choose one option that makes combat several times easier than otherwise? I don't really think you can. I think the only option is to design for one of those settings and accept that the other is either going to be trivial or brutal depending on which you picked. Can you imagine how trivial BG2 would have been if you could just throw a fireball into a crowded battlefield whenever you felt like it?

 

Having it tied directly into the difficulty setting is more workable because generally the encounters are going to be balanced differently there anyway, but even then this would make such an enormous difference that it would mean a huge jump between settings.

 

I'm not in principle against having this sort of feature baked into the lower difficulty settings, as long as the standard difficulty is balanced assuming normal rules, but having a toggle-able option sounds terrible.

 

Oh, I also think it would be nice to have a FF toggle independent of difficulty level. Ideally, all the options (spawn numbers, AI, FF, resting restrictions - if resting is needed, please god, not this! ;-) - and so on) should be toggles. As you increase difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard, superterriblehard and such, that appropriate toggled should be activated. If there is something someone doesn't like, they can turn it off. Or on. Or whatever.

 

Read around this forum and see how many controversial ideas people have which they think have no reason not to be a toggle. If you say 'these are the four options there should be' that's all well and good, but what about a guy that wants a different four options? Whose opinion is more valid? Do you decide to put them all in? You could spend an hour at the beginning of the game just deciding what options to tick! It would be impossible to have all the combinations gameplay tested because the combinatorial explosion would mean that there could be literally millions of variations.

[DCParry]

Why is there even a discussion

 

Because if everything people suggest here were made optional then the first thing every player would have to do is wade through 400 checkboxes to figure out which options they want. And I think this question is one of the ones least amenable to being made an option since it has significant implications for encounter design. Though I guess they could disable FF on super-easy mode (let's call it 'storybook mode') and not even bother about balancing the game for that mode.

 

Having an option for disabling FF seems sufficiently extreme that it feels a lot like just having an option for 'automatically win fights'. Well maybe we should have that too in storybook mode...

 

That is not true, and you are just being hyperbolic.

 

I'm really not.

 

How do you design encounters if you know that some people, on otherwise identical difficulty settings, are going to choose one option that makes combat several times easier than otherwise? I don't really think you can. I think the only option is to design for one of those settings and accept that the other is either going to be trivial or brutal depending on which you picked. Can you imagine how trivial BG2 would have been if you could just throw a fireball into a crowded battlefield whenever you felt like it?

 

Having it tied directly into the difficulty setting is more workable because generally the encounters are going to be balanced differently there anyway, but even then this would make such an enormous difference that it would mean a huge jump between settings.

 

I'm not in principle against having this sort of feature baked into the lower difficulty settings, as long as the standard difficulty is balanced assuming normal rules, but having a toggle-able option sounds terrible.

 

Oh, I also think it would be nice to have a FF toggle independent of difficulty level. Ideally, all the options (spawn numbers, AI, FF, resting restrictions - if resting is needed, please god, not this! ;-) - and so on) should be toggles. As you increase difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard, superterriblehard and such, that appropriate toggled should be activated. If there is something someone doesn't like, they can turn it off. Or on. Or whatever.

 

Read around this forum and see how many controversial ideas people have which they think have no reason not to be a toggle. If you say 'these are the four options there should be' that's all well and good, but what about a guy that wants a different four options? Whose opinion is more valid? Do you decide to put them all in? You could spend an hour at the beginning of the game just deciding what options to tick! It would be impossible to have all the combinations gameplay tested because the combinatorial explosion would mean that there could be literally millions of variations.

 

If only that had designed a game where FF was a toggle at some point in their past development history. If only, lets say NWN2, had various settings that enabled things like FF and others that didn't. You see, it is completely possible. Who cares if an encounter is absurdly easy with FF off? Is Josh Sawyer going to come to your house and point his blunderbuss at your head and make you play with FF off? (Hmm, maybe this should be a stretch goal).

 

You know what, I think they should design encounters with the idea that FF is enabled. I think players should be able to turn it off and play super easy if that is what they choose.

 

Also, my list was an example. I ended it with "and so on" in order to express that those were examples, not a definitive list. The devs, I am sure, know what might and might not affect difficulty.

[el pinko grande]

I'm in favor of toggle-able friendly fire, definitely. As for FF for mundane ranged weapons, well, I have fond memories of winning an otherwise unwinnable fight in Fallout 2 by running around in such a fashion that the enemies kept shooting each other in the back. But I'm not sure it would work in a party-based fantasy game where your archers are regularly shooting past your tank. Sure, you could make an ability that negates the possibility of friendly fire, but it would be such a necessity that it would basically turn into an ability point tax on ranged characters, since all ranged characters would have to buy it.

[ogrezilla]

Why is there even a discussion

 

Because if everything people suggest here were made optional then the first thing every player would have to do is wade through 400 checkboxes to figure out which options they want. And I think this question is one of the ones least amenable to being made an option since it has significant implications for encounter design. Though I guess they could disable FF on super-easy mode (let's call it 'storybook mode') and not even bother about balancing the game for that mode.

 

Having an option for disabling FF seems sufficiently extreme that it feels a lot like just having an option for 'automatically win fights'. Well maybe we should have that too in storybook mode...

 

That is not true, and you are just being hyperbolic.

 

I'm really not.

 

How do you design encounters if you know that some people, on otherwise identical difficulty settings, are going to choose one option that makes combat several times easier than otherwise? I don't really think you can. I think the only option is to design for one of those settings and accept that the other is either going to be trivial or brutal depending on which you picked. Can you imagine how trivial BG2 would have been if you could just throw a fireball into a crowded battlefield whenever you felt like it?

 

Having it tied directly into the difficulty setting is more workable because generally the encounters are going to be balanced differently there anyway, but even then this would make such an enormous difference that it would mean a huge jump between settings.

 

I'm not in principle against having this sort of feature baked into the lower difficulty settings, as long as the standard difficulty is balanced assuming normal rules, but having a toggle-able option sounds terrible.

 

Oh, I also think it would be nice to have a FF toggle independent of difficulty level. Ideally, all the options (spawn numbers, AI, FF, resting restrictions - if resting is needed, please god, not this! ;-) - and so on) should be toggles. As you increase difficulty levels (easy, normal, hard, superterriblehard and such, that appropriate toggled should be activated. If there is something someone doesn't like, they can turn it off. Or on. Or whatever.

 

Read around this forum and see how many controversial ideas people have which they think have no reason not to be a toggle. If you say 'these are the four options there should be' that's all well and good, but what about a guy that wants a different four options? Whose opinion is more valid? Do you decide to put them all in? You could spend an hour at the beginning of the game just deciding what options to tick! It would be impossible to have all the combinations gameplay tested because the combinatorial explosion would mean that there could be literally millions of variations.

The game would need to be designed for one or the other. In this case, almost certainly balanced for FF on. Then people who turn off FF would knowingly be reducing the difficulty by quite a bit. This is where it might be good to allow difficulty to be adjusted with several sliders for basic things like enemy damage or enemy HP to make up for it. Though I don't think that's even necessary. People turning off FF would be doing so knowing they are making it easier.