Friendly Fire

[Lioness]

FWIW

I approve of FF, full 100% damage on the whole area, and of adding the ability to reduce the area affected (radius if sphere, or angle if cone) by using mouse wheel or whatever.

 

It does not have to be completely free but some discrete values are ok. I mean I don't need to be able to cast an AoE 69.6 % of the maximum, choosing between 40%, 60%, 80% will do.

[Adhin]

Mmkay, this whole mouse-wheel thing with reducing the effective radius or cone of effect. Sounds. Great. Really like the idea of being able to fine-tune that, though I'd say there should definitely be a minimal that may or may not be the base radius before INT is taken into account. Would make INT much more flexible on that stuff.

[Pipyui]

I'm in the "variable radius" camp too, at least so far as my known options go.  However, I'd prefer a "click center then drag AOE radius" control mechanic to the mousewheel.

[J.E. Sawyer]

So the game WILL have friendly fire?

 

Yes.  Not all AoE spells are friend-or-foe, but many of the standards (e.g. Fireball) are.

[Tsuga C]

Yes.  Not all AoE spells are friend-or-foe, but many of the standards (e.g. Fireball) are.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, so let's hope that on the two highest of the four difficulty settings that FF is the default. Am I correct in assuming that there will be something similar to the system in NWN2 in which we could tune the spellcasting behavior of our companions?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Tsuga C

[Lephys]

Reading this thread got me started thinking about spellcrafting...

 

developing your own spells with a set of possible attributes.

 

You could create, provided you have the right pre-reqs, a spell with

x effect y power z shape. The resulting spell would have a stamina cost/casting time affected by the power. Which you could tweak one way or the other.

 

So for example. I want to make a spell which (x) Causes confusion (y) beats will save caster will +5 (z) spreads outwards from the caster like a cone.

My cone of confusion spell would cost a lot because confusion is a powerful ability, +5 will is a lot of bonus power, and the cone shape makes it easier to avoid hitting your party. So it would have a cost of 20% stamina (getting that number out of my ass) and a cooldown of once per rest. If I wanted to make it once per encounter, it would have to cost 60% stamina, and further increase would be too powerful.

 

Now sorry for derailing the thread, move along...

I'll perpetuate this for just one more post, only to say that, though it was very simple and could've been so much more, I think the Mass Effect (2 and 3) ability upgrade tree system was an excellent example of the type of control over spells we could see, even IF there wasn't a full-blown spellcrafting system. You could increase the radius of area-effect abilities, OR just increase the damage, OR add an effect on-hit, OR decrease cool-down significantly, OR boost armor penetration, OR even add a radius to an otherwise single-target ability, etc.

 

Again, it was all simpler than it could've been, but the idea behind it was pretty great. Things didn't just get all-around "better." They got improved, but you got to decide how (usually just a two-way mutually exclusive branch, at most. Mass Effect 3 at least gave you more than just the one branch, so you could at least stack choices to result in more different final variants, *shrug*)

[Reever]

 

Yes.  Not all AoE spells are friend-or-foe, but many of the standards (e.g. Fireball) are.

 

So, like Tsuga asked as well, will this be dependent on difficulty/modes, or how will you handle this?

Not that I think that the game will be waaaay too difficult with it having FF, just curious =)

[Lephys]

I believe certain AoE spells/abilities will be incapable of striking friendlies (they'll hit every available enemy target possible within a given area, rather than simply "striking" all the space in that area, and, consequently, any living entity occupying any of that space), is what he's saying. Regardless of toggleable options and/or difficulty settings.

 

That being said, you still have a valid question for the spells that can strike friendlies (Fireball and such), which is "what kind of options will we have for friendly-fire, and how will these be presented?" Which I would also like to know.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Lephys

[J.E. Sawyer]

We don't have any plans to make FF a toggle.  Our approach with difficulty is to add or remove enemies to change the tactical considerations of encounters and to hide or reveal information based on user preferences.  FF is just a part of how some spells work and I don't think it's a good idea to make that something the player can toggle.  It changes the values of those spells too much, IMO.

[DCParry]

We don't have any plans to make FF a toggle.  Our approach with difficulty is to add or remove enemies to change the tactical considerations of encounters and to hide or reveal information based on user preferences.  FF is just a part of how some spells work and I don't think it's a good idea to make that something the player can toggle.  It changes the values of those spells too much, IMO.

 

Hmm, I was preparing a different post but, personally, I find this a problematic approach. As a player, I ALWAYS play with friendly fire enabled and such (except for DA2, which , come on, was just annoying). Regardless, not to pull out the nostalgia card, but to my recollection FF was always a toggle that was initially based on difficulty (I know it was with NWN2). In addition, there were scaled implementations (1/4,1/2, full damage to friendlies and so on). 

 

You are correct in that it is easier to gage the power and balance the spells if you lock FF on, but the counter argument to that it.. who cares? If someone wants to play on easy and fireball to their heart's content, so be it. This just seems unnecessarily restrictive. 

[Lephys]

As long as the game doesn't force you to choose between constantly harming your friends and being useless, that really isn't even such a bad thing. I understand why people like to toggle off friendly fire and not deal with it, but, when you're able to tactically utilize your AoE's to avoid friendlies, for the most part, and the handful of situations you have to worry about are weigh-ins between ensuring the safety of your allies and maximizing damage/effect potential to your enemies, the friendly fire fits just where it should.

 

A lot of "RPGs" nowadays say "Okay, here are your single-target abilities... annd now you're getting quite high in levels, so we'll give you all the BEST abilities, which are, of course, all/mostly AoE! More targets = more damage!", so that you've constantly got to choose between hobbling your combat effectiveness, or not-killing all your friends. That, and you usually don't have a very good way of tactically maneuvering your allies out of the fray, even in situations where that should be pretty easy.

 

I give it two thumbs up, mainly because I trust in the tactical awesomeness of combat in this game.

 

@DCParry:

 

To be fair, it's really no less restrictive than simply not-having an option for immortality, for the people who don't want to have to deal with hitpoints when they play.

 

As I hinted at above, the game isn't inherently forcing anyone to strike their own allies with a spell. It's simply something that could happen. As long as the game doesn't all-but-require it to happen (basically, if you don't blast away at friends and foes alike with those spells and abilities, you're going to lose fights, even on Easy), then all's well.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Lephys

[J.E. Sawyer]

Hmm, I was preparing a different post but, personally, I find this a problematic approach. As a player, I ALWAYS play with friendly fire enabled and such (except for DA2, which , come on, was just annoying). Regardless, not to pull out the nostalgia card, but to my recollection FF was always a toggle that was initially based on difficulty (I know it was with NWN2). In addition, there were scaled implementations (1/4,1/2, full damage to friendlies and so on). 

 

You are correct in that it is easier to gage the power and balance the spells if you lock FF on, but the counter argument to that it.. who cares? If someone wants to play on easy and fireball to their heart's content, so be it. This just seems unnecessarily restrictive. 

 

When FF gets turned off, the effectiveness of all spells that could have FF goes up significantly.  If a subset of AoEs are to be markedly powerful compared to alternatives, FF (or some equivalent) should exist as a drawback.  This allows the player to choose between using powerful friend-or-foe AoEs, less powerful foe-only AoEs, and powerful targeted spells.  When FF gets turned off, that middle category largely becomes obsolete and even the targeted spells logically get bumped down a peg.

[DCParry]

@DCParry:

 

To be fair, it's really no less restrictive than simply not-having an option for immortality, for the people who don't want to have to deal with hitpoints when they play.

 

As I hinted at above, the game isn't inherently forcing anyone to strike their own allies with a spell. It's simply something that could happen. As long as the game doesn't all-but-require it to happen (basically, if you don't blast away at friends and foes alike with those spells and abilities, you're going to lose fights, even on Easy), then all's well.

 

I see what you are saying, even though I wouldn't go so far as to equate non-friendly fire with immortality. As a personal note, I hope that they find the fine line between tactically interesting and tedious. I find as I get older, I have less patience for overtly tedious (this is all in my opinion, and of course many people will view it differently) activities and that is when I find myself toggling off things like FF.

 

The question then is are AOE spells going to be fundamentally superior to other sorts of direct damage in the majority of fights or not? No one is ever forced to do anything of course, but if this is the case, then essentially the outcome maybe similar. I have faith that they will be able to make spell choice tactically varied, but I still have reservations at the FF always on. 

 

Also, if FF is always on, do not give FF to melee weapons. For the love of all that is holy. 

 

 

EDIT - @ J.E. Sawyer

 

That sounds great, and it does alleviate most of my concern. Usually I gravitate towards non FF spells anyway in such situations, but I am glad to hear that you have thought about the variety of use here.

 

I still like toggle though ;-)

Edited January 21, 2014 by DCParry

[J.E. Sawyer]

Yeah, FF is definitely a deciding factor when I'm picking a spell to cast.  There are a few foe-only ones that don't quite pack as heavy a punch as the friend-or-foes, but they are the tactically safe option.

[Lephys]

What about the utility to allow for tactical positioning, Josh? Knockback, for example, would be a simple-yet-effective thing, here. Especially as something that so often just gets passively added to attacks and such, and/or doesn't really seem to offer much tactically other than "I just stole a few hits from you, because you have to run back to me/someone, MUAHAHAHA!"

 

That, and stuff like the Rogue's Reversal (if it's still called that), and stuns and such, and knock-downs. I realize "keep the enemy here for the upcoming AoE, but get clear, yourself!" will probably not be its own subcategory of abilities, designed as such. But, most games with friendly-fire issues don't really offer you any way of ever planning for enemy positioning while getting your friendlies out of harm's way, much less with any kind of frequency.

 

Will there be a decent number of tools that allow various characters of various classes/builds to kind of maneuver a bit in the midst of combat, enough to allow for some AoE setups here and there?

 

EDIT: Well, heck... even just a single Fighter's Defender mode (engage 3 foes instead of one, I think it was?) would allow you to simply occupy three targets while other party members cleared the immediate area and a Wizard/"caster" began an AoE in the back lines. 8P

Edited January 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Reever]

Thanks for the answers, Josh. And I totally understand the balancing aspect. Still, from what I can read, you guys though it through and I guess it shouldn't be that big of a problem given that we have different spells with different considerations to make! So, as Lephys said, it's great that there's an option in between and it's not just "don't do or die" :D

 

That said, I'll probably just buff my party with some fire resistance spell and THEN fire a fireball at the bunch

[teknoman2]

in IWD2 at high levels, a priest had a lv8 spell that was called divine intervention (or shell, or shield... divine something anyway) that offered a huge amount of damage resistance from all sources to the party and imunity to mind effecting spells. in certain situations it simply felt like a god mode cheat. i cast it on the party just before the fight and then i unleashed hell... fireballs, firestorms, acid storms, acid fog, meteor swarms, blizzards and any aoe nuke i had available. the enemies droped like flies and i was coming out of it unharmed

a spell like this would be nice to have in PoE too

Edited January 21, 2014 by teknoman2

[Wombat]

Will there be a decent number of tools that allow various characters of various classes/builds to kind of maneuver a bit in the midst of combat, enough to allow for some AoE setups here and there?

Yeah, this is the reason why asked the question "how would the proportion among targeted defenses (FOR/REF/PSY) of AoE spells/abilities be?" earlier in this thread.  In IE games, I could make evasion-build chars to let them avoid the damages inflicted by many of AoE spells.  If there is a tactical element which allows the players to choose what types of AoE spells/abilities on a certain characters rather than just these evasion-builds, it can put another layer to the tactical and strategical choices.  For example, while throwing REF-targeted AoE spells/abilities to an ally fighter might be risky but he/she may be rather O.K. with FOR-targeted AoE spells/abilities being thrown at him/her.  Likewise, are there ways to make friendly fire less harmful to party members?

 

I thought this kind of elements can be bit complicated for players who haven't playerd IE games but, somehow, it didn't come to me that simply making damages more forgiving in easier modes would be enough.

[Lephys]

^ I didn't think of that, either. Defenses. Want to hurl a big mind-splosion spell? Well, if you get everyone out of the way except your high-Willpowered character, you're probably good-to-go (even though he/she still can get hit).

 

But, yeah, I was really just thinking of like... regular tactics, like getting the enemy into position for an effective archer barrage or something. But then, instead of arrows, it's a fireball. *shrug*. Sure, different considerations. But, still. The point being that it seems like we should have SOME modicum of ability to intentionally plan an AoE attack (under some, not all, circumstances) and execute it with the use of intentional positioning and positional influence.

 

Like I said, in other games, you pretty much just have to use the AI's target-following behavior to try and finnagle them into any kind of ideal placement for something. If we actually had the tools to at least make it possible (again, not in all situations) to sort of push some enemies into a group, or into a more desirable location, etc. And/or maneuver our characters around them.

 

Maybe the tanky, shield-bearing Warrior can slowly "push" an opponent around the battlefield by focusing on defense and shield-bashing, etc. Or, maybe just a passive mode that intentionally prevents the enemy from doing much besides backing away, etc (but sacrifices overall offensive capabilities for the focus on posturing). Then you've got your short-term, single target abilities: stuns, Pinning Shot, trips, etc. Heck, maybe even some form of grapples, throws, etc. Then you've got things like the Rogue's Reversal. Prepared actions/counter-attacks that allow you to reposition around the target.

 

So, for example, IF you wanted to launch a fireball at 5 enemies, and IF you were facing susceptible opponents, and IF you used all those abilities at the same time in a clever fashion, you could get all your allies out of the way, while forcing all the enemies into a tight enough group to be affected by the fireball.

 

That's the best-case-scenario example. The point being that you can do it, as opposed to be unable to do much of anything other than kite them around and hope you time a fireball really well and hope you clip a few of them without hitting your peeps. Oh, two enemies together? Maybe my Rogue can get out of the way and lure/leave that third one close enough to make it a 3-target fireball instead of 2. Etc. Little situations here and there in which you can utilize such things for AoE planning would be really nice.

 

 

Oh! Speaking of Friendly Fire, is that going to be possible from ranged weapons? I mean, if you're trying to attack Orc A, and your ally is standing directly between you and Orc A, and is fighting Orc A in melee combat, is there any kind of chance to hit your ally?, with maybe a much lesser/non-existent chance if you move around to the side or behind the Orc? Just curious.

Edited January 21, 2014 by Lephys

[Wombat]

^ I didn't think of that, either. Defenses. Want to hurl a big mind-splosion spell? Well, if you get everyone out of the way except your high-Willpowered character, you're probably good-to-go (even though he/she still can get hit).

Yeah, that could be a valid tactics when low PSY enemies begin to surround magic users of your party (Although I don't know how something like fear works in PoE-Does it even scare off your party members?).

 

But, yeah, I was really just thinking of like... regular tactics, like getting the enemy into position for an effective archer barrage or something. But then, instead of arrows, it's a fireball. *shrug*. Sure, different considerations. But, still. The point being that it seems like we should have SOME modicum of ability to intentionally plan an AoE attack (under some, not all, circumstances) and execute it with the use of intentional positioning and positional influence.

I see, micro-management in party member positioning, then.  So far, a known ability which does "excuse me but could you step back a bit?" is that Grimoire Slam.  More or less related, I think one of the devs wrote he was having fun in experimenting the formation.  Like you said, what I was imaging here was more like old IE games but allows more flexible party/char-build by not too much focusing on Ref-targeted AoE spells/abilities.  However, compared with Fighter, Rogue is not so good at crowd-control, which kept the old system more balanced (If Fighter can bear AoE, the players don't need to let Rogue sneak near to the enemies and pull him/her back before he/she is screwed up by genuine physical attacks and/or mental magic).  So, maybe, just some spells/abilities which mitigate* the damages for various builds rather than totally replacing the old evasion builds could be a sensible compromise.

 

*  Despite of some other posters, IMO, in IE games, it was too easy to wipe off the negative effects of AoE only if the players know proper spells.  For PoE, personally, I'd like to have a system which has both pros and cons even if know it well.

[Lephys]

I'm a fan of all the various approaches. I just wanted to supplement the list with all the ones we could possibly come up with. . But, yeah, for what it's worth, I wouldn't JUST want to see "boost your defenses" builds being the sole thing that allows you to simply not-worry about dropping magical bombs on your own peeps.

 

Side-note:

 

They seem to have renamed Psyche to Willpower, but I'm not certain of this. I can't recall exactly where, but within the last month or two, I remember seeing an update post (or a Josh post?) which listed the four defenses as Deflection, Fortitude, Reflexes, and Willpower. *les shruggles*

[ZornWO]

*  Despite of some other posters, IMO, in IE games, it was too easy to wipe off the negative effects of AoE only if the players know proper spells.  For PoE, personally, I'd like to have a system which has both pros and cons even if know it well.

 

 

As one of 'em =) (if not the only one - I'm in a minority, I think!) I'll say, in vanilla IE games I'd completely agree.  The AI isn't going to remove your protections in all likelihood, so using PfFire on your entire party lets you lob fireballs with impunity.  

 

But with a good AI (read: SCS), the spell system can turn against you easily (I'm assuming, and very much hoping, both the players and the enemy AI have the same rule set).  If you have an AoE-based attack plan and they remove your protection spells, you've sacrificed spell slots for basically nothing and your own attacks are a problem.  I've actually sometimes wondered if some of the differences in opinions on the IE games you see around the boards isn't b/c of different experiences with the AI, especially since it seems most people in the forum share the same broad goals for the game.  Like, I don't think either of us want protection spells to be the Awesome Button Against Friendly Fire, and yet we disagree regarding the extent to which IE protection spells were that.

 

And ultimately it's not an either-or thing; I'd very much like to see positioning micromanagement too, given what I've read.  It's easy to picture the two (spell mechanics and positioning) complementing each other in combat, and there are a lot of good ideas on the thread to make positioning more than what I've found boring in previous games (especially DA), where you cluster your frontliners to one side of the enemy so you can have the AoE spell just miss your guys. 

 

I'm just really worried about the spell system, so that's part of it.

[Osvir]

What about increase/decrease in AoE?

IIRC in the IE games a Fireball spell always has the same radius, it was only the damage that was affected during level up. Now, I am not suggesting or considering that an AoE should be gaining or declining in AoE as you level up, but more or less the Player being able to manipulate it or control it.

Maybe a Player could "insert" casting time into spells, similar to how a Shaman in Shadowgrounds: Returns can insert AP to a Summon. Or we could customize a Grimoire with spells (By adding X spell you affect Y statistic of other spells).

Let's say we have a Fireball spell in our deck Grimoire that has vanilla 10 meters radius AoE, and by having another Fire spell... maybe a Firestorm spell (I dunno I'm just making it up~ a concept) would up that by 1 meter. Similarly, a Haste spell could affect casting speed of certain spells... maybe. It quickly becomes a bit of a balancing issue though. Such as AI implementation. General implementation of it too~

[Mr. Magniloquent]

 

*  Despite of some other posters, IMO, in IE games, it was too easy to wipe off the negative effects of AoE only if the players know proper spells.  For PoE, personally, I'd like to have a system which has both pros and cons even if know it well.

 

 

As one of 'em =) (if not the only one - I'm in a minority, I think!) I'll say, in vanilla IE games I'd completely agree.  The AI isn't going to remove your protections in all likelihood, so using PfFire on your entire party lets you lob fireballs with impunity.  

 

But with a good AI (read: SCS), the spell system can turn against you easily (I'm assuming, and very much hoping, both the players and the enemy AI have the same rule set).  If you have an AoE-based attack plan and they remove your protection spells, you've sacrificed spell slots for basically nothing and your own attacks are a problem.  I've actually sometimes wondered if some of the differences in opinions on the IE games you see around the boards isn't b/c of different experiences with the AI, especially since it seems most people in the forum share the same broad goals for the game.  Like, I don't think either of us want protection spells to be the Awesome Button Against Friendly Fire, and yet we disagree regarding the extent to which IE protection spells were that.

 

And ultimately it's not an either-or thing; I'd very much like to see positioning micromanagement too, given what I've read.  It's easy to picture the two (spell mechanics and positioning) complementing each other in combat, and there are a lot of good ideas on the thread to make positioning more than what I've found boring in previous games (especially DA), where you cluster your frontliners to one side of the enemy so you can have the AoE spell just miss your guys. 

 

I'm just really worried about the spell system, so that's part of it.

 

 

Agreed. Every time I speak of Baldur's Gate, it's with Sword Coast Strategems I & II installed--which is a significant difference from vanilla BG. I tend to have my parties protected from fire and cold perpetually so I can blanket the screen with those spells. However, when those protections get breached or pierced--and they will, it can be a very rude change of pace. Not only is my character now in critical danger, but it throws off much of my spell selection and general strategy until I rest. AI frequently makes use of these tactics to very deadly effect to the point where against certain classes of enemies, both activating and maintaining your protections is necessary to survial. I found it to be an interesting moment when I began having my wizard memorize Spell Shield, which nullified the first debuff spell cast against you.

 

I would like to see a similar spell system play out in P:E. Friendly fire, protection spells, counter spells, counter-counter spells. It's my singularly greatest hope that finally I will get to have a cRPG with as excellent spellcasting battles and spell selection as in the IE games.

[ZornWO]

Mr. Magniloquent, we're on the exact same page, particularly on our shared greatest hope.

 

(And could I have made it any less clear in that second paragraph about when I was discussing PoE and when I was discussing BG2?  Good grief, I disappoint.)

 

edit: continuing grammer faelz ftw.

edit 2: I totally forgot to add, I'd be open to having spells affect other spells' statistics either through casting (like a standard metamagic spell) or just by inclusion in the grimoire.

Edited January 22, 2014 by ZornWO