Mauvais_Oeil said:MFR1 said:Like I said before.. Great ideas but if done correctly...This would cause so much Latency with players,mobs, and light sources steaming data non-stop with "vision/target" numbers. Using my 3rd grade math skills: thousands of players + thousands of mobs and light sources= Server crashing every night cycle. The easy way is just add a tab target reducation to the "darkness fracture" or whatever they are calling them these days.
I don't really see why it would be so much more calculation for the server than everything that will already be done (every attack of players, ennemies, LOS of monsters, aggro range). It's just another line.
I don't see why either. As I said above, they *have* to have a limit somewhere - they can't allow everyone to target everything in the zone. To limit the tab-target rotation to what is 'on screen' is normal since Everquest.
To render graphics to a player at all, the program has to consider all light sources.
Whether the graphics engine (or whatever) can be used to assign a 'visibility' value to an object and player targeting code can use that? *shrug*
But I don't see how that has to be so complex on top of everything else.
disposalist said:There will be a range to tab targeting, with or without darkness.
IMO:
It would be nice to know, under ideal, non-darkness, outdoor conditions, if the player visibility range will = the tab targeting range, or if player visibility range will ever be > tab targeting range.
Personally, I always found it extremely annoying that while (in many games) I could see something in the distance, and could click on it, I couldn't tab target it to it.
As though, to designers, first permitting and then forcing the manual click was somehow more Fun and retained more subscribers via that implementation feature. Just felt like a persistent bug, a lack of a design decision, or ignorance/maliciousness, to me.
disposalist said:Mauvais_Oeil said:MFR1 said:Like I said before.. Great ideas but if done correctly...This would cause so much Latency with players,mobs, and light sources steaming data non-stop with "vision/target" numbers. Using my 3rd grade math skills: thousands of players + thousands of mobs and light sources= Server crashing every night cycle. The easy way is just add a tab target reducation to the "darkness fracture" or whatever they are calling them these days.
I don't really see why it would be so much more calculation for the server than everything that will already be done (every attack of players, ennemies, LOS of monsters, aggro range). It's just another line.
A default tab target range is just a static number. No formulas involved.. Aggro range is based on 2 static numbers(levels)... Vision scores (done correctly)would be multiple numbers changing for every player and mob every second then put into a formula to make the vision score. Your distance from a torch on the wall.. A wizards fireball should change everyones vision score..
I don't see why either. As I said above, they *have* to have a limit somewhere - they can't allow everyone to target everything in the zone. To limit the tab-target rotation to what is 'on screen' is normal since Everquest.
To render graphics to a player at all, the program has to consider all light sources.
Whether the graphics engine (or whatever) can be used to assign a 'visibility' value to an object and player targeting code can use that? *shrug*
But I don't see how that has to be so complex on top of everything else.
vjek said:disposalist said:There will be a range to tab targeting, with or without darkness.
IMO:
It would be nice to know, under ideal, non-darkness, outdoor conditions, if the player visibility range will = the tab targeting range, or if player visibility range will ever be > tab targeting range.
Personally, I always found it extremely annoying that while (in many games) I could see something in the distance, and could click on it, I couldn't tab target it to it.
As though, to designers, first permitting and then forcing the manual click was somehow more Fun and retained more subscribers via that implementation feature. Just felt like a persistent bug, a lack of a design decision, or ignorance/maliciousness, to me.
I know what you mean, but there are probably practical technical considerations to justify that, I think. You might be able to _see_ something, but it's barely a dot, so to include it in a tab-targeting might mean you end up including dozens of creatures you have no hope of effecting at that range. Even if players wanted that it would perhaps be considered unwanted overhead.
If you're trying to target one of the things you're in combat with it would be very annoying to have things way out of range included in your tab rotation.
It's probably both a practical technical consideration to have tab-targeting work shorter range than visibility. You would want to know that there are _things_ over there, but not want to target them until you get to a range that your skills will start to actually reach.
Also there's the argument that you might realise there's _something_ there, but to be able to target it and /con isn't really reasonable unless you can see some level of detail?
Hence why folks are suggesting Rangers might have better targeting range, or Farsight spells might enable that, or even being a Keeper might might you better able, at range, to target things, as you are better able to know what you are looking at?
All interesting ideas, but whether practical or not only the devs will know.
I see targeting a mob as my character being close enough to not only see a mob, but close enough to determine what it is. We can see things from miles away, but we need to be closer to make out details, and the targeting system (box around target with name and details) is a proxy for what our character would know once close enough.
And because targeting is a proxy for knowledge, once a mob has been targeted, it should remain targeted until it moves past 150% of targeting range. You need to keep it targeted for this and its a game element designed to simulate paying close attention (and it prevents a gaming annoyance of it flickering in and out).
Making it so we can click to target at a further distance than we can tab target is a terrible design that just forces spam clicking. For people like me who have repetitive stress injuries, forcing spam clicking causes actual pain.
I won't repeat my previous suggestions for targeting distance, but I will add that they can all be simple modifiers to a base Target Distance value. And having a variety of modifications to it is how to make the world feel more real and a way to further add meaningful race / class distinctions while also making environmental factors meaningful.
I think we're missing a key point here: There is a difference between 'seeing' an entity (and thus being able to 'target' it) and using /con to actually gain information about it. I would not expect that just being able to target something at a large distance should gain you any real knowledge about it other than, perhaps, its species and maybe its class. But to know its level? Its faction standing towards you? Those should only be gained at much much closer distances though not so close as it would put you inside its aggro radius.
So personally, and this is only an opinion, that there would be different radii where being inside that radius would let you learn additional information. So lets say, for sake of argument, that the maximum range you can see an entity is 100m. At that range you can targe it and the target window would only show race. If it was an Orc, you'd see 'Orc' in your target window. Get closer, say 60m away, and now you see 'Orc Warrior'. At 40m, the target window shows 'Orc Warrior, level 12'. At 20m you now see 'Orc Warrior, level 12, scowls at you'.
Vandraad said:So personally, and this is only an opinion, that there would be different radii where being inside that radius would let you learn additional information. So lets say, for sake of argument, that the maximum range you can see an entity is 100m. At that range you can targe it and the target window would only show race. If it was an Orc, you'd see 'Orc' in your target window. Get closer, say 60m away, and now you see 'Orc Warrior'. At 40m, the target window shows 'Orc Warrior, level 12'. At 20m you now see 'Orc Warrior, level 12, scowls at you'.
I really like this idea. My earlier suggestion that different classes could target specific targets from farther away actually workes better if their advantage is getting more advanced info (level, con, etc) from farther away. Other factors could also play in, like once you've killed a specific mob type a bunch of times, you don't need to get as close to get the detailed information.
Vandraad said:I think we're missing a key point here: There is a difference between 'seeing' an entity (and thus being able to 'target' it) and using /con to actually gain information about it. I would not expect that just being able to target something at a large distance should gain you any real knowledge about it other than, perhaps, its species and maybe its class. But to know its level? Its faction standing towards you? Those should only be gained at much much closer distances though not so close as it would put you inside its aggro radius.
So personally, and this is only an opinion, that there would be different radii where being inside that radius would let you learn additional information. So lets say, for sake of argument, that the maximum range you can see an entity is 100m. At that range you can targe it and the target window would only show race. If it was an Orc, you'd see 'Orc' in your target window. Get closer, say 60m away, and now you see 'Orc Warrior'. At 40m, the target window shows 'Orc Warrior, level 12'. At 20m you now see 'Orc Warrior, level 12, scowls at you'.
I like it. You've thought it through and added some good ideas where I was just talking about not being able to /target at a distance at all because /con shouldn't work at a large distance.
A varying degree of /con information would be great and stop the targeting range being so arbitrary. More meaningful and interesting (and realistic), mechanic-wise.
I still think that at a distance where you can barely make it out, you should probably not even know it _is_ an 'object' and not just scenery (and that would also give a sensible limit the technical burden of info for many objects being thrown around the network) and so it shouldn't be targetable at all. Then there should probably be a range at which they *can* be targeted, but only manually, because to include them in a tab-target rotation would make the tab-target rotation concept unusably unwieldy, and the tab-target rotation should probably be pretty much 'combat' range limited (and limited to what is 'on-screen').
Effects on targeting by visibility (including adjustment by class ability, race ability, buff, weather, etc) would layer on top of all that, of course, and impact the info given.
So, at 60m you see "Orc Warrior", but in the dark, at 60m, you are dropped back a level to "Orc"... Unless you have infravision at 60m, or the target has a torch, or the weather is bad, or you drank a Clearsight potion, or...
I think it would add really impactful immersion and meaning to something that has been "just keep pressing Tab then C all the time" in the past.
disposalist said:Effects on targeting by visibility (including adjustment by class ability, race ability, buff, weather, etc) would layer on top of all that, of course, and impact the info given.
So, at 60m you see "Orc Warrior", but in the dark, at 60m, you are dropped back a level to "Orc"... Unless you have infravision at 60m, or the target has a torch, or the weather is bad, or you drank a Clearsight potion, or...
Indeed. So for things like Night (full moon), Night (no moon), Night (Foggy), Night (Raining) Day (Clear), Day (Foggy), Day (Raining) all would modify at what range you can target and what range(s) you get which information.
Vandraad said:Indeed. So for things like Night (full moon), Night (no moon), Night (Foggy), Night (Raining) Day (Clear), Day (Foggy), Day (Raining) all would modify at what range you can target and what range(s) you get which information.
And don't forget Night (mid lightning strike)
:)
Hokanu said:Vandraad said:Indeed. So for things like Night (full moon), Night (no moon), Night (Foggy), Night (Raining) Day (Clear), Day (Foggy), Day (Raining) all would modify at what range you can target and what range(s) you get which information.
And don't forget Night (mid lightning strike)
:)
Gotta be quick at that /con command to catch it during the lightning flash for extra info!
If good ideas are omitted from the game to get it out sooner, then the game is lessened. Instead of being a great game it becomes a good game. It then follows that there is less revenue and longevity. This game should be as good as it can be, not just good enough so we can all start playing.
For me, distance restricted targeting to the viewable area, just makes sense and is a good thing. As for extra development, all the parts required are already in game, distance to target/visible arc, etc. There will already be a limit on the target distance anyway. They just need to tie together the visible arc/distance and the tab function limit, so any development should not be significant.
It just makes sense that you cannot target something you cannot see - unless you have some enchantment on you of course ;-)
disposalist said:TheBus88 said:disposalist said:There will be a range to tab targeting, with or without darkness.
To suggest further that tab targeting shouldn't be an 'exploit' to overcome darkness or fog or other visibility features is surely hardly controversial?
If you can't see it, you shouldn't be able to target it. Reducing the range would be a simple way to address it, but there should be pretty easy ways to code it to better match what you can actually see on the screen and to be more sophisticated mechanically and, so, more meaningful and interesting.
Naturally, some are seeing (no pun intended) that if it's going to be added to avoid a gamey exploit, just a little more effort could make it a worthwhile 'feature' in itself.
If there are a load of ways to effect visibility, then, of course, that will effect what you can easily (tab) target.
As for modern gamers not liking it... well, if we are going to worry about that, may as well can the project now.
Anyone who gets so annoyed by needing to use torches, magic items, spells, potions, racial innates, or the probably many more interesting ways of mitigating darkness, are going to get annoyed by anything vaguely restrictive that can't be easily 'gamed' away. Ugh, we need to climb to get up there?! Ugh, we need to acclimate to get over there?! Ugh, we need to group with others to go in there?!...
Let's not worry about maybe putting off some players a bit. That's how we got to the point of being so desperate for a game like Pantheon.So there are going to be many ways to mitigate it yet they should spend time coding up things that....are just going to have many ways to be mitigated away anyway
Let's not worry about getting a game released, let's worry about adding "features" to remove tab targeting that will just get mitigated anyway?? Seems like a huge waste of time to me
There would be many ways to mitigate it just like there are many ways to mitigate climate effects, many many ways to mitigate risk level of an encounter, etc. The whole point of the game - any game - is to work out ways to mitigate problems - to overcome challenges, no? A good feature is not a waste of time.
Some are more fundamental to the experience than others, but as long as a feature or mechanic is interesting, meaningful, etc. then it would be a worthwhile thing to have in game, just like climbing, acclimation, group content, etc.
Let's not worry about putting good things in the game, though, let's just get it released? I just turned your statement around to help make the point - I don't mean to be sarcastic.
Personally, I've waiting since 2014. The last thing I want VR to do is now to rush and/or miss out features that would make it better and a bigger hit.
Seriously, though - this is a forum for discussing stuff related to Pantheon. No one is suggesting this particular feature must be included or the game will fail - we're just talking here.
I wish people would stop with the whole "VR shouldn't do anything that might delay the game release" stuff (including the instant criticism features get when VR announce them. Just because we haven't heard about them before doesn't mean they are 'new' and pushing the release further away).
*Everything* developed is a 'delay' to the game release. It's up to the devs to decide cost-benefit of everything, new, old or whatever, that gets included, and only they know how much effort goes into what. For all we know, the concept of restricting tab-targeting based on visibility might be trivial to achieve. It might actually make it easier and quicker than normal.
How about, in meantime, we just try and enjoy this forum for discussion?
@Counterfleche Loving the idea of class-based visibility and/or targeting/spotting related bonuses. Race-related stuff like infravision is pretty common and I hope is included, but the class-based stuff has great potential. Also the idea of increasing target range if concentrating/standing still. I suppose running would also make it harder.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth!!!!.....I never said not to put good things in the game, I said don't put needless hindrances that will be easily mitigated anyway in the game.
the point of climate effects are many, including keeping low levels out of high level zones for griefing etc...either way I'm not a huge fan of them anyway, nor am I a fan of night cycles with very low visibility but at least climates serve some purposes. barely being able to see, let alone target, a few feet in front of you is not a good feature, it is nothing like climbing, acclimation or grouping, it is an unneccsary hindrance that will turn people off from the game and zones that implement it.
Uber dark night cycles where you can't see anything will HAVE to be mitigated from a very early level for all classes but climate, climbing, grouping etc...will not have to be and there will be different levels of each
I wish people would stop with the whole "VR should implement this cool feature I like" stuff without thinking it through all the way
TheBus88: I wish people would stop with the whole "VR should implement this cool feature I like" stuff without thinking it through all the way
It is a bit arrogant to assume people have not thought through an idea if it doesnt match your own. I for one have thought it through and I do not share your view.
TheBus88: So there are going to be many ways to mitigate it yet they should spend time coding up things that....are just going to have many ways to be mitigated away anyway
I dont agree with this argument. The darkness and mitigations are/have been coded. You are saying that the targetting should not be restricted to those limitations and be able "sense" all mobs anyway?
You have to acquire the mitigations and I am sure there will be different types for different environments. Tab targeting past the viewable distance makes these vision hinderance mitigations pointless. You wouldnt need them and thus the time spent on coding the mitigations is meaningless. Without restricting tab targeting, vision hinderance mitigations are meaningless.
Yes it will be tough in dark areas, but that is the point. If you have a dark area, what would be its point if you can tab to stuff and thus "see" them? None at all. If you can tab target to something you cannot see, then you will be able to con it and know everything about that mob anyway. You may as well not have the darkness in the first place.
If you cannot see what is up the corridor, then it adds to the tension (same with mists and heavy rain storms and magical areas etc.). These areas should mean more than a nice visual. You should be more careful and progress that much more cautiously in such areas (or indeed, not go there until you have acquired the tools to be able to negate the vision hinderance). The sight limit is there for a reason.
As Pantheon will have limited sight areas and ways to negate those limitations (via torches and flaming arrows and who knows what) then it makes total game sense to limit targeting to those mobs that have been illuminated in some manner. If you have vison limited areas of any type, then you need targeting to reflect that limitation or the vision limitation truely doesnt exist.
The viewable distance and tab target distance go hand in hand.
I find myself in total agreement with disposalist:
If you can't see it, you shouldn't be able to target it.
TheBus88 said:I wish people would stop with the whole "VR should implement this cool feature I like" stuff without thinking it through all the way
Firstly, this is (mostly) just fans theorycrafting and discussing in a forum - as invited to do by the devs - not some effort to brow beat devs into submission. Well, some would love it if the devs hung on there every word, but most know that's totally not the case.
Secondly, people do think it through. Some people are in the industry themselves. Some people just enjoy doing a lot of related research as a hobby/passtime. Some don't, though, sure, but...
Thirdly, why shouldn't people just throw up ideas they think are interesting, even if they have no idea how or whether it might work? It's how discussions happen. Brainstorming and the like can be very useful and fun and certainly are good ways to maintain discussion.
Forthly, I wish people would stop with the whole "VR shouldn't do anything that might delay the release" like everything they mention that we haven't already been told is 'scope creep' and they shouldn't be allowed to still be thinking about design or interested in what backers think. I wish people would stop with the whole "VR shouldn't do this thing I don't like" stuff like a subjective opinion is somehow 'wrong' if it isn't in line with there's.
Lastly (though part of "forthly"), you seemed annoyed earlier that you thought I'd put words in your mouth, but I didn't tell you what you said, I turned it around to make my point, I even said so. Your comment I quote here could be read as effectively dismissing everyine else's ideas as ill-thought out 'cool-but-useless' crap, but I'm sure you didn't mean that, eh?
Why not just let each other discuss ideas related to Pantheon and try and stay positive and constructive. I think some are getting impatient and worried and it can make the forums quite tense when there's just no need. This forum should be all about building community.
People are passionate of course - some of us have been quite sad about the MMORPG genre we have loved going a way we don't like for 20 years - all of us are excited for the potential Pantheon has to reinvigorate the genre and provide us with a new virtual home - we won't all agree on every detail, of course, but we are surely like-minded to a great degree and can take an interest in each others' opinions and thoughts or at least agree to disagree without antagonism.
It can be hard to correctly read intention and inflection and emotion in these posts. I'm sure I can seem opinionated and inflexible and sarcastic - the examples, exaggeration and hyperbole I use to 'make points' can be easily misconstrued - the way I play devil's advocate can seem antagonistic - the way I've structured my reply here into a "firstly, secondly, etc" probably looks like I'm attempting a formal debate take-down, though I'm just structuring my prose to order my thoughts. I can be over-defensive and appear to 'counter-attack' because I dislike feeling misunderstood, especially if it seems intentional. If we were sat chatting about Pantheon at a bar over a beer, reading each others' faces and body-language, this would be much easier and smoother, I'm sure.
Let's (virtual) hug, chat like we're at a tavern bar, and look forward to grouping up in Terminus.
Scenario:
A tunnel in a dungeon splits left and right. The group (around level 20) can see about 20 to 30 feet in all directions. They pause at the junction and a member of the party spots a shadow moving at the furthest range of the viewable space. "There is movement down there..."
Option 1, tab target is not restricted to view distance:
The same guy tabs and says "yup there is a level 22 wizard with a call for help disposition, behind is another 22 fighter and further back is a 25 thief". They choose the second tunnel.
Option 2, tab target is restricted to illuminated mobs:
Group A:
The same guy asks the ranger in the group to loose a flare near the movement. He does so and they see the 22 wizard. The leader asks the ranger for a second flare further back, which is also loosed and they see the second mob. The ranger is at the limit of his range and the group does not pick up the third mob. They chat about their options...
Group B:
This group doesnt have any means of illuminating the passage. The thief is asked to sneak near the movement and report back. He does so and only sees the wizard. The thief retreats and the group chats about their options...
The point of this is to show that having no tab limit lessens the immersion and jeopardy of the situation. If you can "sense" hidden mobs, then there is no jeopardy. If your abilities are restricted, it comes down to a group decision; some will try it, some will move on. But it is a more tense and immersive experience to restrict tab targeting distances to that of the illuminated view. It also just makes sense.
chenzeme said:Scenario:
A tunnel in a dungeon splits left and right. The group (around level 20) can see about 20 to 30 feet in all directions. They pause at the junction and a member of the party spots a shadow moving at the furthest range of the viewable space. "There is movement down there..."
Option 1, tab target is not restricted to view distance:
The same guy tabs and says "yup there is a level 22 wizard with a call for help disposition, behind is another 22 fighter and further back is a 25 thief". They choose the second tunnel.
Option 2, tab target is restricted to illuminated mobs:
Group A:
The same guy asks the ranger in the group to loose a flare near the movement. He does so and they see the 22 wizard. The leader asks the ranger for a second flare further back, which is also loosed and they see the second mob. The ranger is at the limit of his range and the group does not pick up the third mob. They chat about their options...
Group B:
This group doesnt have any means of illuminating the passage. The thief is asked to sneak near the movement and report back. He does so and only sees the wizard. The thief retreats and the group chats about their options...
The point of this is to show that having no tab limit lessens the immersion and jeopardy of the situation. If you can "sense" hidden mobs, then there is no jeopardy. If your abilities are restricted, it comes down to a group decision; some will try it, some will move on. But it is a more tense and immersive experience to restrict tab targeting distances to that of the illuminated view. It also just makes sense.
Yes I like it! Mixed with the things like 'levels' of information that Vandraad mentioned and various other ideas this really has potential for a great gameplay feature, not just a necessary gamified UI element.
It's one of those cases of taking something from 'old school' MMORPGs that was probably simple and restrictive just because of networking technology and turning it into something that is meaningful and immersive, and no longer awkward and gamey, because modern networking technology can handle it.
As I'm sure everyone knows, I'm an 'old school' feature fan, but I am very much not into bringing back old school features wholesale without improvement.
There's a delicate balance between improvement and needless QoL that detracts, but I think VR are more than aware of that.
MFR1 said:If tab target is limited to illuminated mobs... how did he know to flare each spot... How long is the cooldown on flare because it sounds like his keyboard is going to have a broken key after a few days of playing. The biggest issue would be the fact that you are shooting flares at KOS mobs and they are not attacking...
we would presume that a normal nights darkness isnt pitch black and you can most likely see a resonable distance with ambient light and torches etc. If an area is pitch black its almost definitely by design and the content designed with it in mind.
Fine with heavy mist / rain / snow / darkness etc. if used sparingly for effect in certain special areas / events.
Fine with ideas about targetting /con varying based on visibility.
Not fine if 1/3 the time its pitch black, and every dimgeon looks like kedge keep on a Dying CRT monitor.
Hokanu: we would presume that a normal nights darkness isnt pitch black and you can most likely see a resonable distance with ambient light and torches etc.
Check out the recent video of the weather conditions, there is a part where the player is running to Thronefast (I think) at night in a thunderstorm. Even though the scene has some ambient lighting from the tower and part way up the road, it is still difficult to pick out that there is a guard on the road until the lightning hits and illuminates everything. If you are running around then you can easily bump into things, you are not prepared for in all kinds of conditions other than pitch black! Dark is, well... dark; did that shadow move? Is that shadow a crouching thief or a rock? Immersion!
MFR1 said: If tab target is limited to illuminated mobs... how did he know to flare each spot...
The leader didnt know to illuminate the path. He saw a moving shadow and thought it prudent to do so. Once the first mob was illuminated and targetable, then he could see it had a call for help disposition, so he thought he had better see if there was anything behind that could aid the first, just in case. As for the third mob, the group has no idea that it is there. That's the point of limited targeting.
I would say that it wont always be obvious to illuminate the path ahead. You have to pay attention, if a path looks dangerous, light it up or progress carefully. Look for moving shadows. Equip every sight enhancement you can find. For too long mmos games been obvious, just be prepared and expect the hidden.
MFR1 said: keyboard is going to have a broken key after a few days of playing
Not really any more so than any other key. It will only be needed when the area is badly illuminated and you dont have any other means of "seeing" through the darkness.
MFR1 said: The biggest issue would be the fact that you are shooting flares at KOS mobs and they are not attacking...
Very valid point and I dont know. We just dont know how the mobs will react. Will there be magic flares only visible to the party? The point of the post was to suggest that restrictive targeting is more immersive than unrestricted targeting. The actual mechanics of the various ways of enhancing vision will only become apparent when we play the game. I would rather it was restricted to what is knowable than to have an unrestricted view on everything in the area.
To turn your argument on its head, my biggest issue with unrestricted targetting is how the charater "knows" there are mobs when they are not visible? Why should the character be able to target something it cannot see?
Galden: Not fine if 1/3 the time its pitch black...
I dont think that is the way VR thinks. They have always said that they will not over-use their tech and will only apply it when it makes sense. I dont think they want players to be constantly fumbling around in the dark. Besides, they want to show off their artwork and how talented their staff are. Darkness will be used to create feelings of dread. Pitch black, very rarely. Limited sight distance (I would imaging) could be used a lot more (mists, rain, fog, snow, smoke, etc.). All adding to the ambiance VR want to create. Couple that with a limited targeting system and other skills and/or equipment, then you are going to create an intuative and immersion generating system that will add to the game play of the adventure.