Feastycentral said:The reason I link friendly fire for mobs to also be for players is because I recall someone in VR mentioning that mob abilities will be based on player classes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong there
You are quite correct. That is what they told us.
I have promoted this topic as part of my CM content; please continue the discussion and have fun! :)
"Hot Topic - Should mob AoE effects damage other mobs? Join in on this community-created topic and let us know what your thoughts are below. https://seforums.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/13934/should-mob-ao-e-effects-damage-other-mobs"
A large dragon breathing fire down on a raid and other raid mobs alike is awesome. The dragon could literally be on either teams side and it is now a cool mechanic.
Unless it is going to happen to players as well for the small AOEs, I don't think it should happen outside of boss or raid tier fights.
Jobeson said:A large dragon breathing fire down on a raid and other raid mobs alike is awesome. The dragon could literally be on either teams side and it is now a cool mechanic.
Unless it is going to happen to players as well for the small AOEs, I don't think it should happen outside of boss or raid tier fights.
It is an intertesting concept, but problematic, so yeah, should perhaps be limited to certain boss or raid fights. It's almost a special 'environmental' hazard at that point.
That makes me wonder should environmental factors effect monsters?... I mean I know monsters will, by their nature, be 'native' and 'attuned' to their environment, but are monsters always *in* their native environment?
Like you can pull a monster to 'the guards' for them to help you out, maybe you could pull a monster over to an area where an environmental factor will hurt them?
I'm expanding the 'friendly fire' concept, but what do we think? Should everything effect NPCs like it does PCs? Would that be good or bad?
I would go for the whole FF thing. I would make players think about spell selection and usage, and the tactics with the use of such spells more. For example, (insert any spell here) is a powerful spell that can kill low to mid-tier mobs off in one shot, but the trade-off of total MP usage, long casting time, and FF as the spell is that powerful mages would have a hard time controlling the energy needed to cast it. This adds another layer to tactics if you have to use such a spell. not everything should have a safety switch on it, but having a safety switch on lower to mid-tier spells should be a given as the energies needed to cast them is more controllable. Risk vs Reward also comes to mind concerning this conversation: play the sure bet of doing lesser damage but is more controllable or risk casting a high-end spell with the potential of hurting both mobs and party members or even 3 parties that are just passing by. The Devs. want us to play smart and not just hit the I win button all the time without some sort of risk to the player and/or party.
Couple of responses to concerns raised in this thread:
"Rules should be consistent between players and mobs"
All things being equal I agree with this, but I would counter that fun gameplay should take priority over considerations of consistency. If devs try this internally and find it's a net positive I think we should go with it!
"Players will exploit this to achieve game breaking DPS and xp gains".
I think this is unlikely to result in game breaking xp farming strats. Note the most this can ever increase player DPS by is 2X, because more than half of the damage on a mob kill must come from players. Achieving 2X will be extremely difficult as it tows the line between getting KS'd by mobs.
"Players will use this to grief other players by KSing them with powerful mob AoE".
This also seems far fetched to me. If I'm being trained by another player, my concern is for my own life not getting KS'd by random mob AoEs.
"It will be very frustrating when players get KS'd when pulling mobs with powerful AoE spells"
This is the most realistic concern raised so far imo. However, I think this will only be an issue with a very small subset of mobs. Most mob damage is not AoE based so KS's are unlikely. However, I agree this change does mean devs need to be careful with powerful AoE effects which might hinder their creativity on that end. Would need to see play testing results to really be convinced either way on whether or not this is a major concern.
A final note is that, mob on mob AoE damage is to some extent already in the game! Mobs of different factions can and will fight each other. I can only assume that if you pull two mobs of an opposing faction and one casts an AoE it will already damage the other. This change would just make this rule apply between all mobs instead of just mobs of opposing factions.
I think mobs who don't share the same faction should be able to damage other mobs. It adds some chaos to gameplay. Which can bring challenges and unique encounters. Maybe a world boss doesn't get along with the local goblins and during the fight with the world boss a small militia of goblins emerges to attack the boss as well. Once the boss dies what do you do with the goblins?
If there is friendly fire in a game, then I think both mobs and players should be entirely FF-enabled and not just about damage but also healing.
It does make things more interesting by upping the level of combat awareness required to be successful. It's also more realistic, however probably a bad idea in terms of long-term gameplay enjoyability.
Back in the day when dirt was young, I had a chance to play some PVP EQ where FF plus heals was a thing. I remember it being incredibly engaging, and a targeting mistake with a heal could turn the tide of battle. AOE mez could turn other players' pets on you, and you could inadvertently mez your healer. Thus single-target spells/actions were the go-to, and you had to be much more vigilant in checking your targets.
EQ being a single target-based game, allowed this to work because the player could consciously choose where their damage or heals would be applied. For good or bad, you had the freedom to apply those effects to anything that such an effect could ever be applied to.
In a game that has both friendly and enemy targets (convenience feature), you really cannot implement this idea, as the entire spell/skill inventory across the game is designed around the 2 target system, where the intent of the spell (friend/enemy) and which target it will use, is pre-determined by such a system.
I think it was fun, engaging, and entertaining; however, in the end, it was possibly more frustrating when working with a pick-up group (PUG), since the level of cooperation required is simply higher, and PUGs generally start somewhat chaotic; perhaps achieving a level of cohesive gameplay, depending on the experience/skill level of the players that randomly ended up grouping. This frustration would emerge as arguments between group members whenever a mistake was made since those mistakes were generally group killers.
In a highly social PVE game, it's probably a better idea to error on the side of generally less person-to-person frustration and in favor of people randomly joining together to overcome challenges. Where the only thing killing your group is the mobs and the environment, not your fellow players.
Kamlor said:Was watching the cohh stream from last year and noticed that the cryptlings have an AoE cone effect that would have hit other cryptlings if the game allowed it. See https://youtu.be/ucyu2Ib81Co?t=4690 around 1:18:15 for a specific example. I think there would be a lot of interesting implications if these mob AoE cone effects could damage other mobs:
1. It has the potential to break mezzes thus making mob positioning more important and nuanced.
2. Cryptlings which get powered up by fire damage might power themselves up naturally in the course of a fight.
3. Savy groups might even devise strategies to increase dps via clever mob positioning and inter mob damage.
It's a small subtle change that has the potential to make the game more interesting strategically, seems in line with Pantheon's core tenants. What do you think?
Depends... Does player AoE damage affect other players? if so, then yes. If not, then no.
Feastycentral said:The reason I link friendly fire for mobs to also be for players is because I recall someone in VR mentioning that mob abilities will be based on player classes. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong there. Going based off the assumption that the classes will be shared or at least similar, then if their Fire Explosion spell hits friendlies that means ours would as well.
Just responding to this specific point because you seemed to not be entirely sure and asked "please correct me if I'm wrong". I do realize that it is not specific to the topic of NPC AoE friendly fire.
This is generally correct. For Humanoid or other Intelligent enemies we will usually see them having a Class like the Players do.
Joppa has explained that if we, for example, encounter a Shaman enemy in the world this enemy will have available a selection of the same Spells that any Player Shaman would have for that level range. This does not mean that every Shaman enemy will have ALL the Shaman spells for a given level. It may just be a combo of basic or common Shaman Spells.
This also does not mean that every Shaman enemy you encounter will have the exact same Shaman spells in it's arsenal. For example a Goblin Shaman and a Kobald Shaman may have different Shaman spells available to them, given their Lore and their ability to adventure and learn. Goblins may focus on Fire based Shaman spells while Kobalds may focus on Earth based Shaman spells.
This also does not mean that ALL enemies we face will be limited to the Class types that Players have. For example animals would have their own unique 'class' categories that would be unique to that animal type. For example we may encounter Wolves types that have 'Lick Wounds' type abilities that can actually Heal themselves or ally Wolves. This would not mean that this is a Shaman Wolf. But the idea of a Healer wolf type isn't beyond imagination. But they wouldn't be the same as the Player class types.
We can assume that there will also be unique abilities that will be used by specific enemies that are not available to players. A special Named NPC may be a Shaman and have normal Shaman spells, but he could also have Unique abilities that only he has (or only a few other special named Shamans like him have). Obviously some of these Abilities may be tied to what kind of enemy it is. There may be a Shaman Lizard-man who also has a nasty Acid Spit attack which isn't because he's a Shaman but rather because he's a Lizard.
I dont think NPCs should be affecting other NPCs, especially those who are associated with a given NPC except through deliberate actions that have the explicit intent of undoing some effect upon another NPC (like mez, root, etc). AoEs, by default, should not have an effect.
On a similar note, - that which woulod lead to AoE spells, like a rain spell affecting a caster and causing damage, My post in pantheon classes titled "Physician , heal thyself" brought up this concept.
the people of science responded thusly:
"Pantheon has an offensive and a defensive target (similar to Vanguard): Targeting an enemy will directly mark him as offensive target (and therefor as target for offensive spells/abilities), targeting a friend will mark him as defensive target (for defensive spells, etc). Without making everything very confusing and difficult to use, that targeting concept does not allow offensive spells on friends/yourself."
and
"No. Players killing themselves is just one more thing the healer will get blamed for.
And in all seriousness, this limits game mechanics that trigger off damage received or HP remaining because these can now be exploited."
Considering the low HP mechanic so indicated by Joppa- well after my original post- it seems the people of science are correct?
I do think one should be able to kill oneself if you botch targeting and I do still think you should be one-shotted by your own people/NPC because you didn't re-map your autoattack like they told you in the manual for we must be people of science too and get good at computer stuffs. They are teaching us, look, mapping, sophisticated stuff, science.
Manouk quoted:"Pantheon has an offensive and a defensive target (similar to Vanguard): Targeting an enemy will directly mark him as offensive target (and therefor as target for offensive spells/abilities), targeting a friend will mark him as defensive target (for defensive spells, etc). Without making everything very confusing and difficult to use, that targeting concept does not allow offensive spells on friends/yourself."
Just one point to add to what @Manouk is talking about.
This defensive target system will apply to NPC's as well. So as part of the Faction / Reputation system if you are friendly with an NPC faction and you Target a NPC of that faction it will automatically make them a 'Defensive' target rather than an 'Offensive' target. While targetting an NPC of a Faction which you are currently 'Hostile' with will add them as an Offensive target. This will prevent people from accidently attacking friendly Guards or other NPC's like Vendors or Quest givers who they might be trying to interact with.
We don't know at this time if the game will factor this into AoE type spells in regards to 'friendly fire'. Perhaps if you are in good standing Faction wise with an NPC Faction group, then your AoE spells will treat them as 'friendlies' and not do friendly fire dmg. If this is the case, it would allow VR to create situations where you can have friendly NPC's assist you in fights or events without you needing to worry about accidently killing the friendly NPC with a misplaced spell.
The other option of course is that AoE will always hit NPC's even if they are of a friendly Faction group, which of course would mean that players would need to always be aware if there were friendly faction NPCs around who may get caught in a crossfire and adjust their playstyle to accommodate the friendly NPCs.
Obviously there are some pro's and con's to either decision.
In the May 2021 Dev Roundtable Lead Programmer Kyle Olsen was asked about this targetting system and if we will be able to choose to attack an NPC who is in a friendly Faction. Can we force the game to make your NPC target an 'Offensive' target even if you are currently friendly with that Faction.
Kyle explained that they have plans to have a toggle in the Factions UI to 'Declare War' on a Faction, which will now switch NPC's on that faction to be listed as 'Hostile' or 'Offensive' targets even if you are still currently friendly with them, thus allowing you to target them as an 'Offensive' target. This shouldn't automatically cause those Factions to attack you just because you have Declared War, since it won't change your actual faction standing with them, but it would allow you to instigate attacks on that NPC who would then defend itself and fight you normally.
I would guess that there may also be situations in which a normally friendly NPC could be triggered to become hostile to you. Perhaps as part of a quest, such as those found in other MMOs where a quest asks you to go challenge a guy in a bar to a fight for example. This hypothetical NPC in the bar would be a friendly Faction and not attack you until you speak to him and trigger the fight thus turning him hostile. This would then switch him from a 'Defensive' target into an 'Offensive' target who will attack you and you could then attack.
No thanks
can only imagine the endless trains caused by this
also, mobs are already stupid enough and do really dumb things, this only makes it worse
too ways people will cheese things using mobs to kill other mobs as well
and before anyone says "well the devs will just fix it", why have them waste their time to fix it in the first place...