Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Without Friendly Fire you cannot have a strategic PvP world...
Archaegeo
Member UncommonPosts: 233
Its the problem with GW2 and many other RvR or even PvP games.
When a melee can swing a sword wildly, or an archer fire into a mass, or a mage release nasty AOE death, without worry about killing friendlies, it promotes zerg and removes need for strategic deployment.
Think how much more carefully you would have to plan and coordinate attacks.
Think how much you would have to adapt to deal with stragglers that don't know the plan.
And of course to deal with traitors who intentionally attack friendlies (of course given there is no permanent death deterrant, griefers need a penalty for friendly kills).
But griefer/traitors aside, friendly fire is what is missing.
Explorer 73% Achiever 53% Socializer 53% Killer 20%
Comments
I dunno, when I watch Lord of the Rings movies the melee always manage to only hack down orcs, the elves always hit their targets dead on without scratching the hobbits, and Gandalf never burnt down anyone that I could see. Even traitors to the cause never actually killed anyone.
I think is has something to do with it being a magical fantasy, and the characters are just that good.
Sure, if you are trying to create a more realistic combat simulator it seems rather stupid, but that's really not the goal in most games.
BTW, EVE is a pretty strategic game and even has friendly fire, but only if you lock someone first, so I'd have to disagree with your premise that a game must have this to be strategic.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Car makers make different models to appeal to different groups of consumers
Game makers have to decide early on who their target market is and the features that they want to design into the game to attract their target market.
I would say "friendly fire" would push ESO in a particular direction.A direction the designers felt they didn't want to go....given their target market.
Strategy usually involves roles be it scout, medic, tank, etc. People do not want roles unless that role is " I can do everything ". I see the main problem as being more of a hybridization with no diversification. Everyone tanks, heals, and deals damage so why have a strategy, you might as well zerg.
Weakness must exist to be exploited in order to have strategy. Most players refuse to deal with any weakness and must be the best at all things which pretty much shits all over tactics. When a game focuses on huge burst damage then the game must also rely on huge burst healing since we all know, real tanks do not seem to exist in most mmo's. I still have no idea why most developers believe that a dagger should hit a platemail wearing character almost as hard as cloth. This eliminates strategies built upon character creation. Weapon choice as a strategy becomes a zerg as well, just pick whatever and attack whatever. This bleeds over into abilities as well. No one simply wants an ability that slows it also has to do 9000 damage.
If you could design a character with advantages and weaknesses, strategy would start to have a place in the game. If weapon choice matters, armor matters, ability and skill choice matters, terrain matters tactics begin to take shape. At best mmo tactics have become kill healer 1st, kill dps 2nd, kill tank 3rd and at worst its focus fire any target until dead, rinse repeat.
Planetside 2 has friendly fire and that game is the zerg of all zerglings. Not much strategy going on.
Collision detection is a start, probably move on to having the open world bosses go enraged when too many people attack it and start doing attacks that chain through the crowd. Nobody likes mass wipes.
In WvW scenarios there can be debuffs that are applied when too many people bunch up in the same space.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You can't trust these idiots with friendly fire. You can't even trust half of them with grouping. This is an unrealistic expectation and thus a pointless conversation. No offense.
IMO, friendly fire (and CD , as well) adds an immense amount to the depth and strategy of PVP combat, however devs learned early on that
As both groups generate an incredibly high number of petitions, it's far more practical to avoid it simply from a workload standpoint.
I feel you can have a strategic PVP game without it, but friendly fire is one of those systems that definitely ups the ante to a whole new level.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre