Tab-Targeting


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When advertising this game outside the PFO community probably the biggest concern I see other than skepticism you will deliver on your promises is concerns this game will be tab-targeted.

My default response is:

Ryan Dancey wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
The target/ability bar has really been done to death and i think a lot of people are looking for a new feel.

I don't disagree with that. I think there's a huge design space to be explored. We just won't be exploring the one where you aim with player skill and twitch in response to stimuli.

A lot of people call BS and say there is good middle ground. If you guys have any statements you would like to make on the targeting system that would be incredibly helpful in selling this game to people. I realize you may not be able to say which system will make it in game yet but if I could at least say "These are alternatives to tab targeting they are considering" that would be VERY helpful.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally I like the sort of TERA/RaiderZ style that's sort of easy mode aiming, you don't really have to AIM, just point in the right direction of your target

It would be nice to know what they had in mind, actually I asked that question on the KS page and was told to come here and start a discussion, which I did. haha.

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:

Personally I like the sort of TERA/RaiderZ style that's sort of easy mode aiming, you don't really have to AIM, just point in the right direction of your target

It would be nice to know what they had in mind, actually I asked that question on the KS page and was told to come here and start a discussion, which I did. haha.

Link?

Goblin Squad Member

I havn't found any particularly good videos, but this kinda shows it... it's free to play (RaiderZ is anyway) so you could always check it out. Also most of the videos I've seen are fairly low level stuff, so it's a lot easier hah.

TERA overview
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BulBq40fRdM

RaiderZ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr90CiuQ3NY

They are very very similar systems

I have to say being a healer in TERA was a LOT of fun, because it's really hectic, you can't just click a health bar and heal them, you have to run in close, get them highlighted with your recticle, while dodging flailing monsters xD

Goblin Squad Member

Thanks but I meant a link to the discussion you started.

Goblin Squad Member

oh haha... it's a dead one now, it was on combat mechanics... pretty much was one of the first things I did. Don't remember what I called it.

Goblin Squad Member

Anyway the combat system for Tera looked amazing but I wonder if that is still more twitch based than Ryan wants. Is there a free trial for Tera? I'd like to try that system before I advocate it too hard.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd suggest RaiderZ, it works the same way but it a little more refined. The hitboxes in TERA are MASSIVE, it's practically impossible to miss your target.

I'm not sure if there's a free TERA trial, I think there is.

I still personally think it's the system that lends itself to the most interesting combat. See RaiderZ for more, there's some very interesting stuff that can happen in a fight.

I think it should definitely be refined for something like PFO, less dodging and rolling in heavy armor, more absorbtion. Magic users are also less inclined to want to be rolling around.

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:
I'd suggest RaiderZ, it works the same way but it a little more refined. The hitboxes in TERA are MASSIVE, it's practically impossible to miss your target.

That isn't nessacarily a bad thing. In Darkfall the skills you need to win against an opponent of equivilent character strength are 80% aim and dodge based and 20% ability usage based. It is frustratingly difficult to land abilities especially if there is any lag.

Switching that ratio around means combat is more tactical/ability based but you actually have to pay attention to where you are aiming. You can't just click someone's name to throw them a buff or a heal, or press a key to target the same person your buddy has targeted.

It's not an environment where teenage twitch monsters rule but it avoids a lot of the things people hate about tab-targeting.

I'm extremely keen to try it, and I hope it's at least an option on the table for GW.

Goblin Squad Member

Both games are very bland themeparks unfortunately, or I'd still be playing, the world is about as static as it can get. Combat is essentially it's one redeeming feature. (I talk about them as if they're one game because I consider RaiderZ a direct TERA clone)

I have played Darkfall, I used polearms and a bow... I thoroughly enjoyed the npc AI and the feel of that, it was very exciting dodging arrows and magical spells while a skeleton or goblin pursued you with a blade.

Another interesting thing about RAIDERZ is the use of powerups from monsters themselves. EG a giant crustacean can have pieces of carapace knocked off, which can be picked up and used as a shield.

Monsters have particular vulnerable spots... there was a golem with a gem in the centre of it's chest that was it's most vulnerable spot, for others it was legs and things. And really big things like dragons and the like could actually eat you. Even the first things you fight, lizardmen, can pick you up and hurl you to the ground. There are always warning cues to let you know it's coming, it keeps you on your toes, but it doesn't have to be too twitchy, depending on implementation. But it makes for more interesting combat anyway!

Goblin Squad Member

I enjoyed Darkfall quite a bit too, though living in Alaska the lag nearly forced me to play a melee heavy character. I was at best a below average archer/mage. It was still a lot of fun.

I can definitely understand why Ryan wants to avoid Darkfall / Mortal style combat. It's very hard on older players, people with slow connections etc. plus I just don't think it's a point he will be willing to budge on.

It's hard for a bit of lag to ruin your day when the hitbox is the size of a darn barn though. But it looks like it still gives that manual aim "feel" which is just infinitely more satisfying than target lock on, and avoids almost all of the issues of tab targeting.

And honestly it looks a hell of a lot more fun than Darkfall or Mortal's combat systems. I can't wait to get home and try them.

Goblin Squad Member

I like RaiderZ hitboxes because they're a lot closer, it's still easy to hit, but not so ridiculous. In TERA when something flies up in the air, you can keep hitting it by just not moving your aim from where it was and it'll keep getting hit.

But also in RaiderZ it has a little bit of a lockon, so if they're moving, your ranged attacks tend to home in on them, so if you're a bit slow it doesn't matter.

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:

I like RaiderZ hitboxes because they're a lot closer, it's still easy to hit, but not so ridiculous. In TERA when something flies up in the air, you can keep hitting it by just not moving your aim from where it was and it'll keep getting hit.

But also in RaiderZ it has a little bit of a lockon, so if they're moving, your ranged attacks tend to home in on them, so if you're a bit slow it doesn't matter.

Hmmm. That does sound better.

Goblin Squad Member

You know one combat system I have used that comes to mind is Mass Effect. That game had a lot of the feel of an FPS but I don't think many would describe it as twitch based. Is that kind of like what RaideZ is like?

Goblin Squad Member

I havnt played mass effect, so I couldn't say.
Star Trek online also has an interesting hybrid system

Goblin Squad Member

I think tab targeting is perfectly fine, its how actions are carried out that I care about. I'm not a huge fan of a bunch of sword attacks with fancy names that really don't lead together, I would rather have combos that correctly flow in combat.

Goblin Squad Member

@Valkenr- I agree with the person who said:

Quote:
The target/ability bar has really been done to death and i think a lot of people are looking for a new feel.

Ultimately I agree that abilities will be more important to the combat system than how targeting works. At least for those of us looking to play this game long term.

But I think for a lot of people that if they get into the game and the first thing they do is press tab to target an enemy like they did in WoW, GW, TOR, EQ, Rift, LotRO, SW, etc. it's going to be a pretty big turn off to a lot of them. And some of them will never even try the game if they learn it's tab targeted.

I suspect I will enjoy this game either way, but will I enjoy it MORE if it has a smooth combat system that makes me feel like I'm in full control of my character even though I'm getting some subtle aiming assistance, and my target has a huge hit-box? I suspect so.

Ultimately if this game delivers a great non-tab targeted aiming system that is more than just a short-term gimmick, but something that will continue to be enjoyable for the years I play this game, I feel it will be a better game, and draw in a lot more people.

Goblin Squad Member

Honestly I loathe tab targeting. Nothing annoys me more than "you must have a target selected" "you must be facing your target" there is a goblin in front of be and a goblin behind me. I want to hit them both by facing them and hitting them, not being told I can't because I was attacking something else. Ugh.

Goblin Squad Member

My biggest concern with an aiming system is that it encourages people in PVP to bunny hop around like Kermit the Frog on PCP. I *hate* that. Not much of an issue in formation warfare, but for bandits and whatnot coming after you in the wood or on the road?

Goblin Squad Member

You've got to have some way of indicating who you are attacking, unless you want to go with GW2's tactic of "hits everyone in range", which I think is unacceptable.

I can't imagine a Mount&Blade style system working well with thousands and thousands of players on the same server...even with invisible instancing.

I suppose that a huge hit-box could work with some code that can guess which of the six overlapped hit-boxes you were going after.

I think a mix of targeted (tab or click) and non-targeted abilities would be best considering this will be a 'one server to rule them all' game.

Goblin Squad Member

You see kiting and hopping madly even in full tab targeting games. They do it to stay in your "you must be facing your target" area.

Goblin Squad Member

That doesn't mean we need to incentivize it even more by "Oh, nope, sorry, your sword didn't actually clip my model, sorry." Or even worse for ranged characters who've now gotta keep crosshairs on that guy spazzing out over there. How is that not twitch gaming?

Goblin Squad Member

Which is why raiderZ works. The crosshairs is a large area and "locks on" briefly, your attacks home in in them regardless of their spazzing.

Goblin Squad Member

The value of the combat system is a bit like the jewel in the crown - acts as a centre-piece.
If it's good it's another arrow in PfO's quiver to hit the target if not it's a millstone weighing the PfO character down.

In the Thornkeep PDF, the energy bar is discussed: Too small and arriving at a combat to die in seconds is bad. But IMO cartoon characters hitting each other over the head repeatedly ad nauseum is also bad. Previously mentioned one of the advantages of rock-paper-scissors is guessing the opponent's attack and a too & through between offense and defence, that makes combat more than whacking bars. Similarly the system in ping-pong I just played only scoring on serve and losing serve changing serve then winning that to gain a first point - I like this interplay of scoring hits on the opponent. So I think in a round-about way of expressing it: not just the enemy health bar but a nice flow off on the up and down in combat. Similarly if there is a way to use UI to target attacks to hit a part of the body to disable or otherwise cripple it for a strategy to break down an opponent(s) that leads up to reducing health bar is good too.

I think varying range accuracy to hit, target location of target and more for eg ranged attack would be nice if for melee allows UI body location targeting above. This is easy to visualise with range for position as a f() of range. For melee it would need to be facing-locking - perhaps like zelda uses iirc to get beyond the guard of the opponent?

Goblin Squad Member

From what we do know (points every 6 seconds or whatever) I think we have the potential to have a system where you set up a sequence for up to six moves

Like often you see in stories with combat forms, there are sequences, it allows for a sort of similar idea, but I think at the same time it allows for things like:

One initiates the sequence, giving them the edge for that six second "round", putting the defender into a defensive stance for that sex seconds, trying to take advantage of any vulnerabilities from the attacks while remaining defensive, then trying to be the initiator in the next 6 second round, perhaps by leaving one point from the previous round to the last moment to initiate the next "round".

Does that make sense? Or are my words not evoking my meaning? XD

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow - Your previous thread was good on combat.

The 6-sex stamina system is very good sounding and the description above sounds good to me as well as giving me a new angle to consider. It certainly gets that interplay of combat which is key :) need to think about it more. I was looking at areas that tab-target usually falls down on initially eg target -> instant hit/always the same or energy bar representation of how combat is going too 1-dimensional and tedious eg. And then hot-bar being sequence repeating of skills without having to think several moves ahead eg chess...

Also once a combat is engaged in tab/hotkey te facing to simulate combat eg kiting/bunny-hopping/jerking around out of AoEs all make position look weird and mostly zero z-plane either.

Goblin Squad Member

I really dislike targeting also because it means if there are multiple targets you just hit one. If you're firing arrows down a narrow passage at oncoming invaders, why does it matter who is targeted? It hits who it hits, they're all valid targets. Why should it pass through the warrior like he's not there to take out the Mage?

Goblin Squad Member

@Jameow, I think the best way to deal with that problem is to give the player enough options so they can either use targeted attacks, or area attacks if they don't care who they hit.

[Edit] And I think it's a really good idea to have Area attacks that only hit 1 or 2 enemies.

[Edit Again] And I think it's a really good idea to allow Area attacks to either be targeted at an enemy or targeted at the ground.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally I prefer a loose aiming system as I've said to actual targeting. It opens itself to hitting what it hits first, but also still giving it enough flexibility to not be twitch skill based. It also allows for more dynamic combat. It's not even about not caring who you hit, it's about hitting who you're actually likely to hit, rather then whoever has a magic box around them.

I'm all for friendly fire too, particularly of party members, but perhaps at a lesser damage rate (perhaps a sort of sympathetic magic spell that reduces damage to party from friendly fire) so when you hurl a great big fireball into a bunch of enemies and it explodes, your nearby party members get knocked over and a little singed, but the majority of the force hits enemy targets.

Goblin Squad Member

Tab targeting is more in line with the tabletop game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jameow wrote:
I really dislike targeting also because it means if there are multiple targets you just hit one. If you're firing arrows down a narrow passage at oncoming invaders, why does it matter who is targeted? It hits who it hits, they're all valid targets. Why should it pass through the warrior like he's not there to take out the Mage?

I really dislike this idea, as it effectively means ranged attackers need not apply to teams. Shooting into melee becomes impossible. Admittedly, in pathfinder TT, there are things in place (cover bonuses to AC, penalties to shooting into melee) to make it difficult, but at least it's an option since you aren't actively detrimental to your team if you do happen to miss. Under this idea, a ranged character becomes a liability.


Nihimon wrote:

@Jameow, I think the best way to deal with that problem is to give the player enough options so they can either use targeted attacks, or area attacks if they don't care who they hit.

[Edit] And I think it's a really good idea to have Area attacks that only hit 1 or 2 enemies.

[Edit Again] And I think it's a really good idea to allow Area attacks to either be targeted at an enemy or targeted at the ground.

We for sure need the ability to target the ground for area attacks for magic users, AND archers!

Essential for using Volley in conflicts. Without it units of ranged attackers will be much less effective.

Goblin Squad Member

No more than melee characters accidentally hitting eachother. You'd want a good mix of range and melee so you aren't all getting in eachother's ways.

And that's what the little lock on is for, if you can get a clear shot, you can take it, you don't have to worry about a team mate jumping in front a you fire, it's already locked, but you had to sight a shot first rather than just tab to the most tactical target And ignore the wall of steel in front of them.

Goblin Squad Member

Dario wrote:
Jameow wrote:
I really dislike targeting also because it means if there are multiple targets you just hit one. If you're firing arrows down a narrow passage at oncoming invaders, why does it matter who is targeted? It hits who it hits, they're all valid targets. Why should it pass through the warrior like he's not there to take out the Mage?
I really dislike this idea, as it effectively means ranged attackers need not apply to teams. Shooting into melee becomes impossible. Admittedly, in pathfinder TT, there are things in place (cover bonuses to AC, penalties to shooting into melee) to make it difficult, but at least it's an option since you aren't actively detrimental to your team if you do happen to miss. Under this idea, a ranged character becomes a liability.

That wasn't even true in Darkfall. Yes you could hit allies if you fired into a big melee battle. You even did x2 damage if you hit them in the back. You could also heal enemies if you missed with your healing spells. No rangers and mages were not useless. Far from it.

You learn to watch your aim, and adapt your tactics. And we aren't even suggesting a system where it is difficult to aim like it was in Darkfall. We are suggesting aim assist and limited lock on.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dario wrote:
My biggest concern with an aiming system is that it encourages people in PVP to bunny hop around like Kermit the Frog on PCP. I *hate* that. Not much of an issue in formation warfare, but for bandits and whatnot coming after you in the wood or on the road?

Not really. You still need to face your target either way unless you are advocating tab targeting where you can attack people that are behind you. I consider bunny hopping kind of irrelevant to the topic of aiming. Bunny hopping is about how wide the cone people have to be in for you to attack them is. Unless your weapon arc is narrower than your line of sight it makes no difference.

Controlling bunny hopping is about implementing things like a momentum system or defensive penalties for jumping while right in-front of someone.

Dario wrote:
That doesn't mean we need to incentivize it even more by "Oh, nope, sorry, your sword didn't actually clip my model, sorry." Or even worse for ranged characters who've now gotta keep crosshairs on that guy spazzing out over there. How is that not twitch gaming?

Already addressed the clipping. If we were promoting a Darkfall system they guy spazzing out would be an issue. We are talking easy-mode aiming here though. Aiming assist and limited lock on with large hitboxes. That guy can spazz pretty darn hard and it won't effect your aim.

The point of it is you actually have to aim your bow/spell at that guy. You don't just click an allies name, or click on the target they are shooting at, and suddenly lock on to someone you may not even see then start throwing heals/buffs or attacks/debuffs at them.

It's less about aiming requiring any skill AT ALL and more about not having a screwed up immersion breaking mechanic.

If your mage is hiding behind a line of fighters and paladins it should be hard to lock on them from the other side of those warriors. If your melee troops are going at it hand to hand with enemy melee troops firing in to that fray should have a chance to hit your own guys if they aren't carefully picking targets. That's how real combat worked (except they could hit their own guys even if they were carefully picking targets) and for some reason there were still plenty of archers. It's because shooting people before they close the gap is REALLY nice.

Personally I think if the enemy army wants to focus-fire your healer they should all have to see the guy casting a heal spell. Not just have their group leader target them and then all target him through the raid assist window.

There's nothing twitch about what we want. We're just tired of tab targeting.

Micco wrote:

You've got to have some way of indicating who you are attacking, unless you want to go with GW2's tactic of "hits everyone in range", which I think is unacceptable.

I can't imagine a Mount&Blade style system working well with thousands and thousands of players on the same server...even with invisible instancing.

I suppose that a huge hit-box could work with some code that can guess which of the six overlapped hit-boxes you were going after.

You could either make it the first hitbox it contacts or the hitbox that is most directly infront of you. I would go with the one most directly infront.

Goblin Squad Member

If you swing a great sword in an arc in front of you it SHOULD hit everything in the arc. But it's about getting the arcs right so that every one using every attack isn't slashing everything in range with every blow

Goblin Squad Member

Selective Spell, Selective Channelling, and Precise Shot (and a new equivalent for Melee) could be added as skills that keep you from hitting neutral and friendly targets (unless disabled). The first two could charge you a bit of extra mana, while the latter two cost a bit of extra stamina.

This means that you would have a reason to try not to be sloppy because it would incur a resource cost, but you don't have stealthed or fast moving (expeditious retreat, haste, a mount, etc.) 'blue-blockers' intercepting your line of fire in order to flag and grief you. In a dungeon you could coordinate with your party to avoid friendly fire because random players can't interfere like that.

Over on the 'AoE argument' thread, there are twitchers who want to call that hand-holding but refuse to understand that a 3D real-time environment with thousands of players simply can't operate the same way as a turn-based game played with an overhead view and about 4-6 players to consider the actions of.

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:
If you swing a great sword in an arc in front of you it SHOULD hit everything in the arc. But it's about getting the arcs right so that every one using every attack isn't slashing everything in range with every blow

I don't agree that a great sword should hit everything in front of you. You'd have to pretty strong to blow-through even one person, particularly if you didn't hit them perfectly. To think that anything short of giant strength could swing a sword through three or four people is very hard to accept, even in a world with other quite fantastic things. I don't think a sword is an AoE attack at all.

I'd say that a great sword attack stops at the first hitbox it encounters unless you 1) blow-through (kill) the person in the hitbox and 2) have some feat(ure) that says you are skilled in swinging 'through' the target to get cleave-type attacks.

It would mean you don't actually target in melee, you swing your sword and encounter the first hitbox encountered. It also means that the flank of a line of allies is a more dangerous position than the middle of the line.

One positive effect is tactical differentiation; it gives value to the choice between different 'swing' types. Should I use the big lateral-arc swing to try to cleave that group and kill more than one? Or should I use the overhead chop to get at the guy in the middle without the shield?

I'm just not sure how well it can be implemented in a MMO lag environment. I'm guessing there will need to be some sort of target selection to level the playing field and reduce frustration. Once you do that, the only choice is how you select the target. I think I like the idea of targeting based on aim-point, with momentary 'lock-on'. But there might need to be an option to use the mouse for 'point and click' targeting (with the same momentary lock-on) as a back-up.

Goblin Squad Member

Well you certainly have a point there, but I was thinking less of going through the as across them. After all, in reality a good sweep from a great sword could end a fight in one solid hit by caving in someone's armor on their head or chest.

And other things like an attack does not have to be a single swing, it could be two or three, depending in the weapon, and since the arc DOESN'T stop when it hits someone in most games, you do actually have one

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I could see a system where you can set you swing type to right-left, left-right, overhead arc, or thrust. That would really add a lot of flavor to different weapon types too. Polearms would be ideal for tightly packed formations where great axes would be great for loose formations, solo combat, and mobs.

Goblin Squad Member

rant:
If you swing a great sword in an arc in front of you, you are most likely to miss everything in front of you. Even if you were blindfolded you would still try to aim. /rant

to the topic:
* for melee the (or 'a') solution seems simple: the closest (enemy) target you are facing should automatically be the target of any melee/touch range ability. This even opens up some tactics (you cannot attack the wizard behind if the knight keeps standing in your face). For people with lag fighting bunnies you might add a function to lock on to (and auto-face) a target. It all depends on the pace of combat. (i prefer slower tactical over fast reaction based).

*for ranged targeted attack, the 'assisted targeting system' makes sense. Pressing tab should not beat actually turning your head when it comes to detecting enemies. (this opens potential discussion of abilities affecting
the 'target box', but we can save that for later).

*for ranged AoE/hitting area, the intuitive is pointing exactly where you want it to land (meaning no LOS = cannot target). The only issue I see is 'shooting into the horizon' where gauging distance is hard when the ground is flat, but that could be dealt with in a number of ways (such as crosshairs displaying range).

Goblin Squad Member

I think some AoE abilities should be aimed like a regular ranged attack and some should be aimed with the traditional circle on the ground system. It should depend on if its something that would shoot straight or be lobbed like an alchemist's fire. Circle on the ground AoEs should generally be more powerful.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:
for ranged AoE/hitting area, the intuitive is pointing exactly where you want it to land (meaning no LOS = cannot target). The only issue I see is 'shooting into the horizon' where gauging distance is hard when the ground is flat, but that could be dealt with in a number of ways (such as crosshairs displaying range).

\Didn't Dragon Age have targeting circles & cones that only the caster would see, since they were an interface element and not an actual spell effect.

That could be useful, though I'm still concerned about abusing flagging as a way to grief ranged attackers like mages and archers. That's why I'm proposing skills that you could train to avoid friendly (or neutral) fire mishaps.

Goblin Squad Member

There is no good way to deal with blue blockers other than banning them. After a few of the more blatant abusers have been banned and publicly shamed so that people know what happens to blue-blockers it will cease to be a major issue.

Goblin Squad Member

randomwalker wrote:

to the topic:
* for melee the (or 'a') solution seems simple: the closest (enemy) target you are facing should automatically be the target of any melee/touch range ability. This even opens up some tactics (you cannot attack the wizard behind if the knight keeps standing in your face). For people with lag fighting bunnies you might add a function to lock on to (and auto-face) a target. It all depends on the pace of combat. (i prefer slower tactical over fast reaction based).

*for ranged targeted attack, the 'assisted targeting system' makes sense. Pressing tab should not beat actually turning your head when it comes to detecting enemies. (this opens potential discussion of abilities affecting
the 'target box', but we can save that for later).

*for ranged AoE/hitting area, the intuitive is pointing exactly where you want it to land (meaning no LOS = cannot target). The only issue I see is 'shooting into the horizon' where gauging distance is hard when the ground is flat, but that could be dealt with in a number of ways (such as crosshairs displaying range).

This is all good^:

1. Target-facing -> locking should then cause the target to lock/react to the challenging character locking them, would be good to see. More than one challenger, then some variation added for the target locked character to implement in response. The other side to this is such a system could scale to formation of groups to actual units of soldiers where the collective create a super-target that multiplies the attack on multiple targets grouped or in an area. :)

2. For range eg higher ground extends range, selection of targets I would like to see. Also skill-training expands the functionality of range targets ie accuracy chance, range, target area maybe of the target.

Generally INFORMATION display of the status of the combat to use to iniate skills eg position affects the quality the attack skill confers - contextual.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
There is no good way to deal with blue blockers other than banning them. After a few of the more blatant abusers have been banned and publicly shamed so that people know what happens to blue-blockers it will cease to be a major issue.

They would just claim to be competing for the same target.

Say that I see a hobgoblin camp down the hill, and I fireball it. Just as I am finishing off any survivors, a LG rogue kills me. He was stealthed in the camp, knowing it was a prime target for an AoE, and by getting himself hit (maybe with some energy resistance on to tone down the damage), he flagged me as an attacker and criminal. If I say he was 'blue blocking' to grief ranged attackers, he'll just say that he was stealthing into the camp to ambush the hobgoblins. If a GM notes that he stayed in the same place for a while, he can say he was waiting on allies to show up, which he was chatting with on Teamspeak.

It IS an issue. Banning cannot solve it because there are too many excuses possible. Imagine the situation from the rogue's perspective if he was telling the truth... maybe the mage knew he was there and cast so he could accuse the rogue of blue-blocking in order to get him band. The support staff has no way to know intent, and some may ban the right person, some may ban the wrong one, and some may decide to do neither. It is too complex for such a simple answer.

Skills to pay a little extra mana/stamina in order to avoid friendly fire solve it, and three of those abilities already exist in Pathfinder as feats: Selective Spell, Selective Channelling, and Precise Shot. One could be created for melee as well, it's just not needed in PFRPG because of the turn-based system with convenient little boxes for everyone to stand in.

Goblin Squad Member

Once the rogue does that same thing 10x and gets reported a few, a GM comes and observes him do it with their uber stealth piercing GM vision and ability to play as an invisible flying camera. Then they perma-ban his account since he lied and said it was happening on accident. Then they post it on the forums under a hall of shame type topic.

Rogues stop doing that then.

If he only does it once or-twice and never gets caught then it isn't a very prevalent problem.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:

Once the rogue does that same thing 10x and gets reported a few, a GM comes and observes him do it with their uber stealth piercing GM vision and ability to play as an invisible flying camera. Then they perma-ban his account since he lied and said it was happening on accident. Then they post it on the forums under a hall of shame type topic.

Rogues stop doing that then.

If he only does it once or-twice and never gets caught then it isn't a very prevalent problem.

That's just one example, and you didn't address the possibility of things going the other way. Someone with a movement buff (including mounted combat) could come running in, and someone who uses those a lot could get in a lot of 'but I didn't see him' conflicts. There are too many complex factors, and you're attributing nigh-omniscience to the GMs tasked with sorting them all out.

Meanwhile, mages are getting pushed toward CE anyway, so some just decide 'screw alignment' and go PK without actually breaking rules. A marching formation sounds like a nice target for a half-dozen simultaneous fireballs.

Goblin Squad Member

AoE and 'blue blocking' are naturally connected, and have been discussed in 'friendly fire' threads.

Unless the actual targeting system for AoE will have a significant effect on 'blue blocking' or other griefing, this thread is only about interface and not about friendly fire etc.

regarding AoE, tab-targeting isn't an alternative in any case. 'Circles on the ground' is fine by me, unless they are as done to death as tab-targeting. Add sniper-scope mode for those that would trade a few seconds extra casting time for higher accuracy.

regarding archery/rays, some of the examples in disfavor or tab-targeting are of the type "with tab-targeting i can shoot past the warrior and hit the wizard behind him", which is more about implementing cover AC bonuses than about targeting interface. However, the suggested 'assisted targeting system' already has an inherent solution: if you fire where the the wizard and fighter target areas are overlapping you will simply hit the one in front. (Precise shot and similar could give the ability to manipulate this, but by default this should give marching order and ranks real meaning).

Goblin Squad Member

Keovar wrote:
Andius wrote:

Once the rogue does that same thing 10x and gets reported a few, a GM comes and observes him do it with their uber stealth piercing GM vision and ability to play as an invisible flying camera. Then they perma-ban his account since he lied and said it was happening on accident. Then they post it on the forums under a hall of shame type topic.

Rogues stop doing that then.

If he only does it once or-twice and never gets caught then it isn't a very prevalent problem.

That's just one example, and you didn't address the possibility of things going the other way. Someone with a movement buff (including mounted combat) could come running in, and someone who uses those a lot could get in a lot of 'but I didn't see him' conflicts. There are too many complex factors, and you're attributing nigh-omniscience to the GMs tasked with sorting them all out.

Meanwhile, mages are getting pushed toward CE anyway, so some just decide 'screw alignment' and go PK without actually breaking rules. A marching formation sounds like a nice target for a half-dozen simultaneous fireballs.

Mounts are very loud and can be heard from a long way off in almost every game I have played. It would have to be a VERY fast mount and I would have to be making a lot of continuous noise to not hear it approaching.

Having played an Open World PVP game with AoE spells (Darkfall) I can say that while I see the possibility of occasional accidental aggro from AoE spells the only way it would happen more than every 1-2 weeks is if you are reckless with AoE in crowded areas, or people are intentionally blue-blocking. There is no reasonable scenario for routine blue blocking. Even intentional blue-blocking was JUST prevalent enough to be a noteworthy problem in DF and that community was a nearly unmoderated cesspit.

1 to 50 of 349 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Tab-Targeting All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.