Friendly Fire?

[In the name of Zod]

Re: Friendly Fire?

...*moves on*

Well, I do remembered being PKed constantly in D1 :/ There are too many jerks, I think.

Totally, as per the old static system of FF where you just got hit and that was it. I agree that keeping it simple is key to an acceptable FF system. People would need to understand why they got hurt and what can be done in the future to stop it happening again. There would have to be player skill involved, in other words the player would need to know that they have developed some new skill in raising a character safely and smartly. This should drive a greater personal sense of accomplishment from play and make it enjoyable to have FF.

 

[ill logic]

Re: Friendly Fire?

No. They're talking about having bigger, and more impressive spell effects. It would just create too many problems with aiming. Not to mention some spells have a randomness aspect to them, and combined with runes increasing the multihitting/damage of many active skills, it would be a bore to wait for the Barb to get out of the way or get poisoned. On the other hand, there will be fewer players per game, but who hasn't run through a Blizzard or field of hammers in a small game while traipsing the dark halls of Tal Rasha?

[affirm Bnet asshat thing]

Apropos having only some spells do FF damage, I've talked to a few developers and one thing they try to avoid counterintuitiveness. It doesn't make sense for Meteor to do no damage to friendlies, but for firebolt to light them on fire. Although, I'm not sure what you have in mind in regards to this, but Blizzard seems to care about the "easy to learn" part more than most.

As far as strategy goes, let that come from the variety and crush of monsters that D3 throws at us according to the difficulty, the few number of players to rely on, as well as the difficulty with healing and getting back to town as easily as in D2, but not from the heroes restraining themselves :/

Monsters damaging other monsters: Hitting an MSLE, killing the normals around him, would be hilarious :cloud9:

 

[Luperts]

Re: Friendly Fire?

imagine a wrong cast friendly spell, boom, end of your hardcore career. No thx :/

 

[RGValdearg]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Friendly Fire would be the stupidest addition to D3 that Blizz could make. I mean, I am about as much a Diablo Fanboy as could be, and adding friendly fire would make me question whether or not to buy the game that I've been drooling about since before it was announced.

Honestly, I enjoy playing SP as much as I do MP, and to be honest, even though I am focusing on SP D2 currently, I plan on giving D3 MP a try. If FF is added, it will ruin MP. Do you have any idea how many asshats are online?

"Ooops! I didn't mean to kill you with this conveniently timed and aimed disintegrate?"

"*Gasp!* You got that really awesome Item that I wanted?! Well, I'll just 'misplace' this powerful AoE Spell next chance I get!"

No thank you. Lets keep PvP among people who enjoy that crap.

 

[Raging_Zealot]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Not to mention that since all characters are capable of soloing the game, I don't see it adding all that much strategy. To me it seems like you'd have to either wait for an ally to get out of the way or avoid using spells with FF, to avoid hurting your team mates. With the way it seems like a lot of people on b.net are, I think if the choices are hurting a team mate and getting the kill/exp/etc. or waiting and effecting their game play, I have a feeling that the majority of the time, the people are going to do what is best for their character, taking the shot. I mean, obviously we don't know how "hard" D3 will be, or how much the difficulty level will increase with more people in the game, but it seems to me that an ally dying or being injured has no real ill effect on the person w/ the FF skill. It isn't like an MMO that has healer/tank/DPS roles, where if the tank or healer goes down, the entire party can wipe.

It's kind of a neat idea, but I don't think it fits into D3 too well.

 

[akboy]

Re: Friendly Fire?

While FF has it's advantages, the negatives far out weigh them. For one thing, it would make PKing people a lot easier, which is bad news for people who just want to play and not worry about some jerk. I can picture it now, a high level char joins a game to "help," but ends up "accidentally" killing people instead.

 

[Krugar]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Well, under multiplayer Diablo is foremost a co-op game. So friendly fire makes little sense when the game is an ARPG. Perfectly acceptable in FPSs though for its realistic nature which does add a strong strategic element. But an ARPG mechanics don't allow for precise aiming or enemy distancing, which are essential for friendly fire to be implemented.

Besides, as they say, there is nothing friendly in friendly fire.

 

[Astroquicky]

Re: Friendly Fire?

But an ARPG mechanics don't allow for precise aiming or enemy distancing, which are essential for friendly fire to be implemented.

:thumbup: The most intelligent thing I've read in this thread. Not that the rest was nonsense, but this actually makes a lot of sense . So, no PK'ing please .

 

[Evasive]

Re: Friendly Fire?

I am not a big fan of the idea of FF in D3. I know that hardened gamers will enjoy the strategy aspect of the idea, it is just that it will make the game more difficult to play for those that want an easy-play game.

I don't think anyone here can say that they have not spammed spells at least once in their D1/D2 careers.

Also I agree with the PK aspect, anything that helps people PK is a bad move.

 

[IGotGreasyBalls]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Yes friendly fire is awesome. Its totally great. I think that aoe skills should do less damage to players though so you don't splatter them totally. Friendly fire rules!!

Maybe there shouldn't be friendly fire on normal, but only nightmare and hell. That way the noobs would not be whining, and the game would be much harder later on.

 

[DeluksZ]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Would it add anything to the gameplay?
-No
Would it make D3 more interesting?
-No

I see no reason why FF should be included, it will probably cause annoyance and frustration.

...just as much as the monsters who damages your or the items that never drop. You sounded like "No, another thing to care about, just play random itemdropping-picking and beat the s*** out of Diablo again."

I think FF can be a nice and tricky part of the game if it is implented but I think it Has to be optional to your game/world/ect... Imagine the Hardcore gameplay with FF... your partymembers would be bigger problem then the PKs But if you think rational (well, casting firewall is not really rational) you can hurt yourself with a gun, a knife, even with your bare hands. I think you should dmg yourself with mass wall of fire too.

 

[noticks]

Re: Friendly Fire?

I don't think FF will be implemented, nor do I think it should be.

It goes against forming parties, and the PK implications and potential are just too much.

 

[sicilian]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Most of the reasons against FF have already been spoken, but just to throw my hat in the ring, here are the three biggest reasons it would be a terrible idea:

1) Why remove PK only to include FF? It's the same thing except you get no hostility warning. It would be an open invitation to grief, which they don't want to encourage.

2) There's not enough space to maneuver, or control over area spells, to keep melee fighters away from the monsters you're nuking.

3) It doesn't actually add much strategy. In fact, I would argue it REDUCES strategy, because you are suddenly restricted in which skills you can use. Want your Barb to ground stomp to stun enemies while your Wizard casts Blizzard? Can't really, not without hurting the Barb most likely.

And for those saying, "well, not every skill needs to be FF." Then essentially what you're saying is, "This skill will NOT be used in MP. Period." People are just going to make builds around the skills that are not FF when they play MP, which limits character customization.

It's just a bad idea all around, though kudos to the OP for bringing something different to the table :thumbup:

 

[knightmawko]

Re: Friendly Fire?

I would like friendly fire that works both ways, I want to lead a group of enemys to a mage or a charging boss and then telaport behind them so the other one crashes/casts into them, I would be willing to risk hitting my merc if this was in the game.

 

[Grug]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Blizzard had to address that with the new Traps, if they would affect party members. Since last they mentioned it, traps would stun a friendly player but not damage.

 

[Silverfang]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Haven't read the whole thread. But nonetheless here are my first thoughts:

I look at FF as a good way of balancing very powerful skills. So FF should not be active on all skills, only on the "cookie cutter" ones. Perhaps even just runebased, so that a certain rune pushes the damage extrordinary but has the flaw of turning FF on for the skill it's used with.

I definitivly hope for indirect FF from breaking walls or exploding barrels (as in D2) and such. Even if monsters pushed back by one character are hitting another character, they should imo do (a little?) damage to that character.

just my 2 cents

K!A.o.S.

 

[Grug]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Haven't read the whole thread. But nonetheless here are my first thoughts:

I look at FF as a good way of balancing very powerful skills. So FF should not be active on all skills, only on the "cookie cutter" ones. Perhaps even just runebased, so that a certain rune pushes the damage extrordinary but has the flaw of turning FF on for the skill it's used with.

I definitivly hope for indirect FF from breaking walls or exploding barrels (as in D2) and such. Even if monsters pushed back by one character are hitting another character, they should imo do (a little?) damage to that character.

just my 2 cents

K!A.o.S.

You say FF will help balancing? Except it won't do anything in singleplayer. FF is bad. Diablo 3 is about action, and it only slows down the action if you have to worry about not hitting your buddy, which is incredibly hard in a game with this many flashy spell effects, explosions, and limited view of the environment. It works in shooters because of the amount of precision you can have, but even then only realistic shooters have it. In short, FF more often than not just gets in the way of fun, especially in games like these.

 

[Dahmer]

Re: Friendly Fire?

Well, under multiplayer Diablo is foremost a co-op game. So friendly fire makes little sense when the game is an ARPG. Perfectly acceptable in FPSs though for its realistic nature which does add a strong strategic element. But an ARPG mechanics don't allow for precise aiming or enemy distancing, which are essential for friendly fire to be implemented.

Besides, as they say, there is nothing friendly in friendly fire.

Just quoting this again just because it deserves to be quoted on another page

Well said, agree completely.

Also people that would like friendly fire really need to realise the kind of people that play games. You have nice people that can work together and you have the kind of people that enjoy making your playtime a living hell.

@Silverfang :
Indirect FF? Exploding barrels can't possible be called friendly fire, not even indirect because they were traps. Some barrels had something useful and some just exploded in your face.

 

[jakotaco]

Re: Friendly Fire?

SOJ drops
<Barbarian rushes for it>
<ZAP!>
Wizard: Oops... misclick!
<Wizard picks up SOJ>
Wizard: Hey, guess what I found!
<Barbarian has left the game.>

 

[NASE]

Re: Friendly Fire?

jakotaco, I don't get it. DIII has individual drops, making theft of items impossible.

I just don't get it.