Wouldn't introducing friendly fire into both pve and pvp content be awesome?

[Fastdoze]

I think it would force people to become more vigilant about what their targeting and not just spam aoes.

 

What does everyone think?

[SteveTheCynic]

No thanks.

 

I'm not going to pass comment on PvP because I don't do it enough to care, although the reasoning is the same for both PvP and PvE.

 

In the "open world", friendly fire would mean two oddities:

* Travelling players would have to watch out to avoid unintentionally travelling through someone else's AoE, maybe someone who couldn't see the traveller, and "spilled" AoE into the traveller's path.

* What happens if an enemy-faction player's AoE catches me?

 

If enemy-faction players can hurt me with a cross-faction of friendly fire without meaning it, then they can *also* do it on purpose, and that presumably means that we would immediately see the arrival of gangs of PvP gankers in PvE instances.

 

If they can't, we'd get the oddity that in PvE instances, friendly players are more dangerous to us than enemy players.

 

In instanced group content (FPs, Uprisings, Ops), there's a pile of current strategies and mechanics that would suddenly be unworkable, and the content would need to be restructured to reflect that.

 

Imagine a DPS trying to peel melee enemies off the healer. At the moment, he can just hit the healer's location with an AoE and build threat on all of them, but with friendly fire, that would hurt the healer as much as it hurt the enemies.

 

Imagine a mechanic that spawns "must kill first" adds near the tank. Are you (as tank) going to want people taking them out quickly by AoEing the enemies and therefore killing you, or taking them out slowily with single-target attacks and getting you killed by the adds?

 

Overall, I'd say the problems outweigh the possible improvement in "realism" (er, what? this is a game with lightsabres and blasters, where's the realism anyway?).

[DarkTergon]

Not sure if the op is serious, or just taking advantage of this being the weekend, and no mods around, so he's messing with us....lol

But if he's serious, I agree with steve, he pointed out excatly why it wouldn't work

Edited June 20, 2020 by DarkTergon

[xordevoreaux]

In Everquest, I discovered "friendly fire" included accidentally casting debilitating and destructive spells on myself without realizing it.

 

I personally would not be in favor of friendly fire. There are far too many area affect spells going on when everyone's crowded together. Great example is the last boss on Scum and Villainy. The whole operation group is in an ever-shrinking square of death dumping everything they can on the boss before the walls close in and the group wipes, and if an area of affect spell is all I got left off my cooldown, I'm using it.

 

No nay to friendly fire.

[TheGreyRanger]

Short answer: No

Long answer: No, no a thousand times no.

[EllieAnne]

43.7 seconds

That's how long it would take for mobs of feral players with their 306 warforged gear to start griefing players.

[Monumenta]

not at all sounds super bad

[Jdast]

43.7 seconds

That's how long it would take for mobs of feral players with their 306 warforged gear to start griefing players.

 

This is a flat out egregious lie.

 

It would take 43.69999999 seconds.

 

 

Dasty

[Tsillah]

I think it would force people to become more vigilant about what their targeting and not just spam aoes.

 

What does everyone think?

I think you got so excited about your idea that you didn't think it through properly.

 

If you want to kill SWTOR in one patch, this will do it. Do you really think that people, especially the majority of players who are casual, to be more vigilant?

 

I mean do you really think that?

[Jdast]

I think you got so excited about your idea that you didn't think it through properly.

 

If you want to kill SWTOR in one patch, this will do it. Do you really think that people, especially the majority of players who are casual, to be more vigilant?

 

I mean do you really think that?

 

It's not a question of just vigilance -- it's a question of the entire mechanics of the game. It would force the devs to redesign / rebalance any encounter requiring AoE as well as skills for characters.

 

It would force a dichotomous situation where every player in a group respecs / regears for for either Single Target or ranged AoE.

 

Dasty

[Tsillah]

It's not a question of just vigilance -- it's a question of the entire mechanics of the game. It would force the devs to redesign / rebalance any encounter requiring AoE as well as skills for characters.

 

It would force a dichotomous situation where every player in a group respecs / regears for for either Single Target or ranged AoE.

 

Dasty

Although you're not wrong about that, I think your point is already taking it too far. Regardless of how much work it is and what sort of dichotomy it puts into the game, people just wouldn't accept this and that will kill the game.This would be much worse than the introduction of Galactic Command with 5.0.

[OlBuzzard]

No thanks.

 

I'm not going to pass comment on PvP because I don't do it enough to care, although the reasoning is the same for both PvP and PvE.

 

In the "open world", friendly fire would mean two oddities:

* Travelling players would have to watch out to avoid unintentionally travelling through someone else's AoE, maybe someone who couldn't see the traveller, and "spilled" AoE into the traveller's path.

* What happens if an enemy-faction player's AoE catches me?

 

If enemy-faction players can hurt me with a cross-faction of friendly fire without meaning it, then they can *also* do it on purpose, and that presumably means that we would immediately see the arrival of gangs of PvP gankers in PvE instances.

 

If they can't, we'd get the oddity that in PvE instances, friendly players are more dangerous to us than enemy players.

 

In instanced group content (FPs, Uprisings, Ops), there's a pile of current strategies and mechanics that would suddenly be unworkable, and the content would need to be restructured to reflect that.

 

Imagine a DPS trying to peel melee enemies off the healer. At the moment, he can just hit the healer's location with an AoE and build threat on all of them, but with friendly fire, that would hurt the healer as much as it hurt the enemies.

 

Imagine a mechanic that spawns "must kill first" adds near the tank. Are you (as tank) going to want people taking them out quickly by AoEing the enemies and therefore killing you, or taking them out slowily with single-target attacks and getting you killed by the adds?

 

Overall, I'd say the problems outweigh the possible improvement in "realism" (er, what? this is a game with lightsabres and blasters, where's the realism anyway?).

 

I agree here as well.

 

Additionally … this is not the first AoE complaint … wont be the last. Some feel that if players around them use excessive AoE attacks that said player is playing like a noob.. or at the least needs to learn more "about their class". That's not to say that some times AoE could be seen or perceived as a lazy way to plow through as many mobs as possible in as short a time as possible. Other times the shear number of mobs ( ie: several waves of skytroopers ) almost dictates the use of AoE repeatedly !!!

 

Being more deliberate in how the game is played might work in some cases but as a general rule is simply extremely impractical… particularly where other players are concerned. The probability is that it would add a lot more grief to the game.

 

(note: turns out that the 43.69999999 seconds is reasonably accurate )

 

Rebalance / redesign .. to work around AoE … IMO … the AoE concept would all but be eliminated. If it were continued … players would simply have to accept the fact that collateral damage is a fact.

 

Me personally … no way no how !! Leave AoE as it is.

[TrixxieTriss]

I think it would force people to become more vigilant about what their targeting and not just spam aoes.

 

What does everyone think?

 

Nope, it would kill pvp because too many classes have dot spread or passive AOE as part of their rotation. I for one would quit the game.

[Lhancelot]

Nope, it would kill pvp because too many classes have dot spread or passive AOE as part of their rotation. I for one would quit the game.

 

Sorry Trixxie, I have to call your bluff on this one! You'll never quit SWTOR!

[Fastdoze]

I think you're all exaggerating. It would just add a new dynamic to the game. How about this idea instead; players can start a warzone 8v8 and when one team is slaughtering another, then one player should have the option of literally betraying their team mates and going on to the losing side so it then becomes 9v7 or if it floats your boat, a losing player can jump to the winnings teams side. That is another awesome idea I had.

[Tsillah]

I think you're all exaggerating. It would just add a new dynamic to the game. How about this idea instead; players can start a warzone 8v8 and when one team is slaughtering another, then one player should have the option of literally betraying their team mates and going on to the losing side so it then becomes 9v7 or if it floats your boat, a losing player can jump to the winnings teams side. That is another awesome idea I had.

 

You may think that we're exaggerating, but it's more likely that you're overestimating your ideas.

[DarthSealth]

Personally I like this idea although I’m a troll so I know why I’d find it fun.

 

I’d rather no PVE open worlds as that’s one of the most stupidest elements in this game, to me it just doesn’t make sense being a Sith, fighting Jedi throughout my story and yet a player Jedi I have to walk past. It just doesn’t make sense.

 

I think Chief Keith should remove the PVE world phases.

[Sareeph]

I think you're all exaggerating. It would just add a new dynamic to the game. How about this idea instead; players can start a warzone 8v8 and when one team is slaughtering another, then one player should have the option of literally betraying their team mates and going on to the losing side so it then becomes 9v7 or if it floats your boat, a losing player can jump to the winnings teams side. That is another awesome idea I had.

 

A whole new level of win trading

[SteveTheCynic]

That is another awesome idea I had.

Debatable. It's certainly another *idea* that you had, but it's likely to be very far from "awesome". The scope for wintraders is ... epic.

 

Heck, it doesn't even need wintrading. Imagine three co-operating premade teams - whichever side gets just one of the quads plays weakly until defection mode is active, then defects en masse - all twelve players get a win, and to Hell with the four suckers who got teamed with the defectors.

 

So I'm going to call this one a big "No." as well.

[LegallyTwisted]

No.

Also, no.

[Damask_Rose]

It would certainly make it harder for tanks to hold agro on multiple mobs, though it would be entertaining if it applied to group taunts. I think it was in CoX that a taunted player would be forced to switch targets and attack the taunter.

[OlBuzzard]

No.

Also, no.

 

Simple! To the point!

Effective !!

[DreadtechSavant]

I rarely play PvP and really the few times I have done so was probably 2-3 years ago. Maybe the odd time doing enemy commanders more recently if you even count that as PvP. So I will leave it to others on how they feel about this in WZ's. Ultimately it be up to BW but personally I think in PvE its far to open to abuse. It seems to me that this is only to force PvP & force duals in none PvP instances. That really is my take on this request.

[eabevella]

You think friendly fire, especially in pve contents is a good idea?

Scenario: Hammer Station, first LOS.

Clueless players: *spam AOE*

Instant wipe.

 

NO

[TrixxieTriss]

Sorry Trixxie, I have to call your bluff on this one! You'll never quit SWTOR!

 

Hmm, lol, maybe, I guess we’ll find out when squadrons is released in October