Battle Formations

[indira]

I take it you actually haven't played any (good) MMOs after FFXI, because this is the complete opposite of what's happening.

i've played all of them since EQ1. everything after wow = tank and spank. everything is a zerg if you thinks its not that a delusion.

[ZakarnRosewood]

I think this encourages a very static battle, sit in one place and spam attacks. I'm hoping for more dynamic fights in ARR, ones that include needing to move about and reposition yourself. Like this knock back stuff I read about.

Instead I would prefer to see something where elevation and terrain will be taken into account. A dragoon will do more damage with his jump if he does it off of a higher elevation than the enemy, Same with archers. Lightening will do more damage if the enemy is standing in water. The enemy can knock you off your "perch" as an AI strategy, or you can knock them down so they dont have the advantage over you. Like they did in FFT: War of the Lions.

Thoughts?

To add to this, I remember in FFT: WotL some attacks could target specific body parts. They have already mentioned incapacitation for boss fights, I really hope it will be like this.

[Shougun]

I think you could encourage formations through weighted characters - monsters have collision, players have collision.

Then follow that system up with monsters that have moving spells (pushing, pulling, leaping, tossing - when logical, dont do it for shits and giggles), spells that are projectile (mortar spell that arcs and does aoe, or a line spell that hits the first target and some may penetrate), combine with terrain, weighted animations or no animation lock, and you'd have a pretty varied battle field imo. Add a hold stance / block ability (reduces movement spells effects and increases block/parry chance (*) at the cost of TP - ensure blocking is timed and not held down or repeatedly tapped without cause). Shields could have a much more responsive effect to blocking ability - making Paladins block quite distinct from a BLM holding their staff up, perhaps build it in as a passive to the GLD.

Paladins blocking fireballs and blocking enemy movement eating charges in the face while holding their shields up, mages dodging mortar attacks and monsters leaping over the front lines, perhaps even leaping over to toss the mages into a circle of other monsters (smarter AI) - or positioning themselves so they can cast gust and toss your whole party over the cliff..

I worry that having these formations (OP) giving bonuses that players will then just calculate the best formation for their setup and maintain that one (basically making a static party in a pretty shape).

Talking about pretty shapes your picture is pretty sexy

[Wolfie]

I think this encourages a very static battle, sit in one place and spam attacks. I'm hoping for more dynamic fights in ARR, ones that include needing to move about and reposition yourself. Like this knock back stuff I read about.

Instead I would prefer to see something where elevation and terrain will be taken into account. A dragoon will do more damage with his jump if he does it off of a higher elevation than the enemy, Same with archers. Lightening will do more damage if the enemy is standing in water. The enemy can knock you off your "perch" as an AI strategy, or you can knock them down so they dont have the advantage over you. Like they did in FFT: War of the Lions.

Thoughts?

Wouldn't those fights again lead to a "just drag the mob next to the cliff/in the water, then fight it there" scenario?

You should be focusing less on situational bonuses, and more on designing monsters themselves that require movement and positioning. Adds, conal/directional attacks, pillars of flame, target-switching, resistances and weaknesses, etc.

These will do much more do make battle interesting than requiring the party to do a one-time repositioning at the beginning of the fight, and then having to keep the mob in that same place the whole time.

[ZakarnRosewood]

Wouldn't those fights again lead to a "just drag the mob next to the cliff/in the water, then fight it there" scenario?

You should be focusing less on situational bonuses, and more on designing monsters themselves that require movement and positioning. Adds, conal/directional attacks, pillars of flame, target-switching, resistances and weaknesses, etc.

These will do much more do make battle interesting than requiring the party to do a one-time repositioning at the beginning of the fight, and then having to keep the mob in that same place the whole time.

Absolutely, It would necessarily depend on the enemy AI. They would need to recognize when there was danger (ie, first lightening bolt in water, does AoE knockback, escapes to higher ground) you might need to knock them back to the area you want them in and they would have moves to get themselves out of the situation.

It was just a thought to break up the "tank and spank" method. I'm not saying every enemy or boss would need this to defeat it, just add an extra dynamic to battles. Heck, even have Titan changing the landscape or have pillars we can know over to get higher ground.

I was hoping to inspire added dynamics instead of excuses as to why adding more ways to play would be bad. oh well...

[Laraul]

Have any of you played FFXI as thief, and tried to Trick Attack off someone whom moves at the wrong time? I can't see battle formations working. People would never know where they are in relation to others.

[Shurrikhan]

I think you could encourage formations through weighted characters - monsters have collision, players have collision.

Then follow that system up with monsters that have moving spells (pushing, pulling, leaping, tossing - when logical, dont do it for shits and giggles), spells that are projectile (mortar spell that arcs and does aoe, or a line spell that hits the first target and some may penetrate), combine with terrain, weighted animations or no animation lock, and you'd have a pretty varied battle field imo. Add a hold stance / block ability (reduces movement spells effects and increases block/parry chance (*) at the cost of TP - ensure blocking is timed and not held down or repeatedly tapped without cause). Shields could have a much more responsive effect to blocking ability - making Paladins block quite distinct from a BLM holding their staff up, perhaps build it in as a passive to the GLD.

Paladins blocking fireballs and blocking enemy movement eating charges in the face while holding their shields up, mages dodging mortar attacks and monsters leaping over the front lines, perhaps even leaping over to toss the mages into a circle of other monsters (smarter AI) - or positioning themselves so they can cast gust and toss your whole party over the cliff..

I worry that having these formations (OP) giving bonuses that players will then just calculate the best formation for their setup and maintain that one (basically making a static party in a pretty shape).

Talking about pretty shapes your picture is pretty sexy

Projectile and ability diversity. Can't really go wrong with that. Nor does the picture contradict any of those additions. As for the original post, again, I could do without the job-led statistical bonuses, in favor of something more in line with what Wolfie has said--not that I'd mind seeing environmental features as in Zak's post, I just agree that they could easily be no more than prelude to the fight, or, on the other extreme, overly focus its goals.

By the Shougun, I can really use your help with a thread I posted recently. It's linked on page 2. It's the general Battle Regimen/System stuff I was working on before. I think it's almost complete, finally.

[Exn]

Good suggestion OP, I think it could be worked in an effective battle system, although I think it would be too complicated to tweak out prior to launch.

Definetly could add another dynamic level to the battle system in ARR, SE should definetly consider it depending on how it works with whatever they already got planned.

[Blackpearlguy]

To add to this, I remember in FFT: WotL some attacks could target specific body parts. They have already mentioned incapacitation for boss fights, I really hope it will be like this.

Agreed that would be awesome. I'm sure they will implement as it was in FFXI with the NM "Hydra" and a few others i'm not remembering.

Have any of you played FFXI as thief, and tried to Trick Attack off someone whom moves at the wrong time? I can't see battle formations working. People would never know where they are in relation to others.

That was true in an exp party but not in a linkshell event, people would pay attention to where they were at least in my experience. Having a Thief around with those options was really handy as he could put more hate on the tank etc. The idea of "tricking" the monster to give your tank more hate would be a nice option to have. A few of the systems that are being bounced around could work quite well, hope there is something in SE's back pocket regarding this matter.

[KurtzStrife]

Well as i said before i completly agree with you (all, i think )when you say the battle shouldn't be static, and should depend more on positioning, avoid projectiles etc, taking adantage of terrain, incapacitation. I've been playing GW2 for the last couple of days, and it pretty much sums up ( i think ) what you are imagining for the battle system. Anyway , i think the battle formations was a system that could easily ( the engine already supports, back and side detection) be integrated with this kind of fast / startegic battle system. The formations, for ex. , depending on how the players were positioned could lead not only to some kind of bonus but also to to different abilities ( combos between players instead of combos -> sequence of abilities ).