80 réponses à ce sujet

[- Archangel -]

The subject says it all.

[Reikon]

Why? stop nuking the party. pretty simple. you cast fireball on your party they take damage.

[macayle]

would that not defeat the purpose? I belive one of the ways the game is made more difficult is the inclusion of friendly fire.

[macayle]

would that not defeat the purpose? I belive one of the ways the game is made more difficult is the inclusion of friendly fire. I would also pointout that so far i am playing the game on easy and have managed to set my group on fire a few times

[- Archangel -]

If you didn't want to use said feature you don't have to.

[Vellen]

Just don't cast spells when your party is in the way is it really that hard?

[SheffSteel]

This sounds like the sort of thing a mod might be able to fix, though it might be hard-coded. Bioware?

[- Archangel -]

It's always funny how there are some who try to convince people more options are a bad thing.

[lenogden]

I'd go for this.

[Kazzah]

I would also like to turn it off until I get used to things (without having to switch to easy difficulty level)

[RedShft]

How about this: stack one resistance in your party, get it very high 70-90%. Specialize your mage in to that same damage type, say an ice mage. Then cast as many of the AoE spells as you want, your party will take much less damage.



It would take some time to find enough of that equipment, but it would be worth it.

[Razcalking1978]

Also, please add the option for me to not be affected by enemy spells or weapons.

Those who don't like that option simply don't have to use it.

[MikeWiz]

Your removing part of the gameplay. I don't understand.

[Kunikos]

I don't see why it isn't possible to offer it as a separate option.

[Lirilaria]

RedShft wrote...

How about this: stack one resistance in your party, get it very high 70-90%. Specialize your mage in to that same damage type, say an ice mage. Then cast as many of the AoE spells as you want, your party will take much less damage.

It would take some time to find enough of that equipment, but it would be worth it.

Hah.Creatures immune to magic+armageddon spel...in another game.Works like a charm no?

[Lathaon]

FEATURE REQUEST: Allow us to turn friendly fire to full without having to set difficulty to hard.

[Gixxerdude]

This thread makes me lol

[Thelgow]

Oh so Friendly fire is on for normal? I thought was hard and nightmare only. I feel good.

I felt dirty thinking I couldnt hurt my team.

Something manly about burning the tank...

[S.Hall]

- Archangel - wrote...

It's always funny how there are some who try to convince people more options are a bad thing.

This. So true. Personally I like the friendly-fire and wouldn't turn it off. But so what? Why can't anyone else have an option to enjoy the game the way they choose? Does it somehow matter to others how I want to play my single player game?

This community is incredibly rude and closed minded to suggestions.

[Gorfinger]

I find that the inclusion of friendly fire in Normal on up should be set. They even nerfed it a bit for normal from what it seems, it works both ways so that the ten trillion fireballs that the Emmisaries cast will hurt their meat shields as well... magic in this work of fiction is just that.... very dangerous... take the danger out of it... then its a walk in the park and ya might as well play on easy. Thats just my two cents though.

[Jalida]

I'd like to see that as an !Option! as well.  It certainly wouldn't hurt anybody else if anybody wanted to use it in their game.  The only way that I could see that as being a possible problem would be if somebody were able to create a campaign and lock the user into normal or harder difficulty levels and the user then were to uncheck that option to turn it off and get around something the designer of a user campaign had setup.  However, with that said, I'd still like to see it as an !OPTION! for those that wish to use it.

Modifié par Jalida, 06 novembre 2009 - 09:32 .

[ReadNLearn]

- Archangel - wrote...

It's always funny how there are some who try to convince people more options are a bad thing.

As a software developer, I can tell you that it is *absolutely* true. More options are OFTEN a bad thing. Here's a few reasons why:
1. Complicates the UI
2. Needs to be documented
3. Increases overall complexity in the software
4. Introduces bugs

There are actually several more reasons, but they become more specific based on target audience of the software, sophistication of the users, current complexity, etc.

Now, overall that's not to say features shouldn't be added, as there can be considerable value obviously in new features. Plus, a good feature can lessen the minuses listed above rather than add to them. My point is that there is a lot to take into consideration, and one should not blindly assume that it is always a good thing to be adding features.

[Wolff Laarcen]

Having the option would be great.

[Finney79]

I'm pretty sure that part of the difficulty is that you actually have to not fling abilities around carelessly...



-Finn

[Kelston]

I have a love/hate with the friendly fire option in the game. On one hand, it makes you have to plan your tactics more carefully, while on the other hand, it makes it really clunky trying to offensively use traps mid combat based on somewhat less than ideal pathing and collision detection.