Absolutely!!! Even from a canon point of view we heard Worf inform Picard they were to close for Torpedoes many times during TNG! And this would add more depth to PVP for sure! Also help promote team mechanics, though PUGs will have some issues. Maybe a mechanic that allows the computer to say "Torpedo launch detected within ship proximity" if it is from a friendly ship with an option to disable this warning.
This. Definatelly do want and a warning would be very welcome
This. Definatelly do want and a warning would be very welcome
In all the star trek space battles in all the different series, I have never once seen splash damage from torpedos or exploding ships affect anything around it. Worf can say what he likes, its never been shown on screen. (Barring a warp core breach. (Or if it has, I've missed it))
Look at Sacrifice Of Angels. Ships blow up 2 metres infront of the one attacking it, and they fly right through the wreckage with nary a scratch, torpedos explode all over the place, and not a dent is made.
I'm in favour of this change also. This is going to sound silly, but are there plans to cosmeticly change explosions in the game also. whether it be from mines/weapons or a ship explosion.
I personally think there a little dated and need to get a graphical overhaul to match up to the rest of the game. I know this is not down to Heritic to change as he only does the math stuff, but it would be cool if he passes this on.
Sure.. And ofcourse a gravity well or Tykens Rift or similar abilities should
function in the same way.. After all, its not like a black hole should affect one ship in range, but not another.
My biggest concern is this: Will the mine explosions destroy the other mines in the mine clusters, causing mines to be completely useless, instead of the mostly useless they currently are?
For mines, this could be interesting. For torpedo Spreads and the like, as well. For a single shot torpedo, its not a good idea; A torpedo at that point is nothing more than a bullet, which does not cause "splash damage" when fired at a single target. No, please no.
Of course if your trying to get rid of spam by this method, it will lead to a new form of spam and greifing.
I think while it may "make sense" for Sci abilities to up for the friendly-fire change, I would highly recommend they not be.
If so, you're really limiting what Science ships can do. Especially in pugs. There's only 1 Commander Sci ability that isn't AoE, and aside from SciTeam/HE/TSS all of the LtCommander abilities are AoE "friendly-fire potential" abilities as well. For your Commander slot, you'd really only be able to use Feedback Pulse without putting your pugs in danger. And FBP is probably the most selfish skill out there.
Definitely agree with this. But I was kind of thinking that if combat ranges were extended greatly, then 'realistic AOE might not be a bad idea. With everything happening at 10km or less we can't help but get 10 ships all piled up in a ball.
My VA cruisers tend to close 10km in a couple of seconds -- it's just not possible to fight at a great enough distance to avoid AOE completely.
For mines, this could be interesting. For torpedo Spreads and the like, as well. For a single shot torpedo, its not a good idea; A torpedo at that point is nothing more than a bullet, which does not cause "splash damage" when fired at a single target. No, please no.
Of course if your trying to get rid of spam by this method, it will lead to a new form of spam and greifing.
I quite agree with this.
Put simply, I think mines and normal torpedos shouldn't cause damage to friendlies. Freelancer had mines that affected everyone, but that's another story. If there are changes to HYs, I would ask they be minute.
Science skills, however, should be approached with caution. Scramble sensors should still only affect enemies (as, for example, a Sci Fed firing off an ability would technically tell other ships about it, or at least be able to compensate so it wouldn't affect them.
Tyken's rift and the like, however, I would all be for, provided the ability to alter hull polarity stopped it affecting you, and the affected area of space changed; after all, it's supposed to affect every ship but I doubt it's range should be that big...
Here's the thing: Are people really going to be willing to mine spam the screen to grief everyone, knowing that in the end it probably cost them the match because they took out their allies too? I can't imagine anyone crazy enough to do that.
Especially if making your allies go boom gives kill points to the other team.
Here's the thing: Are people really going to be willing to mine spam the screen to grief everyone, knowing that in the end it probably cost them the match because they took out their allies too? I can't imagine anyone crazy enough to do that.
Especially if making your allies go boom gives kill points to the other team.
Unfortionatly, there are quite a few sad souls who would be more than happy to do that kind of thing. I have come across those kind of people in quite a few games, the time and patience they are willing to put in, in order to annoy fellow players, is sometimes bewildering, and worrying.
WIth the game going F2P, this type of personality is going to have a free reign.
Unfortionatly, there are quite a few sad souls who would be more than happy to do that kind of thing. I have come across those kind of people in quite a few games, the time and patience they are willing to put in, in order to annoy fellow players, is sometimes bewildering, and worrying.
WIth the game going F2P, this type of personality is going to have a free reign.
I think there will be a lot less people willing to spam, and those left that do that will be reported by all of the players in the PvP match, is how I'd like to think would happen. Griefing in *any* form is not allowed, and the only reason it wasn't reported is because it was tolerated by the person's allies. Finally, people who called others whiners for being on the receiving end of all those mines will see what it's like, and hopefully help stop the offenders.
That said, I think they can still do more to stop it, such as limit the amount of launchers a ship can have to only 1.
I like this idea. It is canon and there have been plenty of times I've gotten point blank torpedoed when we both had our shields down. Doesn't make much sense. I don't think it should work for basic torpedo attacks, but sounds good for mines or Spread/HYT. It would make sense to expand this to science abilities as well, but the actual execution would probably be too messy, as many others have said. Unless the combat range was increased...
medium impact area with HUGE dispersal rate - say 3km impact but at 0.5km ur taking half the dmg, at 1 ur taking only say 25% and at 2 u taking maybe 10%
why?
imagine a defiant on ur 6 at 0.00km and unable to pass u so he can stick to ur aft the whole time even with full impulse.
now he fires off a tric and hurts u pretty bad and can just EM away
but this way, he gets nearly the full force of the tric in his own face with little chance to survive (realistic)
this would encourage escorts to do real strafing runs not to stick to someone's aft facing and just rest there, shooting lolweapons on a ship that's completely unable to respons (unless specificly designed to fend off tracking escorts)
We are considering a change in the way we handle most explosions in space and would like to invite comment from the community:
Specifically, we are thinking of handling things like mines, plasma balls and tricobalt torpedoes the same way that we handle warp core breaches - that is, they affect friend and foe alike.
Note, mines would still only track hostile targets, but if a friendly target was nearby a hostile target when the mine went off, the friendly target would also take damage.
Obviously, this would have to be attendant to changes and tweaks in certain powers to ensure that there is still a usefulness in the game for all powers. This would, in fact, free us up a bit to buff some things that otherwise would be too risky to buff.
I think it's a good idea myself - as others have stated, an AoE explosion should affect everyone in the blast radius. Flying deris/radiation, etc. can't recognize a frendly IFF signal.
:eek: As much as I like "realism" I really do not think this is a viable option. Things like warp core breaches should effect everyone close to it, not just players, but when you start adding the "friendly fire" to aoe processes, you need to add it to all events where it would make sense, not just a couple select options. Sure, torpedoes blow up in a blast radius, especially the big high yield torps, but a scatter volley from a cannon is not going to differentiate friend from foe either. How about that vented warp plasma? Shouldn't that be an obstacle to any ship that passes through it? What about friendly mines in warp plasma, shouldn't they be exploding on the spot? I know others have mentioned various sci skills as well for examples, so no need to repeat those.
So, unless these changes are implemented for all things that would make sense, not really a point to doing it selectively. Good idea, bad for implementation.
Its clear to me that most people are just obsessed with the "realism" and "canon" factors here, while either not understanding or completely ignoring the very important game play element here.
Friendly Fire = Griefing
The moment you add any form of FF it will without fail be abused by hordes of players, and its only going to get even worse once Free 2 Play launches.
Finally, people who called others whiners for being on the receiving end of all those mines will see what it's like, and hopefully help stop the offenders.
.
Given the glacial pace of GM responses any pvp match or encounter is going to be destroyed before the player is ejected, and even if they put in a 'player vote' eject button, that system is open to abuse aswell. (ie: fleet could grief players by mass reporting someone as a griefer, when they are not)
Anything short of an I.P ban (very unlikely) for griefing players is not going to be effective, and I cant imagine them spening alot of money on employing more GM's to observe and mediate each instance of greifing as and when it happens.
I just dont see how this change can work, and I think people need to think a little more before they say its a good idea.
Well, if you apply this to all kinds of AoEs, at least Science would have been nerfed. Well, Feedback Pulse, the Science Heals and debuff clearers, and Tachyon Beam would remain. Maybe Scramble Sensors since I have no real idea how the AoE is actually supposed to work - are multiple probes send out, or is that a random ECM probe that fires off?. But we should also take a lot at all those phaser beams that currently ignore other player ships...
Just for torpedoes and mines? Maybe that will work. Depending on the actual AoE.
---
What is also a little inconsistent here:
Beam Fire At Will was changed specifically because it was the only power that had a drawback when you used it - you did deal less damage per target if there was more than one.
So it was changed so that it didn't really matter how many targets you hit - at least against your primary target, you always had a damage buff.
But now the team is suddenly suggesting that torpedoes and mines should come with a drawback if they are used too close to allies (or yourself)?
I think it's a cool idea. It would make combat a bit more interesting. Torpedos should be long range weapons anyway. Strafing runs are for beam/turret weapons. I would like to see torpedos do a bit more damage as they are supposed to be very dangerous/very scary weapons.
As far as fixing the mine spam problem. Wouldn't be easier just to limit the number of mines a ship is able to deploy? If a ship drops a spread of mines and later attempts to drop another, have the original set self-destruct. Kinda like turrets and field generators in ground combat.
Thanks to the Devs for putting this idea up for discussion BEFORE implementing it.
Second -
Realism can be a great thing in gaming. If properly and well considered, adding realism to a game can increase immersion, encourage strategic thinking, and ultimately make decisions in choices of skills and equipment more meaningful.
However, in any game design there is also the question of balancing realisim with playability. Well-balanced, a game can (in my opinion) be a lot more fun than one which favors an extreme in either direction. This kind of balance VERY difficult to achieve, and in most cases erring on the side of playability will need to trump realism. Again in my opinion.
Third -
Even as a PvE-centric player, I do understand the concerns of the PvP community. As a KDF-centric player I have a deep understanding of what it is like to have my favorite aspect of the game made more difficult to enjoy due to game design limitations, development time-tables, or all out failures to consider the impact of a design choice.
Finally -
I recognize the advantages inherant in tweaking a system in an effort to "Get it right".
So I am certainly a proponant of trying something new in order to open up opportunities to improve the overall balance between the earlier mentioned realisim and playability.
All of this then being said, I hope to convey that I do understand the reasons why friendly-fire changes are being considered here--at least so far as the information shared by the Devs allows.
However, I do not think that adding Friendly-fire (in the form suggested in the OP) would be a change that would enhance the balance point. I also do not believe that it would make the game more enjoyable (to me at least).
Realism -
If the argument is to add realism, then there are many other ways that adding realism could be equally detrimental. Not all beam or cannon shots "Hit" their targets for example. Thus firing off a salvo of either into an area of combat containing friend and foe "Could" have mixed results. Yet making it possible would be more realistic, but not necessarily more fun.
Griefing -
If the argument is to deter griefing, I am not sold. If anything it would actually become an additional tool in the already ample bag of the griefer's arsenal. Thoughtful players might become more cautious of course, but it could also make those same players less useful to their teams as they avoid taking action to avoid hurting their team mates--or earning their ire.
Difficulty-sliders? -
Now, in PvE, this change could be simply tied into the difficulty-slider perhaps. Say, on normal or advanced, there is no change while in elite friendly-fire becomes active? I don't know if that is technically feasible or not. AND, it does not solve the problem for PvP or major encounters such as FAs or RAs where the difficulty-slider does not work. (I am pretty sure it does not have an effect anyway).
Tac Effectiveness -
There is also the question, as has been raised by several previous posters, of Tac Officer effectiveness to a team if their tactics are restricted by friendly-fire (or self-inflicted fire) rules being implemented to add realism or deter griefing. As it is, most space weapons have much the same range 10 km, with a few select abilities having an even closer range of 5km.
This choice (I assume) was made based on playability and not realism--at least in space, I know that ranges on the ground have been changed in the 4.0 update. Yet effectiveness of some weapons, such as cannons and slow-traveling HY projectiles can only be capatalized on when used in close proximity. If fast moving straff tactics have to be ditched for fear of being inadvertantly targeted by secondary (friendly-fire) AoE effects, then I am concerned that Tac Captains may lose a major advantage to their class.
Conclusion -
Admittedly, I am responding somewhat on a gut reaction here, and seeing how it might workout in the long run will require getting to see it in-action. However, I do not see this change as beeing a good one at this point.
There you have it, my wall-of-text for the week...*Grin*... And again, I cannot overstate how much I appreciate that STOs Devs make the effort to engage the community when making decisions that can impact the game in such ways. Thank you for that folks!
We are considering a change in the way we handle most explosions in space and would like to invite comment from the community:
Specifically, we are thinking of handling things like mines, plasma balls and tricobalt torpedoes the same way that we handle warp core breaches - that is, they affect friend and foe alike.
Note, mines would still only track hostile targets, but if a friendly target was nearby a hostile target when the mine went off, the friendly target would also take damage.
Obviously, this would have to be attendant to changes and tweaks in certain powers to ensure that there is still a usefulness in the game for all powers. This would, in fact, free us up a bit to buff some things that otherwise would be too risky to buff.
Even as a PvE-centric player, I do understand the concerns of the PvP community. As a KDF-centric player I have a deep understanding of what it is like to have my favorite aspect of the game made more difficult to enjoy due to game design limitations, development time-tables, or all out failures to consider the impact of a design choice.
I support the changes for my own reasons but I have heard concerns from others about the impact these changes will have PvE gameplay.
Mainly that (as has been seen by some in the Borg DSE's) individual PvE players will have little regard for the collateral damage caused by these AoE changes in PvE group gameplay. If one player ignores the damage caused to others on thier team combat much like some due when it comes to the targeting priorities needed to win a Borg DSE, then this could be a valid concern.
PersonlIy look forward to the testing of these changes and the chaos it will bring when it goes live.
It will iether work and take better gameplay on our parts to use correctly or it will fail hugely and take PvP with it.
PW is known for their PvP aspects in thier games. A part of the F2P money making model. It will be interesting to see if they let PvP die in STO.
Okay, I have some questions I'd like to ask in an attempt to alleviate the GRIIIIEEEEF cries;
Torpedos can only target enemies, so it's not like people will be locking on to friendlies and unloading, right?
These AoE detonations, how big will they be? How strong?
Honestly with the exception of Borg core breaches, warp core breaches are pretty harmless if you have even a bit of shields up. And the core breach AoE isn't even that big, so you'd have to be really close to the enemy to even feel the effect of a torp detonation.
Really the only people this could grief to any meaningful degree is Escort captains... of which, I am... oh, damn.
warp core breaches are pretty harmless if you have even a bit of shields up. And the core breach AoE isn't even that big, so you'd have to be really close to the enemy to even feel the effect of a torp detonation.
Griefing is all about opertunity, and greifers are quite happy to wait patiently until you shields are exposed and/or you are on very low hull, before swooping in and launching mine/torp that will hit the enemy and finish you off, or if that didnt finish you off, the resulting explosing of the dead ship. I have seen these tactics in other games where freindly fire is turned on.
Many players time thier speed buffs to co-inside with the killing of the ship if they are on low hull/shields, so they can get away before it explodes- a griefer, even if they dont finish you off with thier splash damage will mess up this timming.
Like it has been pointed out before, almost all combat is close proximity (by design) at the moment, if they want to do this, they need to redesign the game.
Comments
This. Definatelly do want and a warning would be very welcome
In all the star trek space battles in all the different series, I have never once seen splash damage from torpedos or exploding ships affect anything around it. Worf can say what he likes, its never been shown on screen. (Barring a warp core breach. (Or if it has, I've missed it))
Look at Sacrifice Of Angels. Ships blow up 2 metres infront of the one attacking it, and they fly right through the wreckage with nary a scratch, torpedos explode all over the place, and not a dent is made.
I personally think there a little dated and need to get a graphical overhaul to match up to the rest of the game. I know this is not down to Heritic to change as he only does the math stuff, but it would be cool if he passes this on.
function in the same way.. After all, its not like a black hole should affect one ship in range, but not another.
I do hope that the romulan tractor mines also affect enemies as well
Sounds more canon anyways
These changes sound like they might make that more plausible and would be handy for fighter clouds.
Of course if your trying to get rid of spam by this method, it will lead to a new form of spam and greifing.
My VA cruisers tend to close 10km in a couple of seconds -- it's just not possible to fight at a great enough distance to avoid AOE completely.
Put simply, I think mines and normal torpedos shouldn't cause damage to friendlies. Freelancer had mines that affected everyone, but that's another story. If there are changes to HYs, I would ask they be minute.
Science skills, however, should be approached with caution. Scramble sensors should still only affect enemies (as, for example, a Sci Fed firing off an ability would technically tell other ships about it, or at least be able to compensate so it wouldn't affect them.
Tyken's rift and the like, however, I would all be for, provided the ability to alter hull polarity stopped it affecting you, and the affected area of space changed; after all, it's supposed to affect every ship but I doubt it's range should be that big...
Especially if making your allies go boom gives kill points to the other team.
Unfortionatly, there are quite a few sad souls who would be more than happy to do that kind of thing. I have come across those kind of people in quite a few games, the time and patience they are willing to put in, in order to annoy fellow players, is sometimes bewildering, and worrying.
WIth the game going F2P, this type of personality is going to have a free reign.
I think there will be a lot less people willing to spam, and those left that do that will be reported by all of the players in the PvP match, is how I'd like to think would happen. Griefing in *any* form is not allowed, and the only reason it wasn't reported is because it was tolerated by the person's allies. Finally, people who called others whiners for being on the receiving end of all those mines will see what it's like, and hopefully help stop the offenders.
That said, I think they can still do more to stop it, such as limit the amount of launchers a ship can have to only 1.
medium impact area with HUGE dispersal rate - say 3km impact but at 0.5km ur taking half the dmg, at 1 ur taking only say 25% and at 2 u taking maybe 10%
why?
imagine a defiant on ur 6 at 0.00km and unable to pass u so he can stick to ur aft the whole time even with full impulse.
now he fires off a tric and hurts u pretty bad and can just EM away
but this way, he gets nearly the full force of the tric in his own face with little chance to survive (realistic)
this would encourage escorts to do real strafing runs not to stick to someone's aft facing and just rest there, shooting lolweapons on a ship that's completely unable to respons (unless specificly designed to fend off tracking escorts)
I think it's a good idea myself - as others have stated, an AoE explosion should affect everyone in the blast radius. Flying deris/radiation, etc. can't recognize a frendly IFF signal.
So, unless these changes are implemented for all things that would make sense, not really a point to doing it selectively. Good idea, bad for implementation.
Friendly Fire = Griefing
The moment you add any form of FF it will without fail be abused by hordes of players, and its only going to get even worse once Free 2 Play launches.
I like the way things are going, and welcome the F2P griefboat flotillas with open gunports.
Given the glacial pace of GM responses any pvp match or encounter is going to be destroyed before the player is ejected, and even if they put in a 'player vote' eject button, that system is open to abuse aswell. (ie: fleet could grief players by mass reporting someone as a griefer, when they are not)
Anything short of an I.P ban (very unlikely) for griefing players is not going to be effective, and I cant imagine them spening alot of money on employing more GM's to observe and mediate each instance of greifing as and when it happens.
I just dont see how this change can work, and I think people need to think a little more before they say its a good idea.
Just for torpedoes and mines? Maybe that will work. Depending on the actual AoE.
---
What is also a little inconsistent here:
Beam Fire At Will was changed specifically because it was the only power that had a drawback when you used it - you did deal less damage per target if there was more than one.
So it was changed so that it didn't really matter how many targets you hit - at least against your primary target, you always had a damage buff.
But now the team is suddenly suggesting that torpedoes and mines should come with a drawback if they are used too close to allies (or yourself)?
As far as fixing the mine spam problem. Wouldn't be easier just to limit the number of mines a ship is able to deploy? If a ship drops a spread of mines and later attempts to drop another, have the original set self-destruct. Kinda like turrets and field generators in ground combat.
Thanks to the Devs for putting this idea up for discussion BEFORE implementing it.
Second -
Realism can be a great thing in gaming. If properly and well considered, adding realism to a game can increase immersion, encourage strategic thinking, and ultimately make decisions in choices of skills and equipment more meaningful.
However, in any game design there is also the question of balancing realisim with playability. Well-balanced, a game can (in my opinion) be a lot more fun than one which favors an extreme in either direction. This kind of balance VERY difficult to achieve, and in most cases erring on the side of playability will need to trump realism. Again in my opinion.
Third -
Even as a PvE-centric player, I do understand the concerns of the PvP community. As a KDF-centric player I have a deep understanding of what it is like to have my favorite aspect of the game made more difficult to enjoy due to game design limitations, development time-tables, or all out failures to consider the impact of a design choice.
Finally -
I recognize the advantages inherant in tweaking a system in an effort to "Get it right".
So I am certainly a proponant of trying something new in order to open up opportunities to improve the overall balance between the earlier mentioned realisim and playability.
All of this then being said, I hope to convey that I do understand the reasons why friendly-fire changes are being considered here--at least so far as the information shared by the Devs allows.
However, I do not think that adding Friendly-fire (in the form suggested in the OP) would be a change that would enhance the balance point. I also do not believe that it would make the game more enjoyable (to me at least).
Realism -
If the argument is to add realism, then there are many other ways that adding realism could be equally detrimental. Not all beam or cannon shots "Hit" their targets for example. Thus firing off a salvo of either into an area of combat containing friend and foe "Could" have mixed results. Yet making it possible would be more realistic, but not necessarily more fun.
Griefing -
If the argument is to deter griefing, I am not sold. If anything it would actually become an additional tool in the already ample bag of the griefer's arsenal. Thoughtful players might become more cautious of course, but it could also make those same players less useful to their teams as they avoid taking action to avoid hurting their team mates--or earning their ire.
Difficulty-sliders? -
Now, in PvE, this change could be simply tied into the difficulty-slider perhaps. Say, on normal or advanced, there is no change while in elite friendly-fire becomes active? I don't know if that is technically feasible or not. AND, it does not solve the problem for PvP or major encounters such as FAs or RAs where the difficulty-slider does not work. (I am pretty sure it does not have an effect anyway).
Tac Effectiveness -
There is also the question, as has been raised by several previous posters, of Tac Officer effectiveness to a team if their tactics are restricted by friendly-fire (or self-inflicted fire) rules being implemented to add realism or deter griefing. As it is, most space weapons have much the same range 10 km, with a few select abilities having an even closer range of 5km.
This choice (I assume) was made based on playability and not realism--at least in space, I know that ranges on the ground have been changed in the 4.0 update. Yet effectiveness of some weapons, such as cannons and slow-traveling HY projectiles can only be capatalized on when used in close proximity. If fast moving straff tactics have to be ditched for fear of being inadvertantly targeted by secondary (friendly-fire) AoE effects, then I am concerned that Tac Captains may lose a major advantage to their class.
Conclusion -
Admittedly, I am responding somewhat on a gut reaction here, and seeing how it might workout in the long run will require getting to see it in-action. However, I do not see this change as beeing a good one at this point.
There you have it, my wall-of-text for the week...*Grin*... And again, I cannot overstate how much I appreciate that STOs Devs make the effort to engage the community when making decisions that can impact the game in such ways. Thank you for that folks!
maj!
I approve of this
Mainly that (as has been seen by some in the Borg DSE's) individual PvE players will have little regard for the collateral damage caused by these AoE changes in PvE group gameplay. If one player ignores the damage caused to others on thier team combat much like some due when it comes to the targeting priorities needed to win a Borg DSE, then this could be a valid concern.
PersonlIy look forward to the testing of these changes and the chaos it will bring when it goes live.
It will iether work and take better gameplay on our parts to use correctly or it will fail hugely and take PvP with it.
PW is known for their PvP aspects in thier games. A part of the F2P money making model. It will be interesting to see if they let PvP die in STO.
- Torpedos can only target enemies, so it's not like people will be locking on to friendlies and unloading, right?
- These AoE detonations, how big will they be? How strong?
Honestly with the exception of Borg core breaches, warp core breaches are pretty harmless if you have even a bit of shields up. And the core breach AoE isn't even that big, so you'd have to be really close to the enemy to even feel the effect of a torp detonation.Really the only people this could grief to any meaningful degree is Escort captains... of which, I am... oh, damn.
Griefing is all about opertunity, and greifers are quite happy to wait patiently until you shields are exposed and/or you are on very low hull, before swooping in and launching mine/torp that will hit the enemy and finish you off, or if that didnt finish you off, the resulting explosing of the dead ship. I have seen these tactics in other games where freindly fire is turned on.
Many players time thier speed buffs to co-inside with the killing of the ship if they are on low hull/shields, so they can get away before it explodes- a griefer, even if they dont finish you off with thier splash damage will mess up this timming.
Like it has been pointed out before, almost all combat is close proximity (by design) at the moment, if they want to do this, they need to redesign the game.