• Announcements

    • SNIPER62

      64-bit is LIVE   03/27/2020

      CHIMM: 64-bit client is now LIVE and Campaign 172 continues!  
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
tyrdaimp

Friendly Fire

18 posts in this topic

As it stands,  theres a very minor glimpse of Friendly Fire (FF) which are, destroying a building that holds friendly units, or taking a vehicle with mounted units and crashing it.

But with current gameplay all you that you would need would be are Combat Support vehicles (Destroyers included) to constantly bombard a town. For instance the 126mm HE from a destroyer will kill soft targets within about 75 meters. So all you would need is about 2 or 3 destroyers with well placed shots being fired constantly. And it would prevent enemy infantry from defending against the attackers as they're completely immune from those explosions. 

 

While I think it should be changed to allow atleast explosives to have Friendly Fire, others may want to include Small Arms fire aswell. 

It would balance out the battles more significantly and be more immersive, as the recieving end will have constant shell shock and hear explosions, and have it suddenly come to a stop just to have a wave of troops rush in. 

 

-- I would be against allowing Small Arms Friendly Fire to prevent trolls from Team killing everyone.  

Edited by tyrdaimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly fire is too easy to abuse . New players would go nuts killing friendlies and then everyone would get pee'd off . People go insane over killing a couple of players in a building if you blow it accidentally ,I could only imagine the reaction if it was intentional .

This is something I would think is a non starter .    

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, tr6al said:

Friendly fire is too easy to abuse . New players would go nuts killing friendlies and then everyone would get pee'd off . People go insane over killing a couple of players in a building if you blow it accidentally ,I could only imagine the reaction if it was intentional .

This is something I would think is a non starter .    

As stated, Friendly Fire would only be activated for Bombs and Explosions. Small Arms (rifles, Machineguns) would not work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was friendly fire in airwarrior. It was in fact abused, but not too much as it came with a punishment, which I can't for the life of me recall. You suffered some penalty or another for a given time after downing one of your sides birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something like this could be done:

 

Friendly fire mode would be on, but if you kill someone, your account would become unable to do friendly for 24 hours.

So those intentionally trying to kill others wouldn't go too far, this because they would only be able to do it once per day. But everyone else still need to be afraid of killing teammates.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is how is it fair when one side can drop bombs over bombs over an AB and the defending unit has no chance if getting to the Bunker while the other side can just walk through it.

I do like the idea of Bombs to be all honest . But everything else should be a no go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of FF in general, and for HE in particular. If it was just for indirect fire (bombs and artillery), then I'd make sure that there were no shared map marks, and indeed no icons visible between those units and any other units.

There cannot be a generic penalty, because there might be a call for a "danger close" drop or barrage.

Regardless, the lack of FF massively affects the nature of play in ww2ol. Lack of FF leads to twitchier play (shoot first, ID contact later).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, exdeath7 said:

Something like this could be done:

Friendly fire mode would be on, but if you kill someone, your account would become unable to do friendly for 24 hours.

So those intentionally trying to kill others wouldn't go too far, this because they would only be able to do it once per day. But everyone else still need to be afraid of killing teammates.

Exploitable.

Say I'm a tactical bomber unit supporting an AB attack. It's very tactically useful for me to bomb the snot out of the defenders while per plan the attackers run right through. So, someone spawns an irrelevant infantryman near the takeoff airport, and I MG him before flying to the target. That turns off my FF capability for 24 hours. Now my guys can attack while I bomb.

That'd be an advantage, not a punishment. 

There are no potential punishments that would be both acceptable to players. Anything important enough to affect behavior would drive away a significant number of customers, who are accustomed to just shooting without being realistically careful and without realistic fear of death, and being surrounded by like-minded fighters.

In real life, intentionally killing friendlies gets you removed from the war, or maybe even executed. And, everyone operates with Fear-of-Death, so they put a high priority on being very aware of friendly fire and not running into it. Games can't work that way, because all that matters is tactical success and there's zero fear of death. And, there's no commercially viable, non-exploitable way to motivate realistic behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say no on this. And that's coming from someone who used to be perplexed that this game doesn't have FF, and I thought that it should, as most (if not all) other WW2 shooters and sims I've played have it. I've totally changed my mind, though .. I think the gameplay is plainly better the way it is set up here. 

Most of this discussion has been concerned with intentional FF (griefing or whatever you want to call it). But unintentional, accidental FF would be similarly frustrating. Consider a truck loaded with engies, having driven 10 minutes to an enemy FB when a well-meaning bomber drops its payload right on top of them. Apologies will be said, curse words will be uttered .. but the real concern is who will log off?

On one of my first stuka missions I dropped a bomb on a CP and I was so pleased at my aim - until a teammate let me have it for killing him in the building. I apologized immediately, to no avail. He didn't keep badgering me or anything, but he didn't accept my apology, either ... and the whole thing just made me feel bad. ("feels bad man," lol). It's just one of those things. I don't want to roll any of that back - buildings collapsing can kill friendlies, I'm fine with that. But we'd need to be really careful adding anything further, imo. 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jwilly said:

Exploitable.

Say I'm a tactical bomber unit supporting an AB attack. It's very tactically useful for me to bomb the snot out of the defenders while per plan the attackers run right through. So, someone spawns an irrelevant infantryman near the takeoff airport, and I MG him before flying to the target. That turns off my FF capability for 24 hours. Now my guys can attack while I bomb.

That'd be an advantage, not a punishment. 

There are no potential punishments that would be both acceptable to players. Anything important enough to affect behavior would drive away a significant number of customers, who are accustomed to just shooting without being realistically careful and without realistic fear of death, and being surrounded by like-minded fighters.

In real life, intentionally killing friendlies gets you removed from the war, or maybe even executed. And, everyone operates with Fear-of-Death, so they put a high priority on being very aware of friendly fire and not running into it. Games can't work that way, because all that matters is tactical success and there's zero fear of death. And, there's no commercially viable, non-exploitable way to motivate realistic behavior.

If we went this route, I would do loss of rank per incident or mission of killing friendlies.  Self-correcting, do it enough and you end up not being able to spawn the HE units.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, hillstorm said:

On one of my first stuka missions I dropped a bomb on a CP and I was so pleased at my aim - until a teammate let me have it for killing him in the building. I apologized immediately, to no avail. He didn't keep badgering me or anything, but he didn't accept my apology, either ... and the whole thing just made me feel bad. ("feels bad man," lol). It's just one of those things. I don't want to roll any of that back - buildings collapsing can kill friendlies, I'm fine with that. But we'd need to be really careful adding anything further, imo. 

Well, there's not really a good excuse in the game right now, because you can see the guy's icon magically.

I'd dump all air--ground icons (and map icons) entirely. Then there's not a reason to get mad, since the air guys cannot really know who is in a CP.

If a side wants to win, they will have to not bomb very much, or bomb before an attack, or otherwise in very controlled conditions. The side that bombs indiscriminately will not do as well.

52 minutes ago, Kilemall said:

If we went this route, I would do loss of rank per incident or mission of killing friendlies.  Self-correcting, do it enough and you end up not being able to spawn the HE units.

Rank would have to be meaningful.

I've proposed this a bunch, but I think there should be a difference between game "status" in terms of years played, etc, dunno what to call it, and "rank" in game. I think the rank system should be related to what units you can choose to spawn (most units in RL were used by Pvts, so I'd have that be true in game, but maybe higher ranks get more of a choice of what is available (Pvts get rifles for sure, and a few of other things, as NCOs rank they get more of the special units in the list available). Such a rank system would have a large rank penalty for death, and a penalty for MIA. You'd also give a substantial penalty for a FF incident.

If ALL HE was FF, even nades, then in the world of loadouts if your rank is the lowest level, perhaps HE is not in the loadout. No nades/etc for such a rifleman. That or the server keep track of the points for the rank system into the negative. Normal death can drop you to 0 points, FF can drop you to negative points. A Pvt with neg points gets no HE. A large FF incident kills, say 6 guys in a bombing. You also get KIA, and your rank drops such that it might take a lot of good RTB missions with kills and caps just to rank uup to a normal Pvt... could work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tater said:

Well, there's not really a good excuse in the game right now, because you can see the guy's icon magically.

Only excuse was being on my first-ish bombing run, not having any real great idea what was going on or what I was doing ... and not thinking - in that moment - of the possibility of killing a friendly (the cp was in enemy hands and ei marks were there, as well). Anyway, not to belabor the whole episode. We've all been victims of it at some point or the other. I choose to not get too pissed when it happens to me - and especially when they apologize for it. That's how I play the game. 

There will be a lot more situations like this, however, if we start making friendly bombs deadly. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 31/01/2020 at 1:41 PM, jwilly said:

Exploitable.

Say I'm a tactical bomber unit supporting an AB attack. It's very tactically useful for me to bomb the snot out of the defenders while per plan the attackers run right through. So, someone spawns an irrelevant infantryman near the takeoff airport, and I MG him before flying to the target. That turns off my FF capability for 24 hours. Now my guys can attack while I bomb.

That'd be an advantage, not a punishment. 

 

Well the rule would be available only at situation where full teamkill allowed rule is a no. If full teamkill allowed by bombing is a ok thing, the rule wouldnt apply to bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, that we have support weaponry: Destroyers, Bombers, Motars, CS tanks that have a large HE blast radius. And I've personally experienced that they can be overwhelmingly unfair, as I got 200 kills with a destroyer a few years ago. Constant bombardment, enemy forces unable to spawn, but friendly units were immune.  Same can be done with those other weapons and bombs. 

 

Adding friendly fire to those support tools would make the game more tactically difficult, as you would need to communicate with one another.  Sure theres the possibility of it being abused. But that's why there could be safe guards put in place. 

 

Your weapon could be locked if too many players .report <intentional Tak> 

Or automatically lock your weapon after a number of TKs. 

 

** Team Killing would be restricted to Bombs and large caliber weapons such as Destroyer main guns, CS vehicles, and Motars.**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with friendly fire is wasting people's real life time.  Imagine spending 10, 20, 30 minutes getting in position or setting up your mission or whatever, and then boom it's all gone because of some indirect fire or a bomb or whatever.  Will discourage people even more than they already are from investing the time needed to play this game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of that indirect fire is mainly targeted on specific locations. You won't randomly see bombs landing on a friendly target outside of town who spent 10-30 minutes to set up. 

Most of the time they're aimed at the attack objective 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You dont see friendly tags in a plane dropping a bomb from 2km up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.