Absolutely. I am tired of the team killer excuse. Will people do it, sure, but the cost to game play to not allow FF is too high. It doesn't make sense either. You can your team jump into a room with a bunch of enemies, you pull the pin on a grenade and only the enemy gets hurt. BS.
It's not like we don't want to see a repeat of CoD:WaW with people with martyrdom, grenades, and c-4 strapped to them suicide bombing a position. I mean the martyrdom itself is already OP but when you can just walk into an enemy squad and wipe them out three times with the detonations and not kill any teammates in the area is unreasonable. Sort of like if someone fires a melta blast and someone happens to walk in front of them, they should die no ifs or buts about it unless they are sporting some insane armour.
Searched through the majority of the thread for similar content but did not find it - apologies if I indeed missed it. A few points. I think FF is a necessity for most of the reasons offered: "realism/danger," the relation to player skill (good one swill FF less and no FF will degenerate combat meaning). I also acknowledge the existence of trolls and that some will inevitably exploit FF as a way to grief. I think a possible solution is not a yes/no to FF argument, but rather a focus on the repercussions towards regular FF abuse/apathy. So, solutions? Obvious minimum: Include FF. FF Damage % vs Damage % vs opponents subject to change as needed by dev team - has to have the right feel, whatever that number ends up being. Idea 1: FF damage = xp loss (damage vs enemy = xp gain). Player 1 shoots a bad guy 10 times (20 dmg vs enemy). He gains 40 xp. Shortly after, the same player then shoots a teammate 5 times (10 dmg vs ally). Due to FF, he loses 20 xp. People will FF, it's inevitable. If you do it a little, it won't impact the player much. If you do it a lot, you can potentially de-level/rank yourself. Perhaps this would impact gear/accessory usage as well? Idea 2: FF damage = Corruption. JoeSM FFs some teammates. JoeSM FFs some more. And more, etc. He starts feeling... odd. FFs even more more. After a while it becomes apparent that his soul is actually being corrupted by Chaos. Warp influence? Corruption in the ranks? Who knows. His SM buddies sure look prime for killing now though... he even feels compelled to do so. Similar to Idea 1, but here FF = Corruption Gain. What does this mean? All assuming a perma-counter for FF: 1. % increases of, ex., weapon jams (more FF = higher % jamming). Less care on keeping gear in working order. 2. % chance of gear loss/breakage (again, more FF = higher % you wake up and are missing a gun or whatever, or it breaks during use). Increased "carelessness". 3. "Final Stage". FF counter reaches X limit, and the character in question, joins the Chaos army. Consumed. For non-SM chars "joining Chaos" as per 3 above: Orks - I would assume Orks could be made exempt based on the premise already in use for their FTP standing (they are kinda random anyway so this may actually enhance that to an extent: Ork 1 in random dispute with Ork 2. Ork 2 blows Ork1's head off. And just careless shooting.). Eldar - Honestly, not sure how to handle them, ideas here? Obviously inclusion of Dark Eldar would certainly help (could then perhaps "mirror" the SM -> Chaos progression). Chaos - For players starting out as Chaos /subsequent FF ramifications after someone has been forcibly changed to Chaos: Player sacrificed to X Chaos God (augment nearest Chaos Sorcerer somehow; die and "reincarnate" as an NPC demon, therefore that character is perma-killed) Reasoning for Idea 2: Not a huge lore buff hence why details are sparse and I'm likely overlooking/forgetting something, but I believe FF should be handled as much ingame as possible. Change the situation from "oh man another griefer" to "how the hell did a Chaos Raptor get in the middle of our base? Put him Down!" Create immersion from the dregs of the gaming society.
You're totally right, PS2 is a shooter while EC will be something much more. It's hard to say definitely now if melee will be prevailing or equal with shooting here but the game will be strongly focused around cc. It's enough to read interviews with Miguel and other devs and see how excited about melee they are and how they stress it's importance in EC. So, yes it will be massive, a lot more massive than anything we have ever seen (pikko technology). Will it be shooter, no, shooting will be a part of this experience on equal terms with melee + many other elements like rpg, strategy even economy on a ridiculously massive scale. EC is forging new ways in the gaming industry - it's a fact. Agree, no absolutes. But the same works the other way round, you cannot go comparing EC to other titles all the time and creating the picture of it based on your previous experience. There are simply too many new vital factors to use old cliches, it's like comparing a coal based power station to a nuclear power station, they both produce energy but work on totally different principles. When you look at what EC is aspiring to be and try to compare it to older titles it's like comparing a mammoth to a horse, the sheer numbers speak for themselves: one server only, 500 vs 500 battles, melee focus, etc - these are facts too. Of course we have very little info so far but some basics will not change as they are the core of the concept and design of the game. Producing games is not about a total freestyle, you must have some assumptions and goals right from the start (this is what will make you different from the competition, and it must be dead point clear) and then you follow them and tweak along the way. Perhaps this debate looks like a school yard fight sometimes but that's nothing unusual for a forum, especially for a forum which is dedicated to contributting to the developement of a computer game, this is a part of this process. Don't be surprised by the emotions which are generated when everyone would like to mould the game to his vision at least a little bit, this is natural. Coming back to the bolter range once again. Such a short range is no mistake and I'm afraid it is more relevant than just a testing stage like some were trying to suggest. Most likely, it will stay like that due to a very simple and brutal reason. If you made the range of the most commonly used firearms close to realistic the melee would have 0 chance of ocurring in the battlefield just like in reality now, modern wars are not based on melee. But this is a fictional world of a very characterisitc universe -Wh40k in which melee is a religion. Only when you realize that you will understand what impact it will have on the mechanics of the game and the battlefield in general (including FF as one of the important elements of the combat).
Ok, I will outline a few things here so you can stop assuming. 1. I have zero emotional attachment to EC, wh40K, or video games in general. I play games, and debate stuff based off my desire to waste a little time here and there. In the past I could have been convicted of being emotionally attached to games, but my life has moved beyond that and now I play them/talk about them as a time waster. Nothing more. 2. I am not going to debate what if's and might be's (with you, more to follow on that) nor will I disregard a solid metric. PS2 is a great place to start looking at how massive battles will be run since (and I am repeating myself here) it is one of the very few massive shooters out there, and it is one of the games the devs stated they were going to take inspiration from. making it relevant, as much as you do not want it to be, it is. Get over that. 3. I have been in large (game) battles before (at one point my outfit did field upwards of 300 members and had a roster of over 2K members, there were several outfits that could do this as well) so, basing massive off that metric is reliable, valuable, and relevant. And yes, until I get to play EC or at a minimum see some solid footage of how 'massive' will work in EC, I will continue to debate my points from that stance. However, not with you. More on that below. You enjoy baiting people, I see that. You appear to love to debate non-points and use mad up non-facts until people get tired of your nonsense and just stop. The simple fact of the matter is: You do not know and you have yet to prove anything. I don't either, but at least I am debating from the points of: It was a test range, FF is IN, and I have been in massive digital battles before, and I realize it can all change tomorrow. Basically I am not trying to sell anyone made up facts. So finally lets end this before things go plaid. I am done debating anything with you. Until you can come with some actual facts, we are done here. I redact what I said earlier in regard to you and debating. Good day.
Lol, you do get emotional a lot it seems, especially when you start talking about PS2, nothing wrong with that. Pls don't insinuate I use made up facts, I'm a too serious person to do that, all my opinions are based on the info about Ec available straight form the devs. So, you want facts? here you go; 1. bolter range: 40 meters. 2. melee - key combat experience in EC (stated by the devs many times, especially by Miguel). 3. 500 vs 500 battles 4. rpg + strategy elements in game 5. one shot one kill heavy weapons like lascannon etc. These are facts, what's more these are NEW FACTS, the ones you don't have in any other games when you put all these elements together, not when you look at them separately. I base my opinion strictly on this info, - fact. get over it, EC will not be PS3. Good day\night.
Peace, brothers Close-midrange combat is a philosophy of Warhammer, really. So I'd expect effective weapon range within reasonable range (forget tabletop) but still stimulating everyone to jolly close engagements. And maybe seeing a few squishy long range units (aka "snipers") for those people enjoying covert behaviour and extended range
Yeah valid points. I think this thread began as a FF discussion. I do not think (I know I am not) debating the validity of Close Quarters Combat (CQC) but rather the effect friendly fire will have on said combat. However it isn't much of a debate at this point. One side brings facts and relevant experience, the other brings NUH-UH! However, your comments I agree with.
Don't forget melee will also have ff so i don't see any reason why we cannot debate cc here. And now tell me pls which is the side that brings 'nuh-uh'? Cos I use info from the EC devs and you keep on talking about PS2 endlessly? Do you have more facts about Ec than I presented? Please share them here, I'll be more than glad to base my discussion on them.
In the close group of people playing together, friendly fire is a great idea. You know noone's going to exploit it and everybody will have to place their shots carefully and watch out for their battle brothers not to hit them in the barrage of fire ("clear the area! We are going to blow this sector sky high!") and in H-H close combat engagements. It brings realism into the game: you feel things happening around you, you feel that your bolter is a dangerous weapon for anyone you are pointing it at and you have to be responsible for it. That it's not just some imaginary boom-peashooter, a game instrument for dealing 45 dmg and +2 explosive and 10% critical hit chance against the enemy... of course it doesn't hit friendlies since it is what it is - not a blessed fire-spitting bolter, singing it's glorious litany of death to xenos and such but a game instrument for hitting opponents with 45 dmg + 2 explosive and 10% crit.chance. No matter how you try, this is how you will perceive the gameplay at the back of your skull, this is how friendly fire is just one (one from many!) of the elements that builds up believable gameplay and enjoyment as a whole. But on the other hand - it's MMO. There are going to be many strangers out there and people that are not bonded with each other in any way. There are going to be pure adolescents and jerks with ego-complexes and what not. And of course people who will make mistakes I know Warhammer is all about war and hate, but it's also about vigilance, fraternity and mutual support. So.. What do you make of that?
