WAR had that problem too. And it had a collision model. WAR's problems were more about class and population balancing issues and the ridiculous power of AoE. Oh, and that the endgame kinda sucked. In both cases, FF would have partly solved the symptoms at the cost of creating new ones. And the underlying issues would have contined just the same. With the exception of needing to really, REALLY rebalance some AoE weaponry in PS2, I don't think removing friendly fire would change all that much about the gameplay. Personally.
Having friendly fire unable to kill teammates introduces some serious flaws, though. If your group goes into a room filled with enemies, you can carpet bomb the place with AoE. You'll all be at 20% health, minus those killed in action, but all your enemies will be stone cold dead. Unless there are enemy reinforcements just arriving, or it's difficult to recover health, it'd be a rewarding strategy more often than not. That has some significant gameplay implications for assaulting buildings or running artillery / ranged AoE strikes into a battlefield. Unfortunately, any FF solution that looks too good to be true usually is.
Your "proof" of games that work without FF is WAR, GW2 and SWOTOR, have you seen the EC alpha gameplays videos? you see anything similar to those games? You can't compare EC to every single MMO and definitely you can't compare it with any MMORPG.
That's why i don't like comparing EC to anything cos there is no game like EC so far. Can't we just focus on EC entirely, we already have some info enabling us to do some 'mental simulations' to a limited degree but still? It's more accurate to use these scraps of knowledge we've got so far than use completely different models which do not encompass lots of features EC will have.
I take your point, but disagree. That EC gameplay is clearly more like PS2 is true, but WAR (as an example) was a combat focused open PvP MMO with both melee and ranged classes. The "feel" of the game will be totally different, but there will be many common design decisions and balancing issues that make a comparison valid. My point was that mass PvP has worked when there wasn't FF. Therefore FF is not *necessary* for mass PvP to work. That doesn't mean it isn't desirable. That's a whole other ball game.
Carpet bombing your own troops is hardly sound strategy (trust me on this one - we had few close call in Afghanistan) This is where strategy and tactics come in. Cramped quarters, enemy dead ahead? Sling those guns and ready your close combat weapons. Into the fray!
But MMO games fan base is not as organised as an army and never will be - these are two completely different stories, even in the army you have people who disobey, shoot their team mates etc.
(sorry i write wall o texts from time to time) This conversation is probably going on longer than it needs to. We also do not have any clue on how FF will work in EC except that it will be 100% on launch as of now. A lot of it is speculation and opinions and though everyone is entitled to their own opinions there is no need to try and prove how much better your opinion is over anyone else. A lot of the ideas are great here along with the other post about FF. I believe that FF will need tons of balancing for it to work in a massive online pvp game. A few points that i feel add to the discussion: Pros- -Realistic battle situations -Creates more strategies and and raises skill level -Goes well with the lore and original game rules -May promote better decision skills ( skilled players ) Cons- -Splash damage i.e Plasma cannons splash on rhino..RNG Gods save us. -40 meter bolter fire vs melee oriented gameplay. -Suppressing fire from heavy bolter without communication with other melee -May create poor decision skills ( Trolls ) Leaving a 10-20% left from FF damage is not the best course of action. I think it needs to be an alert, something like... lets use spesh mareens for example. A sound through comm will say "Brother you fire at your own at will!" or "Brother cease fire!" maybe a visual guide on your HUD as well. Bad guys can have a red outline for a target and good guys a green outline. so you know when to pull off the trigger. I think that damage should be staggered down if it is dealt by the same person to a team mate. For example if you deal 30% damage to one of yours in the field, if you continue to squeeze the trigger on that person the damage is then halved. A punishment can then be placed for people that pass these thresholds of damage. A safety lock on your gun for a period of time up to suspension and what not, if all you do is troll you will get what you deserve. I also understand the argument of the melee is an idiot for jumping into suppressing fire and/or the rhino is an idiot for driving into plasma cannon bombardment but mistakes can and will happen and if you lost all your resources you spent on a rhino, you will rage and you will report and you will create a poor and toxic community. My only fear of FF is that it might create a toxic community. I think that it can be done but it needs to be very well balanced and skillfully executed by the devs where it still gives the realistic and strategic balance it brings along with the lore. At the same time it still gives a chance for the people making mistakes to not be reported as trolls. Tough to pull off, i feel indifferent about it. I just hope that it works well.
