PDA

View Full Version : Friendly fire. Good or Bad for BSP?



Shamrock
22nd Dec 2008, 08:07
Now I'm a fan of realistic gameplay, but I do have some bad memories of FF incidents on BSM. Very, Very rarely did friendly fire actually happen "by accident" in which it effected gameplay.

In the overwhelming majority of cases it was the suspect ship AI firing their payload of torps while they were right behind your BB's or even worse the dreaded 12 year old kid that thought it was just hilarious to trying and sink as many friendly ships as he could before being kicked.

So that being said. You think a server option for FF on/off would be a good idea?

chip5541
22nd Dec 2008, 13:59
FF should be more than just an on/off option. Damage should be regulated in percentage of damage or to the point of dealing the shooter teh damage instead.

What I find in that generally open servers should be set to off. You will almost almost get some smartA come in and start shooting everything and anything that moves.
On the opposit side FF can usually be set on for people that know each other (friends, clans, etc.)

raston
22nd Dec 2008, 14:16
On,,,,,i have played more hours than i would like to admit and i would say i have seen less than 1% of players intentionaly TKing,and i would say that 95% of that 1% was 1 player who i wont glorify by naming but im sure most of the "old boys"know who i mean.
As far as un intentional FF goes thats just part of the game.Just as an example,i have used,as im sure many others have,FF to my own advantage by surfacing a mini sub bhind the wasp and seing it sunk by the us BB,s by mistake.
I cant see or think of any instance that FF would be caused other than that.
Any other way and it would mean that a friendly unit would have to be so close to an enemy that targets could not be seperated and colateral damage was caused by moving into the line of FF.And thats just down to being damn stupid.

chip5541
22nd Dec 2008, 14:36
yeah but ultimately it should be left up to teh host. I am hoping for flexible hosting options.

LORD BLACKFIRE
22nd Dec 2008, 16:18
On the Xbox 360 I've seen friendly fire work for both good and bad.

Sometimes on Solomons a person will accidently launch the wrong unit and ask their partner to sink it.

A "scuttle" option would be nice instead of having to get somebody else to sink the unit.

I have also (rarely) used friendly fire to attempt to get a bad player to leave when the host isn't on my team and won't kick the person out. Usually this is what I call a "Dedicated Sub Captain", esp. on Coral Sea. They leave their other units sitting still, refuse to give them away (prob. don't know how), spend 100% of their time in the sub, often don't communicate or brag about how they can win they game with just their sub, and leave the team hanging. I'll sink that sub if I can and Mr. "DSC" will leave the game.

I'd prefer the "Team Vote" kick option to deal with such players. Left4Dead (by Valve) has this option as do other games. You don't need the host. You and two other teammates decide on whether or not the 4th player stays.

More often I've experienced the teenager whose mother just found their dirty mag under their mattress and who want to take out their frustration on Live by torping other units or shelling land installations into oblivion before leaving.

Given that a "scuttle" and "team vote/kick" option would fix the positive reasons for friendly fire, I think friendly fire should be turned off.

Arrow
22nd Dec 2008, 20:54
As I stated in the other thread, I think a scuttle option should be relegated to shipyard-based ships. I can imagine an idiot deciding to scuttle his CV or BB, then leave/disconnect.

Team vote for kicking is a good idea. I'm also hoping for an ignore list so that we can block idiots that decide to abuse the whisper function.

After all that's said, I think friendly fire should be turned off. I can't imagine a single scenario in which friendly fire would be a major factor anyway aside from intentionally targeting an ally.

US Revenge
22nd Dec 2008, 22:58
as for team fire, i think it should be up to the host to an extent, you should have the ability to have it 0%, 5% all the way to 150% ( for lols) of Friendly fire damage. but a vote to kick option is definatly needed. also scuttle option would be great,

M0n3y
23rd Dec 2008, 14:13
FF on
it doesn't feel realistic when it's turned off, and that's what EIDOS is trying to do...right?

David603
23rd Dec 2008, 14:22
as for team fire, i think it should be up to the host to an extent, you should have the ability to have it 0%, 5% all the way to 150% ( for lols) of Friendly fire damage. but a vote to kick option is definatly needed. also scuttle option would be great,
How about reflected damage? If someone on your team shoots you, he receives the damage instead of you.

LORD BLACKFIRE
23rd Dec 2008, 16:21
How about reflected damage? If someone on your team shoots you, he receives the damage instead of you.

No because that just allows the idiot to cause more trouble for the team. He'll damage/sink yours and his units before leaving.

LORD BLACKFIRE
23rd Dec 2008, 16:24
FF on
it doesn't feel realistic when it's turned off, and that's what EIDOS is trying to do...right?

How many times did ships on the same side actually fire on each other during WW2? It definitely happened between DD's and subs (the USS Seawolf was probably sunk by an friendly DD) but ships did not pull up along side of each other and launch torps . . . the way some idiots do.

How many servicemen would have followed such orders anyway?

Turning off friendly fire actually makes it more realistic.

com345
23rd Dec 2008, 16:48
Turning off friendly fire actually makes it more realistic.

i have to disagree, in real a shell explodes on impact and doesnt care what it hit!

i voted for FF on but leave it as an host option so everyone is happy

LORD BLACKFIRE
23rd Dec 2008, 16:58
i have to disagree, in real a shell explodes on impact and doesnt care what it hit!

i voted for FF on but leave it as an host option so everyone is happy

I agree the shell explodes on impact whatever it hits but you have to keep in mind that this isn't an FPS where you are controlling a single person. You are controlling a warship (usually several warships) and the crew, from the officer core down to the enlisted crewmen, would not intentionally aim and fire the shell at a friendly unit. The only place I see for realistic friendly fire would be from a pilot because he only makes the decision on what to attack.

I can see friendly fire coming into play if a friendly unit is next to an enemy and is accidentally hit by a shell or swerves into the path of a torp but that's about it. It's very stupid to allow players to take advantage of the stupid AI by surfacing a mini-sub next to a carrier and have the carrier's BB's blow it to hell. It just wouldn't happen.

Even more realistic is the following: aim your turrets/torps at a friendly and try to fire results in auto kick with a "Captain, you have been relieved of command!" message.

Polarshark
23rd Dec 2008, 17:20
it's a bit too late to do this kind of poll

but i think they might add it in the last minute
or the next patch for BSP

battleshipman
23rd Dec 2008, 17:21
It's very stupid to allow players to take advantage of the stupid AI by surfacing a mini-sub next to a carrier and have the carrier's BB's blow it to hell. It just wouldn't happen

I feel the same way(although I have done this before). Maybe they made the AI smarter so it wont shoot through its own ships in BS:P?

Arrow
23rd Dec 2008, 20:28
The thing about friendly fire is that it's more of a thing for games in which allies and enemies are very close to each other. In a game like Battlestations, you basically get all your allies on one side and all your enemies on the other - rarely ever do you get a giant ship "melee" if you will where it's even possible to accidentally attack a friendly warship - the only people who will are the idiots who can't determine friend from foe in the first place, or people wanting to sink their own ships for some reason.

In other words, friendly fire will only be taken advantage of by idiots. That's why I vote for no friendly fire.

com345
23rd Dec 2008, 20:54
It's very stupid to allow players to take advantage of the stupid AI by surfacing a mini-sub next to a carrier and have the carrier's BB's blow it to hell. It just wouldn't happen.



thats true but i would prefer another solution for this problem, but honestly i dont know one

as said before i would like FF on, but i also understand your point

Arrow
23rd Dec 2008, 23:19
I honestly can't imagine a kind of solution to that. Keeping in mind that the AI does not have the same judgement skills as a human, I'd say the best shot would be to simply prevent the AI from using artillery on smaller ships like PTs at all - and simply have them use their AA weapons. This may cause problems on ships with less AA, like Clemson and Minekaze (assuming they are playable) but I honestly can't see any other solutions.

skyfox
23rd Dec 2008, 23:34
FF on is more realistic in the game. Switching FF off will cause more friend shoot just becoz it is free. By the way, if you have limited ammo on primary weapon, FF off is OK. You need cherish every bullets you have.

skyfox
23rd Dec 2008, 23:37
I honestly can't imagine a kind of solution to that. Keeping in mind that the AI does not have the same judgement skills as a human, I'd say the best shot would be to simply prevent the AI from using artillery on smaller ships like PTs at all - and simply have them use their AA weapons. This may cause problems on ships with less AA, like Clemson and Minekaze (assuming they are playable) but I honestly can't see any other solutions.

Using mini-sub to dodge friend fire is a good tactic, and I didn't see any reason to prohibit that. At least you need well-trained skills to pilot before the mini-sub is sunk by AA storms.:)

Arrow
24th Dec 2008, 18:48
Okay, maybe you have a reason to for AA fire, but for actual artillery?