Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

Just now, TheHaney said:

Denying kills isn't a "positive function." It's a toxic display of poor sportsmanship.

Friendly fire isn't supposed to have a positive benefit. It's supposed to add a layer of difficulty, force tactical thoughtfulness and add a sharp edge to the learning curve.

It's positive in that the players who do it can effectively deny kills. That's the only reason why I can see someone would want to keep the ability to do damage to friendly ships, since it is infact not against the rules to do this to deny marks, or troll a fight.

Just now, Ruby Rose said:

the fact of green on green was forbiddened before was to stop team killing, hence why they removed the ability to shoot ur own nation in OW.
mirror damage would be exploited to the fullest with blocking shots to intentionally damage ur allies

That would require a mistake on your part to fire into your friendly. Even if someone was blocking shots, there's almost no exploit if proper repercussions from killing yourself via mirror damage FF is employed.

Edited by Slim McSauce
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes it is more realistic. Leave as is.

Just now, Slim McSauce said:

It's positive in that the players who do it can effectively deny kills. That's the only reason why I can see someone would want to keep the ability to do damage to friendly ships, since it is infact not against the rules to do this to deny marks, or troll a fight.

That would require a mistake on your part to fire into your friendly. Even if someone was blocking shots.

lets make an example of intentional mirror damage, ur in herc and an ally is in a connie  connie rolls infront of u knowing u are about to unload a broadside now u have just unloaded into the connie and that damage is now reflected right back at u causing serious damage. or perhaps finishing u off.  larger ships could effectively be killed in the same  manner by shooting thru sails of an ally or over the bow of an ally into an enemy and that damage is reflected back on the big ships. 

this would force large fleets to only fight in line formations to prevent shooting allies. dulls the game

as for intentionally denying kills there is this button its called surrender, it does the same thing as shooting each other to deny kills if u havent taken damage it will do the same thing  as killing eachother also. what evidence can any player present other then an audio recording to say a ally verbally consented to us shooting each other to prevent a kill. when a tribunal comes up on team killing , the tribunal will be full of green on green reports because unless its stated by both enemy ships ingame chat the devs and admins cant verify its was consentual

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ruby Rose said:

lets make an example of intentional mirror damage, ur in herc and an ally is in a connie  connie rolls infront of u knowing u are about to unload a broadside now u have just unloaded into the connie and that damage is now reflected right back at u causing serious damage. or perhaps finishing u off.  larger ships could effectively be killed in the same  manner by shooting thru sails of an ally or over the bow of an ally into an enemy and that damage is reflected back on the big ships. 

Nothing in game happens that fast, if the connie rolls in front of you you hold fire like you should regularly instead of lighting him up.

Just now, Ruby Rose said:

as for intentionally denying kills there is this button its called surrender, it does the same thing as shooting each other to deny kills if u havent taken damage it will do the same thing  as killing eachother also. what evidence can any player present other then an audio recording to say a ally verbally consented to us shooting each other to prevent a kill. when a tribunal comes up on team killing , the tribunal will be full of green on green reports because unless its stated by both enemy ships ingame chat the devs and admins cant verify its was consentual

Surrender, which awards your ship to the enemy for free, v green on green scuttling which denies marks and the ship, as well as things in hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what prevents you from chaining an enemy when a friendly ship is blocking your shots? what prevents you to do hull damage if half your broadside is covered by a friedly ship? why not make it so that shots go through friendly ships and only interact with enemy ships? you could sail broad to broadside with 10 firendlys and hit the enemy with 10 broadsides at once! wouldnt that be fun?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Durin said:

what prevents you from chaining an enemy when a friendly ship is blocking your shots? what prevents you to do hull damage if half your broadside is covered by a friedly ship? why not make it so that shots go through friendly ships and only interact with enemy ships? you could sail broad to broadside with 10 firendlys and hit the enemy with 10 broadsides at once! wouldnt that be fun?

no that would be dumb. If anything shots should just not interact with friendlies at all and be absorbed with no damage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

Nothing in game happens that fast, if the connie rolls in front of you you hold fire like you should regularly instead of lighting him up.

Surrender, which awards your ship to the enemy for free, v green on green scuttling which denies marks and the ship, as well as things in hold.

scuttling doesnt prevent people from looting ur ships for upgrades and cargo

i also gave an example. we could of gone with niagaras and herc if u want speedier

if u wanted a faster example 25 vs 25 enjoy the mirror damage

Edited by Ruby Rose
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ruby Rose said:

scuttling doesnt prevent people from looting ur ships for upgrades and cargo

i also gave an example. we could of gone with niagaras and herc if u want speedier

The average person's reaction time is .3 seconds or so. Nothing in NA happens that fast that you can't see coming prior. (ex fast ships crossing each other broadside to broadside) meaning there's very little reason you should unintentionally shoot into a friendly, even if you're a horrible player.

Edited by Slim McSauce
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to agree that mirror damage in any scenario is usually a questionable mechanic, especially since in my experience the person getting FF'd is generally the person that made the mistake in the first place by being out of position or cutting across a line of fire. And the FF is almost always purposeful or due to mistaken identity; as it's been said there is rarely a situation where a friendly gets in the way faster than the attacker can react.

Edited by TheHaney
Link to post
Share on other sites

So what about non-damaging absorbing shots from friendly fire? Basically no FF whatsoever besides ramming.

You still get punished for being out of position, but the punishment is non-severe and mostly an annoyance rather than potentially catastrophic, which we've all been in battles where those things happen when someone messes up.

Edited by Slim McSauce
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Slim McSauce said:

So what about non-damaging absorbing shots from friendly fire? Basically no FF whatsoever besides ramming. 

1) It's not in line with the overall feel of the combat.

2) It provides no punishment for the idiot that got in the way.

3) It removes a level of tactical awareness from a populous battlefield.

4) It removes the harder mental edge in battle. Makes it feel more arcade-y.

 

This is the best naval battle simulator we have in this time period. There's plenty of ways we can adjust mechanics surrounding friendly fire to prevent it from being abused. Don't remove friendly fire itself.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you even discussing this? If i were to shoot my teammate in PUBG to deny other people loot if he agreed and some others calls that cheating because they dont get the kill for it they would be laughed at if they reported it. Suck it up and learn to kill your enemies before they kill themselves

Edited by Guest
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wyy said:

Why are you even discussing this? If i were to shoot my teammate in PUBG to deny other people loot if he agreed and some others calls that cheating because they dont get the kill for it they would be laughed at if they reported it.

why are you comparing NA to PUBG?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Wyy said:

Why are you even discussing this? If i were to shoot my teammate in PUBG to deny other people loot if he agreed and some others calls that cheating because they dont get the kill for it they would be laughed at if they reported it.

PUBG is a 20-minute repeatable free-for-all scenario with no significant persistent factors.

Naval Action battles are often for persistent territory and persistent loot, using ships, weapons and modules painstakingly crafted, after travelling to said location for a long time in a team-and-faction-based persistent world. It's also an entirely different type of playerbase.

I'd agree that it's a silly argument in PUBG. It's not a silly argument here. I don't think FF should be removed but I 100% agree exploits surrounding it should be addressed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheHaney said:

1) It's not in line with the overall feel of the combat.

2) It provides no punishment for the idiot that got in the way.

3) It removes a level of tactical awareness from a populous battlefield.

4) It removes the harder mental edge in battle. Makes it feel more arcade-y.

 

This is the best naval battle simulator we have in this time period. There's plenty of ways we can adjust mechanics surrounding friendly fire to prevent it from being abused. Don't remove friendly fire itself.

This is a fair assessment. I guess we can give this discussion a rest for now. Scuttling and denying valuable ships and marks to players who rightly deserve them is bad for general enjoyment of the game, and creates salty environment where cheesing and "exploiting" is encouraged. That's just my take on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Slim McSauce said:

no that would be dumb. If anything shots should just not interact with friendlies at all and be absorbed with no damage.

indeed that would be dumb, and kinda what you are asking for here ;D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scuttling to deny the enemy the ship or its cargo is a legitimate strategy.

Scuttling to deny the enemy PVP marks is griefing.

Allow the consentual FF but award the full mark reward to enemies who dealt damage to the target.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Farrago said:

Allow the consentual FF but award the full mark reward to enemies who dealt damage to the target.

If "killed by allied player" award marks to "enemy players" sounds reasonable...

but... Will we next ask that "ships sunk by friendlies to NOT sink until i looted them" ?

i mean... it will not stop here ... we all know that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Hethwill the Red Duke said:

but... Will we next ask that "ships sunk by friendlies to NOT sink until i looted them" ?

They may ask. We could say “no”. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...