Friendly Fire

[MADe]

me thinks its time to rethink the hitting a friendly with your armament causes you damage.

I understand why it is done but whereas it stops retribution from disgruntled losers, it penelizes folks when others cut in front trying to poach a kill. Now I could care less about the poach, but to take damage because of it is wrong. If that poacher wants the kill so much fine, but he should pay the price for flying into my bullet stream, not moi.
I had this happen like 3 times last log.......................... .

 

[Lusche]

You have control over your own fire. You don't control that of other people. You would have to treat any unknown 'friendly as an enemy'.
Everybody can shoot down your B-29 or 262 on the final for lulz. Or because they 'know' your a spy.

Is the mayhem worth it?

[Drane]

How about no damage to either player on the same team that shoot each other?

Worst a friendly could do to you is shield the enemy from your shot.

When you shoot a friendly the stats get recorded so Lusche can make some charts. 

[DmonSlyr]

I really wish it was no damage period.

A bunch of times I try to shoot an enemy plane that is shooting at a friendly tank, my bullets that don't hit the enemy hit my friendly tanks and I die.

Another example is shooting at an enemy who is shooting your friendly bombers. I shoot enemy plane at dead 6, the bullets that miss enemy plane hit my friendly bombers, I die.

[Wiley]

I really wish it was no damage period.

A bunch of times I try to shoot an enemy plane that is shooting at a friendly tank, my bullets that don't hit the enemy hit my friendly tanks and I die.

Another example is shooting at an enemy who is shooting your friendly bombers. I shoot enemy plane at dead 6, the bullets that miss enemy plane hit my friendly bombers, I die.

...And you don't feel that it should be part of gameplay to not have to worry about what's behind the bandit?  Seems a bit cheesy to me.

Wiley.

[DmonSlyr]

...And you don't feel that it should be part of gameplay to not have to worry about what's behind the bandit?  Seems a bit cheesy to me.

Wiley.

In real life they would both die, so whats the difference?

[EskimoJoe]

In real life they would both die, so whats the difference?

Having been behind the gun 'in real life', the difference is that both your target, anything between you and your target, and every possible thing behind your target that could be affected by your fire, are ALL considerations before pulling the trigger.

...And you don't feel that it should be part of gameplay to not have to worry about what's behind the bandit?  Seems a bit cheesy to me.

Wiley.

Ditto.

[guncrasher]

I think some people need to use a little more SA.  I am a crappy player, but it's rare when I hit a friendly that jumps in front of me.  and I love to furball.


semp

[MADe]

You have control over your own fire. You don't control that of other people. You would have to treat any unknown 'friendly as an enemy'.
Everybody can shoot down your B-29 or 262 on the final for lulz. Or because they 'know' your a spy.

Is the mayhem worth it?

point being, the poacher is taking advantage of the fact that he will suffer no consequences. You say I do not have to shoot, you negate the fact that the poacher is entering the active bullet stream, at which point there is only 1 consequence, you pay the price.

As far as the mayhem, abso=fuccccing-lutely. Peeps have fallen into patterns, WAR is mayhem, this will strengthen squads and create the next level of game play. And if a snot nose decides to act the child, then he can suffer some of his own style of play. Squad retribution..................

Personally, if hitech would let me, I'd make a map where its no holds barred, and capturing bases got you use of aircraft, but that's me...............

[MADe]

I think some people need to use a little more SA.  I am a crappy player, but it's rare when I hit a friendly that jumps in front of me.  and I love to furball.


semp

sorry but this is a cop out, we sit in front of a video monitor, not in an immersive cockpit where sensory input is all encompassing.

[waystin2]

I think some people need to use a little more SA.  I am a crappy player, but it's rare when I hit a friendly that jumps in front of me.  and I love to furball.


semp

QFT    Another thing that helps is move out and away from any other friendlies.  Then you do not have to worry about anything but the enemy.

[Lusche]

As far as the mayhem, abso=fuccccing-lutely. Peeps have fallen into patterns, WAR is mayhem, this will strengthen squads and create the next level of game play.

Only if you consider griefing and highly disruptive behaviour as a level of gameplay. It just breaks the MA gameplay, as you can trust NObody. Each new account would be a prospective enemy. Either because a new player doesn't know better or because it's just a bored vet having fun messing with you.
Instead of yesterdays long farewell roundtrip in my 262 I could have simply smashed some 'friendly' goons and M3's. Nobody would have been prepared for that.

Oh, and currently  for the most part of the day, it's rare to have even 2 players of the same squad online.

[DmonSlyr]

Having been behind the gun 'in real life', the difference is that both your target, anything between you and your target, and every possible thing behind your target that could be affected by your fire, are ALL considerations before pulling the trigger.

Ditto.

I don't really see your point.

In real life other objects/planes get hit and die from friendly fire. It wouldn't work well that was in AH.

In AH the player who shoots dies, not the friendly, or planes behind you that got hit. So shooting a friendly damages you, not the other way around.

The difference is, it should do 0 damage to either, considering the effect in AH is the opposite of real life.

It's not like this happens a lot. I'm just pointing to a couple of examples that happen on pure accident rather than spite.

[Wiley]

I don't really see your point.

In real life other objects/planes get hit and die from friend fire.

In AH the player who shoots dies, not the friendly, or planes behind you that got hit. 

The difference is, it should do 0 damage to either, considering the effect in AH is the opposite of real life.

It's not like this happens a lot. I'm just point to a few examples that happen on pure accident rather than spite.

So people should be able to spray at anything enemy with no thought to repercussions or what's around them.

I disagree.  You can't have it harm the shootee for the reasons listed above by Lusche, but IMO it's silly to be able to just hose down a friendly in the quest to get the kill on the bandit in front of him.  Shooting a friendly should be an undesirable act.

Wiley.

[redcatcherb412]

In real life other objects/planes get hit and die from friend fire.
In AH the player who shoots dies, not the friendly, or planes behind you that got hit. 

makes sense for gameplay
it should either be no harm no foul for shooter or recipient
or
damages or deaths inflicted on the receiver of the fire with maybe a perk penalty for the shooter