Check your fire! Check your fire!!
#41
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:11 PM
#42
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:26 PM
Instead of just using scouts to gather info, they can run countermeasures as well, making friendlies targets. Scouts become even more dangerous, forcing ppl to perform visual confirms for data shared before loosing fire support.
Tricky.
#43
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:33 PM
GrimJim, on 02 March 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:
Instead of just using scouts to gather info, they can run countermeasures as well, making friendlies targets. Scouts become even more dangerous, forcing ppl to perform visual confirms for data shared before loosing fire support.
Tricky.
Thing is, logically, the con to such a jammer would be that the Scout himself would show up as neither friend nor foe, since his beacon would get jammed too. So hopefully he'll make an announcement to the Company "If you see a green Commando, he's on OUR team, and he's using IFF jamming. Don't shoot him!"
#44
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:45 PM
I admit I'm somewhat torn - packet loss and lag are a pain. I've stopped playing World of Tanks until they release the patch that supposedly supposed to increase the efficency of the program - improving both render and fps. Death from packet loss - espcially ff - is particularly unpleasant - and coming from the tabletop perspective, there isnt any ff in the tabletop, nor even LOS breakage if a mech is in front of you.
But on the other hand: its a bloody great monster of a machine with death lasers and plasma doohickies - not hitting it will be more of a challenge, and wait, what? Six missiles the size of a human being just passed through 100 tones of metal because it had a dragon crest on its shoulder like the mech that fired those missled? Huh? And flew on to hit the mech with the blue bird on its shoulder and exploded. Erm...
Friendly fire probably should be implemented in this game - I never play CounterStrike without it, it just doesnt make any sense - and if ff is active from the get-go, it just becomes another aspect of the game, and you get used to it.
-Don
#45
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:56 PM
Bryan Ekman, on 02 March 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
Mmmm splash damage!
Friendly fire? Yes, please!
#46
Posted 02 March 2012 - 01:00 PM
1) Good Side. "Blue on Blue"/Friendly Fire adds another element of reality, it´s very known in the wars that somebody on the same side has shoot friendly aircraft, tanks or infantry.
2) Bad Side. I remember a match in COD when one guy begun to kill everyone on their team, continuosly, and become very annoying. The ******e didn´t stop until the match finished.
For that reason, i think the friendly fire is a little complicated issue.
.
#47
Posted 02 March 2012 - 01:09 PM
(Look it up in a dictionary or thesaurus)
#49
Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:03 PM
Sword_of_Light, on 02 March 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:
That's because in the tabletop, the hexes are 30 metres wide and mechs/tanks are not. Fire control and correct positioning is assumed by the game. Interestingly, in the modern TT rules, it is only implied that units cannot break LOS. In the older rules, this is stated explicitly. But it is still an abstraction of what is happening over a full 10 seconds of gameplay.
When you are dealing with real time and real scale, the same rules should definitely be re-examined in full.
Amusing side thought: We know charges are in atm... Death by friendly charge move?
Amusing side thought 2: If no friendly collision damages: Using friendly mechs to form a wall to block LOS to a damaged mech?
Edited by Tuhalu, 02 March 2012 - 02:06 PM.
#50
Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:17 PM
I like FF games, keeps teh noobs from holding down the trigger and running around yelling Oklahoma!
Here is the full clip, for those to young or sheltered to have seen it in full context.
Edited by Pvt Dancer, 02 March 2012 - 02:41 PM.
#51
Posted 02 March 2012 - 02:26 PM
Quote
Must be in the City Square. I was hoping circle clusters might be a thing of the past. Oh well.
Edited by MaddMaxx, 02 March 2012 - 02:27 PM.
#52
Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:01 PM
#53
Posted 02 March 2012 - 08:13 PM
Bryan Ekman, on 02 March 2012 - 07:00 AM, said:
In my humble opinion, this adds to the game, it encourages discipline under fire and greater teamwork. I see the potential problems though, and ensuing complaints. But i give it the thumbs up.
#54
Posted 02 March 2012 - 08:51 PM
Edited by Zervziel, 02 March 2012 - 08:52 PM.
#55
Posted 02 March 2012 - 09:19 PM
Zervziel, on 02 March 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:
This is why I think FF is a bad idea. Unless there is a significant penalty for attacking team mates there will always people like this griefing other players. The fact that it will be F2P will make it even worse.
In fact even if there is a penalty the F2P nature make this a risky proposition. The general consensus seems to be you can start playing with an assault mech from day one. There would seem to be nothing stopping gRi3Fer73 from jumping into a shiny new atlas ruining however many matches he can and then starting over again as gRi3fer74 when and if he has to.
Never underestimate how immature people can be in an online environment .. especially when there arent paying for the privilege.
on a related note, spell check wants to correct "griefing" to "fingering"!! o.O that would put a whole different spin on things.
#56
Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:18 AM
Jadel Blade, on 02 March 2012 - 09:19 PM, said:
This is why I think FF is a bad idea. Unless there is a significant penalty for attacking team mates there will always people like this griefing other players. The fact that it will be F2P will make it even worse.
In fact even if there is a penalty the F2P nature make this a risky proposition. The general consensus seems to be you can start playing with an assault mech from day one. There would seem to be nothing stopping gRi3Fer73 from jumping into a shiny new atlas ruining however many matches he can and then starting over again as gRi3fer74 when and if he has to.
Never underestimate how immature people can be in an online environment .. especially when there arent paying for the privilege.
on a related note, spell check wants to correct "griefing" to "fingering"!! o.O that would put a whole different spin on things.
We had a long thread about this quite a while back, people mostly though I was trolling when I was trying to say that FF needs to be regulated in some way.
Metagame penalties (IE Reduced credit income, etc) isn't enough because a griefer really doesn't care about the meta game. Griefers also do it for a while, get bored, give up and never come back to the game. The thing is its a revolving door in a F2P game so one leaves, another shows up. The trick is to make griefing get boring fast.
FF definitely has a place in a sim game like mechwarrior, but keep in mind how F2P changes the face of the game, and how the industry has changed in the years since the only way to get a game was to play with people you knew.
#57
Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:57 AM
So let's say you're an LRM support mech, and your buddy is in a hunchie. He's about dead, and tangling at physical range with a Dragon. He yells at you to send it, since he's good as dead already, and that Dragon can disengage at speed. You send it, take the hit on payout, and get good hits on the Dragon.
A word on missile guidance. The original texts described missiles as unguided, but TPTB have since softened their view on this. It's fairly well agreed that even at BTs ridiculously short ranges, guidance of such slow missiles would be required. This is one of the things MW4 did fairly well, even though I wish it was individual missiles instead of flights of five. Semi-guided refers to a specific ammo that is capable of homing in on TAGged units with startling accuracy, even without LOS. Another note: Listen-Kill ammo is nice, but in canon it is completely useless well before 3049.
Further note: It'd be absolutely amazing if IS LRM racks acted like they do on TT, having a cold-launch system that makes them rather ineffective at close-range.
Edited by Thomas Hogarth, 03 March 2012 - 12:58 AM.
#58
Posted 03 March 2012 - 01:19 AM
Someone on your team leaps into the zone that missiles are heading, then by all rights at least some, if not all of the missiles should hit. You have Eyes Mark 1s for a reason, use them and don't get in the way!
Secondly, (and I don't know if this would happen here, but it has happened to teams I have played with in table-top sessions) what if one of your teammates suddenly decide to switch teams and help the enemy? Shouldn't we get to blow the traitor's 'mech up?
And lastly, even good 'Mech Pilot's make mistakes. Accidental friendly fire happens. Live with it!
#59
Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:21 AM
Naduk, on 30 January 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:
On the other hand in Battlefield Bad Company 1, friendly fire meant that most of the match was spent backstabbing each other over the artillery cannon.
Not having friendly fire(in the normal mode) in Bad Company 2 might allow some unrealistic tactics by taking advantage of game mechanics but they are nothing compared to being griefed by players when friendly fire is enabled. It was so severe in Bad Company 1 that I have no doubt that, that is why they took it out of the standard Bad Company modes.
#60
Posted 03 March 2012 - 03:30 AM
The more realistic the game play, the more fun and enjoyment (as well as tears, anger, frustration and annoyance) you get from it.
Just like the Real World on a real battlefield, there is always the ris of friendly fire casulties. I do not see why things should be any different simply because some people do not like the idea of incurring damage at the hands of their own team members and then having to fork out their own hard won (I use that term lightly) C-Bills on battle repairs (you all know who you are).
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users