There’s a really good topic on betrayals on the forums right now (The binary rifle topic), and I figured it’d be interesting to see opinions in poll form.
it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
> 2535415305234137;2:
> it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
On the contrary it adds to the skill requirement because you have to take notice of your team mates’ positions as well when using high caliber weapons and explosives.
It doesn’t promote betrayals either, that is solely a player behaviour. If it promoted betrayals we’d see a lot more of them than we currently do. Then again, I might be a special player because I have yet to see any intentional betraying in Halo 5. Not that it’s something I can prove.
Also, it somewhat keeps powerful power weapons in check through balance as well.
> 2533274795123910;3:
> > 2535415305234137;2:
> > it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
>
>
> On the contrary it adds to the skill requirement because you have to take notice of your team mates’ positions as well when using high caliber weapons and explosives.
>
> It doesn’t promote betrayals either, that is solely a player behaviour. If it promoted betrayals we’d see a lot more of them than we currently do. Then again, I might be a special player because I have yet to see any intentional betraying in Halo 5. Not that it’s something I can prove.
>
> Also, it somewhat keeps powerful power weapons in check through balance as well.
While this is true to some extent, I feel like most people are happy to ignore their teammates when using, say, a rocket launcher and just go for it. Most teammates won’t boot someone who very obviously kills them on accident, and most people are happy to get the power weapon kill for their team and their stats.
> 2533274851326318;4:
> > 2533274795123910;3:
> > > 2535415305234137;2:
> > > it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
> >
> >
> > On the contrary it adds to the skill requirement because you have to take notice of your team mates’ positions as well when using high caliber weapons and explosives.
> >
> > It doesn’t promote betrayals either, that is solely a player behaviour. If it promoted betrayals we’d see a lot more of them than we currently do. Then again, I might be a special player because I have yet to see any intentional betraying in Halo 5. Not that it’s something I can prove.
> >
> > Also, it somewhat keeps powerful power weapons in check through balance as well.
>
>
> While this is true to some extent, I feel like most people are happy to ignore their teammates when using, say, a rocket launcher and just go for it. Most teammates won’t boot someone who very obviously kills them on accident, and most people are happy to get the power weapon kill for their team and their stats.
Which part? The skill part or more betrayals?
If it’s the skill part, then elaborate how player behaviour plays in on it not adding to the skill requirement.
If it’s about promoting betraying.
A player not caring about team mates in a blast radius while friendly fire is on, is not friendly fire promoting betrayals.
For Friendly Fire to promote betrayals, players would have to damage team mates simply because they can.
There’s a huge difference between ignoring friendly fire and damaging team mates, and actively intentionally damaging team mates because you can.
> 2533274795123910;3:
> > 2535415305234137;2:
> > it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
>
>
> On the contrary it adds to the skill requirement because you have to take notice of your team mates’ positions as well when using high caliber weapons and explosives.
>
> It doesn’t promote betrayals either, that is solely a player behaviour. If it promoted betrayals we’d see a lot more of them than we currently do. Then again, I might be a special player because I have yet to see any intentional betraying in Halo 5. Not that it’s something I can prove.
>
> Also, it somewhat keeps powerful power weapons in check through balance as well.
This, without betrayals people would just spam-nades and explosives around more so then they already do.
Friendly fire should be in all gametypes. Learn how to not shoot your teammates. Learn how to not step in front of your teammate’s shot. Learn to communicate with your team.
> 2533274795123910;5:
> > 2533274851326318;4:
> > > 2533274795123910;3:
> > > > 2535415305234137;2:
> > > > it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
> > >
> > >
> > > On the contrary it adds to the skill requirement because you have to take notice of your team mates’ positions as well when using high caliber weapons and explosives.
> > >
> > > It doesn’t promote betrayals either, that is solely a player behaviour. If it promoted betrayals we’d see a lot more of them than we currently do. Then again, I might be a special player because I have yet to see any intentional betraying in Halo 5. Not that it’s something I can prove.
> > >
> > > Also, it somewhat keeps powerful power weapons in check through balance as well.
> >
> >
> > While this is true to some extent, I feel like most people are happy to ignore their teammates when using, say, a rocket launcher and just go for it. Most teammates won’t boot someone who very obviously kills them on accident, and most people are happy to get the power weapon kill for their team and their stats.
>
>
> Which part? The skill part or more betrayals?
>
> If it’s the skill part, then elaborate how player behaviour plays in on it not adding to the skill requirement.
>
> If it’s about promoting betraying.
> A player not caring about team mates in a blast radius while friendly fire is on, is not friendly fire promoting betrayals.
> For Friendly Fire to promote betrayals, players would have to damage team mates simply because they can.
> There’s a huge difference between ignoring friendly fire and damaging team mates, and actively intentionally damaging team mates because you can.
I’m saying the way people generally behave means it doesn’t really extend the skill gap very much. Most people ignore the team damage when using grenades and explosive weapons.
I agree that the example I gave does not show that team damage promotes betraying. That’s an entirely separate issue. Team damage promotes betraying, for example, in the common instance where someone takes a power weapon someone else wants and therefore the other person kills them and takes it. You can’t deny that this DOES happen, and that it does happen often enough that it’s a concern. The real question is whether or not you believe the skill gap increase is great enough to merit the setback of some people exploiting team damage to betray teammates for weapons
> 2533274851326318;8:
> > 2533274795123910;5:
> > > 2533274851326318;4:
> > > > 2533274795123910;3:
> > > > > 2535415305234137;2:
> > > > > it literally adds nothing to the gameplay except promoting betrayals. It also causes lots of needed and accidental deaths as well as other team getting easy kills. There is no need for it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On the contrary it adds to the skill requirement because you have to take notice of your team mates’ positions as well when using high caliber weapons and explosives.
> > > >
> > > > It doesn’t promote betrayals either, that is solely a player behaviour. If it promoted betrayals we’d see a lot more of them than we currently do. Then again, I might be a special player because I have yet to see any intentional betraying in Halo 5. Not that it’s something I can prove.
> > > >
> > > > Also, it somewhat keeps powerful power weapons in check through balance as well.
> > >
> > >
> > > While this is true to some extent, I feel like most people are happy to ignore their teammates when using, say, a rocket launcher and just go for it. Most teammates won’t boot someone who very obviously kills them on accident, and most people are happy to get the power weapon kill for their team and their stats.
> >
> >
> > Which part? The skill part or more betrayals?
> >
> > If it’s the skill part, then elaborate how player behaviour plays in on it not adding to the skill requirement.
> >
> > If it’s about promoting betraying.
> > A player not caring about team mates in a blast radius while friendly fire is on, is not friendly fire promoting betrayals.
> > For Friendly Fire to promote betrayals, players would have to damage team mates simply because they can.
> > There’s a huge difference between ignoring friendly fire and damaging team mates, and actively intentionally damaging team mates because you can.
>
>
> I’m saying the way people generally behave means it doesn’t really extend the skill gap very much. Most people ignore the team damage when using grenades and explosive weapons.
>
> I agree that the example I gave does not show that team damage promotes betraying. That’s an entirely separate issue. Team damage promotes betraying, for example, in the common instance where someone takes a power weapon someone else wants and therefore the other person kills them and takes it. You can’t deny that this DOES happen, and that it does happen often enough that it’s a concern. The real question is whether or not you believe the skill gap increase is great enough to merit the setback of some people exploiting team damage to betray teammates for weapons
Player behaviour does not impact the skill gap. The requirement is still there.
Your skill is what you “use” in order to outperform your opponent through the rules of the game.
In a match you decide what you do, all the time. These decisions you make will then weigh in towards the outcome of the match. You make good decisions, or bad. Good decisions goes to the positive outcome for you and your team, bad decisions goes to the negative outcome of the match for you and your team.
Ignoring friendly fire will in a vast majority of cases be a decision that goes towards the negative outcome of the match for you and your team. Because you ignoring it and dealing damage to friendlies, will have some sort of negative impact on your team’s performance. This aspect, this negative impact does not go away when you ignore it.
Thing is though, this isn’t just about your team, it’s about both teams. The team which makes the most bad decisions will be the losing team, no? If both teams ignore friendly fire, both are doing bad decisions. However, if one of the teams takes it into account, it will most likely have the upper hand, if they don’t make other bad decisions.
How shall I put this to make it better understandable if the explanation isn’t good enough, or too complicated.
If you ignore the fact that ice on the road is slippery, it doesn’t decrease the chances that you will end off sliding off the road.
Just the same as ignoring friendly fire will not decrase the skill gap, because bad decisions will have bad consequences for the result.
As I also explained, promoting betrayals would be players damaging team mates because they are allowed to, or even if there is a direct benefit to it.
Betraying for power weapons is a player attitude however, while we can say that there is a “benefit” for the player to betray for a power weapon, getting the power weapon, I wouldn’t say it’s a direct benefit from friendly fire, but rather a benefit from different mechanics. For instance, we could also despawn weapons immediately when players die instead of removing friendly fire, and you wouldn’t see betrayals for power weapons. We won’t do that of course, it’s an example.
Instead of asking if the skill gap increase is enough to merit’s its continued existence against bad player attitude. How about asking ourselves if we are to change gameplay based on players who aren’t skilled and/or when the game isn’t being played as it should be played.
Why should gameplay be changed around players who do not play as intended?
Why should gameplay be altered around players who aren’t good at the game?
You can’t deny that if we were to change gameplay around unintended gameplay, in this case removing friendly fire, or alternatively despawn weapons immediatley in order to enforce normal gameplay for those players who chose unintended gameplay. The actual normal gameplay, the way the game was intended to be played, will change, and how will that change be for the better?
Same with gameplay alatered around players who aren’t skilled at the game. Perfectly balanced aspects of the game may seem unbalanced to low skilled players, but this balance shows at higher levels of play. Or for instance, things that are viewed as balanced at lower levels of play can be extremely unbalanced the better you get.
They should be penalizing people for doing damage to team mates than just kills cause too many people are too smart to not finish the kill.