Friendly fire- On or off?

What is Friendly Fire?

when this setting is turned on,It allows you to cause damage to your own Team by grenades and weapon fire,vehicles,any other means.
This opens the doors to betrayals.

When turned off,your grenades and weapons don’t damage your team at all.But splatters by a allied vehicle can still occur along with being driven into a kill zone by your teammates.

Personally,I think it should be turned off,the amount of times I have been betrayed by team-mates by either grenades or on purpose for my weapons numbers is in the hundreds with any game with this on.
not counting badly thrown grenades that’s reduced me to a one or two shot that has caused me to die when I had a good chance of killing an enemy player.

Since Halo 4 on matchmaking has this turned off,I have only being betrayed 50 times,due to bad driving…

I think the Friendly fire/team killing/booting system needs to be overhauled all together,

there have been cases where I’ve been just flat out betrayed because I had a rocket launcher and I wasn’t given the option to kick, that’s not fair.

By default I think it should be on.

The game becomes more tactical. No, I don’t care about the occasional -Yoink!- that betrays me for a vehicle or weapon. I regard that as my fault for not getting a proper team I can trust to play with, as it is in my full power to do so.

Also, another aspect regarding the removal of friendly fire. I think it’s more a cure of the symptom rather than the cause of things. Any griefer that betrayed found other ways to grief. True, I haven’t encountered much griefing in Halo 4, but there have been griefers, those intent on doing it found other ways of doing it.

Anyone getting booted enough should after a few boots become matched against others who are like them. In fact, anyone who displays improper behaviour and lack of proper manners should be matched against each other.

The problem isn’t the “griefers”, it’s that they’re still present with those who wish to play properly.

> The game becomes more tactical. No, I don’t care about the occasional -Yoink!- that betrays me for a vehicle or weapon.

Then that just defeats the purpose of having the betray mechanic in the first place, you as a player should have every right to boot a player out for killing you for the purpose of taking your weapon because that 12 year old kid wasn’t fast enough.

> > The game becomes more tactical. No, I don’t care about the occasional -Yoink!- that betrays me for a vehicle or weapon.
>
> Then that just defeats the purpose of having the betray mechanic in the first place, you as a player should have every right to boot a player out for killing you for the purpose of taking your weapon because that 12 year old kid wasn’t fast enough.

Excuse me? What?

How does me not caring about weapon-betrayers defeat the purpose of a betrayal system?

> > > The game becomes more tactical. No, I don’t care about the occasional -Yoink!- that betrays me for a vehicle or weapon.
> >
> > Then that just defeats the purpose of having the betray mechanic in the first place, you as a player should have every right to boot a player out for killing you for the purpose of taking your weapon because that 12 year old kid wasn’t fast enough.
>
> Excuse me? What?
>
> How does me not caring about weapon-betrayers defeat the purpose of a betrayal system?

Edited:

The Betrayal system is there to enforce strict guidelines on the players who join to ruin anothers gameplay experience or ‘‘grief’’ the game.

‘‘Not caring’’ is your own preference but it doesn’t speak for the entire community, there are people who find these kind of players annoying because they want the weapon you have, or they do it because they find it funny, it’s not funny for the victim involved in the scheme and calls for the booting system to kick in and get rid of the player to promote a more friendlier environment.

I think this topic is deadbeat

Anyways, keep friendly fire on. Revamp the betrayal system. By the magical power of Cloud, the Xbox can tell whether there was an enemy nearby, therefore determine that the betrayal was happened on purpose for the most part. Have boot option pop up after " sustained friendly damage is done." That way, an assault rifle sprayer will eventually be silenced. Combine that with the ability to detect a nearby enemy, then the game should know when you threw a grenade to help a teammate or when no1 was around him at all.

I’m just making up stuff, so don’t take it too seriously

Since this is a recycled topic, I don’t feel bad about supplying a recycled reply.

> FF should be ON universally. When you play a Halo game, you should expect that. Big Team is a great example, where everyone gets used to Infinity settings, but when Team is selected, people still fire rockets at a single enemy surrounded by friendlies. It needs to be ON all the time.
>
> With that said, betrayal booting logic needs improvement. The current method prevents neither griefing nor unjustified booting. Some ideas:
>
> 1. Melees: There is no reason to allow melee damage to friendlies. Virtually 100% of the time this is done intentionally. Meleeing a friendly on accident is nearly impossible. The number of times where it is even remotely possible to be attempting to melee an enemy player but instead end up hitting a friendly are so few as to be irrelevant. This would apply to melees only - not to other CQC weapons. If you can’t control where you aim your shotgun, you deserve the boot.
>
> 2. Threshold: If there is no enemy player within your FoV, doing damage to friendlies should count at least double toward the threshold. While this won’t stop someone from tailing you with an AR and depleting your shields to the point where the first enemy shot kills you, it will allow you to boot someone who pours round after round into you every time you respawn when no one else is around, or someone who sticks nades to you whenever you board a vehicle.
>
> 3. Tradeoff: Damage you do to friendlies should be reduced by the amount of damage done to enemies during that same action. So if, for instance, you are playing on Opus and you have the rocket launcher and one of your buddies is in the process of getting assassinated with the ENTIRE ENEMY TEAM surrounding him and you blow all of them up for the overkill extermination . . . well, you shouldn’t get booted for that. Yes, I realize it’s still a betrayal, but the damage to your team really is offset by the damage to your enemies.
>
> 4. Love Taps: Changes need to be made to the damage dealt by vehicles. You can fall three miles unscathed, but clip your buddy at 5 MPH with the wing of your Ghost and you send his shattered corpse into orbit. There should be a minimum relative speed threshold for vehicles to deal damage.
>
> 5. Vehicular Pinball: If my hog gets blown up, its carcass should not cause a betrayal. If the carcass kills someone, that kill should go to the shooter who blew me up. If my hog gets launched and lands on someone, that kill should go to the shooter who launched me. Some situations might be quite tricky to distinguish between betrayal and not, and I’m fine defaulting to betrayal rather than make it uber-complicated. But the vast majority of unwarranted vehicle betrayals can be eliminated.
>
> 6. Betrayal Cam (this one is not my idea - but it’s a good one, so I include it here): Before being given the option to boot, you must watch the betrayal cam. This will help prevent people booting someone incorrectly. If you skip the betrayal cam, the option to boot does not appear.
>
>
> And lastly, there should be some kind of long-term tracking of betrayals. Accidental ones happen only occasionally. A consistent pattern of betrayals = griefing. And griefing deserves a nice, long ban.

> > > > The game becomes more tactical. No, I don’t care about the occasional -Yoink!- that betrays me for a vehicle or weapon.
> > >
> > > Then that just defeats the purpose of having the betray mechanic in the first place, you as a player should have every right to boot a player out for killing you for the purpose of taking your weapon because that 12 year old kid wasn’t fast enough.
> >
> > Excuse me? What?
> >
> > How does me not caring about weapon-betrayers defeat the purpose of a betrayal system?
>
> Edited:
>
> The Betrayal system is there to enforce strict guidelines on the players who join to ruin anothers gameplay experience or ‘‘grief’’ the game.
>
> ‘‘Not caring’’ is your own preference but it doesn’t speak for the entire community, there are people who find these kind of players annoying because they want the weapon you have, or they do it because they find it funny, it’s not funny for the victim involved in the scheme and calls for the booting system to kick in and get rid of the player to promote a more friendlier environment.

You’re totally misunderstanding me, or reading what you yourself want to read.

I do not want to remove the betrayal-boot system, that’s there for a purpose. Seeing as I continued my post elaborating on how the actual betrayers should be handled, I don’t see how I would have expressed an opinion to get rid of it or make it redundant.

In an argument I do not care if you bring up those who betray for weapons. Why?

First of all, you are actually in full control of who’s on your team. No one is incapable of getting friends to play with. So, if anyone gets bothered too much by the now and then betrayal for a weapon or vehicle, instead of asking for rule changes, FF being disabled like in Halo 4 at the expense of the gameplay, they could for instance make their own game experience better by getting a team together to play with. You’re free to get in alone, but this far into the global MM history, one has to blame themselves for going in alone, we all know what may be waiting on the other side.

Second, getting betrayed for a weapon or vehicle was extremely annoying, but it didn’t happen frequently enough to be treated as it was treated. Also, that was a treatment on the symptom, not the cause. If the game is intended to be played a certain way, we can expect a few rotten eggs, but to take the measure of disabling a gameplay element we assume that every or every second game has a few rotten eggs, which was never a reality.

Third, as I said earlier, the problem is that the symptoms are treated, not the cause. Now, in this case the cause is the player mentality itself of those who grief. No matter how good a programmer you are, there’s no way you can make a system that prevents anyone from griefing if they do not want to play properly. You can punish them etc, but that won’t prevent them from griefing in the future. However, one thing that can be done is take the rotten eggs and put them in their own basket, and then have a system in place that makes sure they’re there for a couple of clean games.

And the boot button should be relocated to another button, and be followed by an “are you sure” question.

So, I want FF on, and I do not care if you bring up Weapon-Betrayers, because that’s something you yourself can do something about. In other words, I do not care about “weapon-betrayers”.

> Snip

I was talking about the statement I quoted.

> > Snip
>
> I was talking about the statement I quoted.

The game becomes more tactical if friendly fire is enabled.

No, I do not care for arguments about weapon-betrayers.

Neither of these defeat the purpose of having a betrayal system because grifers will still exist.

It’s not worth sacrificing game depth because of some players feeling the need to grief. Especially when nothing is done to keep them properly from the general player population, and they’ll find other ways to grief either way.

Personally I would like friendly-fire to be removed. I understand and respect the arguments for keeping it, e.g. encouraging teamwork, reduce spamming and generally more “controlled” gameplay.

The problem is that it allows “griefers” free reign to betray for various reasons, be it a power weapon they want, for the sheer annoyance factor or ruining you’re spree etc. Unfortunately the system currently in place to counter this doesn’t work well enough.

I rarely get the option to boot players when they betray me for a sniper, for example. There’s nothing more annoying that getting betrayed for a power weapon, seeing that respawn screen and the griefer teabagging away, and there being no option to boot him.

Punishments for betraying need to be more severe to counter it, and the system itself needs to be more defined, to distinguish between accidents and deliberate betrayals.

To conclude, remove friendly fire (perhaps keep it for competitive MLG style playlists for a compromise).

I feel like it should be on always. I am sure anyone who has played long enough has definitely suffered from crappy teammates or trolls. It’s a part of the game. But, sometimes when betrayed (Halo 4) it doesn’t give me the option to boot player. I can’t tell you how many times in CTF when I am about to cap the flag someone betrays me to get it. All the hard work…just ruined. It’s definitely frustrating when you can’t even boot the -Yoink- haha. I feel like for players who take the game seriously the halo 4 community can be really sh*tty. I am finding myself playing a lot more Rumble Pit nowadays if my friends aren’t on. I hope they start penalizing players for betrayals more.

IMO, the gains from enabling friendly fire are negligible compared to the disadvantages it can have. Think about it, it’s a feature that allows you to kill your teammates, which is something you’re definitely supposed not to do. Why allow someone to do something they’re not supposed to do?

Sure we have banning, but no amount of system improvement will change the fact that preventing betrayals in the first place will stifle it better than just punishing people who are going to reoffend no matter what.

Treating the cause is better than treating the symptoms.

> > > Snip
> >
> > I was talking about the statement I quoted.
>
> …
>
> The game becomes more tactical if friendly fire is enabled.
>
> No, I do not care for arguments about weapon-betrayers.
>
> Neither of these defeat the purpose of having a betrayal system because grifers will still exist.
>
> It’s not worth sacrificing game depth because of some players feeling the need to grief. Especially when nothing is done to keep them properly from the general player population, and they’ll find other ways to grief either way.

. . . . .

I just want a more srict boot system that targets greifers, trollers and just general game ruiners, what’s wrong with that?

You’re obviously not on the same page as me so we should just end this convosation.

> IMO, the gains from enabling friendly fire are negligible compared to the disadvantages it can have.

We will never agree on this. Games play totally differently with FF ON than with it OFF. I much prefer the play with it ON.

> IMO, the gains from enabling friendly fire are negligible compared to the disadvantages it can have. Think about it, it’s a feature that allows you to kill your teammates, which is something you’re definitely supposed not to do. Why allow someone to do something they’re not supposed to do?
>
> Sure we have banning, but no amount of system improvement will change the fact that preventing betrayals in the first place will stifle it better than just punishing people who are going to reoffend no matter what.
>
> Treating the cause is better than treating the symptoms.

Friendly Fire isn’t about allowing players to kill their own team, it enables it, doesn’t allow. That’s two completely different things.

With friendly fire on, team members need to be more careful about their placement and movement, where they direct whatever explosive they’re using etc.

As you think team killing is a bad thing, if we ignore griefers for a while, accidentaly killing a team mate is still a bad thing, it’s a set back for the whole team. Especially if you’re punished by longer spawn times, a reduction in your score and/or that the enemy potentially may get an upper hand as you just offed one of your own that was there to support you.

It adds depth. By removing it you make the game more shallow.

Seeing as you’re just using what I wrote without reading what I wrote.

Treat the cause, not the symptom.

Killing a team member on purpose is the symptom, by disabling friendly fire you do treat the symptom, not the cause. Understand that the player mentality and attitude is the cause, not friendly fire. Killing a team mate, or otherwise griefing is just one way that mentality/attitude expresses itself, thus a symptom.

In this case you can’t cure the cause, as it’s in the player. What you can do however is remove the player from the general population. As you said though, banning will not help as they’ll just sit it out and continue doing what they were doing. The proper way to handle it is to remove the player from the general population. Let those who do not wish to play properly play against each other. If you’re a team killer by habit, then with other habitual team killers you shall play, or quitters, AFKers, etc etc. In order to get back they’d have to have some clean games with the other griefers, then they’d be on probation, with a longer sentance with the others who like to play “wrong”. They can’t wait it out, they can’t prance around the game and do nothing to get it over with. They’d need to play properly in order to get back.

> I just want a more srict boot system that targets greifers, trollers and just general game ruiners, what’s wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that. I however never said that I didn’t want a betrayal boot system, nor did I say I didn’t want a more strict one.

And the problem isn’t that it’s not strict. It’s that it’s inconsistent and seemingly random at times.

It doesn’t need to be strict either, it needs to be precise. It needs to recognize what can be regarded as intentional griefing. There have been plenty of suggestions how to construct such a system, and what it should look for in order to be more precise.

And I think my suggestion as to what to do with griefers is quite a good one to eliminate them from the general population. How fun would it be for them to play three games where players quit, AFK, team kill etc, in order to play with proper players again? How much fun do you think they have playing three “proper” games in order to get to the general population in order to grief one game and then be back to playing four proper games with other griefers in order to yet again be back to griefing “ordinary players”?

Either they quit playing altogether, which isn’t a loss at all seeing as they’re only ruining things. Or they get their stuff together and play normaly, which is actually a good thing. Or they’re intent on griefing in the “time out box” where the “proper players” aren’t affected, which is again, a win.

We could have a system in which friendlies take only 50% of the damage inflicted by other teammates. This way, if a player is killed by his own teammate, it’s almost positively on purpose.

Obviously it’s not a fool-proof system, but it would be a good intermediate between having FF on or off.

If we play only with big toys like in heavies it should be turned off.
For the rest i don´t know.

I am for having it turn on. I don’t like the fact you can fire a rocket at pile of players and only the enemy gets damaged. This makes you have to be more careful with what you are doing.