> 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.