Jump to content


What should of happened with team damage


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

xx984 #1 Posted 14 August 2019 - 04:53 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 63165 battles
  • 3,209
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

I honestly think it could've been done alot better if they removed team damage from directly shooting allies, But kept it for splashes with HE.

 

Would mean arty cannot shoot into a group of tanks anymore, same goes for tanks like 4005/KV-2 etc without being punished. As it stands right now, allied arty can still stun you so many times and not go blue. 

 

Would also mean that you will rarely get shot by allies out of frustration, and the times they load HE to splash under your tank etc, you will take much less damage, and they could also be more severe with the team damage automatic ban system as it clearly would not be an accident, Could be blue after first time, banned after the second.

 

Thoughts?



Yakito #2 Posted 14 August 2019 - 04:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20019 battles
  • 1,439
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011

I often wonder. Why do people think that "should of" "would of" etc is actually ok. Is it because you hear "should've" so often it slowly starts sounding like "of" instead of "ve"?

It's like some people say "pacific" instead of "specific". Maybe it's learning from hearing.
 

And to answer your question. No, I don't think making HE splash deal damage would be a good thing. The absolute worst scenario was always to be shot by a team member that had  a derp gun.

FV, kv-2 etc. If they still remain able to splash near you and damage you then the whole friendly fire thing is worthless. 


Edited by Yakito, 14 August 2019 - 05:03 PM.


FrantisekBascovansky #3 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:03 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 27968 battles
  • 705
  • Member since:
    03-26-2018

View PostYakito, on 14 August 2019 - 04:59 PM, said:

I often wonder. Why do people think that "should of" "would of" etc is actually ok. Is it because you hear "should've" so often it slowly starts sounding like "of" instead of "ve"?

It's like some people say "pacific" instead of "specific". Maybe it's learning from hearing.
 

 

your right



Yakito #4 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20019 battles
  • 1,439
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011

View PostFrantisekBascovansky, on 14 August 2019 - 04:03 PM, said:

 

your right

Nice try.



StinkyStonky #5 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:06 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 33679 battles
  • 2,817
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

View PostYakito, on 14 August 2019 - 03:59 PM, said:

I often wonder. Why do people think that "should of" "would of" etc is actually ok. Is it because you hear "should've" so often it slowly starts sounding like "of" instead of "ve"?

It's like some people say "pacific" instead of "specific". Maybe it's learning from hearing. 

 

I couldn't care fewer.



_6i6_ #6 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:20 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 17985 battles
  • 431
  • [A__K] A__K
  • Member since:
    03-22-2018

View PostStinkyStonky, on 14 August 2019 - 06:06 PM, said:

 

I couldn't care fewer.


less

 

:P


Edited by _6i6_, 14 August 2019 - 05:20 PM.


8126Jakobsson #7 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:22 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 77885 battles
  • 4,972
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
That "safe shot" mod would had been a decent compromise. With that you can't point at and deliberately shoot at an ally, but you can still hit them in other occasions, making the "toxic" shots go away and still have the risk in battle stay.

Balc0ra #8 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:25 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 72036 battles
  • 20,300
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Well, they still did it better than console. That had everything off. And no penalty for anything. Even drowning.

 

Tho WG said that stun would still turn you blue when this was announced. But that's gotta be after 30+ hits in a short time. As I've not seen a single one turn blue for stuns, even after several group stuns on HT lanes. I got hit 6-7 times one game in my Setter from friendly arty that was not happy with my spotting. I was left blind during my stuns vs targets that was doing damage to my team. And he did it with no risk of penalties of any sort.

 

But HE splash damage at this point is not gonna help much. Stuns on friendlies should still be compensated for to increase the risk, zero damage or not. So for each stun, you lose income. And really tight in how much it takes to turn blue with friendly stuns. As in make it around 3-5 and have it wear off as your friendly to enemy stun ratio evens out again, much like the old TD system.

 

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 14 August 2019 - 05:22 PM, said:

That "safe shot" mod would had been a decent compromise. With that you can't point at and deliberately shoot at an ally, but you can still hit them in other occasions, making the "toxic" shots go away and still have the risk in battle stay.

 

Well considering that most have a rather wide stun radius. They don't even have to be in their sight or circle to screw you over.


Edited by Balc0ra, 14 August 2019 - 05:26 PM.


Joggaman #9 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:26 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 25189 battles
  • 6,899
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 14 August 2019 - 06:22 PM, said:

That "safe shot" mod would had been a decent compromise. With that you can't point at and deliberately shoot at an ally, but you can still hit them in other occasions, making the "toxic" shots go away and still have the risk in battle stay.


if not keeping team damage is an option, ^this^ is what they should have done.



xx984 #10 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:29 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 63165 battles
  • 3,209
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 14 August 2019 - 04:22 PM, said:

That "safe shot" mod would had been a decent compromise. With that you can't point at and deliberately shoot at an ally, but you can still hit them in other occasions, making the "toxic" shots go away and still have the risk in battle stay.

cant that be avoided by aiming at someone, and holding right click to not look or highlight the ally when you fire though? 



8126Jakobsson #11 Posted 14 August 2019 - 05:40 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 77885 battles
  • 4,972
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 14 August 2019 - 05:25 PM, said:

 Well considering that most have a rather wide stun radius. They don't even have to be in their sight or circle to screw you over.

 

Yeah that's true. I was just thinking about the FF removal as a whole. They didn't have to go full gutter rails. 



kubawt112 #12 Posted 14 August 2019 - 07:17 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 711
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Post8126Jakobsson, on 14 August 2019 - 05:22 PM, said:

That "safe shot" mod would had been a decent compromise. With that you can't point at and deliberately shoot at an ally, but you can still hit them in other occasions, making the "toxic" shots go away and still have the risk in battle stay.

 

It would've, though chances are you'd have people complaining it wasn't working well enough. It's not particularly hard to 'override', and might not remove all the accidental shots.

 

My vote would still go to the eternal spaghetti code. i.e. it's a hard solution to implement because it requires changing too much. I assume it's far easier to simply set the damage towards friendlies to a firm zero - gotta wonder why SPGs still may stun allies, of course. :rolleyes:



fisco77 #13 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:05 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 76418 battles
  • 526
  • Member since:
    07-09-2012

View PostFrantisekBascovansky, on 14 August 2019 - 05:03 PM, said:

 

View PostStinkyStonky, on 14 August 2019 - 05:06 PM, said:

 

View Post_6i6_, on 14 August 2019 - 05:20 PM, said:

 

 

To those that don't get it why, OP wrote the title of the thread wrong, correct is "should have" instead of "should of". To be fair he got it semi-right the second time (first sentence, 'could've' ). He also spelled "thoughts" correctly, so overall it's a solid effort. Just pointing it out, since it was also the first thing that popped into my head, but i realize that someone not so proficient in English would of just skipped right over it and never notice, nevermind, nothing to see here...


Edited by fisco77, 14 August 2019 - 11:10 PM.


NekoPuffer_PPP #14 Posted 14 August 2019 - 11:50 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 33762 battles
  • 3,890
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

View Postxx984, on 14 August 2019 - 05:53 PM, said:

I honestly think it could've been done alot better if they removed team damage from directly shooting allies, But kept it for splashes with HE.

 

Would mean arty cannot shoot into a group of tanks anymore, same goes for tanks like 4005/KV-2 etc without being punished. As it stands right now, allied arty can still stun you so many times and not go blue. 

 

Would also mean that you will rarely get shot by allies out of frustration, and the times they load HE to splash under your tank etc, you will take much less damage, and they could also be more severe with the team damage automatic ban system as it clearly would not be an accident, Could be blue after first time, banned after the second.

 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts - I'd rather take no damage than any damage. Good night.



vasilinhorulezz #15 Posted 15 August 2019 - 01:24 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27282 battles
  • 1,889
  • Member since:
    09-26-2014
Unnecessary change, only benefit is that minor collisions with allies at the spawn don't make you lose HP anymore, but griefing has gone up, now people can push you/block you without the fear of retaliation, so they abuse it as *edited.

Edited by AngryCombatWombat, 15 August 2019 - 06:10 PM.
Inappropriate language


15JG52Brauer #16 Posted 15 August 2019 - 01:36 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 81295 battles
  • 717
  • [WHO] WHO
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011
I'd rather not give trolls ways to still damage people with HE.  I do think arty firing into a group of tanks is a bit stupid - but if it prevents trolling then it's a preferable option. You will benefit from it roughly as often as you fall foul of it ,so the net impact on your gameplay over a long session should be zero. It both means there are times when your arty can save you , and the enemeys arty can save him - accept it, deal with it and move on - not even worth a thread IMHO - all this sort of stuff just seems like trolls wanting to find ways to persuade people to allow some form of team damage back in the game so they can try some new form of gun barrell trick or splash people to death with KV2's etc.
00:37 Added after 1 minute

View Postvasilinhorulezz, on 15 August 2019 - 12:24 AM, said:

Unnecessary change, only benefit is that minor collisions with allies at the spawn don't make you lose HP anymore, but griefing has gone up, now people can push you/block you without the fear of retaliation, so they abuse it as f***.


Personally  I'd say griefing in my light tanks is way down on what it was - and there is a massive drop in arty griefing as well - so IMHO it's a net gain. Also I have found support quite quick (1-2 hours) at responding to tickets on physics abuse/pushing - so report them. At least 2 people I reported since 1.6 with tickets for physics abuse seem to have taken a few days off from playing - hopefully enough of them will get the message if we all report them, then the game will be a better place.


Edited by 15JG52Brauer, 15 August 2019 - 01:39 AM.


GrannyPanties #17 Posted 15 August 2019 - 01:55 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 1086 battles
  • 102
  • Member since:
    12-27-2014
People can push you out of their favorite bush. Ya much fun

iuytr #18 Posted 15 August 2019 - 02:33 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11772 battles
  • 682
  • Member since:
    06-04-2015

View PostYakito, on 14 August 2019 - 04:59 PM, said:

I often wonder. Why do people think that "should of" "would of" etc is actually ok. Is it because you hear "should've" so often it slowly starts sounding like "of" instead of "ve"?

It's like some people say "pacific" instead of "specific". Maybe it's learning from hearing.

 

It is indeed exactly that, phonetic spelling. It's almost exclusively an error made by people whose first language is English. People learn to speak before learning to write and if they don't learn the written language very well then phonetic spelling is the result. I work with a number of EU citizens and their written English is far superior to the locals.

 

Interestingly, the OP actually typed "could've" in his very first sentence!

 



8126Jakobsson #19 Posted 15 August 2019 - 07:21 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 77885 battles
  • 4,972
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Postiuytr, on 15 August 2019 - 02:33 AM, said:

 

It is indeed exactly that, phonetic spelling. It's almost exclusively an error made by people whose first language is English. People learn to speak before learning to write and if they don't learn the written language very well then phonetic spelling is the result. I work with a number of EU citizens and their written English is far superior to the locals.

 

Interestingly, the OP actually typed "could've" in his very first sentence!

 


Can confirm that op is native englando. It's quite interesting how one can type "of" instead of "have" and not see what's going on. 



Baba_Yaga_s #20 Posted 15 August 2019 - 07:36 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 41051 battles
  • 233
  • [FUS2D] FUS2D
  • Member since:
    11-23-2012
Friendly fire off = boring gameplay , now i just click and click and i don`t care if my team mate are fighting in front of me , i can play like a bot an shoot doesnt matter if i hit my mate or not anymore...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users