Halo if and only if Friendly Fire?

[sindronian]

Why does Halo need friendly fire in order to be Halo?

 

People argue that friendly fire as a feature in Halo is a good thing because it encourages people to be careful, tactical and skilful which allows for a little more realism which brings us closer to a war-like feeling.

 

I would argue this:

 

In real life, people who fight are trained vigerously. If one of them mowed down a few of their squad members and started complaining about how his squad mates ran in front of his bullets or didn't get out of the way when he threw a grenade to his officer things wouldn't go too well for that guy. Or maybe if he said: "Sir, Jay and Wilson had our sniper rifles for two missions now. I was just a little frustrated, don't worry, they'll respawn."

 

Obviously that is not real and in 99.9-bar of all cases (which is mathematically equivalent to 100 but whatever [lol University]) it would never happen.

 

So when I'm getting team-killed by some 11 year old who has his hands full with trying to kill me and getting his dad to bring him that freaking chocolate milk I really do not view friendly fire as something that adds realism. Most people don't give a crap about team-killing and don't act as if we've had points (sometimes) where we haven't either. Sometimes I'm annoyed playing Halo and some guy in griffball will betray me and I will just spawn kill him until the game is over or until he quits.

 

Which brings me to another point. No one learns from betraying people. If anyone on this forum betrays anybody do they try and be more careful next time? Maybe that game. After that though they will throw grenades exactly the same etc. Play styles don't change in Halo.

 

Halo players already aren't that careful. They throw grenades where they see action. Don't act like you don't do it sometimes. If you saw an 3 enemies with low shields smacking around one of your allies would you throw a grenade for the triple knowing you wouldn't get a betrayal for it (but it actually is)? You probably would. This isn't a bad thing, it's a video game. I don't expect people to play like highly trained soldiers (you can't anyway given control restrictions). There is a solution though. A solution that can help us avoid dumb decisions, no friendly fire. IF ONLY the real world had this.

 

So please (willy wonka meme), tell me why we need team-killing in Halo and how it adds ANYTHING

[Ventus]

I agree with you, but there are always some people that will disagree no matter what. That's all I have to say.

[Quantum]

Oh, I see. He wants no team killing so it can be more like Call of Duty.

[Cocoa]

I like the chaos, makes it more fun.

[sindronian]

Oh, I see. He wants no team killing so it can be more like Call of Duty.

 

You disgust me shouldn't you be on the waypoint forums? I hope you're joking.

[MeatWood™]

I don't mind getting killed by a teammate, so then i can boot them mid game. =)

[rangerofthewest]

I don't mind getting killed by a teammate, so then i can boot them mid game. =)

 

what's funner is if you're continually hunting a teammate and they revenge-betray you and you get the option to boot them.

[sindronian]

what's funner is if you're continually hunting a teammate and they revenge-betray you and you get the option to boot them.

 

Want to know what's even more funny? The boot system is total junk and boots you whenever it feels like it and I hate it. Atleast in Halo 3 you knew when you were going to get booted. Some team-mate runs me over with the ghost at the beginning of a game, no boot option. I decide to pay him back or accidentally kill him in combat, I get booted. I hate it so much.

[Romeosierra616]

what's funner is if you're continually hunting a teammate and they revenge-betray you and you get the option to boot them.

 

THIS! If the feeling I got from doing this had a physical form, I would do things to it to it...

 

[sindronian]

THIS! If the feeling I got from doing this had a physical form, I would do things to it to it...

 

 

Lol, sure it's humorous when it happens to that guy but when it happens to you...sometimes I'm pissed and I have to hit him back. It's like these Reach trolls know that I will get kicked and not them. Dammit.

[realitykid]

Honestly, I don't care either way. I find it fun to betray my friends from time to time when it's just a split screen match. Other than that, I really don't care.

[Echo]

Why does Halo need friendly fire in order to be Halo?

In real life, people who fight are trained vigerously. If one of them mowed down a few of their squad members and started complaining about how his squad mates ran in front of his bullets or didn't get out of the way when he threw a grenade to his officer things wouldn't go too well for that guy. Or maybe if he said: "Sir, Jay and Wilson had our sniper rifles for two missions now. I was just a little frustrated, don't worry, they'll respawn."

 

Obviously that is not real and in 99.9-bar of all cases (which is mathematically equivalent to 100 but whatever [lol University]) it would never happen.

 

So when I'm getting team-killed by some 11 year old who has his hands full with trying to kill me and getting his dad to bring him that freaking chocolate milk I really do not view friendly fire as something that adds realism. Most people don't give a crap about team-killing and don't act as if we've had points (sometimes) where we haven't either. Sometimes I'm annoyed playing Halo and some guy in griffball will betray me and I will just spawn kill him until the game is over or until he quits.

 

Which brings me to another point. No one learns from betraying people. If anyone on this forum betrays anybody do they try and be more careful next time? Maybe that game. After that though they will throw grenades exactly the same etc. Play styles don't change in Halo.

 

Halo players already aren't that careful. They throw grenades where they see action. Don't act like you don't do it sometimes. If you saw an 3 enemies with low shields smacking around one of your allies would you throw a grenade for the triple knowing you wouldn't get a betrayal for it (but it actually is)? You probably would.

 

 

But then you get people who exploit the game in unrealistic ways. I remember one time me and some friends had a custom game with no friendly fire. My friends threw sticky grenades on me, I ran inside the base, blew everyone else up BUT me, and ran out with the flag to the mongoose.

 

Trust me, team killing is fine. Sure people are annoying about betrayals, but they only get 1 warning (sometimes) before they quit. And normally I piss them off enough to kill me again so i can boot them lol

 

Plus then you'd get people who would STAY in vehicles and never get out of them. This is literally game breaking, especially if someone from their team gets in the passenger seat, blocking it off from the flag carrier who needs to be there. Or even worse, some troll runs up and gets the flag, then hides with it. Your team would have NO way of getting it back without leading the enemy to the flag carrier somehow without them killing you first.

 

But in the end, friendly fire just works. I feel like the reasons I just gave more than justifies it over the reasons you just gave. There's a difference between being annoying, and literally preventing your team from winning, JUST for the lulz.

 

Hell, I could spawn in a bomb game, grab our bomb, and just stand there with it until our time runs out. Blasting music through my mic and jumping up and down just to annoy people.

 

So please (willy wonka meme), tell me why we need team-killing in Halo and how it adds ANYTHING

 

[Romeosierra616]

Lol, sure it's humorous when it happens to that guy but when it happens to you...sometimes I'm pissed and I have to hit him back. It's like these Reach trolls know that I will get kicked and not them. Dammit.

 

Oh god when it happens to me I'm pissed hahaha!

[sindronian]

But then you get people who exploit the game in unrealistic ways.

Well sure but how many people are going to do this? Not many. Maybe some youtube partners. So it's realistic to kill your team-mates repeatedly for stupid reasons? I can argue the exact same thing bro.

Plus then you'd get people who would STAY in vehicles and never get out of them. This is literally game breaking

Interesting. So it isn't game breaking for someone on your team to snipe your flag carrier 3 times, and then have his friend splatter the flag carrier 3 times, and then....yeah.

Hell, I could spawn in a bomb game, grab our bomb, and just stand there with it until our time runs out. Blasting music through my mic and jumping up and down just to annoy people.

Lol, so what is your solution to a guy who sits there with the bomb or doesn't get out of a vehicle? Kill him right ? I'm starting to see why you like friendly fire. Stuff like this almost never happens, some segregated youtube groups do this for views and lols. This kind of stuff has happened to me very few times. The ratio to the events you're talking about an the events I'm talking about is under 1.

 

I already told you

 

 

AND

 

 

Not to mention this thing, happens more than it needs to.

 

 

I don't mind getting killed by a teammate, so then i can boot them mid game. =)

 

Maybe in halo 3 you can actually know when you can boot a player. Otherwise you'll probably get booted just for thinking about booting him in Reach.

[Quantum]

You disgust me shouldn't you be on the waypoint forums? I hope you're joking.

 

Really? Can you not take a joke? And who are tell me (of all people; a near one year member on staff) where I belong? If you had even been here for a while, you would know I like to crack jokes all the time, even if they're not funny. I meant nothing in offense by my sentence and I take nothing back. Yes, you can have you're opinion. But you don't need to go and get all butt hurt when I state mine. I didn't even have the proper time to respond to your thread.

 

See the thing is, they put in place a system for booting. I know you already talked about this, but you are being a complete hypocrite.

 

The booting system gives you the option to boot someone who betrayed you. If we take your approach to this, stated in the first post, you have no interest in team killing. So say you get betrayed, you leave him alone. If he's still being a $#@%^&@#!^&@, and betrays you again, it lets you boot him. So you should have no problem.

 

But then you continued to say the system in unpredictable? BECAUSE YOU BETRAYED THEM BACK AND IT GAVE THEM THE OPTION TO BOOT YOU? Huh. Isn't that exactly what you're against in the first place?

[Echo]

Well sure but how many people are going to do this? Not many. Maybe some youtube partners. So it's realistic to kill your team-mates repeatedly for stupid reasons? I can argue the exact same thing bro.

 

Not only are team kills less frequent than you're leading on, it's not the exact same thing, "bro."

 

Let me take it a little further for you. Take the same scenario with the plasma grenade sticks, and include frag nades. While I run into the flag area, my team mates could just deck the area with frags and plasmas and rockets and get everyone off the flag point that isnt me.

 

This, unlike the plasma sticks, is much more likely to be abused, because it's actually a strong and VERY easy tactic. The enemies are in the blood gulch base, our team is on top about to drop in. All we have to do is nuke the place with explosives while one guy drops in and throws the flag up. That's one situation out of several that are much less fair than "killing your team mates," especially when team killing is resolved after 5 seconds. They either do it once, and the game continues, or they do it twice and they get booted.

 

 

Interesting. So it isn't game breaking for someone on your team to snipe your flag carrier 3 times, and then have his friend splatter the flag carrier 3 times, and then....yeah.

 

Snipping the flag carrier 3 times isn't even possible. They would get booted after 2 kills, regardless of what you think the booting system is like.

 

 

Lol, so what is your solution to a guy who sits there with the bomb or doesn't get out of a vehicle? Kill him right ? I'm starting to see why you like friendly fire. Stuff like this almost never happens, some segregated youtube groups do this for views and lols. This kind of stuff has happened to me very few times. The ratio to the events you're talking about an the events I'm talking about is under 1.

 

And I'm starting to see why you fail to understand the logic behind this. Yes, if someone is in the passenger seat and won't move, kill him. He's trolling. If someone sits there with the bomb and doesn't move, yes, kill him. He's trolling.

 

Stuff like this almost "never happens" because friendly fire is on. If friendly fire was off, the ratio would be much greater, and in favor of me.

 

You may or may not remember this (depending on how old you are...) In Halo 2, sudden death use to give you unlimited time, but with a later update they gave the sudden death a time limit, why? Because people knew of the exploit and they would sit with the bomb/flag and never let the time end. Even though this isn't directly associated with team killing, per say, it shows that the community will exploit things that can be exploited, just like how some people kill on the same team for whatever reason they have.

 

It's not that team killing is logical, it's that it's a far BETTER outcome than what no friendly fire would give us.

 

And if you still want to try and put ratios and statistics into this, you'd be even more wrong. Because last I checked, Team killing for a chance at ruining the game is less likely to succeed than no team killing and having someone sit with the bomb, resulting in ruining the game with 100% certainty for those on the same team.

 

 

Oh, friendly fire isn't game breaking? Tell me how many times you haven't been killed for the flag.

 

Wrong

 

I never said friendly fire wasn't game breaking. You just decided to take my words out of context and negate the fact that I'm simply saying friendly fire is less game breaking than no friendly fire.

 

Oh, you think people exploit objectives more than betrayals? Tell me that and you're straight up lying

 

As I stated before, you can't argue without all possible statistics. People exploit betrayals more than objectives BECAUSE friendly fire is on. If friendly fire was off, There would be more game breaking exploits that would be used more often than you realize. If you played Halo 2 since launch day, you'd probably know this. (Or if you played any online game for that matter). Any team killing that is punishable by a boot after simply 1 or 2 kills is much more justifiable than no friendly fire, simply because grieving the bomb is simply 100% game breaking, deciding the outcome of the game before it even started.

 

First killpocalypse in Halo 4, gets killionaire choked by ally

 

You do realize that if someone was that dedicated to ruining your killionaire in Halo 4 (someone who was actually counting all the kills you had for, you know, whatever reason lol) they could just simply steal your kills instead. In both scenarios, this could be done. So this doesn't even hold ground. In fact, it's more likely they would kill the enemy before they would kill you, reducing how many warnings they have before they get booted from a betrayal lol

 

 

And in response to all your memes, at least try to be consistent... You asked us to tell you why team killing in Halo added anything, and when I answered you made a meme saying..

 

"Oh, friendly fire isnt that game breaking?"

"Oh, you think people exploit objectives more than betrayals?"

 

Because obviously I don't think friendly fire ISNT game breaking in itself, and obviously there are more betrayal exploits than there are objective ones when you realize that most of the big game stopping exploits have been eliminated BECAUSE of friendly fire.

 

So please...

 

[Stealth Pilot]

Just putting this out there....you all SUCK at condescending wonka memes.

[Echo]

Just putting this out there....you all SUCK at condescending wonka memes.

 

 

 

Fyi, I was only doing it because he asked it in a "willy wonka" formed question at the end of his first post.

And cause the meme generator takes like 2 seconds lol. My most recent meme wasn't even trying. It was more of a simple response than anything else.

[Stealth Pilot]

lol I figured.

[Dawn Wolf]

It's very true. No friendly fire would instantly make grenades and rockets ridiculously overpowered.

 

You don't mean to really tell me you wouldn't think it was silly if your enemies teammate just starts chucking every explosive he can directly at his ally, and kills only you.

 

Being careful about your frag placement is and always will be very important.

 

What they need, is a system that detects how much damage of a killed player was received by an ally, and with what weapon. If it was a non sniper gun, that player should be boot optioned immediately, there's no way dumping a mag of any basic weapon into someone and killing them is an accident. Grenades and rockets and snipers should make allowances, and they're reasonably easier to evade. (Cept Rocks)

[Bravox22x]

If you have ever played the older halos it was all about fun. which is thinking of halarious ways to kill your team mates . and people think its fun to betray once and a while it also takes of stress and add a little happiness when you think about what that persons saying about you but its aggravating when it happens to you.. lol. its all about delivering what the people want... no one really ever wined about this topic till now

[Deadlygashaze]

I have a 5 1/2 inch joystick. Your arguments are all invalid.

[sindronian]

Really? Can you not take a joke? And who are tell me (of all people; a near one year member on staff) where I belong? If you had even been here for a while, you would know I like to crack jokes all the time, even if they're not funny. I meant nothing in offense by my sentence and I take nothing back. Yes, you can have you're opinion. But you don't need to go and get all butt hurt when I state mine. I didn't even have the proper time to respond to your thread.

 

See the thing is, they put in place a system for booting. I know you already talked about this, but you are being a complete hypocrite.

 

The booting system gives you the option to boot someone who betrayed you. If we take your approach to this, stated in the first post, you have no interest in team killing. So say you get betrayed, you leave him alone. If he's still being a $#@%^&@#!^&@, and betrays you again, it lets you boot him. So you should have no problem.

 

But then you continued to say the system in unpredictable? BECAUSE YOU BETRAYED THEM BACK AND IT GAVE THEM THE OPTION TO BOOT YOU? Huh. Isn't that exactly what you're against in the first place?

 

First of all I don't care how long you've been here and how the hell am I supposed to realise if you're joking or not? People say stuff like that all the time and they mean it. Anyone who uses the title of another FPS on a halo forum without good reason pisses me off but I only react to it occasionally. I just see a lot less of that stupid stuff here so I was surprised to see a comment like that. You're right it's not funny at all I'm glad you are aware most aren't. There is always that guy who is the first to mention "that other FPS" in a thread that simply doesn't need "that other FPS." You just happened to be that guy this time I suppose. I do apologize for acting as if you did mean it though. I could just said: "I hope you're joking."

 

I'm saying Reach's booting system is unpredictable. Halo 3's is. 3rd boot and you are out (at least how I remember). In reach sometimes I would get booted on my first betrayal sometimes I wouldn't. However there were a hell of a lot of times where I couldn't boot some ignorant guy who splattered me with his wraith or ghost at the beginning of the game which happens frequently. ​I betray them back because sometimes I can't tolerate it especially getting splattered. Think whatever you wish of it. I never said I was totally against team killing. In fact I mentioned sometimes I repeatedly team kill people in griffball if they piss me off enough. I would rather not have it in the game. My betrayals are always accidental or revengeful I maybe did it on purpose a few times back in the halo 3 days but I was a big dumbass back then in early highschool. I look down on my self for it. Some people say it's innocent fun but getting hit by some guy in a ghost on my team for some reason makes me pretty-mad-bro.

 

Not only are team kills less frequent than you're leading on, it's not the exact same thing, "bro."

 

 

Well I perfectly understand your points I just don't think they are significant because these are things that "could happen if there was no friendly fire." I'm talking about the crap that happens with friendly fire NOW. I attempted give you a response to your reply but you seemed to miss a lot of what I was trying to say and repeated back to me what you said before. In other words this argument really isn't going anywhere. So instead of saying the same stupid stuff over for 3 pages until I'm quoting over the character limit I'm going to disagree with you because I don't think you're listening. I wouldn't expect you to it's the internet. You really missed the bad luck Brian thing all I'm freaking saying is that you could be in the middle of a multi-kill and a team-mates grenade could end it or something. So you start saying "Well good sir I do believe he would simply kill steal instead it is much more civilize...." What the hell are you talking about? People don't contemplate all the possible ways to end your multi-kills. I am just saying friendly fire screws them up. For me, more than I would like. I was mostly trying to address the argument of people saying it's more realistic. It is definitely not, that is not an opinion. Anyway thanks for your input I guess. You can't compare the ratios of betrayals and objective/weapon abuse where one side of the ratio has friendly fire and one doesn't btw that doesn't make any sense. If there's no friendly fire betrayals wouldn't happen obv.

 

It's very true. No friendly fire would instantly make grenades and rockets ridiculously overpowered.

 

You don't mean to really tell me you wouldn't think it was silly if your enemies teammate just starts chucking every explosive he can directly at his ally, and kills only you.

 

Being careful about your frag placement is and always will be very important.

 

What they need, is a system that detects how much damage of a killed player was received by an ally, and with what weapon. If it was a non sniper gun, that player should be boot optioned immediately, there's no way dumping a mag of any basic weapon into someone and killing them is an accident. Grenades and rockets and snipers should make allowances, and they're reasonably easier to evade. (Cept Rocks)

 

I've already said more than once I agree that's stupid I just think it is MORE stupid to get killed by your allies on purpose.

[Echo]

 

Well I perfectly understand your points I just don't think they are significant because these are things that "could happen if there was no friendly fire." I'm talking about the crap that happens with friendly fire NOW.

 

...But I've been telling you this whole time why the things happen the way they do NOW. It's because there is friendly fire. My whole point behind all of this is, yes, there ARE exploits when it comes to friendly fire being on, but what I'm trying to tell you is that those exploits would be far worse if friendly fire was off. And, I'm also telling you that if those exploits were there, they would be taken advantage of. People don't play keep away and desecrate an enemy base with unfair explosive tactics because it's literally unable to do so. If friendly fire were off, like it was said before, and repeated by other members in this thread, things like base bashing and grieving would all be in the game. Saying it wouldn't be exploited because of how people play NOW, with friendly fire already on, is an incredibly dumb statistic to follow.

 

I attempted give you a response to your reply but you seemed to miss a lot of what I was trying to say and repeated back to me what you said before.

 

Ironic

 

 

I wouldn't expect you to it's the internet. You really missed the bad luck Brian thing all I'm freaking saying is that you could be in the middle of a multi-kill and a team-mates grenade could end it or something.

 

 

I stand uncorrected. A team mates grenade would end someone elses multi-kill regardless. That's why I pointed this part out before. It just simply held no ground to your argument and was ultimately a pointless meme to make.

 

So you start saying "Well good sir I do believe he would simply kill steal instead it is much more civilize...." What the hell are you talking about? People don't contemplate all the possible ways to end your multi-kills.

 

Exactly, people don't contemplate all the possible ways to end your multi-kill, that was my point. You said people would just choke someones killionaire and, seeing as how it was at the end of a rather long argument reply, I assumed you said it in favor of no team killing. My point was that killing a team mate to stop their multi-kill spree is just dumb, and an "accidental grenade" wouldn't favor either my or your side. (even though it technically favors my side more.)

 

 

I am just saying friendly fire screws them up.

 

Then you would be wrong, as I just stated above. You pointed out ONE scenario that would benefit your side. It's an unfortunate situation, yes, but it's still one tiny "random" fight scenario compared to the objective-like trolling that could take place.

 

I was mostly trying to address the argument of people saying it's more realistic. It is definitely not, that is not an opinion. Anyway thanks for your input I guess.

 

Well I never said it was more realistic, I said it was more fair.

 

You can't compare the ratios of betrayals and objective/weapon abuse where one side of the ratio has friendly fire and one doesn't btw that doesn't make any sense. If there's no friendly fire betrayals wouldn't happen obv.

 

This is so ironic it hurts XD because this is exactly what I was telling you. YOU were trying to pull ratios and statistics out of your ass when in reality the only thing that matters is their distinct outcome. One option allows players to be annoying to team mates, while the other allows stronger forms of cheating/grieving that could destroy a game 100% of the time that it's abused in a game.

 

 

 

Hear me out though... regardless of which side has more advantages than the other, from a game dev stand point (not saying im a pro or anything) but you can't allow a match made game to have scenarios where the match is completely ruined. And by ruined, I mean someone joining the game, grabbing the flag, playing keep away and not being able to die, these are all things that literally prevent the game from continuing. Whether or not they WOULD happen all the time, shouldn't even matter, because you need to eliminate things that make games completely unplayable.

 

Allowing players to kill one another was the best option because they implemented a boot system. It's not perfect, but it's the only option they had that would work with it, since NOT having friendly fire is not an option, since you can't boot someone for holding an item for too long. (Cause then you could just boot someone for fun if it takes you guys a while to go in with the bomb).

 

Sure, team killing is lame, and it DOES happen more than it probably should, but it's still something that ultimately doesn't destroy the game because you can at least boot them for it. If someone on my team grabbed the bomb on a 1 bomb match and just decided to troll us, I'd sit there... and be able to do nothing. Only option I have is to wait it out and lose, or quit the game and lose EXP. Oh, the fun in that.

 

It's not that I'm not listening to you, it's just simply not a good option for Halo. Maybe it is for other games but most other games don't tie you into a situation that would make it THAT easy to just troll a team. I mean, hell, even back in my Halo 2 days me and some friends would just mess around for fun (we stopped caring about our ranks at this point) and just got in a game and ran around with the flag. If I wasn't able to be killed by a team mate, that would have been far too easy lol

[sindronian]

...But I've been telling you this whole time why the things happen the way they do NOW. It's because there is friendly fire. My whole point behind all of this is, yes, there ARE exploits when it comes to friendly fire being on, but what I'm trying to tell you is that those exploits would be far worse if friendly fire was off. And, I'm also telling you that if those exploits were there, they would be taken advantage of. People don't play keep away and desecrate an enemy base with unfair explosive tactics because it's literally unable to do so. If friendly fire were off, like it was said before, and repeated by other members in this thread, things like base bashing and grieving would all be in the game. Saying it wouldn't be exploited because of how people play NOW, with friendly fire already on, is an incredibly dumb statistic to follow.

 

Hey, you really can't listen eh? I told you the argument is over. I stopped reading about 1/3 way through sorry if you took all that time. Cya, I don't care. I disagree. don't you get it? Give some room for other people's opinions. You're trying to fight me, trying to win or lose, I'm trying to get people to understand something. I don't have to argue with you if I don't want to. No, this is not because I fear I am losing the argument.