Friendly fire

[TheBump]

My thoughts on friendly fire after watching a lot of vids is that it doesn't do the damage it should.

As it is now, from what I gather watching the vids, it seems you can almost empty a whole mag (with some weapons) in your friend without killing them. Or am I wrong here?

If this is the case I'm hoping they'll change their minds and increase the damage of the friendly fire since it's a bit silly as it is now.

[Bucky]

Who knows we will have to wait till game comes out. They are trying to keep the game leveled out and while your shooting at your friends if it did the damage it is suppose to with zombies attacking, you would be dead very very soon. We will have to see.

[Hurtz]

I am assuming (and hoping) that it is a system similar to Alien Swarm, where on easier difficulties the damage friendly fire does is a lot less. And as most of the videos have probably been on easy or normal then there is little damage. Hopefully on harder an accidental shotgun place might be a lot nastier :)

[Deek]

I dunno. I saw at least two instances of one player putting another player down.

Most of the friendly fire was fleeting (alliteration ftw!), spraying a room and catching a teammate as they sweep back and forth in panic. There was no extended periods of friendly fire, where one guy would sustain fire on a teammate. Even if you nick someone else, it's a demerit.

Short answer, as Bucky stated: "Who knows?"

[dontleave]

No they don't take proper damage, Friendly fire has always been softened in Source games, both HL2DM and CS:S soften Friendly fire. That probably won't be the case in harder difficulties, they were probably playing on easy/normal. If you don't believe try popping a deagle cap in your teammates head at 100%... They'll probably drop to 50-70%

[TheBump]

Sounds good if FF damage will increase on a harder game setting.

[Armored_Zombie_Cow]

i like it better like this.i dont want idiot noobs killing me all the time

[Imogene]

I think the Team kill was there moreso because of the award/demerit system, and probably to stop team killers from being assholes

[Punisher 36O]

and if i remember corectly, the pionts or award system makes a note of ppl who shoot there teammates. . . and takes pionts off or gives them the noob award at the end or somthing. . . . . .sure thats what i heard or read ages ago, that kinda makes up for the soft teamkills. so i agree Imogene, good call

[TheBump]

i like it better like this.i dont want idiot noobs killing me all the time

Well, thinking of your teammates positions and your own, avoiding stepping into their fire and vise versa is a big part of the teamplay.
IMO not making friendly fire hurt that much takes away some of the challenge from that part of the teamplay.
And one of the things that interests me most about L4D is the advanced teamplay that will be required of you.

[squerl]

The higher the difficulty, the more damage you take from friendly fire.. and I'm pretty sure it might even be 100% damage on the highest. Ouch..

[DJTricky]

I guess this means it would take more demerits to take an ally down this way. It may be for the best really.

[Punisher 36O]

how manny difficulty settings are there? i mean if it has been said. . . . if it hasent been said what would ya guess?

[TheBump]

The higher the difficulty, the more damage you take from friendly fire.. and I'm pretty sure it might even be 100% damage on the highest. Ouch..

Good to hear, thanks!

[No Shelter]

I would like to have it on the highest difficulty to face a lot of infected and more bosses, well stronger bosses better, etc. But I wouldn't do it for the more realistic damage towards teamates.

[TheBump]

I would like to have it on the highest difficulty to face a lot of infected and more bosses, well stronger bosses better, etc. But I wouldn't do it for the more realistic damage towards teamates.

I hear ya, but then again, think of it like this.
Avoiding hitting your teammates and stepping into friendly fire has a lot to do with the difficulty of the game.
It's only logical that on a higher difficulty setting friendly fire damage increases, thereby demanding more of the players teamplay.

Personally I love a die hard challenge, it makes the "reward" so much better ;)
That's also part of what has attracted me to L4D. It's not a game for the "weak" ;)

[Punisher 36O]

Personally I love a die hard challenge, it makes the "reward" so much better ;)
That's also part of what has attracted me to L4D. It's not a game for the "weak

same here mate.

personaly i hope its hit your team with a bullet and there down on the hardest dificulty, i like it as real as possible in an unreal situation. . . . like a Zombie Apocolips. and i have played to manny shooters where ppl can spray away and not worry about a thing, i think it gives off a false impression of being good at a game, course manny turn it off to avoide teamkilling, in this if that happens i hope we can kick the noob. but the idea of. . . . ... . . .. . i might not like you, u might not like me. . . but we have to work together or we will all die might be just what we need.

[m4stryfe]

As was suggested a long time ago by Squerl or Frog, have the 2 in front crouch every time - every single time you shoot at something. And it also might be effective if everyone knows to crouch while getting mauled by a massive group - that way the other 3 can spray chest level into the crowd with ease. Saw a bunch of times people spraying into a crowd that was mauling a player and I believe the m16 will penetrate through the infected into the poor soul in the middle - crouch ppl!

[TheBump]

You make it sound like L4D teamplay formations will be all about having 2 ppl in front and 2 in the back, the 2 in the front constantly crouching when firing.
It will have a lot more variations than this, trust me ;)

I'm thinking, the optimal, when you have room, would be having all 4 players advancing in a wide line formation where 1 player mainly has the responsibility the keep a lookout back and on the rooftops. (This formation does not apply when running into a boss like the tank). This way you get mobility and the most firepower in the front, where most of the baddies will be.

In narrower places you just fill in behind the ones in the lead, forming 2 lines, the rear guy/guys (the one with the weakest weapon or the weakest character) keeps a lookout back and up. (crouching will be well out to use here).

When walking in narrow corridors I'd say you have to adjust the formation to what challenge you think lies ahead.
If you hear a boomer, a "scout" might be best sending out, checking that door or whatever.

And there will be a lot of other situations when other sorts of formations will be best to use.

Though now I'm speaking mostly of organized groups and not some rabble dabble you might find on a public server ;)

And yes, crouching when "overrun" I also think is a good thing to do =)

[Hauger]

Sounds good if FF damage will increase on a harder game setting
Yeah, agreed. :)

[Deek]

As was suggested a long time ago by Squerl or Frog, have the 2 in front crouch every time - every single time you shoot at something.
This assumes the enemy will always approach from the same direction.

A dude who crouches and then sprays in a wide arc will cut his teammate in half at the waist when shit gets real, and is likely more dangerous than someone firing from a standing position (where at least you can duck and avoid it).

Granted, if the Infected are approaching from a single direction, and the environment is narrow (like a subway car), then two in front crouching and two standing behind makes perfect sense. That said, it's a pretty specialized formation, I would think, and quite situational. Logic dictates that it would quickly fall to pieces in any kind of open, multi-directional engagement.

[dontleave]

Yeah... thats why you choke them... It's only situational when you NEVER find choke points, and the instant you see an enemy, in which case you're FACING them, you just drop down is stupid... Hallways are FTW, even a simple round of ZH can teach you this. The two crouched, and two standing is quite a conventional formation, IF coupled with chokes, which you should find, quite easily, without panicking. Assuming there is the slightest area based damage, I would rather have someone cut across my waist than my chest and or head. That being said, if you TRUST your team members than it should be the two standing who should prioritize on surrounding infected, and the two crouched to cover forward. And the two crouched should always face the BULK of the attackers...

[Crzy8s]

I have a bad feeling concerning noobs and pipe bombs, some how I feel that this duo of destruction won't come to good terms with the over all safety and health of the group.

For ex:

A noob gets tagged in close quarters by a boomer, begins shooting widly, and decides that sense the infected are coming at him, he should throw down a pipe bomb in the area to take them all out....except his buddies have sorrounded him and have the situation in control...well there goes the group in one spectacular noob induced explosion.

Game over.

[Deek]

I believe the survivors can vote to veto an individuals ability use molotovs and pipe bombs. =)

[dontleave]

That'd be cool... personally when I think about it, im probably not going to use pipe bombs or molotovs until the finale, or an open area... From the bits and pieces of the scenario we've already seen I would only use grenades outsides, or save up for the finale... Even the underground lot was too close quarters for the pipe bomb apparently.

Btw... It'd be nice if there were a radar like CS:S' but whatever, just with that radar, you could effectively kill enemies completely flashbanged or in the middle of the smoke... haxx0rz

[TheStrife]

Even the underground lot was too close quarters for the pipe bomb apparently.

Because they were running into eachothers line of fire. Guy that tossed the pipebomb didn;t even bother to check that his teammates kept running around the area he tossed it at.

But, yeah, I agree I wouldnt use them unless it's an open area or if I called it out on voice chat or something so everyone knows to pull back out of range.

[tonjohn]

Most people are not used to this amount of teamwork and Friendly Fire. If the amount of damage was upped, the game probably wouldn't be fun to play for either the TKer or the victim.

Even the most conscious of players, the best team players I came across at Quakecon would FF from time to time. And all the hardcore CS and Quake players seemed to TK too often, lol.

[Ydiss]

As much as I will try my very best to never hit another friendly player, I get the distinct impression I am going to have to curb my normal FPS play style quite a lot when playing L4D as a survivor.

On the game I currently play we have FF set to shared damage which means you can actually afford to hit an ally occasionally (particularly seeing as the game has regenerating health for all players). Also, as we run a fairly friendly server, if someone does TK accidentally they usually apologise and there's no harm done; more to the point, a single TK isn't likely to totally ruin someone's game, it isn't likely to completely lose the round for the entire team (unless it's really unfortunate and most of us just laugh at it) and it's certainly forgettable as everyone just respawns and starts again soon enough.

In fact, it's often the case that a little recklessness is required and can benefit the team on the whole (ie, you might well hurt or kill your ally with a grenade but with that same grenade you also blew up the last surviving player of the enemy, thus winning the round for your team).

With L4D accidental blue on blue, even if it's not fatal, will result in punishment for that player.

Now, I'm all for this, don't get me wrong... But that does worry me a little. Everyone makes mistakes, even the best players out there. And L4D looks to have the pace of a game that'll force more mistakes than most other on line shooters...

It's likely that a lot of players will have to adjust quite a lot to the game style and FF is just going to be a bloody reality for many of us to begin with. I'd hate for my Steam account to be permanently scarred just because I got unlucky a few times early on...

It'll be interesting to see how the demerit system is handled. So long as it's intuitive and acts as a tool to help players improve their gaming behaviour, I'll love it. If it ends up being a game play inhibitor then I'll probably end up disliking it, even if I don't suffer from it myself personally with demerits applied to my own account.

What I mean by inhibitor is this: If my team mates aren't willing to take a few risks with my life by helping me out when I'm up close and personal with other infected, the chances are their lack of action could result in my death anyway... all because they're too scared to get a demerit.

I think I'd prefer someone to accidentally kill me and just say "sorry" (as most people do) rather than have their inaction or unwillingness to take risks result in a loss or my death/a team mate's death.

I ask for opinions from those that have played the game already as to how it seems to work in practice but I'm aware this type of system is more likely to require extensive playing to show if it works or not...

Which is the bit that worries me :D

[hooray for zombies]

It's likely that a lot of players will have to adjust quite a lot to the game style and FF is just going to be a bloody reality for many of us to begin with. I'd hate for my Steam account to be permanently scarred just because I got unlucky a few times early on...

You'll have to consider that everyone will have FF demerits, not just one or two either. The best you can do is keep it minimal so that people know you aren't doing it intentionally

[Ydiss]

You'll have to consider that everyone will have FF demerits, not just one or two either. The best you can do is keep it minimal so that people know you aren't doing it intentionally
Agreed, that's how I see it.

I've added a little to my post since you read it, though. My main concern is whether demerits will act as a risk reducer, that could potentially mean active players (those more likely to get demerits simply because they play more often) will take fewer risks to the point of actually reducing their effectiveness as a team player.

If I play 100 scenarios a day and someone else plays 10, I'm naturally going to have more demerits than the second player. Yet I could be a much better team player than they are; I mean, we run stats for our COD2 server and at the end of an entire month the player who plays the most rounds tends to be the one who TKd the most, or killed themself the most. Does this make them a worse player? In most case, not at all - they're often good players but the act of playing more will always mean they have higher chances to make mistakes.

I'm just unsure as to how this system is going to work and, more importantly, what its net contribution to the game in the long term might be.

I understand its need, definitely... Just hoping it's fair and doesn't detract from the fun of the game.

[hooray for zombies]

surprisingly, the whole refusal to take risks had occurred to me while reading your post, in the end it'll have to be a matter of people learning to balance risk and damage in their playing style. as for the more rounds=more demerits, maybe an average demerit per round thing and an overall so you can track progress?

[dontleave]

I won't shoot if I think I'll get a demerit.

[Ydiss]

as for the more rounds=more demerits, maybe an average demerit per round thing and an overall so you can track progress?Yeh, I'm hoping for this.

I'm sure it'll all be fine.

[jaydig]

as for the more rounds=more demerits
I wouldn't worry about this. From the developer's POV, it would seem obvious that whatever single value(number,etc) represents your reputation would be some kind of ratio/average