Friendly fire? Why?

[zaygr]

That kind of player-driven inconsistency IMO adds more flavour to those kind of gameplay decisions, especially in a co-op game. Even if they dodged into the shot, there should be enough information conveyed by the game itself (sound cues, UI, etc.) about why that shot was taken, and that would recontextualise taking friendly fire away from “you shot me,” to “you shot through me to rescue a team mate”. It’s generally accepted as something that could happen, and if it does happen accidentally, you play around that.

[Ensrick]

The kind of inconsistencies that lead to players causing each other issues is a flavor I can do without.

3 things, and I’d call it fair: Reflect damage to griefers, keep it from triggering buffs/heat, and cap the damage to Champ levels.

[alsozara]

Just discovered this thread and personally I wouldn’t want to see FF removed or tuned down. I’d definitely agree it shouldn’t proc things like Gromril though.

While I agree it does add some gameplay depth, I do think the amount it adds is probably overhyped in this thread.

To me it’s mostly a matter of… immersion? Don’t think that’s quite the right word for what I mean but best I can think of right now.

Like yeah I probably should think twice about shooting Victor’s death magnum through the back of my team mate’s head? And if I mess that up and down someone at a crucial point, losing us the run I feel like fair enough that’s on me and I’m really quite happy to be punished for that error. It’d definitely take some of the “weight” out of the experience if that dimension was removed. It’s tuned in a way that feels pretty reasonable to me, in terms of what things do and do not incur a genuine risk to the team with FF damage (plenty of things really don’t do meaningful FF damage even on Cata).

But yeah they’ve already made it not activate some passives, would appreciate them expanding that to others that make sense.

[Khazad-ai-menu]

@Ensrick

Teaching New Players: I love teaching new players too! Friendly fire adds a layer of punishment that is completely invisible to a new player. They barely notice when they hit other players, only when they get hit. They just know the game feels unfair and hostile. It’s a barrier to entry, not a welcoming challenge.

I sympathize with the idea of this but from my experience with new players moving up in difficulty the biggest issue I have seen is them thinking FF is a bigger deal than it is, getting hit by a few strays is truly meaningless but I’ve had newbies rage quit over it.

@Ensrick

Core Issue: Friendly fire fundamentally punishes proximity and chaos. Which goes against how the game is designed to be played. The game funnels you into tight spaces and throws waves of enemies at you with allies dodging. In many cases, accidents are not just an occasional “oopsie, my bad”, they’re often unavoidable.

Sure, I’ve learned to avoid shooting players, and maintain a good position, and I won’t deny there’s a level of skill expression, but if you don’t “prefer it”, then it’s a fun tax for those who don’t have a glass-half-full mentality.

I’m a Pyromancer main so no FF would be PHENOMENAL for me. Avoiding FF is a fundamental aspect of the game as pyro and I find the only time I hit people anymore is when they walk straight through me when I’m bolt staffing or there’s a slayer who insists on killing every single enemy. It would make the game way too easy if I could blast through the team so no matter what allies have to block your shots and at that point why not have the small FF we have now.

I have thousands of hours and I can count the amount of times I’ve outright died from accidental FF (not intentional grifting) on my hands.

@Ensrick

For a compromise, I’d probably be ok with friendly fire if it didn’t trigger passives, and if it was tiny chip damage (Unchained Heat / Gromril, etc.)

This would be cool, the damage amount is fine as is to me but I don’t think things would change too much without it as long as teammates still blocked shots requiring you to position your shots around them.

[Riku]

@Ensrick

FF as a necessary skill gate or way to balance the game: I reject that idea wholeheartedly. The truly “well-oiled machine” you love isn’t contingent upon one player taking damage for another’s mistake. I don’t think spammy weapons are more balanced by including FF; it’s about difficulty level as FF doesn’t exist to balance weapons on Veteran or Recruit. The idea is that it makes the game more difficult, not that it balances the game. If that were so, then the game isn’t teaching you to be a better player by rewarding good aim and positioning so much as it’s punishing you (and your team) for using a tool in a way that the developers didn’t intend.

i dont see it that way at all, its a team game, not a 4 people who happen to be on the same map with same goals game, something is detremental to the team, not to one person. sure in a vacuum it looks that way, but it isnt.

@Ensrick

It’s Inconsistent: The punishment for spamming is felt most acutely by the people in front of the barrel, not the person pulling the trigger. The Coruscation staff user might not even notice the FF they’re doing, while the Warrior Priest getting melted has no agency in the situation. The “skill expression” you talk about is heavily one-sided.

if someone doesnt notice how much dmg he does to others, than thats a clear indication that they are not yet as good of a player, it will come with time and exposure and good communication. and its absolutely fine.

@Ensrick

The “Trust” and “Skill” Dynamic: You see the lack of trust as a skill to be mastered.

you failed to define what mean by trust, and as such i wont engange over a point i havent made.

@Ensrick

Trust shouldn’t be a skill check at all.

what?

@Ensrick

It’s better just to know you don’t have to worry about your teammates mistakes taking off a chunk of your health.

you dont have to worry about it, because failing is inconsequential, if you run around with low HP, you might get FF and go down, you may die even, you may even fail the mission, but the one who downed you will learn. no loss, only growth.

@Ensrick

Friendly fire adds a layer of punishment that is completely invisible to a new player.

thats why no difficulty should be exempt from FF, let people learn early.

@Ensrick

They barely notice when they hit other players, only when they get hit. They just know the game feels unfair and hostile.

I don’t buy the idea that players “don’t notice” when they cause friendly fire. New players lack skill and system knowledge, not basic reasoning ability. They’re perfectly capable of understanding cause and effect — including when they’re the one responsible.

and to be honest, i find that patronising.

@Ensrick

It’s a barrier to entry, not a welcoming challenge.

meaningless buzzword, every skill you will ever master in your life has barriers, i cant pickup a random guitar and shred Metallica. if you want to avoid FF you learn to avoid FF, its that simple.

you having a hard time playing with others because they cause damage to your health, is your mental framework, not rooted in game design.

@Ensrick

Friendly fire fundamentally punishes proximity and chaos.

no it doesnt. it acutally creates chaos, a player who needs to think fast has to weigh their options, and “throw bomb clear everything, no consequenses” suddenly isnt an option because you notice the area has a low hp ally, that player has to rearange his options imediately which causes high octane split second thinking, panic and thus chaos.

@Ensrick

In many cases, accidents are not just an occasional “oopsie, my bad”, they’re often unavoidable.

as the reciever yes, as the one inflicting, profoundly no, the amazing thing about this game is that its structured in a way that allows for absolute perfection, something no player will ever archieve but always can strive for.

@Ensrick

Sure, I’ve learned to avoid shooting players, and maintain a good position, and I won’t deny there’s a level of skill expression, but if you don’t “prefer it”, then it’s a fun tax for those who don’t have a glass-half-full mentality.

“its how the game is designed” sound familiar?

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

Like gambling with someone else’s money though. “Some of you may die, but that is a risk I’m willing to take.”

I think that’s fine in a co-op game. Just like how co-operating can benefit everyone in the group, selfish decisions can end up in group punishment. I certainly get why it intuitively seems bad but I think a co-op game would be pretty flat and “singleplayer” without this dynamic. If you got rid of the “my teammate did a bad thing and it negatively impacted ME”, then you’d have to remove:

1. shared heals
2. disablers
3. shared ammo pickups
4. potions being shareable
5. healing someone else
6. having to rely on an ally to get you back up
7. weapons that cannot deal with a specific enemy type but have other strengths instead

All of these things are the same design philosophy. If your teammate acts selfishly, OTHERS ON THE TEAM pay for it. If nobody frees you from an assassin then you die, not them. Is that bad design too? I don’t think so, it’s what makes the co-op aspect actually relevant.

@Ensrick

Neither of those feels like a satisfying answer to the problem. The first just removes a tool from your kit. The second isn’t in your control.

You can totally risk clipping your ally so it’s a reward vs risk calculation pretty directly. If the elf is insisting on blocking the corridor and not watching for specials, that is then also the consequence of failing to adjust to the situation on his part, and as I said, it’s a co-op game. I think it’s perfectly fine and even desirable for a player who does not act co-operatively to make the mission harder.

[Ensrick]

@Riku

i dont see it that way at all, its a team game, not a 4 people who happen to be on the same map with same goals game, something is detremental to the team, not to one person. sure in a vacuum it looks that way, but it isnt.

FF does more than add another hurdle for the team, it takes away agency. Taking a risky shot is putting other players at risk. Other risks affect the team as a whole by proxy, not by directly sacrificing them.

@Riku

if someone doesnt notice how much dmg he does to others, than thats a clear indication that they are not yet as good of a player

Why should my health bar be the learning material? The team is getting shot, not the shooter.

@Riku

you failed to define what mean by trust

See here:

@Ensrick

@anon41016878

Never felt animosity nor felt a loss of trust from someone accidentally doming me or accidentally doming someone.

I’ll take your word for it that you don’t feel it. I’m not trying to tell you what you feel. My point wasn’t that everyone feels actively angry, but that the mechanic creates friction that doesn’t need to be there. Even if it’s not full-blown animosity, FF pulls focus away from the rest of the game. Do people really find trying not to hit each other fun? It’s hard to even imagine to me.

@Riku

you dont have to worry about it, because failing is inconsequential, if you run around with low HP, you might get FF and go down, you may die even, you may even fail the mission, but the one who downed you will learn. no loss, only growth.

Because someone’s “growth opportunity” happened at the wrong moment. Sure.

You’re assuming a few things:

• The shooter will notice they caused the down
• The shooter will connect it to their own behavior
• The shooter will feel bad and improve
• The victim will be cool with being the learning material

In practice? What I’ve seen more often is people get defensive and blame each other. A mechanic that creates friction between the team is a barrier to trust. You and I, we’re used to it, and work around it. Doesn’t mean it’s a great barrier to have. I’m not pulling VT2 baddies by showing off my ability not to shoot teammates in the back.

@Riku

@Ensrick

Friendly fire adds a layer of punishment that is completely invisible to a new player.

thats why no difficulty should be exempt from FF, let people learn early.

Or why it shouldn’t exist altogether. Begging the question a bit are we? Not everything that’s “difficult” makes for good game design.

@Riku

if you want to avoid FF you learn to avoid FF, its that simple.

There are things we learn to endure, not because they’re welcome challenges. You could learn to endure the pain of a red hot poker to the hand, doesn’t mean it’s a welcome challenge. If you’ve had to learn something, and it’s no longer an issue, it’s easy to simply brush it aside and say others should have to learn it too.

@Riku

a player who needs to think fast has to weigh their options, and “throw bomb clear everything, no consequenses” suddenly isnt an option because you notice the area has a low hp ally, that player has to rearange his options imediately which causes high octane split second thinking, panic and thus chaos.

You see it as an action packed split-second thinking moment that enriches the game. FF just punishes you or your team if they’re in the wrong place at the wrong time. It takes an already chaotic situation and reduces the number of options you have that don’t involve sacrificing a teammate’s healthbar. The special behind Kruber already required fast thinking. The alley already forced positioning choices. Adding FF to that so that now I also might do damage to a teammate isn’t adding anything of value to me.

@Riku

I don’t buy the idea that players “don’t notice” when they cause friendly fire. New players lack skill and system knowledge, not basic reasoning ability. They’re perfectly capable of understanding cause and effect — including when they’re the one responsible.

and to be honest, i find that patronising.

You find it patronizing. Clutch your pearls harder honey.

We just established that new players come from difficulties where there is no team damage. The game doesn’t make it abundantly obvious, nor does anyone from Champion realize yet how much damage they’re doing. I’ll just agree to disagree if you’re going to play the “I haven’t seen that” game.

@Riku

“its how the game is designed” sound familiar?

There are mechanics that complement design, and those that don’t. Again, the core issue I’ve raised goes unaddressed: It’s punishing one player for another’s mistake.

---

@anon41016878

I think that’s fine in a co-op game. Just like how co-operating can benefit everyone in the group, selfish decisions can end up in group punishment.

But is shooting a special behind a teammate “selfish”? The player taking the shot is trying to help. The punishment is for attempting to do their job in a tight space with a teammate who might dodge, or to bomb a spawn that grabbed a teammate. Helpful decisions get punished, as you can’t perfectly predict and coordinate with the team.

@anon41016878

You can totally risk clipping your ally so it’s a reward vs risk calculation pretty directly. If the elf is insisting on blocking the corridor and not watching for specials, that is then also the consequence of failing to adjust to the situation on his part

FF creating friction where none needed to exist. This puts the blame on the elf for… existing in the corridor? In melee range? Where the game wants her to be?

The elf is mopping up hordes where she should be. The corridor is exactly where she should be. The special behind her needs to die. Both players are doing what they’re supposed to do. The game creates a situation where two correct plays conflict, then punishes one player for the other’s movement.

This goes against what we already established. Experienced players have learned to endure FF and know it’s natural to have it happen now and then. It just feels like excuses for something we’ve dealt with for so long just being another thing players should have to adapt to.

There’s a skill component in some situations, but it’s hardly a skill, and more of an annoyance that can’t always be avoided.

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

FF creating friction where none needed to exist. This puts the blame on the elf for… existing in the corridor? In melee range? Where the game wants her to be?

The game doesn’t want the elf to be FFd, so that doesn’t make any sense. Sometimes melee characters are implicitly encouraged to keep firing lanes open.

@Ensrick

This goes against what we already established. Experienced players have learned to endure FF and know it’s natural to have it happen now and then. It just feels like excuses for something we’ve dealt with for so long just being another thing players should have to adapt to.

I also don’t agree with this reasoning. Experienced players learning risk vs reward situations and being able to as a result handle a risk vs reward mechanic more routinely than a newcomer doesn’t mean it’s bad. The newcomer will learn it all the same the exact same way the experienced player learned it.
I get that your point is that it’s just an annoyance but it would legitimately change the game a lot and dumb it down a lot of it was removed. Look at what happened with Outcast Engineer and bombs. You are simply wrong that it’s just an annoyance, it shapes the meta.

I think preferring FF or not is one thing. I think Darktide works fine without FF, even if I think it would be better with it. What would absolutely not work is removing FF from VT2, a game designed around FF.

[Ensrick]

@anon41016878

The game doesn’t want the elf to be FFd, so that doesn’t make any sense. Sometimes melee characters are implicitly encouraged to keep firing lanes open.

“The game doesn’t want the elf to be FFd” is a tautology. Of course it doesn’t; that’s why FF is damaging. The question is whether the mechanic creates that situation unnecessarily.

And “keeping firing lanes open” assumes melee characters can always just keep it open. The game is chaotic by nature at times, and that’s when FF becomes more of an issue that one can’t always avoid.

@anon41016878

I get that your point is that it’s just an annoyance but it would legitimately change the game a lot and dumb it down a lot of it was removed. Look at what happened with Outcast Engineer and bombs.

The Outcast Engineer change is actually a good example; just not for the point you’re making.

They changed his bomb because it would unintentionally grief teammates. That’s the devs acknowledging that a mechanic causing unintended team damage wasn’t adding value. The issue wasn’t that the OE needed FF, it was that regenerating full powered bombs was already OP. They found a solution that fixed both by having him regen weaker bombs with lower AOE.

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

“The game doesn’t want the elf to be FFd” is a tautology. Of course it doesn’t; that’s why FF is damaging.

But you just said:

@Ensrick

The elf is mopping up hordes where she should be. The corridor is exactly where she should be. The special behind her needs to die. Both players are doing what they’re supposed to do.

I am disagreeing. If the elf is blocking a relevant shot, the elf isn’t exactly where she’s supposed to be. Your reasoning is self-contradictory.

@Ensrick

They changed his bomb because it would unintentionally grief teammates.

They may actually have done it for that reason, but that doesn’t make any sense given that bombs do fat FF damage already and it’s their balancing factor. OE consequently made the game unfun.

You’re trying to paint a change that was so universally hated that people kicked OE from lobbies as a smart dev decision.

You also acknowledge that FF is balance relevant and not just an annoyance here:

@Ensrick

They found a solution that fixed both by having him regen weaker bombs with lower AOE.

They’d have to take similar steps to balance regular bombs if they wanted to get rid of FF on them too. And probably all other ranged weapons too. We are now one step closer to the Darktide problem where ranged weapons are so OP they can only be balanced by having really bad ammo values so you can’t be shooting them all the time.

[Ensrick]

@anon41016878

I am disagreeing. If the elf is blocking a relevant shot, the elf isn’t exactly where she’s supposed to be. Your reasoning is self-contradictory.

That’s not really contradictory. You’re imagining a different scenario where the elf is just in the way. I’m saying there are situations where it can’t be avoided.

@anon41016878

You also acknowledge that FF is balance relevant and not just an annoyance here:

Yes I do, and the developers clearly do see FF as a good thing for Vermintide 2. I don’t, and bombs are a great example. The problem with OE’s bombs is that they were OP and spammable. If the devs want FF, then removing it clearly wasn’t the solution here. However, spammable or not, bombs doing FF simply means sometimes you’re going to hurt your teammates to get use out of them. It’s not always avoidable.

And that’s just not a great way to counter-balance spammability, because the penalty lands on other players first. Which really is my core issue. Indirectly putting the team at risk through your own actions? Fine. Directly damaging teammates as the penalty for your own actions? Ehhh.

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

I’m saying there are situations where it can’t be avoided.

Why not though? What stops the elf from dodging back when a disabler that absolutely must die shows up to open up the shot quickly?
Obviously that requires coordination but that’s a pretty cool thing to to in a co-op game in my opinion. In a random game where the coordination isn’t there, you may have to take the risk instead, but thats because the elf isn’t acting the way he should to co-operate flawlessly. It only exists because you don’t co-operate as much as you could. But it’s still inherently a co-op mechanic

@Ensrick

Fine. Directly damaging teammates as the penalty for your own actions? Ehhh.

Would you say the same about disablers? Should players should be able to remove their own assassins or kill the hookrat themselves when they’re hooked? It’s the same logic, isn’t it? You decide not to help your teammate and let him get killed by the disabler, are you not also directly damaging him as the penalty for your own actions?

[Ensrick]

@anon41016878

What stops the elf from dodging back when a disabler that absolutely must die shows up to open up the shot quickly?

The split-second reaction time. The chaos of the moment. It’s not a realisitc expectation to always be 100% aware of your team and the enemies. Even if you are, I still think there are moments where you realistically can’t avoid it.

Coordination is great when it happens. But designing a mechanic that requires perfect coordination to avoid punishment, then calling it a “co-op mechanic” when it fails, feels backwards to me.

@anon41016878

Would you say the same about disablers? Should players be able to remove their own assassins or kill the hookrat themselves when they’re hooked? It’s the same logic, isn’t it? You decide not to help your teammate and let him get killed by the disabler, are you not also directly damaging him as the penalty for your own actions?

This is a false equivalence and I think you know it.

Not saving someone from a disabler is inaction. The player being punished (the hooked teammate) is the one who failed to avoid the disabler in the first place, or the team failed to protect them.

Friendly fire is action. The harm comes from a teammate’s weapon. The player being punished (the one getting shot) may have done everything right (positioned correctly, fought the horde, stayed in the fight) and still eats damage because someone else took a shot.

One is “we didn’t save him in time.” The other is “I shot him.”

Those aren’t the same thing.

EDIT: I need a trolley problem meme but it’s vermintide 2

[Riku]

@Ensrick

FF does more than add another hurdle for the team

good.

@Ensrick

it takes away agency.

so do walls.

@Ensrick

@Riku

if someone doesnt notice how much dmg he does to others, than thats a clear indication that they are not yet as good of a player

Why should my health bar be the learning material? The team is getting shot, not the shooter.

because its a team game, everything you do affects everyone else, not just ff.

@Ensrick

You’re assuming a few things:

• The shooter will notice they caused the down
• The shooter will connect it to their own behavior
• The shooter will feel bad and improve
• The victim will be cool with being the learning material

this is the prerequisit to learn anything, there are learn resistent people yes, but you cant make a everything a bouncy castle, for some who arent willing to adapt.

some people will refuse to cooperate some will be too stoned or drunk, some to stupid to learn, and some will outright be awful people, with the only interest in destroying other peoples days. that doesnt mean we have to put guard rails everywhere and make it braindead.

afterall why stop at FF, being bad can also ruin your run, picking up things can, wasting recourses can. i dont pressume you intent to change those things.

@Ensrick

In practice? What I’ve seen more often is people get defensive and blame each other.

in thousands of hours, the amount of times ive seen somone genuinly blame each other over FF, can be counted on one hand.

@Ensrick

A mechanic that creates friction between the team is a barrier to trust.

no the oposite,

Annette Baier

“Trust… is accepted vulnerability to another’s possible but not expected ill will (or lack of good will) toward one.”

without vulnerability, theres no trust, just safety.

@Ensrick

Not everything that’s “difficult” makes for good game design.

sure..

but something being too easy most definately is.

@Ensrick

The special behind Kruber already required fast thinking. The alley already forced positioning choices. Adding FF to that so that now I also might do damage to a teammate isn’t adding anything of value to me.

its about layers,

1. enemies
2. Psoitioning
3. Recourses & cooldowns
4. Aim
5. FF

imo V2 has the perfect amount of layers to it. changing it would ruin the feel.

@Ensrick

We just established that new players come from difficulties where there is no team damage. The game doesn’t make it abundantly obvious, nor does anyone from Champion realize yet how much damage they’re doing. I’ll just agree to disagree if you’re going to play the “I haven’t seen that” game.

so what, stop pretending they gonna need 500hours to learn that.. 5 games and done, it isnt the end of the world if a noob messes up a game..

@Ensrick

There are mechanics that complement design, and those that don’t. Again, the core issue I’ve raised goes unaddressed: It’s punishing one player for another’s mistake.

because i dont think like that, its a teamgame the goal is to win as a team, not as a player. therefore thats exactly how i look at it, a group of 4 strangers trying to accomplish something as a team, every action good and bad affects the team.

you can think its an unrealistc romantisised view.

@Ensrick

But is shooting a special behind a teammate “selfish”? The player taking the shot is trying to help. The punishment is for attempting to do their job in a tight space with a teammate who might dodge, or to bomb a spawn that grabbed a teammate. Helpful decisions get punished, as you can’t perfectly predict and coordinate with the team.

OR having the reflex and aim to not hit your teammate is rewarded. subject to interpretation.

@Ensrick

The elf is mopping up hordes where she should be. The corridor is exactly where she should be. The special behind her needs to die. Both players are doing what they’re supposed to do. The game creates a situation where two correct plays conflict, then punishes one player for the other’s movement.

thats the problem, its not the correct play. the correct play is to control the hordes while looking for and being aware for specials, if you get hooked, you already failed, it then becomes a skill check for another teammember to free you.

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

But designing a mechanic that requires perfect coordination to avoid punishment, then calling it a “co-op mechanic” when it fails, feels backwards to me.

But many cases of this are punished. Not shooting the disabler off an ally instantly still leaves him taking damage. Healing yourself when another player might need it more leaves him punished. Deciding to just run off on your own and leaving your buddy behind when you’re 2 players down might be reasonable sometimes, other times it gets him killed and the mission wipes. Just because the mistake is small doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be punishments.

@Ensrick

Not saving someone from a disabler is inaction. The player being punished (the hooked teammate) is the one who failed to avoid the disabler in the first place, or the team failed to protect them.

Friendly fire is action. The harm comes from a teammate’s weapon. The player being punished (the one getting shot) may have done everything right (positioned correctly, fought the horde, stayed in the fight) and still eats damage because someone else took a shot.

Why the inaction though? What it comes down to is that a decision has been made. In the case of accidental FF, this is the decisionmaking process:

1. Should I shoot? This special should probably die, but FF is a concern.
2. Can I avoid FF?
3. If I can’t avoid it, should I shoot anyway?
4. Decision: decide to shoot the special and risk FF or decide to not shoot the ally and the special might cause harm

In the case of, e.g. a disabler, it’s also a decision.

1. Should I save this ally? He’s being pinned, but there are other threats that are also pressing.
2. Can I save him and still address the other threats?
3. If I can’t do both at once, what should I prioritize?
4. Decision: decide to save my ally from a special, or decide to address other threats instead

You are assuming the latter is inaction but it’s not (assuming it’s not malicious griefing, which wasn’t what I was trying to portray). It’s an informed risk vs reward assessment too. Both of these scenarios are the same fundamentally but there are different outside pressures and game mechanics involved that may cause you to let a teammate come to harm via your decision.

These two scenarios are actually very similar also because they’re both damage mitigation for people making minor mistakes. Your ally in that scenario, playing perfectly, wouldn’t be blocking that shot. He’s forcing a risk vs reward assessment onto you. In the second scenario, your ally playing perfectly wouldn’t be getting pinned by a disabler during a crucial difficulty spike.

I think this is very cool and the absolute epitome of co-op gaming. The more of these situations a co-op game has, the more fun it is to actually co-operate in to try and avoid them and make the best of them.

[Ensrick]

@Riku

so do walls.

Walls are static obstacles you can see and plan around. Teammates are unpredictable. False equivalence.

@Riku

because its a team game, everything you do affects everyone else, not just ff.

Agreed. The difference is how it affects them. Most actions affect the team indirectly; wasted resources, bad positioning, missed shots. FF affects the team directly by removing health from a specific player who had no say in the decision. That distinction matters.

@Riku

this is the prerequisit to learn anything… some people will refuse to cooperate… that doesnt mean we have to put guard rails everywhere and make it braindead.

“Guard rails” implies removing all consequences. I’m not asking for that. I’m asking for consequences to land on the person making the choice. That’s not “braindead.” That’s accountability.

@Riku

in thousands of hours, the amount of times ive seen somone genuinly blame each other over FF, can be counted on one hand.

Your experience differs from mine. I’ve seen plenty of “watch your fire” and “stop shooting me” in chat. Even if it’s rare, friction doesn’t need to exist at all.

@Riku

Annette Baier: “Trust… is accepted vulnerability to another’s possible but not expected ill will.”
without vulnerability, theres no trust, just safety.

Trust in a game should be about relying on teammates to do their jobs: kill specials, watch flanks, share resources. Not about hoping they don’t accidentally shoot you. The vulnerability you’re describing is a design tax, not a meaningful trust-building mechanic.

@Riku

but something being too easy most definately is.

Removing FF doesn’t make the game “too easy.” It removes one specific source of damage. The enemies, the spawns, the objectives, the resource management; all still there. FF isn’t the only thing keeping the game from being braindead.

@Riku

its about layers… imo V2 has the perfect amount of layers to it. changing it would ruin the feel.

That’s a preference, not an argument. I’m glad it feels perfect to you. It doesn’t to me. We can leave it there.

@Riku

so what, stop pretending they gonna need 500hours to learn that.. 5 games and done, it isnt the end of the world if a noob messes up a game..

It’s not about hours. It’s about the feedback being asymmetrical. The shooter gets a small green crosshair. The victim loses health. The game teaches the wrong person more effectively.

@Riku

because i dont think like that, its a teamgame the goal is to win as a team, not as a player. therefore thats exactly how i look at it, a group of 4 strangers trying to accomplish something as a team, every action good and bad affects the team.

We agree every action affects the team. The question is which team member bears the cost. I think it should be the one making the choice. You’re okay with it being distributed differently. That’s the core disagreement.

@Riku

OR having the reflex and aim to not hit your teammate is rewarded. subject to interpretation.

The shooter is rewarded with… not hurting their teammate? That’s not a reward; in fact, it is the baseline. The real reward is killing the special. The punishment for missing or misjudging should be on the shooter. Currently it’s shared unevenly.

@Riku

thats the problem, its not the correct play. the correct play is to control the hordes while looking for and being aware for specials, if you get hooked, you already failed, it then becomes a skill check for another teammember to free you.

So the elf failed because… she was fighting a horde in a corridor and a special spawned behind her? That’s not failure. That’s the game working as intended. Specials spawn. Hordes push. Melee characters engage. Ranged characters shoot. The conflict isn’t player error, it’s the game’s own design creating unavoidable overlap.

---

@anon41016878

Both of these scenarios are the same fundamentally but there are different outside pressures and game mechanics involved that may cause you to let a teammate come to harm via your decision.

They’re not the same. In the disabler scenario, the teammate already failed; they got caught. Your decision to save them or not determines whether they take additional damage or die. The initial mistake was theirs.

In the FF scenario, the teammate getting shot may have made no mistake at all. They positioned correctly, fought correctly, and still eat damage because someone else took a shot. The person who made the decision isn’t the one bearing the primary cost.

That’s the difference. One distributes consequence based on who failed. The other distributes consequence based on who pulled the trigger.

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

They’re not the same. In the disabler scenario, the teammate already failed; they got caught.

@Ensrick

In the FF scenario, the teammate getting shot may have made no mistake at all. They positioned correctly,

I disagree. There are no places in even VT2 where you can’t avoid FF completely. If your teammate blocks a shot on a disabler that will cause harm if not for that shot, he is objectively positioned wrong.

You can argue that this requires an unrealistic level of skill and coordination to achieve, but so does never getting hit by a disabler. Happens to the best of us, but there should still be consequences and resulting risks vs reward assessments. That’s what keeps these games fun even at high skill levels.
This ties a bit into a related concept which is that an inherent amount of unfairness is required in co-op games to be fun, otherwise good play removes the co-op aspect. That’s just a tangent though, but this touches on that.

[Ensrick]

@anon41016878

There are no places in even VT2 where you can’t avoid FF completely. If your teammate blocks a shot on a disabler that will cause harm if not for that shot, he is objectively positioned wrong.

The elf is positioned to fight the horde in front of her. The special behind her is not visible to her. She cannot adjust for a threat she doesn’t know exists. You’re judging her position based on information only the shooter has.

@anon41016878

You can argue that this requires an unrealistic level of skill and coordination to achieve, but so does never getting hit by a disabler.

Never getting hit by a disabler is a personal skill check. Avoiding FF in this scenario requires the elf to know the shooter’s intent and a special’s location behind her. Those aren’t comparable.

@anon41016878

an inherent amount of unfairness is required in co-op games to be fun, otherwise good play removes the co-op aspect.

Unfairness from enemies is shared. Unfairness from teammates falls on one player. Different things.

[anon41016878]

@Ensrick

The elf is positioned to fight the horde in front of her. The special behind her is not visible to her. She cannot adjust for a threat she doesn’t know exists. You’re judging her position based on information only the shooter has.

Not facing a special doesn’t mean you don’t know it exists. Nonsensical scenario. Barring game bugs you will always know it exists if you paid perfect attention.

@Ensrick

Never getting hit by a disabler is a personal skill check.

But you literally just claimed there are scenarios where there can be disablers sneaking up on a player with him not knowing they exist. This argumentation makes no sense. You directly contradict yourself.
It’s a personal skill check for both scenarios. But it still happens to everyone, causing friction and forcing risk assessments onto teammates.

@Ensrick

Unfairness from enemies is shared. Unfairness from teammates falls on one player. Different things.

I’m not referring to a player as the unfair actor, but the game mechanics. Sometimes you dodge into a rat that randomly bumbles out of its melee slot and it blocks your dodge and you get owned by a disabler. This unfair situation forces an ally to make risk assessments to save you. Sometimes the game sound decides to make it really hard to hear that hookrat coming up behind you. This unfair situation forces an ally to make a risk assessment to save you.

Unfair here is subjective though. It’s a very broad discussion and not really my main point.

[Ensrick]

@anon41016878

Not facing a special doesn’t mean you don’t know it exists. Nonsensical scenario. Barring game bugs you will always know it exists if you paid perfect attention.

“Perfect attention” isn’t a realistic standard.

@anon41016878

But you literally just claimed there are scenarios where there can be disablers sneaking up on a player with him not knowing they exist. This argumentation makes no sense. But yes, I agree it’s a personal skill check. But it still happens to everyone, causing friction and forcing risk assessments onto teammates.

Two different things:

1. Avoiding a disabler is a personal skill check. If you fail it, you get caught. Consequence lands on you.
2. In the FF scenario, the elf may have failed that check (didn’t see the special). But the additional consequence (getting shot) lands on her because of the shooter’s decision, not her own failure to dodge. She’s already being punished by being grabbed. FF adds a second punishment from a teammate’s action.

The shooter decides to risk it. The elf eats the cost. That’s the asymmetry.