FAF players love it when simulated missiles and simulated shells randomly collide with simulated air planes, probably costing you the simulated game.
FAF players hate it when you suggest normal simulated weapons should collide with the simulated units in reasonable and predictable ways.
@snoog said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
My one opinion on this is that the chicken's storm should have friendly fire enabled.
yeah coz when two chickens fight 2 GC's its totally great that after 1 of each dies its still 2 v 1 coz the Storm attacks your own chicken XD
Sure with decent micro you can walk the dieing chicken into their team, but now you cant advance for a while and all your ground units are caught in the crossfire aswel
Ravager friendly fire got removed so that they can be used as teledef like every other PD.
Chicken storm got fixed again to be able to hit friendlies, it's just that the storm's weapon is unable to track allies so it does way less damage since it misses a lot.
@nuggets said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
The "unfair advantage of fighting over flak" is (if i understood your argument correctly) the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. One team build AA and should not have an advantage when fighting there? xD I guess we can just remove AA from the game and only build air instead
Now do the same but with AA in WW2.
@Kilatamoro wrote: "Now do"
c'mon man, you have to make more effort than that if you're going to troll people
telling people "Now do [X]" is the laziest form of bad-faith argumentation
@kilatamoro said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
@nuggets said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
The "unfair advantage of fighting over flak" is (if i understood your argument correctly) the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. One team build AA and should not have an advantage when fighting there? xD I guess we can just remove AA from the game and only build air instead
Now do the same but with AA in WW2.
realism < fun
@firv said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
realism < fun
Except for this RTS (and others of this kind) distinguish themselves from other RTS games in that it is a simulation.
@kilatamoro said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
mselves from other RTS games in that it is a
and in a simulation you still want stuff to be fun.
If flak would do as much damage to your enemies as it would do to your own planes. Why would you ever build flak?
You've build flak and your air player be like, yeah I cant help you you got flak in your base, I will kill my own planes helping you.
Yeah that is so much fun
@firv Positioning, thinking ahead, micro. Basically, essential elements of strategy games.
@kilatamoro said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
@nuggets said in Why do so many things have friendly fire disabled?:
The "unfair advantage of fighting over flak" is (if i understood your argument correctly) the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. One team build AA and should not have an advantage when fighting there? xD I guess we can just remove AA from the game and only build air instead
Now do the same but with AA in WW2.
Clown comment
And as we're not going to get anything else constructive out of this thread, I'll put a lock on it before it devolves further into namecalling.
"Design is an iterative process. The required number of iterations is one more than the number you have currently done. This is true at any point in time."
