Re: Requesting FF = ON tryout

**Daxx** · 10-03-2007, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

I had the misfortune of playing FF=ON before it was coded out. It sucked big time.

I agree. However I totally disagree with the "Coded out" situation. I think Friendly Fire being On would be an excellent option in organized, squad-type play. 6 or so players per side, working together, would not be a problem at all. Thats not public play however, no matter how you want to spin it.

FF On was an absolute disaster in public servers. As the Developers at Valve have stated, the game on a whole was balanced without Friendly Fire being an option, and it very much shows when you've got pretty much total chaos going on any given Control Point/Choke Point.

**nulloperations** · 10-03-2007, 07:22 PM

I had the pleasure of playing on a FF = On server. It was great. It forced the team to use voice chat and text chat more to communicate to verify where everyone was. We had a good idea of what each team member was doing, we knew what classes they were playing and what classes we didn't have on the team. We also quickly learned how to tell if someone was a spy by explaining the spy examples (no changing guns, the voice box over there head when they hold the voice button even if they don't have a mic, etc).

FF=On forced teamwork in regards to spies, as well as making sure our explosive teammates were better shots.

To see it hard coded out is a huge mistake on the part of Valve. I understand it being set to 0 for default, but the cvar should still be available.

By the way, this was a public server. There were great examples of teamwork from these non-clan member/pubbers who frequented that server. Had TG's server been up at the time I would have pointed them over here... I just wish I could remember what server it was so I could drag them back over here where they belong.

**phenophae** · 10-03-2007, 07:28 PM

I don't know... If FF is on Stickys would kill everything and Spys would become rediculously imbalanced.

---

But I'd agree with FF supporting teamwork.

**Snail88** · 10-03-2007, 07:41 PM

i wouldnt play if FF was on. But thats just me.

**nulloperations** · 10-03-2007, 08:02 PM

Spies are already underpowered. Considering most classes can kill them in less than 3 hits... Even the engineer can instant kill a disguised spy. Without it on, engineers just need to pop everyone near their turret with a wrench to check for spies. At least with FF on they can inflict damage to their peers.

**Lyramion** · 10-03-2007, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by phenophae

I don't know... If FF is on Stickys would kill everything and Spys would become rediculously imbalanced.

---

But I'd agree with FF supporting teamwork.

In a random pub Spys would maybe get really tough but on TG I just have to stare at someones name and have a 80% chance to knwo if he is a spy or not because at the start of the round people usually chose a set kit and stick to it.

As of now the sentry gun turtle strats impact gameplay more than a spy ever would.

**Chewy** · 10-03-2007, 09:01 PM

Valve is showing just how incredibly arrogant and stupid they are in the release of this game. So what if they don't think we need it... or would want it, for that matter? It has always been an option in their staple games and there is no reason why they should be messing with it now.

Would we have it on our servers? Probably not... this has been discussed and probably concluded for good. But what if we did want to turn it on for our second server... or even have ff nights? Now we are denied that right that we have always seen in other Valve games because of a corporate decision. Valve should be ashamed.

**Zoopy** · 10-04-2007, 10:07 AM

Holy ****, you people are crazy. All games are bound by developer's restrictions. If they don't want something in their game, they can take it out. TF2 is based off an existing game engine, if the developers accidentally left a server variable available while testing their game without the variable, why keep the variable there?

Assume Counter Strike was built off the Battlefield engine. The game is meant to be small infantry battles. Assume all in house testing and development was done around this concept. Now since the game is built off another engine, assume there was a server variable that allowed vehicles to spawn on the map. Now in the beat testing they realized they missed restricting that variable. They would obviously remove it since they built the game around the idea of small infantry battles, not tanks and jeeps.

Sure people will be crying, "Dust2 is lame without a Tiger tank". Why would they put the variable back in? It breaks their design.

**Superfast** · 10-04-2007, 10:13 AM

I want FF=on. I want a proper map. I want a commander. I want a UAV. I want grenades. WAIT! I've heard about this game. It's called Battlefield. I'll go play that instead.

**Nemesis** · 10-04-2007, 10:24 AM

After thinking about this one some more, I have to agree with Zoopy.

You have to take into account the design vision of the game. If classes were balanced and weapons tweaked based on FF being off then doesn't turning it on effectively break the game or turn it into something it wasn't intended to be?

If that's the case, then why would a DEV allow that to willingly happen? Valve will do what they feel is in the best interests of the game they designed. To them, this was a mistake or a bug and it was corrected. We've seen it said over and over again that this is a BETA, things are going to change. That can't just be used as and excuse or lip service to defend someone's personal feelings.

Wait for a modder to put the effect back in and then the problem is solved.

It's not our vision, it's Valve's. We just play here.

**icky** · 10-04-2007, 11:49 AM

I've seen this debate many times in the past, and while I am always a proponent of flexibility and choice, I've seen the bad side of it.

I used to play a large-scale multiplayer online action game which had several servers run by the developer with standard settings. All of the game variations run by the dev team were fantastic, and they shared some common settings so that players could move from one variation to another and always pick it up quickly.

After a couple of years like this, the game went out into the wild and the public servers started to have their way. Soon, there were a few servers with "standard settings" and dozens of servers with "uber settings". It was all over the map. Imagine BF2 or CS with low gravity, high damage, exploding bullets, 0.5 second respawn times. Most new players from that point on never got to see what the devs originally created, and no new game types were ever built around the standard settings.

It is because of this, and because of my desire for these guys to continue developing what is obviously an excellent vision, that I want to follow with the standard settings they have chosen.

**TheFeniX** · 10-04-2007, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by icky

I used to play a large-scale multiplayer online action game which had several servers run by the developer with standard settings. All of the game variations run by the dev team were fantastic, and they shared some common settings so that players could move from one variation to another and always pick it up quickly.

To you, those rule were "fantastic," but for some other players, maybe they liked the core concept but didn't like the implementation.

I'm a fairly serious gamer when it comes down to it, but even I found myself playing NS_Seige maps and joined Neo_TF TFC servers with retarded settings just to blow off some steam. Jedi-Outcast was rife with "Saber down = no attack" "honor" rules I found disgusting towards the end. Sometimes players just want a good old frag-fest.

Every player has a different view on what setting they think makes the "perfect" showing of a game. I'm just not big on locking down anything. If I had based my playing decision of NS based solely off pub servers, I never would have bothered playing long enough to find TG. But part of Internet gaming is digging through all the crap and finding the gold.

I like variety, even if most of that variety is utter garbage (Counter-Strike). I don't view devs as sacred cows and most of the time when I hear "Developer's vision of gameplay," I start rolling my eyes.

Yes, they made the game and I respect that: but I spent the money and bought it. I should have the option to use TF2 to run a melee weapon only server if I wanted to. That's just part of the dev process: releasing your vision to the masses and watch them crap all over it.

**Zoopy** · 10-04-2007, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by TheFeniX

Yes, they made the game and I respect that: but I spent the money and bought it. I should have the option to use TF2 to run a melee weapon only server if I wanted to. That's just part of the dev process: releasing your vision to the masses and watch them crap all over it.

Wow. This is a horrible line of thinking. This would be like opening up a EB Games franchise store, and selling pornography instead of games just because you think pornography is better. Sure your store will be horribly popular, but you are destroying the reputation of EB Games.

Just because you own it doesn't mean you can destroy Valve's design intensions. Since you are hosting a server you are representing the game to the population. Valve shouldn't give you the option to ruin it for everyone else. The only reason why Valve gives out SDKs and allows easy mods is to keep the game in circulation as long as possible.

**Apophis** · 10-04-2007, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Zoopy_T

Just because you own it doesn't mean you can destroy Valve's design intensions. Since you are hosting a server you are representing the game to the population. Valve shouldn't give you the option to ruin it for everyone else. The only reason why Valve gives out SDKs and allows easy mods is to keep the game in circulation as long as possible.

This logic doesn't make sense to me.

You're saying how important Valve's intentions are and how the game should be played according to what the developers intended. Yet the developers release a SDK specifically designed to allow gamers to modify the very game that Valve released.

When push comes to shove, we've never simply ran a game with default settings simply because it's what the "developers" intended. We are constantly making modifications to games, maps, etc based on what we observe and think could improve. Bleed gets added to BFx maps because we think it can improve or balance the game, yet if that's what the map designer intended wouldn't they have originally coded it that way?

I can understand someone just preferring FF on or FF off. But I don't think the argument that it should remain that way because it's what the developers intended holds water. I'm not saying it should be changed one way or the other, but the "developers intents" don't factor into the equation at all for me.

I'm sure there are NUMEROUS reasons why Valve releases the SDK and that the "only reason" isn't simply to keep the game in circulation. If it wasn't for the SDK, Valve wouldn't have this game to even PUT into circulation.

**BHack** · 10-04-2007, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by icky

I've seen this debate many times in the past, and while I am always a proponent of flexibility and choice, I've seen the bad side of it.

I used to play a large-scale multiplayer online action game which had several servers run by the developer with standard settings. All of the game variations run by the dev team were fantastic, and they shared some common settings so that players could move from one variation to another and always pick it up quickly.

After a couple of years like this, the game went out into the wild and the public servers started to have their way. Soon, there were a few servers with "standard settings" and dozens of servers with "uber settings". It was all over the map. Imagine BF2 or CS with low gravity, high damage, exploding bullets, 0.5 second respawn times. Most new players from that point on never got to see what the devs originally created, and no new game types were ever built around the standard settings.

It is because of this, and because of my desire for these guys to continue developing what is obviously an excellent vision, that I want to follow with the standard settings they have chosen.

This reminds me of Tribes 2. Are you referring to Tribes 2?

Sigh. What a mess that game became.

R.I.P. Tribes

Thread Tools

Display