Hello There, Guest! Login or Register


Poll: Should there be a feature to disable team damage to fellow gang members?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
53.61%
52 53.61%
No
46.39%
45 46.39%
Total 97 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Gang Friendly Fire: Your Opinon
#11
(12-20-2010, 09:18 PM)Fat Cobra link Wrote:gives advantages over none gang members, nades gonna get spammed 24/7, less interesting and less skill based gameplay so pretty much shit

True that would be shit if there wasnt any ff.
Reply
#12
people would just start nading
Reply
#13
Unless you can come up with some way of stopping people exploiting the friendly fire, then I'm going to say no.
Reply
#14
... No.
Reply
#15
ofcourse not
Reply
#16
Quote:Grim link=topic=27320.msg363051#msg363051 date=1292876152]
Yes

Agree.
Reply
#17
No. And I also dont think its fair to implent it (if you gonna) just because there is just one more person who voted yes.
Reply
#18
I voted no for the following reasons.


1. Realism - I know the game's not very realistic but hear me out. A person would take damage from your shot no matter whether he/she is your friend or not.
2. It might be "abused" with grenades, just throwing grenades in a bunch of your teammates knowing they won't take any damage whereas your enemies will. Might make it to (more of) a nade-fest.
3. Might turn into some random spray-fest with your various weapons, not having to think about team-damage and not injuring your teammates. Somewhat removing some of the skills you need to play and damage your enemy.
4. Don't shoot your friends. :)

If this was to be implemented I'd suggest removing grenades to prevent point 2.
Reply
#19
Yes.
Reply
#20
100% No.
This would take a great deal of skill and picking shots out of the equation, and would simultaneously make it much harder to win an outnumbered fight.

(12-20-2010, 11:32 PM)Dominator33 link Wrote:No. And I also dont think its fair to implent it (if you gonna) just because there is just one more person who voted yes.
This too.
Reply