Removal of Friendly-Fire | Forums

[leiserLuchs]

Since For Honor is very team-based, I think it doesn't really fit that you can be hit by your teammates. Because of this most people get annoyed by other teammates instead of playing together with them. In my opinion the stagger you can get when you get hit by teammates should be removed or, at least, be made less forceful.

[oldschoolstyle]

Friendly hits are in fact a good thing: since it is fact that multiple opponents will annoy their allies if attacking at the same time, it is a good thing for balance that you cannot do whatever you want while being hit by a comrade. When you gang up to face a lone enemy, you have the upper hand because you double you attack power BUT it still needs some thinking.

[Velkamit]

I think the way they did friendly fire is great, you take no damage but are disrupted. It's one of those things, when I looked at the game I go "I wouldn't have thought of that" I think it's a great balancing decision.

[Smurfsauce]

Definitely don't remove Friendly-Fire and make the game mindless/less fun overall. Part of the enjoyment is coming out on top against the odds and removing Friendly-Fire would ruin it.

I think the way they did friendly fire is great, you take no damage but are disrupted. It's one of those things, when I looked at the game I go "I wouldn't have thought of that" I think it's a great balancing decision.

You still take damage, but it's very minimal. I agree that it's done great and makes modes like Dominion feel more balanced. People should be careful when fighting beside allies.

[DeathofCaine]

Agree with the others in this thread. Friendly fire is a requirement - otherwise you just have a team of mindless hack and slashers. Learn to flank correctly, mind your positions and your teammates.

I'm almost ok with the idea of increasing it to be honest. The spam fest when fighting multiples is a little silly.

[TheDoomKnight]

i honestly think they should increase the damage you deal to allies a bit so people won't be as quick to just surround one enemy and swing willy nilly

[Zhantay]

what me and my friends agreed on if we are going to 2v1 someone, one hit the side while the other does over heads and if 3 we all do over heads to negate friendly fire. It's not perfect but dying from a 1v3 because everyone is stumbling like drunken monkeys is a bit embarrasing.

[leiserLuchs]

I think the way they did friendly fire is great, you take no damage but are disrupted. It's one of those things, when I looked at the game I go "I wouldn't have thought of that" I think it's a great balancing decision.

Yeah you have a point. You're right, its good for the balancing but annoying as well (for example when you are in an 1v1, and a an ally comes and hits you without caution, then the enemy runs away)
Perhaps those 'careless' players will get less once the game is out, but honestly, I wouldn't know anything to make it better.

[JonYurBz]

Sorry but a terrible idea. I think they need to up the friendly damage. It would alleviate the 1v3 crap or at least make it so the 3 have to check their swings and not just spam attacks. Would make this game more strategic or at least somewhat more real. And up the rate at which the stamina bar is used up. Really what is it there for if running and swinging and blocking barely affect it?

[TheDoomKnight]

Sorry but a terrible idea. I think they need to up the friendly damage. It would alleviate the 1v3 crap or at least make it so the 3 have to check their swings and not just spam attacks. Would make this game more strategic or at least somewhat more real. And up the rate at which the stamina bar is used up. Really what is it there for if running and swinging and blocking barely affect it?

exactly give them a bigger drawback for swinging wildly with their allies there