>Developer adds a feature >Does nothing but enables annoying

>>384566325
What are you talking about?

>>384566626
I'm talking about teamkilling.

Why do developers add teamkilling, only to ban you for teamkilling? Why not just remove teamkilling? It makes no sense.

>>384566818
No, there's no reason for a game to have teamkilling, at all. It's annoying, it's not fun, it doesn't provide anything positive to the game, it encourages people to grief, it punishes players for the actions of fellow teammates, and it's a terrible mechanic. It's even more-so retarded that developers add this mechanic, only to ban you from the game for using it. That's lazy game design 101

>>384566818
Don't bother, the hot new thing on /v/ at the moment is pretending friendly fire and purposefully teamkilling are the same thing since some streamers have been getting banned for it or something.

>>384566986
If a game lets you do it, it's an option you should be allowed to take. If a developer doesn't want you to take that option, remove it from the game. It's as simple as that. You're retarded if you think otherwise. Friendly Fire has never added anything to any videogame, ever.

>>384567148
1st world problems.

>>384567303
He says, posting on a board about videogames, not willing to contribute to the discussion at all, because he's that lazy of a fatass that he has to waste his time on a shitty videogame board that has zero productivity whatsoever and yet he can't even put forth the tiniest bit of effort to post something relevant, but yet he'll atleast be a flaming hypocrite. Unironically Kill yourself, you're useless to society as a whole.

By the way, the best solution to the "friendly fire" thing is that if you damage a friend, your friend doesn't take damage, you do.

>>384567416
The fact you find this weak-ass bait entertaining enough to devote a thread to and watch like a hawk for replies is more than enough reason for you to kill yourself don't you think?

>>384567416
Yeah... you are right... um... I guess.

>make a joke about team killing
>get banned
>WOOOOOOW how'd this happen
>make a thread on /v/
>make another thread on /v/
You must be livid about that ban

Because being able to hurt team members adds another layer of difficulty to a game.
You have to aim around team members, instead of through them.
Deliberately team killing is bannable, not doing it on accident.

I don't know why this had to be explained to you though.

>kids don't know what friendly fire is
jesus fuck

>>384566325
>>384567148
You are using the feature wrong. The information that is given by the game that you killed one of your team-mate is not to be taken as a way to play game, but as an indication that you fucked up.

>>384566707
how about you don't play with fucking TK'ing retards in the first place

>game lets you lose
>purposefully losing can get you banned

Uhh....

>Play insurgency
>sneaking around a map, Friendly fire on and HUD is off
>run around a bend, see someone and instantly begin to fire
>realize it's a teammate after the first shot, but too late
>everyone begins attempting to kick you immediately after

Never played these PUBG but friendly fire does add depth to games like Red Orchestra or ARMA where the ability to identify your team mate is also part of the gameplay. Team killing to grief and friendly fire as a mechanic aren't the same.

>>384567846
>You are using the feature wrong.
This isn't a fucking movie, you can't play a videogame "wrong," if a developer gives you the option to do something you should have the freedom to do so, if a developer makes it against the rules to do that then they're a lazy developer, because they should remove the feature altogether.

File: 1456875438346.jpg (76KB, 540x405px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 540x405px

>>384567924
Easy: It's a fucking videogame, stop taking it so seriously. It's unhealthy. Raising your blood pressure and clenching your butthole on your "gaming seat" while you just press buttons is not good for you. It's not a real sport, either.

>>384566707
Because the alternatives arent realistic and would make a worse game.

Players could be solid but take no damage, meaning people could intentionally protect the enemy team with their body or Players could have teammates shots go through them, meaning one player could act as a meat shield while the enemy cant react correctly.

>>384568002
>implying video games are literally the same as movies

kys

>>384568002
>This isn't a fucking movie, you can't play a videogame "wrong,"
Yes you can. this isn't fucking sandbox game.

>>384568312
Developers who have "team-killing" as a feature never put forth the effort to add realistic features that actually require polish or nuance, anyway. Most of the features in games that have team-killing are already extremely unrealistic to begin with. That's just an excuse to lazily slap it in for the sake of "realism." In addition to that, like I said earlier, you could punish the player for shooting a teammate by taking the damage your teammate would have taken. It's as equally unrealistic as the rest of the game, has the same exact effect from a discouraging/strategic standpoint, and it eliminates griefers.

>>384568690
But then what happens when, say, you're firing on the enemy and a team mate unpredictably walks into your firing line? Would you still take on the damage for your team mate's mistake?