IFF Fire And You!

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

Interesting comments on IFF weaponry and the railscope FF on the other thread "Friendly Fire and You" which got me thinking about how i until just recently(only use M39 now) were trying to utilize a scoped M4 effectively as possible and how i went about it.Heres the comments im referring to :

I wouldn't even mind, I'd gladly take a gun/ammo that only does half damage gladly if it means I didn't have to worry about FF and could contribute to a fight in a small corridor (where you have a bunch of marine players who want to help but can't do jack shit, if anything they get in the way of evaccing wounded).

I recently had a issue with ff. See I use the rail scope. Its really good against boilers, and pissing off the hive ect. There's a problem with FF however, since you are using the scope some people like to "bump" you or use help intent and get right in front of you. This is not good. I have to check my sprite constantly to see if I'm facing the correct position because some unga wanted to move right on me. Don't get salty with me when that happens. Sometimes I even put the safety on my weapon before I fire due to this happening CONSTANTLY due to some jackasses who think its fun to do.

Also then you have the "rambos". People who have no cover but run in front of all the other people on the firing line. Because nobody can get a clear shot everyone ends up ramboing it up and getting killed via crusher/gas attack ect. They get murdered by the aliens but they prevent me from hitting anything as well.. because I'm sitting on my hands in the baracade area waiting for them to get out of the way.

I really wish the devs would change IFF to be tied to ammo, and not to the guns. It would open up a lot of cool gameplay tactics.

That way the SL can have IFF magazines for his M41A so he can stay behind the squad while still taking shots. You could also make it so you could purchase IFF drums from req for the mounted smart gun.

Great points and obversations in my opinion, ones that im sure alot think and have seen or experienced as well.I know i have.

Have to point out the SL IFF suggestion because its a good and logical one.Its stated that the SL should not necessarily be at the front of the formation spearheading and you should be getting your men to do that, so what do you have? You have a pair of bino's that give you good oversight and intel, but you cant assist with suppressive fire infront of your men even if you wanted to, thats not CAS or OB fire.Moreso problematic on LOWPOP rounds.

SL Wiki quotes :

"You're the one keeping your squad together, so do it right. Your role is primarily Leadership and only secondarily combat. You're practically the only one with a brain down there, so you should do most of the thinking, and let your marines do most of the shooting. Don't leave your squad leaderless by ramboing into combat and becoming a casualty. It's important to know when to fall back. Ensure that your squad makes it back in one piece. "

"As the Squad Leader, you need a robust and sophisticated knowledge of fighting a war and protecting your squad, as well as fighting. Manage your squad's supply lines and make sure your marines make it back in one piece. No one wants another folded flag being sent home so keep as many of them alive as possible. "

Commander wiki quote :

" In the course of the operation, you have contact with them, give orders to them (but give them to the Squad Leader first) and generally maintain order, structure, and discipline of the Marines. They were trained for a long time to be the representation of your wrath on the battlefield, so manage as if they were your own pieces in a chess game."


Either this information on the wiki for commanders or SL's is outdated or just not what you usually see in reality, this is only theory.SL's ARE usually spearheading and when they arent, they are generally yelled at by the former SSGT's now LT's for not doing exactly that, spearheading, so what is it? Cant have it both ways.What are commanders usually doing? Spearheading.

Now, using the commander example, they are expected to use the same practice of getting your men to do your bidding and what does the commander get armed with?

You guessed it, a IFF'd weapon.Is it because of the ammo capacity of the SG? Partly probably, is it because its a good weapon generally? Also partially the reason. Because of rank? Also, yes.Im inclined to think the main reason though is because you have IFF and therefore you can push and fire with your men even at the center of formation, exactly what the SL should be doing, so why doesnt the SL have some sort of access to IFF, whether through ammo or a special IFF railscope etc?



The railscoped M4 doesnt really do that much effective long range damage and is really more of a harassing weapon as it is right now anyhow, maybe the railscope should have IFF to allow (the small amount of) players not to constantly have to move to get a clear line of fire, hold their fire indefinitely(if they only have one flank to fire upon,blocked by other marines) even when needed until all the marines infront of them they are trying to support are dead rendering them basically useless because they chose a railscope thats available to them.

I think it would further balance out the various weapon platform types available that we actually want to use, because its viable and effective.

The changes to handguns and M39 were GREATLY appreciated(atleast to me) and kind of went hand in hand with the subsequent decrease on shotguns damage, even though they are still very effective! Widening the diverse range of guns chosen by marines.

Before the M39 change, i was using a railscoped M4 almost every round, but purely for information gathering/grenading and not shooting(key point, not for shooting, that says alot).

So analyzing my own actions as to why i did that, its obviously because of the hassle of getting and keeping a clear LOF to even get effective/killing fire, which is almost impossible unless you deal the last damaging shots, like when a xeno triggers a claymore or another marine has downed a xeno to critical state but is out of ammo/reloading and you finish it off from afar.However i would switch happily back to mainly using a scoped M4 if i knew i could properly use it to support the marines without the bullshit.

As some of you might be aware, this exact kind of FF mentioned in Starmute's comment is what caused one of my last notes over another marine murdering for railscope FF, not fun at all, id rather be talking about guns over typing reports of how and why another player removed me from the round over something so petty.


Before i open it to anyone(because i know what you lot are like) that wants to post their thoughts on railscopes possibly having IFF as a feature to make it more viable/effective.I want to tell you all, that having more IFF in the game does sadly decrease the amount of tactics/awareness that players need to have in this server to one, get effective fire into the enemy targets and two, not allow them projectiles to hit your allies, which is one of the main reasons i even play here, not for the "lovely" community propaganda the dictators throw down our throats.

Meaning, im not for IFF to make things easier for marines to a point of no skill, but rather certain aspects of the weaponry that arent keeping up with rest become viable again in this ever evolving server.Exactly like how i was asking for the M39 ROF increase, which we got(not taking credit for it, coders may have already had that change in mind for the future and probably did, maybe).

Not suggesting a scoped M4 should be anything like a sniper or battle rifle in output/DPS either.

Lastly, the more weapons that have IFF, the less chokepoint warfare that will exist, because the marines can simply charge through (blind)firing without regard for shooting allies, im not calling for that either even though that might be a result of things much later in the life of this server with the incremental increases to xeno HP/strength/armor update by update, possibly.

Just had to clear that up, this is just a suggestion/idea,

Now its your turn, what do you think?


Interesting relevant side note/question, is that i asked your guys thoughts on whether the battlerifle should possibly have IFF, almost everyone or actually everyone shut me down saying it didnt need it.I took that critisism onboard, said fair enough and figured i needed to play/observe more rounds with it to see if i agreed, well i still dont.If you said no to battlerifle IFF because it was not needed, surely if anything in the game that should maybe have IFF as a specialty(or not) role/gun type to make it properly effective, it should be the standard railscope right? OR at the very least, a special form of IFF for SL's like Commanders?

Right?

Please no shitposting or derailing, only constructive feedback is wanted.If your post doesnt fall under the category of constructive/productive, then id rather you dont reply.

[Grubstank]

I would like to see some sort of an IFF attachment available in extremely limited numbers -- ie a couple in req and one in every SL vendor. Getting IFF in exchange for an accuracy/damage reduction seems fair to me, especially if the attachments are in short supply, and that the player will give up the benefits of another attachment to fit it.

I'm thinking it would go well in the grip slot -- which ought to strongly deter shotgun users (a shotgun PB, and another buck blast from one tile away would be far more burst damage than the xenos could reasonably handle in this meta... especially in one-tile-wide corridors which is meant to be xenos-favoring terrain)

I would be strongly opposed to giving railscope IFF by default - if you want to be a sniper, then go spec. An attachment should by design be much less effective than a class specialty.

[Nickvr628]

Don't tie it to an attachment, tie it to magazines. It makes sense that it would be in the ammo since the bullets themselves have to maneuver around friendlies. This means the marines can ask req for 1 or 2 IFF magazines for their kit (perhaps forgoing AP mags for IIF mags) that they can switch to when the fighting gets close in.

IFF magazine ammo can have less damage and be less accurate for balance reasons.

[Grubstank]

Don't tie it to an attachment, tie it to magazines. It makes sense that it would be in the ammo since the bullets themselves have to maneuver around friendlies. This means the marines can ask req for 1 or 2 IFF magazines for their kit (perhaps forgoing AP mags for IIF mags) that they can switch to when the fighting gets close in.

IFF magazine ammo can have less damage and be less accurate for balance reasons.

I would argue that bullets that wrap around in midair make less sense than a targeting system which engages when it finds a safe gap inbetween combatants to fire -- that is the rationale of smartgun IFF.
My contention with your suggestion is that IFF just simply does not belong in the hands in the majority, or even a significant amount of the players. For instance, marines have started to do pretty well in the caves since the recent xenos nerfs -- giving each of them even a single IFF mag would just result in a steamroll.

Giving SLs the option for IFF opens up better options for team play. Giving everyone (even limited) IFF will just open up more senseless unga charges.

[FGRSentinel]

a targeting system which engages when it finds a safe gap inbetween combatants to fire -- that is the rationale of smartgun IFF.

Ironically we've had something similar to that since back in WWII in real life: nose-mounted machine guns on fighters were set up so that they'd only actually fire when the propeller was in specific positions to prevent the bullet from hitting the blades. Sure, the IFF you're talking about is more complex, but we have handheld radar devices and computers the size of a business card that can fly the Apollo Missions, so why couldn't guns in the time period of this have a high-tech IFF that uses radar and the IDs to mark friendlies as "do not shoot" areas?

[Blade2000Br]

I don't think we will see IFF added to anything more than smartgunners and sniper soec. Hell, sniper spec IFF was a long fought battle between chowder and other devs to be added.

[starmute]

As to the comment about rail-scopes, they can still be effective however you just have to be careful. Make sure to toggle your safety when you are not firing however. That's been my solution. Yeah you ff sometimes but about as much as any other marine.

[Build_R_]

If IFF magazines were widely available then that would mean that firing lanes would become massive. Imagine being a runner, heading up to a squad from one side to get a quick slash in and all of the sudden every single member of the squad opens fire on you. IFF even for smartguns and snipers seems pretty generous in my opinion.

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

I would like to see some sort of an IFF attachment available in extremely limited numbers -- ie a couple in req and one in every SL vendor. Getting IFF in exchange for an accuracy/damage reduction seems fair to me, especially if the attachments are in short supply, and that the player will give up the benefits of another attachment to fit it.

I'm thinking it would go well in the grip slot -- which ought to strongly deter shotgun users (a shotgun PB, and another buck blast from one tile away would be far more burst damage than the xenos could reasonably handle in this meta... especially in one-tile-wide corridors which is meant to be xenos-favoring terrain)

I would be strongly opposed to giving railscope IFF by default - if you want to be a sniper, then go spec. An attachment should by design be much less effective than a class specialty.

Yeah i concur with your comment on being opposed to standard railscopes having IFF in a general sense, however i was mainly trying to illustrate a extreme to extreme scenario.Where either you have the option of having IFF on alot of weapons if the marine chooses to by requesting a IFF scope, or just simply allowing atleast a SL which REALLY would benefit from some form of IFF(exactly like a CO)

Theres only one sniper spec slot per round, fact.Theres not actually that many players that even use a railscope, fact.Mainly because of the amount of waiting and "precision"(RNG) thats required, which deters players from using them in the first place.Like i mentioned with my example, ive always been that kind of player that would much rather have a scope and shoot from afar than be on the front, yet even with the option of a railscope, my instincts told me to only use it for info gathering because shooting with it is too much trouble and rather ineffective, that says alot and is a fact.I know im not the only one either, because even as a recent relevant example, i saw a commander of all ranks doing exactly the same thing in the end portion of round during a mutiny, and that CO was using a scoped M4 for checking hallways, but barely firing the actual weapon, it was being used for information and not engaging.

Ironically we've had something similar to that since back in WWII in real life: nose-mounted machine guns on fighters were set up so that they'd only actually fire when the propeller was in specific positions to prevent the bullet from hitting the blades. Sure, the IFF you're talking about is more complex, but we have handheld radar devices and computers the size of a business card that can fly the Apollo Missions, so why couldn't guns in the time period of this have a high-tech IFF that uses radar and the IDs to mark friendlies as "do not shoot" areas?

GREAT points, i wasnt until a few years ago even aware of the the timed machine guns that shot through the propeller somehow without damaging them, but i always wondered how.
Therefore the era this server is set in, is way beyond and into the realms of guns firing only when its safe to do so and no allies or yourself would be damaged by that fire.
Also on the nose mount MG's, i heard it was timed mechanically or hydraulically from the timing of the actual plane engine itself? Its makes sense.

I don't think we will see IFF added to anything more than smartgunners and sniper soec. Hell, sniper spec IFF was a long fought battle between chowder and other devs to be added.

Thats assumed already, its a hassle to try and do anything here, but just because it takes such time for any suggestions whether fully logical and proper or not isnt going to stop me from suggesting ideas.

As to the comment about rail-scopes, they can still be effective however you just have to be careful. Make sure to toggle your safety when you are not firing however. That's been my solution. Yeah you ff sometimes but about as much as any other marine.

Thats exactly part of the problem, youve got to be SO careful that your almost basically useless as a marine, because you chose a piece of equipment thats available to you in the first place as a marine.

This is the exact reasoning i argued for the M39 rate of fire to be increased, why?

Because we literally only have a handful of weapons available to us to try and achieve victory, why any of that equipment would be so restrictive or basically useless is absurd(in a gameplay or LORE sense).We are here to have fun and also win for the side youve chosen, marines or xenoes. This is no excuse for the equipment available to us to be trash in any sense.
This is not a WW1 or 2 server, or medieval.

This server is set in the year 2186, much further from our own time and we are already very effective at warfare right now let alone 100 years into the future, so it makes no sense at all why the equipment available to a force designed for warfare to be given equipment not effective at exactly that even whilst abiding by the LORE.Not to mention that not everything in the server is LORE abiding anyhow, so to pick and choose where it should be applied properly or not is slowly becoming irrelevant.

If IFF magazines were widely available then that would mean that firing lanes would become massive. Imagine being a runner, heading up to a squad from one side to get a quick slash in and all of the sudden every single member of the squad opens fire on you. IFF even for smartguns and snipers seems pretty generous in my opinion.

Yeah im again, not asking for this to be anything like the Merc server with IFF on everything etc, i would hate that myself and wouldnt even play here if that was the case.
Its purely a logical stand point, if the CO has a IFF weapon, why doesnt a SL with the exact kind of objectives as the CO?

Like i mentioned, actually try and spot a player that uses a long railscope(not a mini) that even does effective fire, because im always looking for it and its such a rare sight that it tells you everything.

Even if IFF hypothetically was added to all railscopes, do you really think every player would rush to use them? A scoped M4 has terrible rate of fire, useless at close range basically and im almost fairly certain that the longer the range the projectile travels, the less damage it does to a target. This does not equate to every marine asking for a long railscope just because it has IFF, because most players want to be on the front line and not waiting 30 minutes to a hour to even use their railscope on targets like i used to do.

And even if they did, even with a IFF railscope, would be so ineffective at CQC combat they would throw it on the ground and try to find the nearest shotgun like alot players already do.

[Nickvr628]

The comparison to the fighters of old with their synchronization gears is not a great analogy, since that was "simply" some clockwork and timing mechanisms that would sync up the firing mechanism with the known rotation of the propeller blades. A far cry from a smart IFF system that would be needed in a chaotic battlefield.

That being said, an optical sensor that locks the trigger when aiming at a friendly would be easily possible in the future, so an attachment in the SL vendors that gives their firearms an IFF system would be neat. The SL could stand behind his squad like he is supposed to, while still engaging targets while needed. Personally I think binding IFF capability to ammo would be better from a gameplay perspective as it opens a lot of good tactical and loadout possibilities, but having it be an attachment would be fine too.

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

The comparison to the fighters of old with their synchronization gears is not a great analogy, since that was "simply" some clockwork and timing mechanisms that would sync up the firing mechanism with the known rotation of the propeller blades. A far cry from a smart IFF system that would be needed in a chaotic battlefield.

That being said, an optical sensor that locks the trigger when aiming at a friendly would be easily possible in the future, so an attachment in the SL vendors that gives their firearms an IFF system would be neat. The SL could stand behind his squad like he is supposed to, while still engaging targets while needed. Personally I think binding IFF capability to ammo would be better from a gameplay perspective as it opens a lot of good tactical and loadout possibilities, but having it be an attachment would be fine too.

Somewhat agree, the analogy isnt perfect, but it gives the vision of whats been discussed.If early technology was capable of achieving it, then assuming future tech doesnt do it even better is ridiculous to assume.

Yeah, at the very least i think the SL role could really benefit from this and allow them to engage the way the wiki itself claims that the SSGT should be going about it, but thats not what we are seeing majority of rounds.

So either the wiki information should be removed or updated, or the equipment the SL has access to should be addressed to allow them to operate exactly how the wiki states and what the CO already has access to, even though the CO is majority of the time topside and not engaging.

Its a simple concept and frankly backwards the way it is now.If anything the CO should just have a Mateba for their love of removing heads of marines and the SL should have the IFF weaponry.Not the other way around.

[FGRSentinel]

GREAT points, i wasnt until a few years ago even aware of the the timed machine guns that shot through the propeller somehow without damaging them, but i always wondered how.

The trick to it is that is the use of a Synchronization Gear: a specialized gear mechanism was set up that would only allow the gun to fire when the gear was in a specific position, typically so the gun would fire at a time when the bullet would pass through while the two blades were horizontal relative to the plane's wings. This was done by factoring in the speed of the bullets, size of the propeller, firing speed of the gun, and various possible rotational speeds of the propeller (to keep the plane moving fast enough to stay airborne) before making the gear. Even if you held down the trigger, the guns would only fire when the gear was in a specific place, but if the guns were swapped out or ammo with different velocities were used, it'd require changing the gear or the bullets would shred the propeller.

If a radar-operated IFF of this type was used that was related to the gun itself, it'd mean that so long as all friendlies moving along the firing line stayed moving at a constant speed in the same direction and the IFF was set up for that type of gun and ammo, it won't hit friendlies. If someone starts moving into the firing line after you pull the trigger, they'll get hit though. Likewise, if you set up an IFF system for a Pulse rifle using standard ammo and swap in AP (which would probably have a different velocity) without changing the IFF's config or configure it for the wrong kind of pulse rifle, there should be a chance of hitting any non-stationary friendly in the line of fire. Realistically, however, this type of IFF should simply be more of an automated safety for the gun: if a marine is anywhere downrange that will cross the firing line in a spot where the bullet will be when they pass (but not beyond a hostile that'll meet the same condition) the gun won't fire.

[Blade2000Br]

Yep, devs won't add any kind of IFF to SLs nor IFF ammo.

FF is just part of the life, adding IFF will break the balance and atmosphere of the game.

Basically: Get over the fact you will get FFed. Deal with it.

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

The trick to it is that is the use of a Synchronization Gear: a specialized gear mechanism was set up that would only allow the gun to fire when the gear was in a specific position, typically so the gun would fire at a time when the bullet would pass through while the two blades were horizontal relative to the plane's wings. This was done by factoring in the speed of the bullets, size of the propeller, firing speed of the gun, and various possible rotational speeds of the propeller (to keep the plane moving fast enough to stay airborne) before making the gear. Even if you held down the trigger, the guns would only fire when the gear was in a specific place, but if the guns were swapped out or ammo with different velocities were used, it'd require changing the gear or the bullets would shred the propeller.

If a radar-operated IFF of this type was used that was related to the gun itself, it'd mean that so long as all friendlies moving along the firing line stayed moving at a constant speed in the same direction and the IFF was set up for that type of gun and ammo, it won't hit friendlies. If someone starts moving into the firing line after you pull the trigger, they'll get hit though. Likewise, if you set up an IFF system for a Pulse rifle using standard ammo and swap in AP (which would probably have a different velocity) without changing the IFF's config or configure it for the wrong kind of pulse rifle, there should be a chance of hitting any non-stationary friendly in the line of fire. Realistically, however, this type of IFF should simply be more of an automated safety for the gun: if a marine is anywhere downrange that will cross the firing line in a spot where the bullet will be when they pass (but not beyond a hostile that'll meet the same condition) the gun won't fire.

(yeah the front nose MG was pure timing, if anything fucks up like a timing chain in a car engine, the timing is gone and risking damage)

Not a bad suggestion, really love that idea but the coding to achieve that might be a bitch over utilizing the existing IFF code parameters.What piece of code is tracking or knows speed or(the radar IFF) which direction the SL is relevant to his marines? Thats what im thinking of with that idea.

More simple parameters are easier to write and create, like the last point where the projectiles travelled distance determines whether its going pass a object(ally) or not.

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

Yep, devs won't add any kind of IFF to SLs nor IFF ammo.

FF is just part of the life, adding IFF will break the balance and atmosphere of the game.

Basically: Get over the fact you will get FFed. Deal with it.

Dude what the hell? IM going to do my best not to turn this reply aggressively and swear.

You already stated on your first post how much you think that anything like this couldnt even happen, so why say the same thing again? I already replied to this type of post once and now your saying to get over it and that FF is "apart of life", ok fair enough! Thats your opinion, ive heard it and appreciate your "reply".

This is a discussion post, it doesnt matter whether it gets implemented or not, so should we all just shut up now or something because as far as your concered its a pipedream and never achievable, is that what your trying to imply here or what?

And if so, why even post? Does that fall under my request in the OP that :

"Please no shitposting or derailing, only constructive feedback is wanted.If your post doesnt fall under the category of constructive/productive, then id rather you dont reply."

Did you read that part? Or you just dont care and want to disrupt this topic with a reply and nothing to contribute? You tell me, what is it exactly? I even said please.

Like to also point out, that out of the handful of people that are contributing to this so far, you are the only one, a admin of all things that have replied with a response with no substance, which is very telling of the already very known pattern around here.Isnt it?

This community is basically your own free think tank, which is analyzing everything for better or worse, whether you like it or not.You should appreciate that and observe, not trying to disrupt it.

[ThesoldierLLJK]

I think instead of trying to add all that, instead make it that if you are on an adjacent tile next to a marine you can shoot over their shoulder as long as you wield the weapon with two hands. Anything beyond that would result in FF

I think it would add a more fair balance

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

I think instead of trying to add all that, instead make it that if you are on an adjacent tile next to a marine you can shoot over their shoulder as long as you wield the weapon with two hands. Anything beyond that would result in FF

I think it would add a more fair balance

Now that i love! simple and effective, and its already a thing now with the dual/single weiding as to whether your fire is effective or not, so i really like this idea.

Maybe even with this concept, it will pass one or two tiles front of you, but not the third, fourth or fifth etc tile? Giving you a chance to get effective fire through even as a second to third line formation unit whilst pushing.

Love it!

[Grubstank]

Yep, devs won't add any kind of IFF to SLs nor IFF ammo.

FF is just part of the life, adding IFF will break the balance and atmosphere of the game.

Basically: Get over the fact you will get FFed. Deal with it.

We've already heard your opinion in your first post, please post again when you have something more to add to the discussion

Repeating yourself without addressing the context of the discussion won't make people listen to you -- it just makes you look like an asshole while the conversation continues anyways.

I think instead of trying to add all that, instead make it that if you are on an adjacent tile next to a marine you can shoot over their shoulder as long as you wield the weapon with two hands. Anything beyond that would result in FF

I think it would add a more fair balance

I do like this suggestion -- the clunkiness would balance it so that it wouldnt be viable to regularly move+shoot, but it would make defensive action more interesting

[Nickvr628]

I think instead of trying to add all that, instead make it that if you are on an adjacent tile next to a marine you can shoot over their shoulder as long as you wield the weapon with two hands. Anything beyond that would result in FF

I think it would add a more fair balance

Fuck yes that would be an amazing change. It would reduce about 80% of FF cases from help intent shuffling.

[GoliathTheDespoiler]

The issue of having widely available IFF tech is that it's going to VASTLY increase the firepower of the marines since you can literally just ball them all up and shoot at whatever's closest without worrying about self-harm.

I can immediately see how IFF mags or IFF attachments can be abused by people, or it can be easily circumvented for the low stock by req simply buying more since they'd be IMMEDIATELY superior to every other attachment available.

Personally I'd rather just make it that pulse rifles and most small-arms just suck against marine armor in general instead of just removing friendly fire damage. The plates (in the movies n' shit) look thick and durable, so I'd think it's more reasonable than having a giant 80s era computer attached to your gun pointing it away from people you'll shoot otherwise.

[BillyBoBBizWorth]

The issue of having widely available IFF tech is that it's going to VASTLY increase the firepower of the marines since you can literally just ball them all up and shoot at whatever's closest without worrying about self-harm.

I can immediately see how IFF mags or IFF attachments can be abused by people, or it can be easily circumvented for the low stock by req simply buying more since they'd be IMMEDIATELY superior to every other attachment available.

Personally I'd rather just make it that pulse rifles and most small-arms just suck against marine armor in general instead of just removing friendly fire damage. The plates (in the movies n' shit) look thick and durable, so I'd think it's more reasonable than having a giant 80s era computer attached to your gun pointing it away from people you'll shoot otherwise.

Some very fair points to which i have to agree with somewhat.Yes, widespread or large scale IFF would not be a good thing or fun, theres already servers for that, i really dont want that as much as you.

The railscope is being used as a prime example for reasons mentioned as being before hard to get effective fire with, theres almost no other gun that has a rough time as a scoped M4 marine, aside from a marine on mounted M56 or maybe a demo/grenadier spec.

Honestly, really try to spot a marine that uses a railscope, its so rare its not funny.About 6 months ago, there was a group of marines(me being one) that used railscopes primarily and were known for it, they dont use them anymore, they are just so lackluster and bothersome.

I agree 100% with the point over rather than more IFF weaponry, have marine armor more resistant, whether it makes LORE or technology sense of the time or not.It would be much simpler and easier.However, its almost the effect as adding more IFF, because im pretty sure you would see even more marines just charging and firing regardless of allies that are in the way or not, because "the bullets shouldnt hurt that much", is almost the same as charging because "the bullets wont hurt them at all".

Fine line indeed.

[FGRSentinel]

I think instead of trying to add all that, instead make it that if you are on an adjacent tile next to a marine you can shoot over their shoulder as long as you wield the weapon with two hands. Anything beyond that would result in FF

I think it would add a more fair balance

And it'd make total sense. This is basically what people have been doing since the advent of guns and there's a good reason why you can't have it three rows deep; you're firing in a staggered formation where the guy two rows in front of you would have his head in your line of fire.

[liltiptop]

You know what i'd LOVE to see?
CROUCHING.
If you could press a button, or something like that, and crouch down (or hell, have a little down arrow on you to represent you're crouched) then there'd be a lot less FF.
For example, if you stand behind a marine that's crouching, then you have a higher chance of shooting over them, or a 100% chance, if you're using single fire. However, if two marines are crouched and one shoots at the other, then it's the same as normal.
Crouching would give severe movement penalties, so it'd only be a good option for defensive positions, which allows marines to make a greater firing line.
Thoughts?

[misto]

crouching was suggested and denied https://gitlab.com/cmdevs/ColonialMarines/issues/1460

spooky said that it existed before and was reverted but that must have been long before my time.

[Slduggy]

You know what i'd LOVE to see?
CROUCHING.
If you could press a button, or something like that, and crouch down (or hell, have a little down arrow on you to represent you're crouched) then there'd be a lot less FF.
For example, if you stand behind a marine that's crouching, then you have a higher chance of shooting over them, or a 100% chance, if you're using single fire. However, if two marines are crouched and one shoots at the other, then it's the same as normal.
Crouching would give severe movement penalties, so it'd only be a good option for defensive positions, which allows marines to make a greater firing line.
Thoughts?

With the barricade nerf (apparently barricades are getting nerfed even harder now), I think this is pretty much necessary, marines have very few options on the defense.