How awful was no friendly melee damage?

[ManOfWar]

No. Just no.

Imho, team damage should be 100%. Dumbing down the game to make it 'easier' is not the way to go.

I would so want to try this out

[Rangerbob]

Dear lord I get shot by enough nub friendly archers already....  100% team damage means all those archers shooting into crowds and hoping for a lucky shot are gonna just wreck their teammates.  NA siege was at 50% team damage 50% ff and yea everyone was killing themselves.  People were just dropping dead all over the place.

[Armpit_Sweat]

When there's no teamwounding, the game plays pretty much like singleplayer.  When outnumbered, you hold S while a bunch of guys all facehug you at once while mashing their left click until you die.  Sure that would be even easier to kill the outnumbered person, but I think most people prefer there being some sort of skill involved in ganging up on people.

+1
Dont even have to read the rest of this thread.

[Gondemar]

And i'm not talking two. I'm talking about facing half a dozen guys at the same time.

That's what she said...

But yeah, I totally agree. Facing multiple opponents is part of the thrill, and knowing anybody can gang-spam his way throught you with his team would just make the game tasteless.

So, to quote a wise man, I'd say : "No, just no."

[Dexxtaa]

+1
Dont even have to read the rest of this thread.

+1 again.

-1 to John for posting here before on his home thread.

So pretty much no points from me, dawg.

[Malaclypse]

It's awful in Native and Single Player, I'd assume it was awful for cRPG. Totally support 100% ff. And More-Than-Medium combat speed.