... For example, if I shot into melee where I hit an allied peasant, with no reflective, i'd kill the poor bastard and have more of a chance of taking out the enemy with a sorry shortly followed...
if it was reflective, it would have killed me, the peasant would have stood no chance ...
Maybe you don't like the 'sound' of this argument, but it's a very valid point. You try to help team mates and you have to take calculated risks sometimes.
Helping your team mates as an archer means you might sometimes shoot your team mate by accident. Both the enemy and the team mate you are trying to save are moving erratically and even though you try your best to take safe shots, sometimes you just fail.
Same goes for cavalry players. You try and bump and bump-slash enemies engaged in melee. This works very well, but sometimes you screw up the timing or a team mate doesn't see you coming and 'jumps' under your horse, gets bumped and dies.
And the same goes for infantry. Sometimes, when you're trying to save a team mate, you accidentally hit that team mate instead. I'm sure it's happened.
Any form of reflective damage breaks this part of the game.
Besides, the person causing the team kill is often punished enough. The shame of causing the team kill, the occasional angry team mate, having to say sorry and a decrease in the chance to win that round, possibly even losing a multiplier because of that.
Team kills happen. You have to take calculated risks in this game. Asking for reflective damage on
ranged only is biased and a silly fix for a problem that does not exist.
I'm against all forms of reflective damage. Punishment for occasional accidental team kills is lame. Losing a team mate is punishment enough.
The problem with this argument that's being put forth here, i think, is the implication that the ranged team kills are intentional or at least the ranged players don't care. He is wrong. It sucks to shoot a team mate.