This is in reference to HC.
What I do not understand (speaking for myself, not the community) ...
Why after so many iterations of the title, why the variations of how to deal with team killing:
1) Player Sits In Timeout
2) Player Gets Booted From Game
3) Player Dies From Ricochet
Some action must be taken against intentional team killing. With that thought, I do not think ricochet is the answer.
There have been many statements made as to why ricochet is the worst option. I think maccabi has one of the best explanation of this.
For me, I prefer the booting the team killer from the game, rather than placing the team killer in timeout with increasing duration per infraction.
Why, after a while, his team mates will start to manages his actions, for our group, we b!tch at said player that we have to back out of the match and pick them back up. This tends to make the player be a little more respectful of his team mates.
If the person is a random (trolling others), well then good riddance, they are gone from the match!
So my question is, why can't dealing with team killing be the same across all titles (regardless of developer) and left to the player that was team killed to decide what action to take?
In this context, once a player kills a team mate three times (or whatever the number is decided), the player that was killed gets the option to boot the player or not.
Yes, I know this feature is in another game and NO I am not suggesting to be like the "other game" ... the fact that the feature is in another game does not negate the idea. A good idea, is a good idea, regardless of who thought of it.
What I am suggesting, leave it up to the players. I do not see where this is not the most reasonable action to the issue.
Thoughts?