TOPIC: [TTT Suggestion] Addition to 2.4 Player VS Player

Server Name:

TTT

Suggestion Title:

Addition to 2.4 Player Versus Player
If two individuals are fighting and you have no proof of which could be the traitor, you must wait before joining in the fight until one player dies and they either; identifies the body/round ends/question them. If you have no evidence of either side being a Traitor after the gunfight is finished, and the killer makes evident attempts to communicate the reasoning for their kill, then further questioning must be performed/evidence must be obtained before a KOS can be enforced.


How would it benefit the server:

Currently, if you kill an innocent in self-defence, you can be KOSed even if you fully explain the reasoning. With the new rule, as long as you correctly communicate, you will not run into this issue, which I know I've ran into.

Potential Issues/Exploits:

Could be difficult to enforce from a staff perspective.
Could slow down the pace of the game.
Could be abused by T's.

Additional notes:

N/A.

Thank you for your time!

It's confusing as it is already adding this would make some admin chats last more than 30 minutes

this would be to easily abused by traitors, so no.

Nick0GR wrote: I doubt, as there are many more complex situations on SSRP, however they don't seem to run into too many issues concerning them. The reason I made it as detailed as it is is to remove confusion; currently the rule can be interpreted in different ways, and this would clarify it while adding an extra, gameplay-enhancing part of the rule.

Drconor wrote: Well the current rule is ridiculously easy to abuse by innocents to just kill people, so I think it partially balances out. They can be KOSed if their reason for killing is invalid, and if you think about it in more detail and try to interrogate further, there really aren't many reasons that can be made up.

It encourages smart play, and stops innocents from killing other innocents due to "they killed an innocent" even in self-defence.

If an innocent or detective wants to be a smart player and ask the killer why they have killed an innocent then that is cool but i do not think that it should be enforced that they have to. If they do not bother to question the killer and the killer had a valid reason to kill the innocent then their punishment is karma loss and i do not think any further punishment is needed. Even if the killer is questioned they could be lying so i see little reason why people should be punished for killing someone who killed an innocent, after all killing an innocent is a pretty big traitorous act.

It would also slow down the pace of the game way too much. If you are to question someone it would be best to do it in text as they may not be able to hear you, although i do not think text chat should be enforced for this like it was a warn to other players. This would then however be very unfair to the players that have to type as they will most likely be killed typing, this would prevent these kinds of players from ever being able to kill a traitor as they could always just say "he started shooting me".

Miia wrote: But it prevents killings in public, and will encourage the innocent to move around in packs and form teams amongst themselves, to prevent false killings, and single out traitors. Will add another benefit to testing.

sorIe wrote: Admittedly i would like it if the innocents worked together more as a team, but i don't believe we should be making rules to encourage them too. As long as it does not break any existing rules they should be allowed to play how they want. Some players like to be smart and have more experience so will question users, but some are rookies who will see someone kill an innocent and not think twice about KOSing them. I think either approach is acceptable because at the end of the day killing an innocent should always be deemed a traitorous act.

I understand your issue with being rdmed while you validly killed a person (rdmer shot you and you kill the user, the user turns out to be innocent). This would however be a too big of an advantage for T's, as they are able to come up with a scenario which could completely cover their ass. gameplay speed will be decreased as well, which makes the game probably less attractive.

The biggest problem I see is that certain people, majority of them being traitors will abuse this. Honestly, a lot of this should be pretty common sense, if you can't trust someone because they claimed to be attacked by another innocent, what's their health at? Are they willing to get tested to prove themselves as innocent or are they refusing? I don't see why adding an addition to this rule would help solve anything when the common sense factor should be the one at play, and it should vary per person, because that's exactly how life is, it's full of random events and people.

You don't want to make things like TTT a completely rule full experience because you can only do so much in TTT as it is, but the more you limit people, the more you ask for masses to break rules, and people getting upset because they decided to kill a player who they believed for being a traitor because they had just killed an innocent, which always is a traitorous act.

Miia wrote: This pretty much. I wouldn't want to enforce such a rule upon people because it makes the game way too slow paced, not fun and don't see much of its purpose. Are you supposed to let him go if his reason seems pretty solid? Because otherwise people would just kos the shooter right after, completely defeating its purpose. If not, what kind of further evidence should be necessary? DNA scanners and detectives would be rendered completely useless and by the time you do see him doing something traitorous it would take ages if he's careful. I understand what you're trying to accomplish but this isn't the way to do so, Bezzy was completely on point about it.