Hey ya guys! As most everybody knows I am somewhat back to business and have been playing for a while now. After returning I have gotten some feedback on the rules being changed for the worse etc and have had to straighten a few players on their misconceptions of the rules. I have even heard that according to few sources even the staff are having problems at some of the more simpler rules (like rule 2.2 for example) so I have looked up the rules for a few dozen times now and have found some issues with them and these are my suggestions on how to fix the issues in our rules.
Old Rule 1.7a wrote:
1.7a Prop abuse
No abusing props (grabbing them with the magneto stick to shield yourself, push players away, kill players, to climb or fly with them etc.) [The poltergeist traitor weapon or other prop manipulating weapons void the no prop killing/pushing rule]
1.7a Prop abuse
No abusing props (grabbing them with the magneto stick to push players away, kill players, to climb or fly with them etc.) [The poltergeist traitor weapon or other prop manipulating weapons void the no prop killing/pushing rule]
Removed the part about shielding yourself as it is a valid tactic that harms no one, improves gameplay and shouldn't be considered an exploit as the props have their own HP for a reason. There is no reason to remove a working strategy.
Old 2.1 wrote:
2.1 Random Death Match
Any player without valid reasoning cannot kill another player, appropriate reasoning to kill the player is needed. This is otherwise known as RDM (Random Death Match). One example would be killing on suspicion, but you can find more examples of possible RDM at rules 2.5 and 2.6.
2.1 Random Death Match
Players are not allowed to kill others without a valid reason. Random Death Match or RDM is the act of killing without a justifiable reason. Read rules 2.6 and 2.7 for more information on when killing people is acceptable.
Reworded so the rule contains less useless fodder and instead is simple and easy to follow as a rule should be simple, easy to understand and unambigious. My version does not have to be the final one its just what I came up with that fits my criteria better than the previous one.
Old 2.2. wrote:
2.2 In-game warnings to players.
When issuing a warning to a player in-game, make sure that it is through the chat medium so that everyone can see it. Make sure that you give the player ample warning (minimum of 2). After that you may then declare a KOS on them because of their actions. An example of this would be if a player is following you through the map or body blocking you, then you can KOS them after warnings have been given. After the second-warning it will not be classed as RDM
2.2 In-game warnings to players.
When issuing a warning to a player in-game, make sure that it is through the chat medium so that everyone can see it. Make sure that you give the player ample warning (minimum of 2) and enough time to react to your warnings. After that you may then declare a KOS on them because of their actions if they do not comply with the demand. An example of this would be if a player is following you through the map or body blocking you, then you can KOS them after warnings have been given. After the second-warning it will not be classed as RDM
Part that forces people to give them enough time to react to the warnings and a part that only allows KOS if they continue their behavior. This is a technicality that reduces loopholing. And allows the rulento properly spell out the spirit of the rule
A choice to kill a player should always be made to advance the game and to ensure the victory of your team.
Alternate spelling for those who prefer it.
I believe this sentence summs up the spirit of the RDM rule and encourages a user to think before acting upon an acceptable KOS rather than killing everyone who they can. This also fixed the misconception that people have to blindly obey the KOSes.
This is to be added into the bottom of the rule already existing rule 2.6 as a new paragraph
would love to hear what you guys think of these and possibly have a constructive conversation about why these should/shouldn't be changed