Author Topic: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams  (Read 35342 times)

Offline Spectre

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 622
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
  • Grossly incandescent
    • Team: No Terrorism
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #90 on: December 13, 2017, 11:36:55 am »
I guess YoMama is talking about this:

Quote from: Quido
• No teamshooting / spawnkilling
- Use /colours & /duty ingame, to understand which teams are friendly. You are not allowed to help the opposing team in any way. Do not block or stun your own teammates so the other team can kill them.

If we read it literally, you can help the opposite team actively or passively. You help actively if you take actions that are detrimental for your team: for example, blocking your team's way, stunning a mate in the middle of a fight... But you can also help passively. Helping passively means helping by not taking any action. For example, you're passively helping the opposite team if you are cop looking after the president and do nothing when a terrorist, who is a friend of yours, tries to kill him.
"In any way", as literally outlined by the rules and from what I understand, includes every single possible way. So active ways would be included, but passive ways too. Unfortunately this second type is never enforced. At least not yet.

I agree that there should be no exceptions when you're Security, you should kill everyone who tries to attack the President. Maybe the same should go for other fighting classes as well. I still don't get what personal gain YoMama was speaking of.

But ok, let's assume that fellow clan members don't attack each other and ignore their duties is legal and legit. Would you mind explaining me the reason why this non-aggression policy spreads to all the regulars (in except for a bunch of weirdos like me), regardless of their clan? Why don't GgTs, RDs, PPLVs, NOs, pWns, IDFs, Rawrs, members of other clans and clan-less regulars attack any other member of this list? How many regular players are could be included in the list I just wrote? One hundred? Two? Hundreds of people ignoring each other in a server with an average of... ~30 players online?
Clans make sense, after all. Players unite, agree to protect each other and grow stronger. But I'm still wondering why you need to grow stronger if you're only willing to attack a bunch of lost newbies in a 4:1 fight...

I was just saying that it's rather dumb to try and force players from the same clan to shoot each other in normal gameplay (cops vs terrorists and such). Fighting between clans is not a problem when it comes about duty, but every player should have a choice about who he/she wants to attack imho. That's my point of view, even though I see your point as well and support it to an extent.

Offline Vishwas

  • VIP
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #91 on: December 13, 2017, 04:40:20 pm »
Your example is wrong because in reality having Duty or not how is your Newbie(your so called Duck) is gonna get not eaten/killed?
The other day I was protecting a president from your clan, but you decided to kill me while still helping the president. You targeted all securities except the ones from your clan and regulars.

They did nothing while you attacked us like a sissy with your jetpack, but they sure did collaborate with you despite knowing that you were killing their team mates.

So yes they were technically teaming up with people who are fight against the newbies in their team - which I believe is against the rules. The server has basically become a clan war server where newbies don't have the right to play because they are new.

The example is pretty clear. She is talking about HOW the duck is going to be killed and who is to be directly responsible for it (who attacks and the ones who support the attacker/let it happen.)

I think you are just being selfish because clans still have the option to do what they are doing right now if they simply choose one team and follow their actual duty but newbies have no option other than quiting the server. 90% of the players take part in the shitfest at armour as cops or terrrorists. So why not join them instead of teaming up with terrorists to kill your team mates while you're playing as security?
That's not really the case, mention full details before relating to any in game event. I was civilian some regular/clanmate was president as per you. Firstly, civilians don't have duty . I didn't hunt anybody for free kills, I went there to protect and tried my best to not engage in any fight but security(maybe including you) started shooting and to defend myself I shot back.

I'm not really selfish because believe it or not I follow duty in whatever class I'm, which is mostly civilian. Even when I'm security I shoot anyone to do my duty. Don't know where did I team up with terrorist, that's total bs.

I'm kinda done talking about it, this isn't happening, good luck discussing.

Kthxbai
Wooho! I'm a Rebel just for kicks, kicking it like it's 1966!


Offline Saurabh

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #92 on: December 13, 2017, 06:00:54 pm »
Okay ladies , relax.

Purpose of a game is to enjoy playing it the way you find it enjoyable.


Stop writing essays here, if your words could really change how people think about their "selective killing" "playstyle" then  mia's essays would have done the magic already. Let's talk real:

1. You can't enforce such rule.
 We already have so much issues with setting the 'limits' of /duty mentioned for security. Every admin would see the situation with different perspective and might consider things  on different scales. How are you gonna prove that Terro A intentionally didn't shoot Cop B ? Terro A can always make excuses like  he thought he can't fight cop B and tried escaping,or saying he went afk, or that he didn't notice him, or that he got busy in fighting someone else, or that he was busy reading mainchat, or that his game freezed. How can you know for SURE if a player intentionally skipped shooting the other one? Ofc there are some clear black n whites but most of the time the cases will be gray and admins will have hard time enforcing such rule about team duties.


2. A rule can't make players give up their 'selective killing playstyle' . A rule can't make a traitor become a patriot overnight.

Ofc u can list various punishments but Terro A who doesn't want to shoot Cop B will always avoid shooting him. They might even 'act' like they are shooting each other to avoid punishment but then they still have option to smoothly run away from the area and act like one of the player chickened out and other one couldn't catch him. If i don't want to include myself in a fight of my teammate, i can simply drive away and say that i couldn't have saved my teammate anyway so i better saved myself more time to kill/protect president, which is the ultimate duty of the team.


My opinion:
Players gotta find out the way they enjoy the game and should try not to force it on others. If you want challenge and like the idea of fuck em all, sure, play like mia and other players who do that, just don't complain about other players not shooting the ones attacking you.

When i feel like i want some challenge and really focus on PTP , i become security and kill everyone attacking. BUT when i want to chill and AVOID fights with everyone or when i am alone, i gotta follow the "selective killing" playstyle because i find that to be enjoyable at that time.

Just in case someone argues, I can shoot enemies and protect president as cop as well BUT if i do that as a cop then it means indulging myself into endless armour fights with opposing team and once again leading me to follow "selective killing" playstyle/peace with some players in order to survive. Ofc if whole cop team start helping me against whole terro team then i wouldn't need such 'peace contracts' but that is rarely a case. Newbies are just newbies and they rarely follow the concept of being a team even after we do the favor of saving them somewhere earlier.  Players will always be selfish, want to survive and enjoy the game they want to, so shush and game on.

Offline Judah

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 74
  • Rank: Vic
  • Score: 124
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #93 on: December 13, 2017, 07:17:30 pm »
True, but rules are meant to be followed. I'm sure that the majority of those who are against this suggestion is mature enough (except a few ofc) to know that there are consequences for breaking a rule. Also, clan leaders would have to take a major part in enforcing the rule. 

The rule won't solve the issue. It will improve the fucked up shit that is happening right now and make sure that future players follow the rule. So far, 43% of the people are willing to follow this rule (according to this poll).

If half of the server is willing to follow the rule and is shooting at you then the other half who don't comply with the rule will have to defend themselves by shooting back. That way, most of the people would be shooting each other without any neutrality.

Offline Miau

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 565
  • Rank: Jacker
  • Score: 46079
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #94 on: December 13, 2017, 07:45:43 pm »
Stop writing essays here,

... Says before writing another essay x)

1. You can't enforce such rule.

I don't think anyone would be punished for not shooting once or twice, as it can happen for several reasons, like in the examples you gave. A clan leader PMing one of their members not to attack a certain person and the member obeying, would be punishable. Or, let's say I want to report someone because I suspect they are breaking this rule, I would be ready to record them during a week every time they go take armor, for example, and show how often they actually attack or get attacked by enemies they find and how often they don't. A person who plays fair will have to fight the enemies near 100% of the times, huh. It's not that hard to prove.

Quote
2. A rule can't make players give up their 'selective killing playstyle' . A rule can't make a traitor become a patriot overnight.

Players would pretend to fight everyone they find on their way? Lol, I don't know how it would be, but it sounds tiring to do such a performance like every minute of every hour in PTP. Not to say that is more fun to actually fight... if it wasn't, these endless clanwars with LoD and the older ones with GgT and SLp, etc. would have never taken place haha.

Anyways, if you don't believe my last paragraph, it's still possible to detect someone who is avoiding fights with his friends. A extremely simple script could, for example, save the statistics of the hours you've played as enemy of Clan X members vs. the times you've killed by them or killed them. If you have played 250 hours as a cop while Clan X members were terrorists and you've killed each other zero times, it's obvious that something is wrong. Admins could even get an automatic warnings to check out what you're actually doing when this and other suspicious statistics are detected. These statistics could be made secret so nobody knows how to make them unsuspicious.



Of course, I also support everyone being able to make a choice. I support it as long as it doesn't interfere with others' experience in Plan B.

I don't care if you decide to paint your bedroom wall in fluorescent pink, because I has zero effect on me. But this is different. The way you decide to play does have an effect on everyone else, and this effect is more dramatic on newbies, as I discussed last night with Vishwas.
Oh! I don't want to fight you, Jorah the Andal. What do I have to gain? If I win, I'm the shit who killed an old man. If I lose, I'm the shit who was killed by an old man.

~ Daario Naharis

Offline YoMama

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 638
  • Rank: Hoodsta
  • Score: 24630
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #95 on: December 13, 2017, 08:00:49 pm »
Where's Lacerta when we need him! He would've solved this already by banning YoMama and probably Mia as well.
No, you forgot... I am Lacerta apparently, since I made this suggestion.

As an aside, for all the people comparing me to Lacerta and/or Tenshi, I'm surprised that no one recognizes that Lacerta was one of the people who did the kill-the-security-but-not-the-president thing all the time, and "shush" and "that's the way it is" responses are classically Tenshi-esque.

I've joked about pWn messing around and shooting each other but, you know what, I'm glad they do. We take it lightly but I know these guys are great at this game and to improve your skills you must fight those that are better than yourself. You don't get better by circle-jerking.
Exactly. pWn used to annoy the shit out of me, but I have recently noticed that most of them actually play the game.

This rule would be very hard to enforce and could cause arguments. -1
Nope. It's not hard to enforce a rule when people tell you that they're breaking it. You're also formulating your sentence like this rule doesn't already exist.

I agree that there should be no exceptions when you're Security, you should kill everyone who tries to attack the President. Maybe the same should go for other fighting classes as well. I still don't get what personal gain YoMama was speaking of.
I'm talking about people basically getting better stats by fucking over newbies while the newbies teammates sit and watch. Basically, people get to pretend that they are good at this game when they are never actually playing it. "Personal gain" was probably overly strong.

I was just saying that it's rather dumb to try and force players from the same clan to shoot each other in normal gameplay (cops vs terrorists and such). Fighting between clans is not a problem when it comes about duty, but every player should have a choice about who he/she wants to attack imho. That's my point of view, even though I see your point as well and support it to an extent.
I'm not suggesting that people have a robotic "must shoot" response when they see someone of the other team. It makes it easier to claim that this suggestion is ridiculous if you misinterpret it like that, deliberately or not (I'm not accusing you of doing this). My problem is when someone refuses to shoot an enemy when a new player without preference would shoot them, following their duty. Here's an example of a few things that I think should and shouldn't be allowed, using a cop as an example:

Allowed:
  • Racing by people having an irrelevant fight in the middle of nowhere
  • Ignoring someone who is not a particular threat to your team, in favor of going after people who are more dangerous (ignoring a noob to focus on a regular who is in another location)

Not allowed:
  • Letting people kill your team when you have nothing else to do but stop them (like the civs that come to the UFO in RC and kill all the security they don't know)
  • Not attacking someone when they are a clear threat (refusing to stop clan member attacking the president or members of your team who are trying to protect the president)
  • As president, inviting your friends to kill the people who are trying to protect you, and doing nothing to stop them
  • Refusing to do your duty because it would involve attacking "allies"

Purpose of a game is to enjoy playing it the way you find it enjoyable.
The purpose of the game is to actually play it (within the rules), because then everyone is on a level footing and it's all about your skills and knowledge, not your relationships with other players. It's not to play it in the way you find most enjoyable and convenient. If that were the case, everyone would be hacking.


1. You can't enforce such rule.
 We already have so much issues with setting the 'limits' of /duty mentioned for security. Every admin would see the situation with different perspective and might consider things  on different scales. How are you gonna prove that Terro A intentionally didn't shoot Cop B ? Terro A can always make excuses like  he thought he can't fight cop B and tried escaping,or saying he went afk, or that he didn't notice him, or that he got busy in fighting someone else, or that he was busy reading mainchat, or that his game freezed. How can you know for SURE if a player intentionally skipped shooting the other one? Ofc there are some clear black n whites but most of the time the cases will be gray and admins will have hard time enforcing such rule about team duties.
Fuck that. You can't stop people from hacking, teamkilling, and many other things. However, we still have rules against these activities. Whether or not everyone follows the rules, just the threat of enforcement is enough to keep most people in line. The gray areas are not the problem. It's obvious when this rule is being broken in a way that really affects people. It's like the Vice "accidentally" ramming into the President vs. very obviously trying to steal his car or nading him. Yes, they're both against the rules, but just because the first is subtle doesn't mean you shouldn't try to enforce against the second case.

2. A rule can't make players give up their 'selective killing playstyle' . A rule can't make a traitor become a patriot overnight.

If i don't want to include myself in a fight of my teammate, i can simply drive away and say that i couldn't have saved my teammate anyway so i better saved myself more time to kill/protect president, which is the ultimate duty of the team.
Again, if you can say that and it's that much of a gray area, then you're not really the problem.

When i feel like i want some challenge and really focus on PTP , i become security and kill everyone attacking. BUT when i want to chill and AVOID fights with everyone or when i am alone, i gotta follow the "selective killing" playstyle because i find that to be enjoyable at that time.
Fine, but if you're doing the "selective killing" shit, be a civilian. It's easy, and that way, people don't have to wonder about your loyalty to your team.

Just in case someone argues, I can shoot enemies and protect president as cop as well BUT if i do that as a cop then it means indulging myself into endless armour fights with opposing team and once again leading me to follow "selective killing" playstyle/peace with some players in order to survive. Ofc if whole cop team start helping me against whole terro team then i wouldn't need such 'peace contracts' but that is rarely a case. Newbies are just newbies and they rarely follow the concept of being a team even after we do the favor of saving them somewhere earlier.
The armor bullshit is a choice, and people should stop pretending that it isn't. I basically never get into fights at the armor spawns, and I don't make alliances with people on the other team. I get my armor and go, usually only if there's no one there. If I can do it, you can too. In other words, armor fighting is not a justification. I think newbies actually follow the concept of being in a team much better than many of our regulars. They default to shooting people instead of doing nothing. I often get regulars not shooting me when I'm a civilian attacking the President (I don't ask for this), but the noobs usually will.

Players will always be selfish, want to survive and enjoy the game they want to, so shush and game on.
This is a ridiculous statement. *DDOSes server because that's how he enjoys the game* *enables hacks because that's how he enjoys the game**gathers a group of assholes to pick on one noob because that's how he enjoys the game* *doesn't actually play the game according to the rules because that's how he enjoys the game* *ignores existing rules against helping the other team, but does it anyway through a fucked-up system of alliances because that's how he enjoys the game*

Stop writing essays here, if your words could really change how people think about their "selective killing" "playstyle" then  mia's essays would have done the magic already. Let's talk real
I'm now questioning your sincerity here, after you just wrote an essay and wrote the above quote, which isn't exactly "real".
« Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 08:07:55 pm by YoMama »

Offline Spectre

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 622
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
  • Grossly incandescent
    • Team: No Terrorism
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #96 on: December 13, 2017, 08:09:10 pm »
I'm not suggesting that people have a robotic "must shoot" response when they see someone of the other team. It makes it easier to claim that this suggestion is ridiculous if you misinterpret it like that, deliberately or not (I'm not accusing you of doing this). My problem is when someone refuses to shoot an enemy when a new player without preference would shoot them, following their duty.

As I have said to Mia in one of my earlier replies, I totally think that Securities shouldn't let their clan-mates murder the shit out of Presi. I think Arabiane is one of few players who does his Security duty by the book and I like that.
But... It is still unacceptable to try and force this on other classes. Cops, for example, have fluid duty, where they can opt to protect the President or go around and chase Terrorists. They can also idle around the map if they want, being completely useless to everyone. Same goes for Terrorists. It may seem wrong, but like I said, I think every player should have freedom of choice over this, however unfair this may sound or be to newbies. When I started off on PTP it was exactly the same as now, most of the time clan mates wouldn't shoot each other. Nobody complained about it back then as I recall.

Offline Saurabh

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #97 on: December 14, 2017, 04:28:44 am »
@mia and yomama, i wrote my 'essay' to explain how your words wouldn't change how players like to play. My essay wasn't an attempt to change or question your playstyle. Thought i was clear enough when i said "your words won't make people change the way they like playing". Facepalm

"Games are about skills and knowledge". I'd say they are more for fun and passtime.
"Games are meant to be played within the rules , agreed , but the rules should be laid down in a way that no loophole can be exploted by the rulebreakers. If i want to have "fun" by breaking this rule , i can keep doing it forever in many ways until an admin finally decides to ban me without any proper explanation that shows i broke the rule. Hackers still hack because they find it fun and there is no way putting an anticheat will scare them off. Everyone is NOT a hacker , not ONLY  because of being afraid of punishment but because they find it more fun to play without those hacks. Ofcourse punishment helps to lower down the number of hackers but you can't lower down the no. of such peace contracts with such rule enforcement because  knowing a player's ability or willingness to shoot someone in different-different situations is not easy or something that people can have a unanimous say about. So this analogy doesn't really fits well here.

How can you say which part is agaist the rule? Mia says it is a passive form of "helping the enemy team" but didn't really define the extent upto which it can be tolerated and not. Even choosing to chicken out and run for  armour while other teammate is being rekt by enemies(which happens with everyone intentionally or not), can be considered as a rule break then. You gotta clear these situations and also the ones faced when you're a security.
Even a fake car entry, and /ej are part of "death evading" . Even running away from the attacker is a form of death evading (literally).

And No, you can't enforce this even with your scripts, this has to be what players want to do themselves willingly. If you're gonna tell me i will get punished for not shooting Pistol, then I'd simply just drive away when i see him, i will always have some of my excuses with me and i am sure admins will have different views on the case just like we have for /duty for security. So the ultimate goal of ur enforcing the rule, will still be compromised. @yomama, yes i have enough to say as excuse in gray areas and it is not hard to avoid the black n white situations.

@yomama, ofcourse it is easy to detect those black n whites but the gray areas will leave space for biasness and unfair judgement by staff or players. Has happened in the past with armour camping rule..

@Mia @judah, i agree that a clan leader pming people about such peace contracts is a clear indication but I wasn't really talking about that. Most of the clans now keep a blacklist and not a whitelist so these peace contracts are personal choices of players and not  something that a clan forces on his players.

 About your script of counting clnamate kill in 250 hours, sounds alright but definitely can be exploited even with a slight hint of how script works. Also , You can try this on beta and you'd see many false positives. What if megapilot[pplv] for the 250 hours never really encountered Bunny[Pplv]  as he was flying and bunny was just busy killing newbies near armour? What if megapilot always avoided crowded armours and landed at the ones without any resistance? What if bunny was teaming up with skipper and megapilot couldn't kill skipper in those "250" hours? And if u think practically it is easy to get false positives as not everyone would be able to kill every clanmate in opposite team in 250 hours.
Is the script gonna check every possible pair of players for 250 hours? If yes, then besides many false positives there will be 250 hours of time with those pairs to not kill each other. If you shorten that time, then again the possibilities of not encountering the other player will bump in and admins might punish for something the player isn't guilty of.

I still think
this rule can never be enforced correctly unless admins are going to babysit each player like they babysit security class right now and even that will leave too much space for judging and biasness by both players and the staff. The black n whites are easy to detect with spectating and recording but not the gray ones. I can easily make up a gray area out of black n white and that would just mean a need to babysit me 24/7. And there will be many such players to be babysitted. Not saying that it should not be enforced because it is hard, but saying that a players habitual of avoiding another player will keep doing so and the fair gameplay for all would still not be achieved.

Let's assume that this 'pre - existing rule' gets enforced WITH proper DOs and DONTs for EACH & EVERY situation possible:
To avoid shooting each other, players will either choose same team or avoid encountering the 'friendlies' in 1vs 1 situation where admins can easily know that they are breaking 'the rule'. There is a group of friends who choose to be terrorist, Group A(RD, GGT, PPLV, pwn) and we have another group of friends , group B (Lods, and some random newbies) choosing cop class. Since players of each group now have to forcefully shoot other team, the clanmates that were earlier distributed in different class are now trying to join same class.  Group A outnumbers Group B and the newbies in cop class are just driving around world boundaries. Group B is also facing resistance from the civs and terros that they earlier had "peace contracts" with. Group B gets fed up as their supposed newbie 'teammates' with a *coughs* "better sense of teamwork" are useless. They decide to switch to Terrorist class, assuming that most of them are vips they would easily be able to reclass and we will have a weak cop class left. The players from group B that couldn't reclass to terro, will now either stay at spawn, drive around and avoid attacking terrorists, or simply reclass to civilian.  Group B players in civ class will then kill group A players (terro)  while group B (terro) will 'pretend to avoid' group B (civ) by either driving away from Group A or by avoiding engaging with civs, with an excuse of going after the president (the main objective of terro class). A one sided game to  be even called a "team death match" as the teams won't be balanced anyway. @mia , I don't think this will be tiring or boring for Group B (civs) to avoid Black n white areas but  getting outnumbered by terro Group A+ Group B will be. So they will always choose to stay corrupt and stay in the gray area till someone like you record them for a week and report. After the ban, these players MIGHT stop exploiting the gray areas but they would still avoid shooting their clanmates and friends by either going civ class(everyone in that group) or joining that of the enemy clan(if they r vips). They would not break the 'rule' but eventually lose their fun part of the game (where they can relax and play without much "challenge" i.e with the peace contracts) and same thing will happen for newbies in security or cop class  when they get gang banged by all the regulars in same class. The regulars in cop class , that were earlier keeping away the regular terros from newbie cops would not be able to do so now because of more resistance from enemy team that earlier had "peace contracts" with them.  A regulars VS noobs kind of situation would be no fun for anyone. Would be even worse than what we have right now.

If group B decides to reclass to security, which i think regulars should do more often, then it MIGHT keep the gamemode still balanced but you know these regulars are not upto play PTP, they want cops vs terros for the major part of the day. There is no way you'd be able to balance the teams then and 'enjoy' the gamemode unless there is a limit set to reclassing (for vips) and a strict team balancer(allowing more security slots).  As far as i can understand, you people want this rule to be enforced to achieve a fair gameplay for all and a focus on PTP gamemode, but what is the point if regulars (40-60% of the server) that were spread in different classes earlier are now on same team, leaving newbies in the same team. At least these clans are helping in the gamemode by having cops vs terros clanwars and letting the newbies play the real gamemode from different classes.

I know you guys want a regulars+newbs VS regulars+newbs situation with this but that wouldn't happen because regulars(mostly vips) will still switch classes and keep the teams unbalanced. So i still think that such "change" can not be brought in by enforcement of a rule but only if the players are willing to play that way themselves.

Repeating,  Not saying that it should not be enforced because it is hard, but saying that a players habitual of avoiding another player will keep doing so and the fair gameplay for all would still not be achieved.

I think this rule will still keep the game unbalanced (more than what it is now i guess), newbies will still be hunted, civs will still go for selective killing while the teammates of the one being killed will chicken out on seeing that group of civs or pretend that they "tried", admins will get more reports( almost half fake) and admins would have to think of a better way to enforce this rather than spectating and judging.



I'd definitely like to see more "script" ideas to enforce this, and you have my vote(and i guess almost everyone would say yes) if you can find a proper way to enforce this, because then there will be no space for excuses, teams will be balanced with all regulars fighting all regulars and there will be minimum biasness.

I think securities should not let anyone attack their teammates (when they are all close to President) and such situations should be made clear by the admins  as some players still think it is allowed and right to do.  Other similar situations should also be listed and people should know what DOs and DONTs are in this 'rule' that they are trying to follow.

Securities are definitely different from cop class and their prime objective is to save president, so if a terro shoots my fellow security, and i have option to escape to reach president, I'd rather do that than fighting there. But if it's a terro or civ attacking anyone near president , I'd kill them. That's the way i find it better to play than engaging in useless fights to protect a dumbass security that want to roam around near civ spawn.

@judah, this is not about clans, how many times should this be explained to make u understand? I see RDs fighting each other, pplv, ggt, pwn and i guess even LODs. Friends will always 'assume' a peace contract with friends in other classes no matter what their clan is. But a clan just means a bigger friend circle. I don't think any ptp clan enforces a rule that says not to kill clanmates. It is the players' own will.


« Last Edit: December 14, 2017, 07:14:12 am by Saurabh »

Offline Alcor

  • VIP
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 127
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #98 on: December 14, 2017, 05:55:33 am »
I don't mind killing Spectre and Mantas for fun, always wanted to do that anyways.


Offline [RD]MecHaNiC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 81
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #99 on: December 14, 2017, 12:28:27 pm »
Kill who you want .

Choose your back wisely.

Have fun .





P.s. i should read my books than these essays lol

Offline Crash

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 998
  • Rank: Playa Partner
  • Score: 10053
  • aka Kobe
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #100 on: December 14, 2017, 02:39:45 pm »
This is way more interested since we get 50/50 community opinions on this. It's half vs other half.
I though clans are going to win this.. Oops.

Offline SoLoD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
    • Youtube stunting channel
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #101 on: December 14, 2017, 02:40:30 pm »
I don't think any ptp clan enforces a rule that says not to kill clanmates. It is the players' own will.
No metter if you "don`t think" so, but ptp clans have this rule.
And sometimes even more: dont shoot ALLIANCE members etc.
Is it so hard to open clan section and read before posting?

This rule CAN be enfored correctly. And if it will not solve ALL problems, there will be HUGE amount of examples when it will be obvious that some T do not shoot COP. And he will be punished. And regulars WILL follow this rule.

The real problem is that this rule will be another rule based on "admin`s opinion". And it is the last thing i want to do, to give admins another "blurry" rule.

You know the nice thing about the Bronx Zoo, Charlie? There's bars between you and the monkeys.

Offline Saurabh

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #102 on: December 14, 2017, 03:07:36 pm »
@solod. Sure. how about we make a beta server where you can use ur scripts or u can be admin urself(if u can't let current staff to judge) and judge players if they r following this rule. Maybe give better suggestions to enforce this?

Idc what the websited of these clans say. I have seen ggts fighting each other, i have seen RDs fighting each other, pwn does it and even lods do it. Ofc the only effect that being a clanmate will have is that we stop attacking them when the clan mate  doesn't want you to attack them(some players do get butthurt when being killed without  their permission lol)

Offline SoLoD

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 563
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
    • Youtube stunting channel
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #103 on: December 14, 2017, 04:55:41 pm »
Idc what the websited of these clans say.
I don't think any ptp clan enforces a rule that says not to kill clanmates. It is the players' own will.
Well said.
You know the nice thing about the Bronx Zoo, Charlie? There's bars between you and the monkeys.

Offline Saurabh

  • VIP
  • Hero Member
  • **
  • Posts: 526
  • Rank: Unknown
  • Score: Unknown
Re: Clan members should shoot fellow members on opposing teams
« Reply #104 on: December 15, 2017, 01:40:00 am »
Writing something as a clan rule and then actually enforcing it are two different things. Duh