Plan B
General => Suggestions => Closed => Topic started by: YoMama on December 03, 2017, 06:40:00 am
-
I think it's safe to say that many of the clans here prohibit their members from killing each other and members of "allied" clans. I've been in plenty of situations where I pick someone up as a gunner and they refuse to shoot at certain players who are perfectly happy to kill me because I'm not part of their tribe, or they sit uselessly on the back of my bike as I chase the President, because they are clan mates. This isn't a clan server and clan rules shouldn't supersede a player's duty (and the rules). In addition, this bullshit gives many players few options for targets that aren't new players. I've never even understood how it helps clans, either- many of them claim to be "the best" in the server, yet they don't try to get better by playing against each other... whatever the case, it shouldn't be allowed.
-
It's like match fixing
-
Oh come on. Don't pick any gunner whose clan mate is the one whom you are thinking to kill.
Every clan has a rule: Not to shoot/kill your clan mate in any situation and it's obvious. You can't force anyone to shoot your target. -1
-
Its kinda unfair but being a clan members they cant shoot specially their own clan members and its their choice if they want to kill that particular person or not. We cant do anything about it.. So the better choice is get a random but good shooter behind your back (COP,SEC OR TERROR). So that he dont hesitate while shooting someone. Not shooting clan members and allies is working here from so long xD
-
So u wanna force duty on cops and terrors? -1
-
I am saying it for 5-6 years. Actually, this is why i was kicked from clan.
Normally, clan stands for one idea - to unite people into one group to do what is impossible when you are alone.
And i know why this shit is not working on PTP. Because this community is nothing but a cancer. Because this problem shouldn`t even exist with a normal community. Because in a normal community all clan members joining the same team in game, so you do not need this "duty for t/cops" rule. And the fact that we even talking about this "rule" is proving my words.
-
Forcing someone to shoot his friend, which is not allowed in clans especially. You can't force someone to kill his friend, it's his choice to be in same team or opposite team. He can free to kill or let him go. This is not for clans only, it goes for other clanless players too. They have their own friends who teamups with same persons always, but sometimes they become in different teams. So you can't just force them to shoot other one. It's his choice. -1
-
I think it's safe to say that many of the clans here prohibit their members from killing each other and members of "allied" clans. I've been in plenty of situations where I pick someone up as a gunner and they refuse to shoot at certain players who are perfectly happy to kill me because I'm not part of their tribe, or they sit uselessly on the back of my bike as I chase the President, because they are clan mates. This isn't a clan server and clan rules shouldn't supersede a player's duty (and the rules). In addition, this bullshit gives many players few options for targets that aren't new players. I've never even understood how it helps clans, either- many of them claim to be "the best" in the server, yet they don't try to get better by playing against each other... whatever the case, it shouldn't be allowed.
It sure would be fun if everyone's loyalty was solely to their team at that time so yeah interesting idea.
-
I actually like the idea of forcing people to shoot their own clanmates. If PTP enforces this rule, the clans should just go along with the rules and change their own rule about not shooting clanmates.
I honestly think that clans are disturbing the actual gameplay of PTP. I often am the only one chasing the president in the server with 30+ people online. How is that possible? Simple. Wars going on at armor. Agreed, not only clans do this, but it would be blatantly wrong to deny that clans aren't contributing to this behaviour. I think we need to take a good look in the mirror and admit that regular players are just disturbing the gameplay(not only clans) by not shooting each other.
Interesting point of view, I'll keep a look on this thread.
-
yep .
If you don't wanna to shoot someone then go to the same team your friend is.specialy for security.they should shoot everyone.
I killed eagle alot when he tried to helli kill the president when i'm security :p sorry eaglo.
-
Alright lets start from bottom , imagine there is a big friendship group on the server , they are close friends who are united and like to have fun with each other, and when they're in different teams they dont shoot them , on the other hand there is a another friendship group and they name theirselves 'clan' what I'm trying to say is even if you erase clans here the friendships will still last either with a tag or mentally.
-
I can't believe the day I totally agree with a post from YoMama has come haha :)
Oh come on. Don't pick any gunner whose clan mate is the one whom you are thinking to kill.
Every clan has a rule: Not to shoot/kill your clan mate in any situation and it's obvious. You can't force anyone to shoot your target. -1
If it was only about clan mates... x) it's about the entire regular player base I'm afraid.
It's like match fixing
Exactly... Match fixing is generally not accepted in any sport or videogame but, for some reason, it's the general rule here.
If you kill the president while cops watch you and do nothing because you made an agreement with them, you are cheating. If you are the president and survive because you made a deal with everyone who has real abilities to kill you, you are cheating. It's so ironic when practically the entire staff roster cheats on its own gamemode on a daily basis. You can't expect players to take any responsibility and maturely realize what is fairplay and what is not, but Jesus... at least the staff should set an example and put an end to their own dirty wins.
Not only because it's unfair, but also because it's preventing this community from growing in terms of members. Today, the welcome party for anyone trying out the server is a mass of regular players with extra weapons, experience and fast skins, whose only duty is to cooperate all together to kill that newbie and a bunch of even more confused newbies. I would love to hear Jonne's opinion about this matter. Well, I would even settle for a level 5's :)
Alright lets start from bottom , imagine there is a big friendship group on the server , they are close friends who are united and like to have fun with each other, and when they're in different teams they dont shoot them , on the other hand there is a another friendship group and they name theirselves 'clan' what I'm trying to say is even if you erase clans here the friendships will still last either with a tag or mentally.
I'm sorry to bring you back to Earth, your story sounded idyllic, but it usually has zero to do with friendship. In the past, I made peace with many people I hated quite a lot just because I was told to do so by my clan. And even more frequently, I made peace with lots of players I had never said a word to just because that's what everybody did.
-
I kill my clan members happily :p
Go for President, not for stats :)
-
Yes.
But sadly,that won't be stated as a new rule,never.
Many players would leave,and i don't think Jonne would like that to see.
As you said to me in some of my threads related to this suggestion: "Play your game,avoid armor fights and clan wars. Do your way of gameplay". That's pretty much the same in this situation you tried to explain here.
-
Oh come on. Don't pick any gunner whose clan mate is the one whom you are thinking to kill.
Every clan has a rule: Not to shoot/kill your clan mate in any situation and it's obvious. You can't force anyone to shoot your target. -1
If it was only about clan mates... x) it's about the entire regular player base I'm afraid.
True, sometimes some players(even admins) might force you to stop shooting another player from any clan or even clanless, but that's not because of the clan, it's more like the player that has to change. Still, there are some clans ( clan leaders mostly) forcing it's new members to evade shooting allies, which kinda sucks. This looks more like a moral problem and it should be fixed with words betwen the clan leaders/members, not with rules. Having a clan and making your own rules is probably the only democratic thing left in PTP.
-
I can't believe the day I totally agree with a post from YoMama has come haha :)
I would love to hear Jonne's opinion about this matter. Well, I would even settle for a level 5's :)
you little hypocrite !
i would love to hear Jonne's opinion about players who choose terrorist class and don't hunt president for all the 15 minutes and about your little friend admin altus who encourage not killing the president as a terrorist because like he said rules arn't clear :)
-
you little hypocrite !
i would love to hear Jonne's opinion about players who choose terrorist class and don't hunt president for all the 15 minutes and about your little friend admin altus who encourage not killing the president as a terrorist because like he said rules arn't clear :)
Sorry, I don't get your point. Why should all the terrorists go after the president? Usually two couples on NRGs are more than enough to overwhelm the president and his team, why waste more resources there? Isn't it more intelligent that some of them go after the president and others cover them from cops, so the first don't have to worry about an army of M4's coming at them when they are about to finish the president? Well, you are probably going to have trouble understanding this, since terrorist Arabiane never gets assaulted by his cop army friends. They prefer to watch him easily kill the president instead.
-
Please don't turn this in fighting arena.
-
This is not a clan based issue. This is based on friendship & teams. Many clanless players doesn't kill opposite team player just because he is friendly.
So if you gonna add a rule like: "you must shoot opposite team player, otherwise it's gonna be teamkilling", then you gotta new company to handle ingame..
-
I think it's the players' choice to kill their friends or clanmates. I also know few people who are in a clan but still continues to shoot all other regulars.
If it's their choice, let them. We cannot force people to do things against their will, or else they will leave the server
-
The clans are partly which keep us alive as well as It could go the other way, flaming etc... but as for the moment things are going fine the wars are encouraging people to join the server and friendship is the way to have fun.
-
you little hypocrite !
i would love to hear Jonne's opinion about players who choose terrorist class and don't hunt president for all the 15 minutes and about your little friend admin altus who encourage not killing the president as a terrorist because like he said rules arn't clear :)
Sorry, I don't get your point. Why should all the terrorists go after the president? Usually two couples on NRGs are more than enough to overwhelm the president and his team, why waste more resources there? Isn't it more intelligent that some of them go after the president and others cover them from cops, so the first don't have to worry about an army of M4's coming at them when they are about to finish the president? Well, you are probably going to have trouble understanding this, since terrorist Arabiane never gets assaulted by his cop army friends. They prefer to watch him easily kill the president instead.
What's the use of terrorist class then
I've seen a couple of Brain Eaters shouting in main chat as President - "I AM INVINCIBLE", " NOBODY CAN GET ME"
And No terrorist gives a f.
The point is there should be a rule like 5 minutes for a terro to play normal OR
Make it like older PTP - No Armour Camping.
-
What's the use of terrorist class then
(?)
Kill the president and anyone who tries to prevent them from doing so
Anyways, I'm pretty sure this suggestion wasn't related to terrorists caring about the president or caring about someone else.
-
What's the use of terrorist class then
(?)
Kill the president and anyone who tries to prevent them from doing so
Anyways, I'm pretty sure this suggestion wasn't related to terrorists caring about the president or caring about someone else.
I said it because most of the terrorist are either busy killing cops or roaming around in nrg's thinking they are cool.
But Thr terrorists who exactly know that they are gonna lose the round should do something isn't it? Instead of killing other cops and not killing their clan members...
-
This is not a clan based issue. This is based on friendship & teams. Many clanless players doesn't kill opposite team player just because he is friendly.
True, but clans are some of the biggest culprits. Most of the people I respect in this server have no qualms about shooting each other. I shoot people like you, and you shoot me. If people can't handle their friends shooting them, then that's because they lack the requisite maturity and it's their problem.
Not shooting clan members and allies is working here from so long xD
Define "working". Just because it's the status quo doesn't mean it's right.
Oh come on. Don't pick any gunner whose clan mate is the one whom you are thinking to kill.
Every clan has a rule: Not to shoot/kill your clan mate in any situation and it's obvious. You can't force anyone to shoot your target. -1
Forcing someone to shoot his friend, which is not allowed in clans especially. So you can't just force them to shoot other one. It's his choice. -1
Fuck that. Clans have a rule to disobey server rules? I shouldn't have to explain how ridiculous this is.
Many players would leave,and i don't think Jonne would like that to see.
If players leave because rules are actually enforced, then they are the people who we want leaving. I would argue that the current bullshit makes it frustrating for new players, causing them to leave.
This looks more like a moral problem and it should be fixed with words betwen the clan leaders/members, not with rules. Having a clan and making your own rules is probably the only democratic thing left in PTP.
If a clan has a rule which requires its members to break server rules, it shouldn't be allowed in the server. They're cheating, and fucking up the game for other people. The only reason why this may sound draconian is because it's been this way for so long.
Let's play a game!
Someone disprove this statement:
Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.
Great, you've likely "disproven" the previous statement through some combination of faulty logic, dishonest rhetoric, and/or bullshit. Now prove this one:
No clans suggest or require that their members disobey server rules by refusing to kill each other and/or members of allied clans when they are on opposite teams.
You can't.
-
I kinda agree with Solod about this matter, the problem is in community's attitude. I play many servers and in all of them but Plan B, I fight with my very close friends in peace [(?) I'm not sure if peace is the right word here but you know what I mean]. In PTP you're friends with someone as long as you avoid shooting him at all costs. Once you shoot/kill someone the "heyy bro" guy will be waiting for you at armor with his friends/clanmates/allies/pets second time you go there. So if server rules will be changed towards this way and clans set their rules for that, maybe we can see something changing.
-
This will definitely bring a better change to the server, but also along with lots of issues and reports for admins to handle in case someone doesn't shoot the opposite team. So I think it should be each players choice, whether or not to shoot someone (Excluding security class, since they're supposed to protect the president at all cost).
-
This will definitely bring a better change to the server, but also along with lots of issues and reports for admins to handle in case someone doesn't shoot the opposite team. So I think it should be each players choice, whether or not to shoot someone (Excluding security class, since they're supposed to protect the president at all cost).
Admins should have already been enforcing the rules. The fact that people are acting like this is some radical change shows how pervasive this bullshit is in our server's culture. I'm not suggesting a change in rules. I'm suggesting that the existing rules be enforced. At the very least, removing clan tags temporarily until they comply with existing rules by changing their clan rules and actions would be a start.
Example: YoMama[MoFo] enters the server. Unfortunately, MoFo's clan rules encourage covert aimbotting and spree fixing, and prohibit members from harming each other or anyone else who is a regular player, to keep their useless stats about as inflated as Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps (brown condoms stuffed with walnuts). When YoMama[MoFo] enters the server, he receives a message informing him that MoFo's clan rules do not comply with server rules, so he may not use their tag. His tag is made invisible to everyone but him, so he shows up as YoMama everywhere.
Eventually, clan MoFo decides to change their clan rules (and actions) and their tag is reenabled.
-
We have already many confusion here since this idea came out of nowhere.. Just keep playing the gamemode like as always we do...
-
This will definitely bring a better change to the server, but also along with lots of issues and reports for admins to handle in case someone doesn't shoot the opposite team. So I think it should be each players choice, whether or not to shoot someone (Excluding security class, since they're supposed to protect the president at all cost).
Admins should have already been enforcing the rules. The fact that people are acting like this is some radical change shows how pervasive this bullshit is in our server's culture. I'm not suggesting a change in rules. I'm suggesting that the existing rules be enforced. At the very least, removing clan tags temporarily until they comply with existing rules by changing their clan rules and actions would be a start.
Example: YoMama[MoFo] enters the server. Unfortunately, MoFo's clan rules encourage covert aimbotting and spree fixing, and prohibit members from harming each other or anyone else who is a regular player, to keep their useless stats about as inflated as Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps (brown condoms stuffed with walnuts). When YoMama[MoFo] enters the server, he receives a message informing him that MoFo's clan rules do not comply with server rules, so he may not use their tag. His tag is made invisible to everyone but him, so he shows up as YoMama everywhere.
Eventually, clan MoFo decides to change their clan rules (and actions) and their tag is reenabled.
What a stupid exaggerated example.
-
This will definitely bring a better change to the server, but also along with lots of issues and reports for admins to handle in case someone doesn't shoot the opposite team. So I think it should be each players choice, whether or not to shoot someone (Excluding security class, since they're supposed to protect the president at all cost).
Admins should have already been enforcing the rules. The fact that people are acting like this is some radical change shows how pervasive this bullshit is in our server's culture. I'm not suggesting a change in rules. I'm suggesting that the existing rules be enforced. At the very least, removing clan tags temporarily until they comply with existing rules by changing their clan rules and actions would be a start.
Example: YoMama[MoFo] enters the server. Unfortunately, MoFo's clan rules encourage covert aimbotting and spree fixing, and prohibit members from harming each other or anyone else who is a regular player, to keep their useless stats about as inflated as Arnold Schwarzenegger's biceps (brown condoms stuffed with walnuts). When YoMama[MoFo] enters the server, he receives a message informing him that MoFo's clan rules do not comply with server rules, so he may not use their tag. His tag is made invisible to everyone but him, so he shows up as YoMama everywhere.
Eventually, clan MoFo decides to change their clan rules (and actions) and their tag is reenabled.
This is really wrong perspective to give an example about this topic. You just taking some logical idea to some bullshit level lol
Dude, you just thinking selfish. You just trying to limit player's imagination. This game mode is more fun with this way. Because it bring some challanges. Yet, this is not about clans and this is about friendship..
-
There used to be a time when regular players (clan-involved and clanless alike) you killed didn't ask you for an apology, nor accuse you of the so-called "backstabbing" when all you did was perform actions corresponding to your class' purpose and duty. If this suggestion is implemented, I believe it will make the players think whether getting upset over being killed by a perceived "server ally" in an online game is really worth it. So, yeah, I support this.
-
What a stupid exaggerated example.
Agreed, but I really don't understand why everyone doesn't see how ridiculous it is that many of the best players in the server have basically agreed to cheat together by refusing to shoot each other. I put it in the same category of shitty clan behavior as not kicking members when they've been found (sometimes repeatedly) to have cheated.
Dude, you just thinking selfish. You just trying to limit player's imagination. This game mode is more fun with this way. Because it bring some challanges. Yet, this is not about clans and this is about friendship..
I don't think so. People not shooting each other when they should is clearly wrong. I don't see how it makes the game more fun, or challenging. Instead of enjoying this wonderful game, people spend their time trying to avoid shooting their "friends" and "allies" and all hell breaks loose if, heaven forbid, they do shoot them. Within the space of 20 minutes, you can watch a competent but clanless/ally-less President get completely destroyed by the clan members in the server, then see a clan member with a lot of allies take over and do the dumbest shit with no repercussions, since all the terrorists who were chasing the last President are now refusing to kill the new one because of some stupid agreement. It's like people are playing baseball and the fielding team suddenly decides to go play cards once someone who they're allies with goes up to bat.
-
Si me gusta la idea, si no te gusta matar a tus "amigos" puedes usar /rc c y hacer lo que quieras.
I like the idea, if you don't like killing your "friends" you can use /rc c and do whatever you want.
+1
-
yeah I think theirs no problem, I have experienced this yesterday with few members. This not even makes the game funner but enjoyable. It's not the end of the day when you kill your mates but its just a step ahead. I've seen many players like MegaPilot who takes this serious just wanted to enforce that. And i agree 100 percent. +1
-
Definitely worth a facepalm. It happened tonight in two consecutive maps.
President: Frez. Old player with experience, knows how to survive.
(https://i.imgur.com/V7dPaDn.png)
President: Nanobii. I'm not reallty sure he knew W was for walking.
(https://i.imgur.com/XZiRUpJ.png)
-
Definitely worth a facepalm. It happened tonight in two consecutive maps.
President: Frez. Old player with experience, knows how to survive.
(https://i.imgur.com/V7dPaDn.png)
President: Nanobii. I'm not reallty sure he knew W was for walking.
(https://i.imgur.com/XZiRUpJ.png)
It kept happening, don't worry. I also had a lovely experience where an IDF member and I were playing as terrorists with him as my gunner, then a GgT member waddled up and sawed me without any retribution or fear of it. I avoid combat shotguns like the plague when I'm a cop, but apparently when you're in an allied clan, you just avoid the combat shotguns that don't have clan tags and you can attack anyone you want.
-
I love how PTP is and if you dont like it,go to a rp server and im 100% sure you will do your duty there ;D
-
Nice topic, you mean duty should be imposed on every class in simple words.
This same rule was imposed by Lacerta and Tenshi in the past also. The ultimate result of this rule was the less player count on the server.
So starting from your topic "Clan members should shoot each other if they are in opposite team". My question is to you is that why do we need such a rule? Just because you dont have friends? Or you dont have players to protect you? W/e it is, just to remind you sir we can survive alone as a presi, a single cop can fight vs terros, a single terro can fight vs opponents. Even a civilian can do it, but instead of upgrading your level you find it easier to create a topic demanding zero tolerance against players who dont shoot each other.
"A GgT member came out of nowhere and IDF's were enjoying" what if those idf members were terros too? I never ask help from any clan(including ggts) those who wants to help me will help me without even saying. If you could ask players to protect you, im sure they wont deny, and automatically half of them will be trying to have fun.
It upto you whether you want to shoot someone or not. And frankly speaking PTP doesnt have enough active staff members, and those who are active wont be selected just because of politics being played, this will result in more forum reports and more fights.
Thats all.
-
Nice topic, you mean duty should be imposed on every class in simple words.
This same rule was imposed by Lacerta and Tenshi in the past also. The ultimate result of this rule was the less player count on the server.
So starting from your topic "Clan members should shoot each other if they are in opposite team". My question is to you is that why do we need such a rule? Just because you dont have friends? Or you dont have players to protect you? W/e it is, just to remind you sir we can survive alone as a presi, a single cop can fight vs terros, a single terro can fight vs opponents. Even a civilian can do it, but instead of upgrading your level you find it easier to create a topic demanding zero tolerance against players who dont shoot each other.
"A GgT member came out of nowhere and IDF's were enjoying" what if those idf members were terros too? I never ask help from any clan(including ggts) those who wants to help me will help me without even saying. If you could ask players to protect you, im sure they wont deny, and automatically half of them will be trying to have fun.
It upto you whether you want to shoot someone or not. And frankly speaking PTP doesnt have enough active staff members, and those who are active wont be selected just because of politics being played, this will result in more forum reports and more fights.
Thats all.
I get your point. Clans aren't supposed to kill and shoot their own members.
The problem occurs when 90% of server playerbase,"regulars" are following clan-don't shoot me plz,my ratio plz,kk sorry excuses and in those situations you don't know what to do.
Satvik is President. Whole GgT is reclassing to secutity team just to camp with president and get easy kills on those newbies who came here without knowing about their friend based tactics and of course they quits because there is no fun getting killed over and over by experienced and way over numbered players.
You don't like to be killed over and over,right? Or you do?
And those newbies who decide to stay and play daily they are mostly forced to join a clan which is friendly with everyone and the circle is repeating..
Satvik kills Cobra. Next thing comes is apologizing. Because you don't want a war with PPLV,you adore your sweet ratio which is increasing over newbies.
Lacerta and Tenshi had a point. You all cried after getting punished for forcing your own made rules which made the server less enjoyable and playable.
There is no point in discussing about server rules,no one is forcing you to shoot your friends. It's all about your own clan rules which sucks big time and hope Jonne and his staff team changes something about it.
-
Definitely worth a facepalm. It happened tonight in two consecutive maps.
President: Frez. Old player with experience, knows how to survive.
(https://i.imgur.com/V7dPaDn.png)
President: Nanobii. I'm not reallty sure he knew W was for walking.
(https://i.imgur.com/XZiRUpJ.png)
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to prove with these screens?
-
I think you must upgrade your reading skill
Whenever i become presi i always say, those who want to try can try, and moreover whenever someone from us becomes presi we make sure to spilt into both teams. Thanks for showing concern over our clan rules. We'll try our best to ignore you.
So at last whosoever goes presi should tell everyone to try, its all upto you, you cant force someone to kill a player :)
-
Definitely worth a facepalm. It happened tonight in two consecutive maps.
President: Frez. Old player with experience, knows how to survive.
(https://i.imgur.com/V7dPaDn.png)
President: Nanobii. I'm not reallty sure he knew W was for walking.
(https://i.imgur.com/XZiRUpJ.png)
I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're trying to prove with these screens?
She wants to show how almost everyone either goes civ or security when a regular is president . But in case of a random presi, half of these regulars are civ and the rest are just terrorists trying to get the free presi kill.
That is true that there's hardly any security for the random players who become president but things are changing ..and i see more regulars becoming interested in saving these presidents (glenn, curry , brian walker, and many more). It is definitely more fun and more challenging to protect a person than attacking him. Exactly why the server is named PTP.
Ps: i still don't think there's a need for a rule... players gotta realise stuff on their own and if they can't then therr will be only reports, reports, reports and headache for staff.
-
Mia was civilian when Frez was president(I was IG).So what does that screenshot do here lol
-
She wants to show how almost everyone either goes civ or security when a regular is president . But in case of a random presi, half of these regulars are civ and the rest are just terrorists trying to get the free presi kill.
That is true that there's hardly any security for the random players who become president but things are changing ..and i see more regulars becoming interested in saving these presidents (glenn, curry , brian walker, and many more). It is definitely more fun and more challenging to protect a person than attacking him. Exactly why the server is named PTP.
Ps: i still don't think there's a need for a rule... players gotta realise stuff on their own and if they can't then therr will be only reports, reports, reports and headache for staff.
Yes, I'm always happy to see regulars actually helping these poor lost presis, I want to believe they do it because they consider it the right thing :)
I think the same about the rule... I don't really understand how YoMama suggests this to be enforced. How can you prove player A doesn't shoot player B because they have peace? Couldn't player A just say he was distracted and didn't see player B? There are plenty of excuses...
I don't think a rule is the solution. As I said in my first reply here, the staff actions should go beyond simple spectating and command typing every time they see a rulebreaker, they should also set an example of fair gameplay. In my opinion, someone who makes anti-natural inter-team alliances to farm kills from newbies isn't setting an example of fair gameplay, is spoiling our community's growth and, consequently, shouldn't be in the staff roster. It could be a nice measure to begin with, surely many players would follow them.
-
If I start fighting my clan members my ratio could drop down..? Can you think of a possible solution for me, where I can keep my ratio high and still attack them at the same time? If anyone has the idea please let me know in pm, ty guys.
-
This same rule was imposed by Lacerta and Tenshi in the past also. The ultimate result of this rule was the less player count on the server.
I don't remember them enforcing this rule. If they had enforced it, you would think that clans that still exist from that time wouldn't have rules against shooting each other. Don't attach their names to something to try to make it seem unfair, particularly when it's not even related.
So starting from your topic "Clan members should shoot each other if they are in opposite team". My question is to you is that why do we need such a rule? Just because you dont have friends? Or you dont have players to protect you? W/e it is, just to remind you sir we can survive alone as a presi, a single cop can fight vs terros, a single terro can fight vs opponents. Even a civilian can do it, but instead of upgrading your level you find it easier to create a topic demanding zero tolerance against players who dont shoot each other.
You've apparently missed the point. We already have this rule. It's just that people look the other way as clans blatantly violate it. If you're implying I can't survive alone, so I'm making this topic to complain, then you've again missed the point. I have friends- however, "friend" to me doesn't mean "fragile relationship that only exists while the two of us refuse to shoot each other when we should".
"A GgT member came out of nowhere and IDF's were enjoying" what if those idf members were terros too? I never ask help from any clan(including ggts) those who wants to help me will help me without even saying. If you could ask players to protect you, im sure they wont deny, and automatically half of them will be trying to have fun.
Again, you just don't get it. Let's say that I'm President and I have IDF security, and some GgT terrorist comes along. Suddenly, my security is useless. This isn't "fun". It's stupid.
It upto you whether you want to shoot someone or not.
No, it's not in most cases. You're supposed to follow your duty, not bullshit clan customs.
Thanks for showing concern over our clan rules. We'll try our best to ignore you.
You're welcome. It would be nice if you could show the same concern for the server rules.
I think the same about the rule... I don't really understand how YoMama suggests this to be enforced. How can you prove player A doesn't shoot player B because they have peace? Couldn't player A just say he was distracted and didn't see player B? There are plenty of excuses...
Again, the rule already exists. There is a very easy way to enforce it. Force the clans to follow the rules if they want to have their clan tags in the server. Sure, it's not reasonable that people shoot each other in every case. It's pretty easy to see when people are refusing to kill each other because of clan bullshit, because it's so accepted here that they'll tell you.
I was hoping that intervention from the staff team wouldn't be necessary, and that the clans would maybe just agree to stop this bullshit. With a few notable exceptions, I apparently gave them credit for maturity that they don't actually have.
-
It is not only about "clan members". It is about every single class follow his /duty.
You are taking a spot in a certain class = you are taking responsibility that this unit (you) will play like this gamemode tells you to play. You have no right to "waste" a spot. If you want to - you pick civ class.
You are saying that this rule (clan member shooting) will ruin your gameplay because it will force you to shoot clanmates. But is it really true? Because there is always a right solution - to play in the same team. But the state of PTP`s clans is... Well, you know, if you will open "clan rules", you will see there is something like "do not shoot clanmates", but you will not see "play at the same team". I wish to say that clan leaders have ability to change it and make it normal, but i was not able to do it in PPLV. So, the question is: how is it possible that one clan at the same time trying to kill AND protect president? Obv that this is nonsense. Clan is a ONE UNIT. Because if it is not, what is the point of this clan (under the idea of existing inside this gamemode, where you have "team competition among classes to kill/protect president")? The same thing for clanless players, when they do not shoot opposite team members.
Like always, there are two ways to solve it:
1. Having normal community with understanding that "gamemode>everything" and playing your roles like this server tells you.
2. Not having normal community, so you need to force everyone on the server to play it in a "right" way. You are making rules etc to do it.
You can not change "state of mind" of this community by just saying "lets try to play like we were playing 8 years ago". Do you expect that if you will do a rule which will force community to play "unnormally", community will like it? Because this downfall from "how we were playing" to "how we are playing now" was not instant. Do you remember how 1-2 year ago there was a topic where someone said something like "i am doing a list of ptpers who will shoot everyone who is on opposite team, sign if you want to"? Was not that bad idea, but it was only a half-measure. Partly official, partly optional.
When newbie is starting to play this gamemode, he is looking how other regulars are playing it and doing the same. Clan members are looking at their leaders and play how they/their rules say. So, server "leaders"(clan leaders, admins, mods, "popular" regulars) is the key, and in our case it is very mindless key.
-
+1 I don't see why friendships or clans should come before your duty. I get frustrated because of this whole clan issue every single time I play on the server.
If friendships matter more then you should switch to the team of your friends instead of ruining the whole purpose of the gamemode. I'm pretty sure the server would gain more players who would be happy to follow rules than those who would leave because they can't follow their /duty.
-
Well I'm sorry, but this is just so ridiculous to me. Clans are there for a reason, if people don't want to shoot their own clan mates then I don't really see the problem with that. You're trying to impose something that would radically change structure of every single clan here on PTP, it's not gonna work.
-
Hold on a second, clanmates don't shoot each other? I'm in a constant fireshooting whenever I come across my clanmates. Them motherfuckers need to die.
-
I think it's safe to say that many of the clans here prohibit their members from killing each other and members of "allied" clans. I've been in plenty of situations where I pick someone up as a gunner and they refuse to shoot at certain players who are perfectly happy to kill me because I'm not part of their tribe, or they sit uselessly on the back of my bike as I chase the President, because they are clan mates. This isn't a clan server and clan rules shouldn't supersede a player's duty (and the rules). In addition, this bullshit gives many players few options for targets that aren't new players. I've never even understood how it helps clans, either- many of them claim to be "the best" in the server, yet they don't try to get better by playing against each other... whatever the case, it shouldn't be allowed.
No you are wrong this Server is Not only about The gamemode , its also a Clan Server and you disagree with That you Need a Reality Check , most People WHO Play Here want to Play in Clans and Clans make agreements to Not shoot each other This will Not change. Also Clans made this Server what it is they are the Most fun in it.
-
I love shooting Jonne!
-
Well I'm sorry, but this is just so ridiculous to me. Clans are there for a reason, if people don't want to shoot their own clan mates then I don't really see the problem with that. You're trying to impose something that would radically change structure of every single clan here on PTP, it's not gonna work.
The problem is obvious. It's also in blatant violation of the rules. How does this work out reasonably if the server is filled with only members of allied clans? Right, it doesn't. Does it work much better when most of the server is filled with clans plus a few others, like it usually is?
Making people actually play the game is not a radical change for all clans. As we've seen so far, there are plenty of people here who shoot their clanmates.
No you are wrong this Server is Not only about The gamemode , its also a Clan Server and you disagree with That you Need a Reality Check , most People WHO Play Here want to Play in Clans and Clans make agreements to Not shoot each other
Huh, I need a reality check? Last I checked, the name of the server was "Protect the President", not "Protect the President and Clanmates Who Are Trying to Kill the President You're Protecting". There are clans in the server, true- but that doesn't make it a "clan server". Believe it or not, you aren't special if you're in a clan. Your clan "agreements" don't mean anything to people who aren't in them. I don't give a shit how "prestigious" or "elite" you think your particular few letters between square brackets are. You shouldn't get a pass when it comes to the rules.
This will Not change.
Why not? Is this indicative of how much you care about fair play?
Someone disprove this statement:
Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.
I'm waiting...
-
Yomama this is your Problem Not the Problem of the CommunitY ,its you and Some Guys like mia , WHO Don t Like the playing Style of Most of the players u can make a Poll and See the results but you are just cryring around. Maybe this Server is called ptp and tdm but this Server is a Clan Server now. You can accept that or Find a new server. And stop blaming Clans for your personal hate
-
Hold on a second, clanmates don't shoot each other? I'm in a constant fireshooting whenever I come across my clanmates. Them motherfuckers need to die.
<3
-
Yomama this is your Problem Not the Problem of the CommunitY ,its you and Some Guys like mia , WHO Don t Like the playing Style of Most of the players u can make a Poll and See the results but you are just cryring around. Maybe this Server is called ptp and tdm but this Server is a Clan Server now. You can accept that or Find a new server. And stop blaming Clans for your personal hate
I don't think yomama n Mia hate other players, but i think they don't see how others play n enjoy, and I agree that this community grew this much because we have clan structure n the mess that comes along with it. That's what makes it different from other samp servers.
But of course, this has a major flaw also, a first time player will get pissed when he'll get chainsawed by other class and his teammate will just stand there doing nothing, BUT! If that newcomer manages to gain some skills, other players will always accept him in their groups n then ptp becomes a 100× more fun for them, Im always looking for new guys and i try to help them, you guys can do the same. Of course sometimes some of you lmb finger itchy guy saw them down before I could do anything, but that's other thing.
-
Hold on a second, clanmates don't shoot each other? I'm in a constant fireshooting whenever I come across my clanmates. Them motherfuckers need to die.
<3
Yep this is why i love rev
-
BUT! If that newcomer manages to gain some skills, other players will always accept him in their groups n then ptp becomes a 100× more fun for them
Explain, why our situation when regulars not follow gamemode basics is "100x more fun" than when (and IF) they just play the actual gamemode. Explain, and maybe i will be able to get that fun too.
-
I don't think yomama n Mia hate other players, but i think they don't see how others play n enjoy, and I agree that this community grew this much because we have clan structure n the mess that comes along with it. That's what makes it different from other samp servers.
Clan mess makes PTP unique? Good luck finding many major servers that don't have clans. It's the gamemode that makes PTP unique. I haven't found another game that has 40+ people chasing after one person for 15 minutes, with all the fun that entails. It's clan bullshit and disrespect of the gamemode that is scrubbing PTP of its uniqueness.
It used to be that PTP seemed to have just about the best players in every category, at least that I encountered. I felt that I could never find stunters, pilots, fighters, and drivers like those in my favorite server. Everyone who has played here for a long time can list off names of many of the best. Many of the older players also know all kinds of shit (stunts, hiding places, etc.) that are now forgotten, because it's not as important to the community anymore. Many people now believe that to succeed in this server, you have to know people and befriend them. Not coincidentally, nowadays I can find higher levels of competence in all those areas easily in different servers, except they have shit gamemodes. It just might have something to do with our community being openly biased towards newbies and many of our best players refusing to get even better by actually playing the game. The end result is a relatively stagnant community of people who believe that they are the best players ever because they never really play the game without all of the political advantages they have.
But of course, this has a major flaw also, a first time player will get pissed when he'll get chainsawed by other class and his teammate will just stand there doing nothing, BUT! If that newcomer manages to gain some skills, other players will always accept him in their groups n then ptp becomes a 100× more fun for them, Im always looking for new guys and i try to help them, you guys can do the same. Of course sometimes some of you lmb finger itchy guy saw them down before I could do anything, but that's other thing.
So basically, you're saying that the game becomes 100x more fun when you gain skills to the point where you no longer need them because most of the server refuses to kill you?
I have plenty of fun (100 billion times more, based on recent studies) actually playing the gamemode, and it's not like I haven't had many chances to join clans. I'm pretty used to people making recruiting attempts on me, but I've never had the inclination to suddenly make many of my opponents off-limits and myself off-limits to them. I prefer actually playing the game to playing politics and pretending to be among the best while not actually playing against anyone else who also pretends to be the best.
Someone disprove this statement:
Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.
I'm waiting...
-
You know what. You are right let's follow duty n kill all. Don't even have to explain it by long essays. 2 weeks of that ruel n you'll get the idea
-
We shouldn't even be arguing about this. It's pretty simple that your duty comes before clans. If you don't want to attack your clan mates then you join the same team. If it's full then you have no choice but to follow your duty.
I joined PTP in 2014 but never played properly for three reasons:
1. Lacentra
2. Clan members not following /duty
3. Newbies being treated like trash
Just because you are not directly affected by something, it doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
I can aid a criminal and simply say that I chose to do so because the criminal was my friend, but it doesn't absolve me from punishment for aiding and abetting. the same principle should apply to those who do not follow their duty and use their clan as an excuse.
-
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
-
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
Yes, but yomama refuses to do that because he know that he will loose the poll instead he crying about it to manipulate the staff Team to Force us in his gameplay style.
He Reminds me of Lacerta and to enforce such rule is impossible admins have to watch all Players just because some Crazy dude Wants to Force his playing style on others..
-
This discussion will never end simply because both sides have valid points.
Clans throughout videogames are made to unite a bunch of people to achieve a common goal, meaning becoming allies, meaning they do no harm whatsoever to one another. Having said that, you have no idea how stupid it is to see a cop and a terrorist driving past each other trading just a smile, not commiting to the roleplay the server has its bases on.
Sadly this wont come to a satisfying conclusion. Clans are way in too deep to take them out. The only solution would be if clans man up just enough to assume what this game is about.
EDIT: Heck, even Ryder at one point went against his crew. Just think of yourself like that when you're in a opposite team to that of your clan. You're just another scumbag traitor, assume the rol. Ain't it fun?
-
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
I don't think it's a rule change. It is complete enforcement of the partially enforced rule against those who do not follow their duty.
Yes, but yomama refuses to do that because he know that he will loose the poll instead he crying about it to manipulate the staff Team to Force us in his gameplay style.
(https://ih0.redbubble.net/image.64015257.4643/flat,800x800,075,f.u1.jpg)
This issue does not affect the majority of the regular players who are in a clan but it is still an issue. Clans can simply choose one team if they don't want to kill each other. You can't have everything. Either you do your duty and kill your clan members or switch to their team and not ruin the fun for everyone else while also following both server and clan rules
-
If it's full then you have no choice but to follow your duty.
Well,actually, you can join civ class and play with your friend.
3. Newbies being treated like trash
Because this is what this community is: nothing but a shame on the history of this gamemode.
And the reason is every single regular playing this gamemode. Example - this:
Yes, but yomama refuses to do that because he know that he will loose the poll instead he crying about it to manipulate the staff Team to Force us in his gameplay style.
He Reminds me of Lacerta and to enforce such rule is impossible admins have to watch all Players just because some Crazy dude Wants to Force his playing style on others..
He is not only braindead and bastard. He is not only trying to twist everything. He is not only hiding behind "what community wants", because this community consists of such shits like him.
He is saying that when someone is asking for a rule, and the only idea of this rule is to force everyone to play a gamemode instead of ruin it, he is saying that it is "crying" and "forcing someone to his playstyle".
Basically, he is admitting that his own "playstyle" has nothing to do with this classic gamemode.
He compares Yomama with Lacerta, but what i know, when Lacerta was doing shit, nobody, nobody said a single word about it. Not a single regular, mod or admin. And now he is trying to twist the idea of demanding to following this gamemode to idea of forcing doing anyone something unnatural.
He is talking about "polls", because he knows that this server is full of bastards like him. Bastards without dignity. They will talk about "what community wants and what is best for this community", and at the same time they will "treat newbies like trash".
I am a man with a brain and i understand why "polls" were ok 8 years ago and why they are nothing but a joke today.
-
Damn... SoLoD going strong. You tell 'em, girl!
-
This discussion will never end simply because both sides have valid points.
Clans throughout videogames are made to unite a bunch of people to achieve a common goal, meaning becoming allies, meaning they do no harm whatsoever to one another. Having said that, you have no idea how stupid it is to see a cop and a terrorist driving past each other trading just a smile, not commiting to the roleplay the server has its bases on.
Sadly this wont come to a satisfying conclusion. Clans are way in too deep to take them out. The only solution would be if clans man up just enough to assume what this game is about.
EDIT: Heck, even Ryder at one point went against his crew. Just think of yourself like that when you're in a opposite team to that of your clan. You're just another scumbag traitor, assume the rol. Ain't it fun?
If it was only about clan mates... x) it's about the entire regular player base I'm afraid.
Clans aren't really the cause, regulars don't shoot each other regardless if they have a clan or not. If everyone, in except for clanmates, started shooting each other, this would be a huge success already ;D
-
This discussion will never end simply because both sides have valid points.
Clans throughout videogames are made to unite a bunch of people to achieve a common goal, meaning becoming allies, meaning they do no harm whatsoever to one another. Having said that, you have no idea how stupid it is to see a cop and a terrorist driving past each other trading just a smile, not commiting to the roleplay the server has its bases on.
Sadly this wont come to a satisfying conclusion. Clans are way in too deep to take them out. The only solution would be if clans man up just enough to assume what this game is about.
EDIT: Heck, even Ryder at one point went against his crew. Just think of yourself like that when you're in a opposite team to that of your clan. You're just another scumbag traitor, assume the rol. Ain't it fun?
If it was only about clan mates... x) it's about the entire regular player base I'm afraid.
Clans aren't really the cause, regulars don't shoot each other regardless if they have a clan or not. If everyone, in except for clanmates, started shooting each other, this would be a huge success already ;D
Oh, yes, you are correct. I forgot about that one. Though in that sense I believe it has been an advance to certain degree. Just the other day I was going to get a plane and in the distance I see this car coming straight at me at full speed. When it got close I realized it was a PPLV member, who also happens to be VIP, quickly gets out of the car and started shooting at me doing all kind of weird movements. I stood still in amaze of this odd specimen and it seemed to notice it, since it left me alone after realizing I wasn't shooting back - I was going to do it as soon as I stopped laughing.
Although small, there have definitely been some improvement.
-
SoLod thanks for Proving that u Don t give a damm on others Players opinion , when this new Plan b Server was created Jonne Himself Said this will be an Community driven server and now you and yomama refuse polls this i very much the same behavoir like the Last owner and his admins they DIdn t care what Players think and what Happend to the player count it dropped.now u wan t to Start this Shit Again with your buddY yomama ,you Even insulted half of the Server i Don t know how anyone can take you serious all you do. is complain and Write bullshit proves what an idiot you are.
Well refuse poll ig that isn t lacerta 2.0 Talking about Jokes the only joke are you in These 8 years
-
SoLod thanks for Proving that u Don t give a damm on others Players opinion
But you're the one constantly denying that the doesn't exists. the rule is nothing new. Suggesting something doesn't mean we don't care about other's opinion but outright denial definitely is.
- A suggestion is an idea someone proposes. You can accept or reject a suggestion.
When someone gives an order — like in the military — it has to be carried out. On the other hand, a suggestion is an idea that's optional.
Source: https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/suggestion
-
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
IT'S NOT A RULE CHANGE!
This isn't something that needs a poll. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't benefit from clans blatantly breaking the rules that it's unfair, and it's even obvious to many people in clans. Just from looking at this topic, I haven't found anyone who is not in a clan but is against this suggestion. If there is someone, they're heavily outnumbered by other clanless regulars. There isn't any point in taking a poll on something that has a clear answer, unless you want to pretend that the results of the poll change reality.
Clans aren't really the cause, regulars don't shoot each other regardless if they have a clan or not.
Yes, clanless regulars are also guilty of this, but clans have the distinction of having "rules" against shooting each other enshrined in their clan pages on the forum. They've put written evidence that they ignore rules for their personal gain on the forum.
This discussion will never end simply because both sides have valid points.
I have yet to see a valid point from the other side. All I see are people comparing me to Lacerta for effect and pretending that this is fair because they benefit from it. Maybe they could start with this?
Someone disprove this statement:
Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.
I'm waiting...
The only solution would be if clans man up just enough to assume what this game is about.
That's what I was hoping for when I started this topic- again, I apparently gave them too much credit.
-
Yes, clanless regulars are also guilty of this, but clans have the distinction of having "rules" against shooting each other enshrined in their clan pages on the forum. They've put written evidence that they ignore rules for their personal gain on the forum.
What rules? What personal gain? You have just said yourself that there is no rule regarding this.
I have yet to see a valid point from the other side.
My argument is that it is futile to try and "force" clans to change their own rules about shooting between members. The whole point of clans is that a group of people have banded together so they could play and enjoy the game together. I have seen servers on SAMP where players from certain clans do shoot each other for fun, yet it's their own choice to allow it or not. I really don't see why you have made such a big deal out of this. As long as it's not enforced by server rules, you have no right to ask clan leaders to make their players shoot each other.
-
I can think of an Special Solution about Security and their Duty issues with Clans/etc
make the Security Team unable to see the Terror Names and same for the Terrors so noone Gets confused when they meet a Clanmate. no exra rules needed. Vip skisn would no longer be visable on Securitys since this would allow clanmembers to remember which skin they clanmate wears
-
What rules? What personal gain? You have just said yourself that there is no rule regarding this.
I guess YoMama is talking about this:
• 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.
My argument is that it is futile to try and "force" clans to change their own rules about shooting between members. The whole point of clans is that a group of people have banded together so they could play and enjoy the game together.
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...
-
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
IT'S NOT A RULE CHANGE!
This isn't something that needs a poll. It's obvious to anyone who doesn't benefit from clans blatantly breaking the rules that it's unfair, and it's even obvious to many people in clans. Just from looking at this topic, I haven't found anyone who is not in a clan but is against this suggestion. If there is someone, they're heavily outnumbered by other clanless regulars. There isn't any point in taking a poll on something that has a clear answer, unless you want to pretend that the results of the poll change reality.
Clans aren't really the cause, regulars don't shoot each other regardless if they have a clan or not.
Yes, clanless regulars are also guilty of this, but clans have the distinction of having "rules" against shooting each other enshrined in their clan pages on the forum. They've put written evidence that they ignore rules for their personal gain on the forum.
This discussion will never end simply because both sides have valid points.
I have yet to see a valid point from the other side. All I see are people comparing me to Lacerta for effect and pretending that this is fair because they benefit from it. Maybe they could start with this?
Someone disprove this statement:
Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.
I'm waiting...
The only solution would be if clans man up just enough to assume what this game is about.
That's what I was hoping for when I started this topic- again, I apparently gave them too much credit.
Then create a poll with options like:
-Yes, this rule should be enforced
-No..
How hard that is? Why don't you want a poll?
Just because a bunch of guys want to change how PTP has been for years... It won't change lol.
-
Then create a poll with options like:
-Yes, this rule should be enforced
-No..
How hard that is? Why don't you want a poll?
Just because a bunch of guys want to change how PTP has been for years... It won't change lol.
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
Dear Vishwas,
You do realize that this is not about pleasing the majority, don't you? We know that the majority wants every to remain as it is, because, after all, it's very comfortable to become the most badass spree killer by only hunting outnumbered clueless newbies with all your friends.
This is about doing what is fair. And not only what is fair, but also what helps Plan B to become the greatest and most popular. I used to say "RQ" and laugh when me and my former VIP buddies outnumbered a clueless newbie until he had to disconnect. Now I realize that, if a part of my buddies had helped that newbie as their duty said, to fight against us, that guy would've probably enjoyed his stay in our server as much as we all did and today this great community would have one more regular, faithful user. And this isn't an isolate story that happened to me once. This happens every hour.
-
Then create a poll with options like:
-Yes, this rule should be enforced
-No..
How hard that is? Why don't you want a poll?
Just because a bunch of guys want to change how PTP has been for years... It won't change lol.
If you guys are suggesting such rule changes which will affect major part of the server then a poll should be order,no?
Dear Vishwas,
You do realize that this is not about pleasing the majority, don't you? We know that the majority wants every to remain as it is, because, after all, it's very comfortable to become the most badass spree killer by only hunting outnumbered clueless newbies with all your friends.
This is about doing what is fair. And not only what is fair, but also what helps Plan B to become the greatest and most popular. I used to say "RQ" and laugh when me and my former VIP buddies outnumbered a clueless newbie until he had to disconnect. Now I realize that, if a part of my buddies had helped that newbie as their duty said, to fight against us, that guy would've probably enjoyed his stay in our server as much as we all do and today this great community would have one more regular, faithful member. And this isn't an isolate story that happened to me once. This happens every hour.
Dear Mia Demens,
It's not really Fair, That I, Along with anyone I know is being asked to shoot my friend/clanmate. Just because it's fair to you doesnt mean it's actually fair. Simply clarifies in short, no need for Paras beating around the bush.
Talk about one guy, we have plenty of people who stay because of clans, have you compared them to your one guy? You can say anything you want about clans, even though you were so attached to them at some point I know you'll come up and say clans are pointless and ruining the PTP Community and gamemode. But you forget that for major part of the active regulars, clan/friends/people are the reason they play.
And I don't know why would you mention the case of being hunted by outnumbered VIPs because if this rule gets enforced or not a newbie will be hunted. So how does this really benefit a newbie?
-
Really fucked up. Both sides has really good arguments and statements.
But let's face it,let's say that won't be added as a new rule since Majority of the regulars doesn't want to see that rule never on this server.
-
Just because it's fair to you doesnt mean it's actually fair.
Of course not. If you think what I called "fair" is actually not fair, please be kind and explain me what point of what I said sounds unfair for you.
Imagine a lake with three animals: an alligator, an anaconda and a duck. The alligator and the anaconda are both powerful, and they could fight each other endlessly to become the king of the lake. In the meanwhile, the duck would live peacefully and even help the anaconda to beat up that dirty alligator, or vice-versa. Or they could simply become friends and cooperate to hunt the duck.
The anaconda and the alligator prefer the second option, why refuse an easy lunch? But our objective here is not to make only the anaconda and the alligator happy. Our objective is to make the lake a cool place to live for as many animals as possible, and that's where the first option kicks in. Now replace alligator with regular players, anaconda with more regular players, duck with newbies and lake with this server. What sounds unfair exactly? You can answer me in anaconda-alligator-duck terms if it's easier.
And I don't know why would you mention the case of being hunted by outnumbered VIPs because if this rule gets enforced or not a newbie will be hunted. So how does this really benefit a newbie?
Read the anaconda example. ^
How does this really benefit a duck?
Talk about one guy
Who talked about one guy?
And this isn't an isolate story that happened to me once. This happens every hour.
You can say anything you want about clans, even though you were do attached to them at some point I know you'll come up and say clans are pointless and running the PTP Community and gamemode.
Already discussed it.
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...
Newbies join clans because it's the fastest way to stop being the duck of this lake and enjoy the server... Anyways, I'm not against clans, I'm against everyone making peace with everyone. It's perfectly fine with me if million clans exist, as long as they aren't used as anti-newbie armies.
-
Just because it's fair to you doesnt mean it's actually fair.
Of course not. If you think what I called "fair" is actually not fair, please be kind and explain me what point of what I said sounds unfair for you.
Imagine a lake with three animals: an alligator, an anaconda and a duck. The alligator and the anaconda are both powerful, and they could fight each other endlessly to become the king of the lake. In the meanwhile, the duck would live peacefully and even help the anaconda to beat up that dirty alligator, or vice-versa. Or they could simply become friends and cooperate to hunt the duck.
The anaconda and the alligator prefer the second option, why refuse an easy lunch? But our objective here is not to make only the anaconda and the alligator happy. Our objective is to make the lake a cool place to live for as many animals as possible, and that's where the first option kicks in. Now replace alligator with regular players, anaconda with more regular players, duck with newbies and lake with this server. What sounds unfair exactly? You can answer me in anaconda-alligator-duck terms if it's easier.
And I don't know why would you mention the case of being hunted by outnumbered VIPs because if this rule gets enforced or not a newbie will be hunted. So how does this really benefit a newbie?
Read the anaconda example. ^
How does this really benefit a duck?
Talk about one guy
Who talked about one guy?
And this isn't an isolate story that happened to me once. This happens every hour.
You can say anything you want about clans, even though you were do attached to them at some point I know you'll come up and say clans are pointless and running the PTP Community and gamemode.
Already discussed it.
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...
Newbies join clans because it's the fastest way to stop being the duck of this lake and enjoy the server... Anyways, I'm not against clans, I'm against everyone making peace with everyone. It's perfectly fine with me if million clans exist, as long as they aren't used as anti-newbie armies.
Don't use examples borrowed from Jungle Book or w/e kindergarten book you're referred to here. Since you clearly can't capture the reality with your so called examples.
Back to what you said, I don't see how is your suggestion making server a cool place when you're just going against 70% of what the server wants.Again, you saying making a server a "cool" place doesn't make it actually cool. Remember making a suggestion to disable DBing just because you thought combats were OP... Was that cool according to you? If we go according to personal preferences don't know where we will end up lol Please explain how is this gonna benefit a newbie, or how you say this will prevent a newbie from RQing.
Ps: please keep it to short paragraphs, don't know who started writing long essays to highlight their English but this is a gaming forum. So end it ...
-
Since you clearly can't capture the reality with your so called examples.
Why not? It's not that clear for me
You have already accused me of:
- Having a wrong concept of what is fair and unfair.
- Using a misleading example that differs from reality.
Things you have NOT justified, argumented or elaborated:
- Why is my concept of fairness wrong?
- Why does that example differ from reality?
It's easy to simply shoot sentences at me and provide zero justification, isn't it?
-
Since you clearly can't capture the reality with your so called examples.
Why not? It's not that clear for me
You have already accused me of:
- Having a wrong concept of what is fair and unfair.
- Using a misleading example that differs from reality.
Things you have NOT justified, argumented or elaborated:
- Why is my concept of fairness wrong?
- Why does that example differ from reality?
It's easy to simply shoot sentences at me and provide zero justification, isn't it?
Provide explanation to what I said above, specifically this..
"Please explain how is this gonna benefit a newbie, or how you say this will prevent a newbie from RQing. "
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?
This isnt gonna work out. You know this yourself by now.
You don't even think the other way around , if this ever gets applied, now most clans (including typical statswhore ones)will just divide into cops and terros and so will their clanmate but in same team. Since they can't hunt each other that's the only way they will stand by clan rules. No, don't dare say that now they will follow /duty, they will camp around armor to gain easy kills. Which is just pathetic..
-
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?
I'm not saying my duck is not getting eaten. I'm saying my duck isn't going to last a single minute alive if the anaconda and the alligator work together to kill him. If the alligator and the anaconda have to worry about and fight each other, the duck is going to have a much better experience, don't you think?
-
This isnt gonna work out. You know this yourself by now.
You don't even think the other way around , if this ever gets applied, now most clans (including typical statswhore ones)will just divide into cops and terros and so will their clanmate but in same team. Since they can't hunt each other that's the only way they will stand by clan rules. No, don't dare say that now they will follow /duty, they will camp around armor to gain easy kills. Which is just pathetic..
Bullshit. There are many players who shoot members of their own clan. If a clan plays on one team, that's fine by me (within reason). That's following the rules, and it's fair. At least then, everyone should be doing their duty instead of doing it only when certain people are their targets. You actually know that people are going to play against the opposite team.
Your hypothetical situation is also bullshit. As several people have mentioned, there hasn't always been a fucked up culture of alliances like there is now. Clan rules can change. What's really pathetic is hanging on to something as absurd as alliances between naturally opposing teams because "it's the way things are" and/or "clan rules mandate it".
-
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?
-
Where's Lacerta when we need him! He would've solved this already by banning YoMama and probably Mia as well.
Looking at this from both perspectives, both make sense. Some are reasonable and some other are just suggesting nonsensical shananigans. While the community often asks the admins to put themselves on our shoes, I think now it'd be fair that we put on theirs. There isn't really anything they can do here. It's up to us, to you, to decide what to do.
Am saying it here: the most logical thing to do would be if clan members accept the role they have choosen and go along with it. For this I have personal experience. I would be disappointed if players who've spent years playing this, and are quite good at it, don't want to attack me. Who am I left to go against? Players that recently found the server and have little experience, if none, playing it? That doesn't represent a challenge for me. Chasing these guys down would not only be boring as heck for myself, but it'd also mess up their experience.
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.
Many, countless times I have been disgusted by servers that I'd like to try out and can't do it because admins have preference with certain players. Gladly, that doesn't quite apply here to admins, but it does with VIPs and regular players and that peace treaty it has prevailed for so long now.
For those of you making suggestion about rules:
Don't waste your time thinking of rules that have no way of being placed in. As I said before, clans are way in too deep already, you could argue they are somewhat neccessary wether you like it or not, and you can't force someone to do something he doesn't want to do.
Because at the end of the day it's up to the player to decide what to do.. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYD7UJ1RPW8)
-
This rule would be very hard to enforce and could cause arguments. -1
-
Cool story, Rev, you little bitch. It is always interesting for me to read how you pretending to be a "good guy".
SoLod thanks for Proving that u Don t give a damm on others Players opinion
I`ve met too much "your-style" trash on this server to explain again and again a very simple basic statements.
It is hilarious how nobody here understands why this suggestion and many others have 0 chance to become a solution of the problem, but instead becoming the problem on its own. Looks like another theme for solod`s 10kB essay.
-
I guess YoMama is talking about this:
• 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (https://planbserver.com/forum/index.php?topic=2762.0)).
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
@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.
-
I don't mind killing Spectre and Mantas for fun, always wanted to do that anyways.
-
Kill who you want .
Choose your back wisely.
Have fun .
P.s. i should read my books than these essays lol
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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)
-
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.
-
Writing something as a clan rule and then actually enforcing it are two different things. Duh
-
Writing something as a clan rule and then actually enforcing it are two different things. Duh
Then why is it a clan rule?
I don't think any ptp clan enforces a rule that says not to kill clanmates. It is the players' own will.
Actually, this is why i was kicked from clan.
Someone disprove this statement:
Players on opposite teams agreeing not to kill each other is unfair, against the rules, and doesn't make sense in terms of the gamemode.
I'm waiting...
-
Writing something as a clan rule and then actually enforcing it are two different things. Duh
When clan leader is writing a rule and then he is kicking clanmember from his clan for breaking this rule - this is actually what you call "enforcing". Even in your clan you are kicking rookies right after breaking a single clan rule.
So, maybe it is time for you to stop writing meaningless things?
But if you want to understand what this problem is all about, you can ask oldfags from your very clan how everything started back in 2011. And then, in 2012, i was already propagandizing the idea of kicking their ass (every single RD member`s ass) whenever you see them. Because for me it was obvious how this shit will look like years after. Nobody listened to me. Not a single man from whole community and even not a single man from my clan. So now, in 2017, i do not need to ask myself what is possible to do. I failed to stop this shit 5 years ago, this fail has led me to a 3 years ban, and when i came back the thing was already on a road to today`s circumstances.
-
It is a clan rule because the clan leader wanted it to be a rule. The rule of not shooting alliance got you out of pplv like an year ago? And maybe after you were kicked out you realised that there is such a rule. Did you really care about the rule? Did the rule stop u from killing someone or making peace with someone?
Taking example of your clan, just few days ago, kennyS killed hama and hasma wanted to kill him back. And they were completely fine doing so. Now you might go cry at pplv forum about why they ain't kicked BUT the point is that it doesn't matter if a clan says not to kill someone or not, a player makes these peace contracts themselves. If Rd tells me not to shoot pwn or ggt or any other clan, it's stupid and I'd shoot the ones i want to anyway.
Also, the "oldfags" from RD have retired after enjoying their time here in this server of a ducking videogame while you are still here complaining about how you don't like others enjoying their game.
-
>It is a clan rule because the clan leader wanted it to be a rule.
It is a rule because rules are define clan`s ideology.
>The rule of not shooting alliance got you out of pplv like an year ago?
No.
>And maybe after you were kicked out you realised that there is such a rule.
No. I always knew it.
>Did you really care about the rule?
Yes, i cared about every single caln rule. Actually, i was the only one in PPLV who CARED about rules, since 2 of them (follow duty and do not kill clanmates/allies) were (and they still) mutually exclusive.
>Did the rule stop u from killing someone or making peace with someone?
Yes, because it is a RULE.
>Now you might go cry at pplv forum about why they ain't kicked
I do not understand why i should "go and cry" since i have nothing to do with PPLV now. And i do not give a single fuck about any pplv`er anymore.
>BUT the point is that it doesn't matter if a clan says not to kill someone or not, a player makes these peace contracts themselves.
Okay, now i am not sure if i am talking with adequate preson.
>If Rd tells me not to shoot pwn or ggt or any other clan, it's stupid and I'd shoot the ones i want to anyway.
Again, any adequate clan has very simple statement - FOLLOW CLAN RULES OR YOU WILL BE KICKED FROM CLAN. As i said, i do not think that RD is adequate clan, so, i do not know why you even have rules.
-
Ofc the rule couldn't stop u from killing an ally , exactly why u were kicked. Personal relations, your personal motives are and will always be greater than any other motto from some clan or whatever group you are in. You killed someone you were not supposed to kill according to the clan rules.
Also, something being adequate or not is subjective so yea thanks for sharing your thoughts. RD has no such rule and will never impose such 'rule'. And if i go by your definition of adequate clan, there is hardly any adequate clan left in ptp(coz every clan has someone who shoots his clanmates).
-
You know... You are too dumb even for RD clan. I mean, how is it possible that YOUR clan requires from members to follow clan rules and even I know it, and you DON`T and keep saying that it is "nothing"? You are keep talking about things when you do not know a shit about them. You are too dumb to understand it even when i already said that you are wrong about reasons i was kicked from a clan, you do not know circumstances but you keep repeating your shit time after time. Your are typing all this shit, but at the same time you are too lazy to open your clan`s site and read (probably, for the first time) a very simple statement about rules?
-
RD has no such rule and will never impose such 'rule'.
...every clan has someone who shoots his clanmates
If Rd tells me not to shoot pwn or ggt or any other clan, it's stupid and I'd shoot the ones i want to anyway.
I'm not sure I can grasp this- as you've pointed out, I'm often unable to understand your "points". RD has no such rule, you think it would be stupid if they did, and every clan has members who shoot each other. Why exactly are you trying to protect the ability of down-trodden regulars to make unfair alliances that go against the gamemode, again?
-
1. Not protecting the "corrupt" regulars directly but supporting the freedom to not shoot everyone (indirectly supporting the former. They can have their opinion on this different from me but I am stating my opinion and defending my stand here that i sometimes choose to avoid much resistance by this selective shooting. That is more enjoyable for me and ofc lesse mess than shooting everyone one every now n then without the help of newbies that I think are very useful. If i want more challenge, i simply go after presi as terro, kill every helper he has or i go security and kill every attacker. I don't babysit my fellow securities if I think they are not worthy of the time that i could spend on reaching president. Protecting presi this way is more challenging and fun for me than being a terro and complaining about how another terro denied to shoot other cops that shot me.
2. "Unfair alliances". Agreed that it is unfair but I don't see how the players will be forced to shoot someone that they don't want to if that shooting is something stealing away their "fun". That's my stand and you can respectfully disagree but i am sure this is the exact reason why this hasn't heen enforced yet. People (most of them) realise that this ability to choose who to shoot and whom to ignore is the freedom that makes their game "enjoyable".
Dictatorship in North Korea sounds unfair as well, but people don't interfere (or can't interfere) because they know they can't overcome that "problem" with any of the suggested solutions so far.
This might not be a good analogy but it explain my point that players play for their individual fun first of all. When a vip pays to the server, (99%) of them do it for the chainsaws and sniper and other shit that makes their game enjoyable and easier than others. They paid for that shit, agreed, but my point is that this is thill making the game unfair for non vips who get overpowered coz of these vip features. Also, vip feature includes switching class anytime and unbalancing the teams as a result. Why do u think this has been added as a vip feature despite knowing that it affects the gamemode negatively by unbalancing the teams? To serve the individual motive of a vip player. I think it's because vips pay to make their OWN INDIVIDUAL game easier and better and not really to donate. This is how it has been since years and a single rule enforcement won't make them stop trying to make their game easier and enjoyable.
Imo, what you want to achieve will be 2x fun than current game if there is a complete newbie+regulars Vs newbie+ regulars situation in the server AND I don't think that is gonna happen (i explained how I THINK the regulars will leave all the newbies on opposite team) as teams will be unbalanced even more than what they are right now. The civ class is also somehow anti-balancer as players get to shoot whoever they want to(picking sides and changing it any moment).
You can try this for sometime on server and let me know how "fair" and "balanced" you have made the game.
3. Yomama, i thought u were smart enough to even understand that poorly written explanation. Imma try again.
I was just making a situation that Rd has told me not to shoot a player B, and that i will still continue to shoot him if and when I like to. It's only if he is my friend(no matter what RD's relations are with him) that i will consider not shooting him.(ofc rd has no such rule, and i believe most of us RDs think it is stupid to make blacklist and whitelist now)/
The 'point' of making up that situation was to explain you (or was it primoz) that I THINK a player's personal relations with another player are more important than clan's relations. And it will always stay so..
In the first quote , i am saying that RD will not impose such a rule as something for clarification, had nothing to do with explaining any of my argument. And the line " every clan has someone who shoots his clanmate" was for primoz, and i was just letting him know that according to his definition there is no adequate clan in PTP as they all have some member who breaks this clan rule and still stays in the clan.
4. Tired of repeating this, If you can think of a good way to enforce this , by either changing minds of players(not possible i guess) or by script or anything and if you can really make the game more fun by creating that balanced team situation, then sure, it's worth a try. But enforcing this by leaving babysitting work on admins and recording/writing essays in reports just to be judged biasedly is what i am against. It has caused many players to be falsely banned and it will still happen. Wanna try on beta? *Calls lacerta and tenshi*
how is it possible that YOUR clan requires from members to follow clan rules and even I know it, and you DON`T and keep saying that it is "nothing"? You are keep talking about things when you do not know a shit about them.
Daffy was banned a week ago. According to RD clan rules, we kick or demote any member that gets banned. But we didn't punish daffy. Cute enough?
Should we all get kicked out of RD for breaking RD's rule? Ffs, it's a game's clan made for a group of friends who want to enjoy the game.
Even tho my clan rules said that Daffy should be punished, but we didn't coz again , personal opinions and mottos will always be greater deciding factors than the clan's rule and mottos.
We didn't even discuss this with every rd memeber, we (ducks that could see the promotion board) just realised that what he did wasn't much of an offence but a silly thing that can be forgiven.
Now, i can't really care much if you think RD or any other clan is not an adequate clan for not following their own rules. MAYBE pplv would have kept u in the clan, if they thought they should. Don't know much of ur case but you most probably shot an ally because of you PERSONAL will which was AGAINST your CLAN'S WILL.
Which again supports my argument that A player will always be driven by his personal motto first and then by any other influence.
Ps: sorry daffy, to bring u in this xD
-
Get some help. It is not too late for ya'll.
-
It's not hard to enforce the rule since nearly 50% of the players are willing to follow it and the other 50% will have to defend themselves anyway.
i.e. You want a 'peace contract' with me, but I don't. I shoot you so you will have to defend yourself.
-
Get some help. It is not too late for ya'll.
No, unfortunately it's too late.
-
I get how frustrating this can be, I used to play a lot as security when I started playing PTP. It's not fun when you try to protect the president for an entire round, until suddenly, most of the security let someone walk in and kill the president. Another example is when a group of civilians 'take over' the security and you can't even get close to the president anymore as a sec. I don't think this problem is caused by clans only though. It's more the culture of "regulars don't shoot each other", that's the main cause. I feel if you'd take all of the clans out of the server, we'd still have the same problems. Of course, it doesn't help when they have rules like that. It might be one of the factors leading to this, but I don't feel it's the main cause of the problem. People don't shoot each other because they're friends, because they want to fit in with the rest of the regulars and there are plenty more reasons that have nothing to do with clans. I also think it's mainly problematic when it involves security or the president (as I described in the first lines), since that would have the most impact on the gamemode. I don't really think it's a problem when it's just an encounter between cops and terros.
As for enforcing this rule, I think in most cases it just isn't possible. More often than not, you won't be able to prove someone is intentionally not doing something (I'm thinking of securities letting a terro pass by), as it relies on a lot of assumptions we have to make. In other cases it is, but I don't think forcing people to shoot each other is a good solution for this problem. So, I don't think we should add this as a rule, as it would just be a worse version of what we have now with /duty. Instead, I think we should find ways to create incentives to play the gamemode and do your duty. We've been discussing this to find a solution for the /duty rule, but I think it applies here as well. Maybe a scoring system, as was suggested earlier, could help and it would encourage more people to do their duty. I'm not sure how exactly this would be implemented, but I was thinking something along the lines of the GTA V CEO/VIP system, where the bodyguards get points for certain actions, and maybe tie it together with certain rewards.
I don't think the clan tag rule as proposed is a good idea either. As I said already, I don't think clans are the main part of the problem. Taking away the clan tag doesn't mean they're not going to be friends the next day, and not much would change. Secondly, that would mean we'd have to make a whole system to approve clans, and we'd need access to their rules. I don't think that much involvement and control from the staff in clans would be good for the server. And again, them removing it from their rules, doesn't necessarily mean anything is going to change, as this problem mostly exists as an unwritten rule. Also, we're not going to punish a whole clan based on the behaviour of a couple of individuals.
-
10/10 jonne. I still think that additional armour bonus on every kill near president, will be a good incentive. Or maybe let president have some extra "scores" that he can spend on securities that follow his instructions (like bringing him a car etc). An automatic system that can decide what and who helps president can be hard to think of.
-
Maybe a scoring system, as was suggested earlier, could help and it would encourage more people to do their duty.
Actually i've been suggesting this for like 3 years already (since the old PTP). To put a point system for the securities. They will be gaining points for those who are in security class for the whole 15 minutes (or maybe give an initial 1 minute buffer time to have an opportunity to reclass as security), just like a point system for best president (best security). Why not putting this kind of solution to solve lots of problems here like /duty and civilans taking over? Besides, the server is all about the president after all.
About the actual topic here, i think that making a rule about shooting clan member is just ridiculous. Besides, this is only important if a security is involved. Security must shoot people attacking the president, and i cannot recall anyone not doing the right thing.
If my point above has been already pointed out by others here, honestly i did not read the whole thread. Im sorry.
-
I don't think this problem is caused by clans only though. It's more the culture of "regulars don't shoot each other", that's the main cause. I feel if you'd take all of the clans out of the server, we'd still have the same problems.
I agree with you that clans are not the cause, but I would say that they tend to often be examples of the problem, usually more than clanless players. I probably shouldn't have directed this suggestion at clans if I wanted it to be more productive, but honestly, I was kind of pissed off and clans are an easier target when they tell you their rules already, which makes them the most blatant offenders in my eyes.
I don't really think it's a problem when it's just an encounter between cops and terros.
I don't agree. What if everyone decided not to shoot each other? The only reason why it doesn't seem to be a big issue is since this isn't the case, and cops aren't directly responsible for the president, it's less noticeable. I think it's still pretty damaging. It's pretty odd to realize that your teammates are refusing to play against people who will happily play against you when the game is all about teamwork. I certainly don't think that that moment of realization makes someone more likely to follow the rules or particularly happy.
I know it's something that could never be ideally enforced. I was honestly hoping for some less punishment-oriented solutions when I started this topic, like people just agreeing that it's not fair and probably not as fun to not shoot your friends, and maybe clans changing their rules and/or admins maybe verbally prodding people if it seems like they aren't playing fairly (a "hey, I noticed you seem to never shoot X when they're on the opposite team, even though they're a huge threat" or "hey, it seems kind of wrong to wipe out your friend's security, but not your friend" kind of thing).
My biggest problem here is not just that people have alliances that supercede the gamemode and they act on them, it's more that this behavior so pervasive that few people actually seem to consider whether or not it's actually fair or reasonable, and even if they do, they keep doing it because everybody does it. I don't even really understand the motivations to do it. I know you can't just turn a culture around, but not doing anything at all simply lets the problem flourish.
I think at least an encouragement to shoot your friends and base your friendships on mutual respect instead of a quid pro quo agreement would be a good thing. If people don't care, whatever, but I think that there should at least be a little shame in doing it, just like I feel shame in being on a winning team when the losing team simply had no chance. I was more suggesting the clan tag thing as a way to shame them without denying them access to the server. I know they'll still have alliances without tags (plenty of players do), but the fact that few people, even the people who don't have alliances, are actively against this behavior is a little sad to me.
I agree that changing the scoring system is a great step as well. I would add, however, that a good scoring system should reward people not just for winning, but for also going up against the odds. Even if someone is not really doing much damage as one of three terrorists vs eight security, they should still get credit for trying to balance the game instead of just switching to the winning team so they appear to be better at the game than they are.
Thank you for your response- it's nice to have a someone running things who even weighs in on the extremely controversial.
-
As for enforcing this rule, I think in most cases it just isn't possible.
This is your main problem as "owner". Because it is actually very "possible" to add 10 words to the rules and punish people for breaking this rule. Just as simple as that. Just as simple as any other rule. Even if "undetected" rule-breakers will not get punish, some part WILL get it and it will be a step to a right way.
-
Essay writing competition :-\
-
Essay writing competition :-\
More like pointless dumbass comment competition.
If you don't have anything to add then ignore. Don't read posts if you're too lazy but most importantly don't criticise those who put their time and effort to explain. There is a difference between constructive criticism and ignorance.