Plan B
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Crash on December 12, 2017, 11:38:12 pm
-
The original discussion: https://planbserver.com/forum/index.php?topic=2692.0
Let's leave the discussion related to this suggestion where it belongs: link above.
The poll is short and simple.
This is created in order to find out what community thinks about this and i think the poll is right thing for it.
-
I'll tell you the results so you don't have to wait:
95% No
5% Yes
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.
-
You do not take the opinion of a criminal on whether to criminalise a crime or not. It's already a rule that is ignored because clan rules are given priority over server rules.
-
You messed up the poll. Yes, I do believe it should become a thing, but not a rule.
-
I thought about this and the original version of my post isn't what I actually think.
I still agree with the rule though.
The only problem I honestly have with clans is that most of them are stubborn assholes that tread on other players, which is ok since I don't mind.
-
Such rule is impossible to enforce but if you're asking if players should shoot every opposing team member then i would say i will let them choose. As for me, I'm fine with my 'selective killing' as every class except for when i am a security.
-
I'll tell you the results so you don't have to wait:
95% No
5% Yes
As of time of this comment it's 57% for "no" and 43% for "yes". Get rekt m8 ;D
You do not take the opinion of a criminal on whether to criminalise a crime or not. It's already a rule that is ignored because clan rules are given priority over server rules.
Dafuq you talking about, dude? People who are not shooting each other are criminals? Top kek right there.
-
Dafuq you talking about, dude? People who are not shooting each other are criminals? Top kek right there.
Alright, I used a wrong example. I mean that people are supposed to give priority to their duty over clan rules, but they don't. So what is the point of asking somebody who is openly breaking the rules whether the rule should be enforced or not? It's no different than asking a murderer if murder should be criminalised.
-
Such rule is impossible to enforce but if you're asking if players should shoot every opposing team member then i would say i will let them choose. As for me, I'm fine with my 'selective killing' as every class except for when i am a security.
exactly my point , some classes such as security and president should be followed with utmost duty however, you can't always be forced to shoot your friends the worst thing that could happen is solitaire...
-
Dafuq you talking about, dude? People who are not shooting each other are criminals? Top kek right there.
Alright, I used a wrong example. I mean that people are supposed to give priority to their duty over clan rules, but they don't. So what is the point of asking somebody who is openly breaking the rules whether the rule should be enforced or not? It's no different than asking a murderer if murder should be criminalised.
No rule should be enforced on this matter because it's plainly and simply ridiculous. You're basically taking away players' freedom of choice on this matter, and players should always have choice who to shoot. What's next? Making a rule that whoever is Terrorist must attack the President at all costs? That Civilians should publicly declare in the chat that they will attack everyone before they do it? That all Cops and SWAT should stay near President as well, because that's how he would be protected in real life? See in which direction this is going to go?
Also, clans have had the no attack between members rule since PTP started and since I remember it (and I'm talking about 2010 onward), absolutely no one complained about it until recently.
As a final point (as I'm getting really weary of this) - too many nonsense rules will only serve to take away all the fun out of this server (which was, btw, never fully and only TDM).
-
No rule should be enforced on this matter because it's plainly and simply ridiculous. You're basically taking away players' freedom of choice on this matter, and players should always have choice who to shoot. What's next? Making a rule that whoever is Terrorist must attack the President at all costs? That Civilians should publicly declare in the chat that they will attack everyone before they do it? That all Cops and SWAT should stay near President as well, because that's how he would be protected in real life? See in which direction this is going to go?
Also, clans have had the no attack between members rule since PTP started and since I remember it (and I'm talking about 2010 onward), absolutely no one complained about it until recently.
As a final point (as I'm getting really weary of this) - too many nonsense rules will only serve to take away all the fun out of this server (which was, btw, never fully and only TDM).
Yeah Spectre! It should work like that on every game. Why every F.C. Barcelona player can't individually decide if he actually wants to defend the Barcelona's goal or prefers to watch while his friend in Real Madrid scores? It's so unfair.
-
Yeah Spectre! It should work like that on every game. Why F.C. Barcelona players can't decide if they actually want to defend their goal or prefer to watch while their friend in Real Madrid scores? It's so unfair.
Or better yet, let's ask FIFA and UEFA to fine goalkeepers and defensive players (as per rule, of course) whenever a team concedes a goal, because how dare they!
-
Yeah Spectre! It should work like that on every game. Why F.C. Barcelona players can't decide if they actually want to defend their goal or prefer to watch while their friend in Real Madrid scores? It's so unfair.
Or better yet, let's ask FIFA and UEFA to fine goalkeepers and defensive players (as per rule, of course) whenever a team concedes a goal, because how dare they!
No need for FIFA or UEFA. If a player constantly stands and watches when the rival scores, I think he wouldn't last very long in the team x)
-
No need for FIFA or UEFA. If a player constantly stands and watches when the rival scores, I think he wouldn't last very long in the team x)
Hm, but I think there is need for FIFA and UEFA, since you want this here to be a rule :D In this case, they are "admins" of football, amirite?
-
No need for FIFA or UEFA. If a player constantly stands and watches when the rival scores, I think he wouldn't last very long in the team x)
Hm, but I think there is need for FIFA and UEFA, since you want this here to be a rule :D In this case, they are "admins" of football, amirite?
In football there's the coach and the president of the club. If cops and terros had leaders who could kick useless members out of the team it wouldn't be necessary. But as those figures don't exist, rules, enforced by the staff, have to take over their job :)
-
In football there's the coach and the president of the club. If cops and terros had leaders who could kick useless members out of the team it wouldn't be necessary. But as those figures don't exist, rules, enforced by the staff, have to take over their job :)
Yes, and let's just completely suck all the fluidity and freedom of choice out of everything, because SAMP servers are just that important :) I think we're eventually going to end up with these rules approved:
What's next? Making a rule that whoever is Terrorist must attack the President at all costs? That Civilians should publicly declare in the chat that they will attack everyone before they do it? That all Cops and SWAT should stay near President as well, because that's how he would be protected in real life?
-
Yes, and let's just completely suck all the fluidity and freedom of choice out of everything, because SAMP servers are just that important :) I think we're eventually going to end up with these rules approved:
You guys keep using the "it's just a game" and "it doesn't matter" excuses while claiming that enforcing the rules would ruin everything for clans. I guess that excuse only goes one way, as in the way you want it to go?
Doesn't being unable to shoot your clanmates do more to suck the fluidity and freedom of choice out of the game?
-
You guys keep using the "it's just a game" and "it doesn't matter" excuses while claiming that enforcing the rules would ruin everything for clans. I guess that excuse only goes one way, as in the way you want it to go?
And you guys keep coming up with really unnecessary suggestions that restrict clans and force them to change their policies. Like I said to you in that other topic, you of all players, who have been playing on PTP since like the beginning, should know that this kind of thing has existed in the past and nobody was bitching about it. And the server always had constant influx of new players who stayed and became regulars despite all the flaws and inconveniences. I could also argue that you pushing for your suggestion is really pointing the server in the way which you and few others consider to be a good course.
Doesn't being unable to shoot your clanmates do more to suck the fluidity and freedom of choice out of the game?
Nope? Because I want to be able to make a decision on my own who I'll shoot and who I won't. Simple as that.
-
Spectre, by the way, I was wondering. Can you name any other team sport, videogame, whatever... where it's perfectly legit to choose between allying rival (rival by definition, like cops and terros or Barcelona and Real Madrid! :) ) teams or not?
If there are some examples, maybe you're right and this is perfectly normal choice you're claiming. If there aren't any... maybe you should start wondering if there's something wrong here that needs to change.
-
I could also argue that you pushing for your suggestion is really pointing the server in the way which you and few others consider to be a good course.
How? Because it makes things fair?
-
How? Because it makes things fair?
Oh, you're long way away from making this server 'fair', if that's what you're aiming for.
Spectre, by the way, I was wondering. Can you name any other team sport, videogame, whatever... where it's perfectly legit to choose between allying rival (rival by definition, like cops and terros or Barcelona and Real Madrid! :) ) teams or not?
If there are some examples, maybe you're right and this is perfectly normal choice you're claiming. If there aren't any... maybe you should start wondering if there's something wrong here that needs to change.
What I love is how you completely glossed over my concern about possible future suggestions by either you, YoMama, or someone third, that would make this server one of the strictest on SAMP. I'm telling you now, those are coming eventually :)
And no, I will not indulge in expanding this discussion with you anymore, or YoMama, simply because I'm weary of it (although I know the "you lack arguments, we won, woooo!" is coming :D ). You take all of this way too seriously, as you've proven so many times in the past. Things have been like this on this server for many years and no one was as horny as you are to change things because everyone was too busy playing the game. And the server survived since 2006, that's 11 frickin' years. Really makes you wonder, doesn't it?
You've got your poll, you'll know the results in short time, I'm done with replying to this topic. If countless other replies have not made you think about what you're suggesting, I doubt any more of mine will do it. Shouldn't have replied this much in the first place, but eh, at least I tried.
-
Spectre, by the way, I was wondering. Can you name any other team sport, videogame, whatever... where it's perfectly legit to choose between allying rival (rival by definition, like cops and terros or Barcelona and Real Madrid! :) ) teams or not?
If there are some examples, maybe you're right and this is perfectly normal choice you're claiming. If there aren't any... maybe you should start wondering if there's something wrong here that needs to change.
Minecraft!
-
No need for FIFA or UEFA. If a player constantly stands and watches when the rival scores, I think he wouldn't last very long in the team x)
Hm, but I think there is need for FIFA and UEFA, since you want this here to be a rule :D In this case, they are "admins" of football, amirite?
In football there's the coach and the president of the club. If cops and terros had leaders who could kick useless members out of the team it wouldn't be necessary. But as those figures don't exist, rules, enforced by the staff, have to take over their job :)
Winning as a team in a competitive match would get them money and their "enjoyment". So standing idle in a football game would not make any sense.
A corrupt cop in real life , who refused to shoot his terrorist friend will also get fired. BUT samp is a game that we don't get paid for and players want to relax and enjoy playing it, if they find it better to fight a selected regulars and avoid fights with others, they can and they will do it. They SHOULDN'T do it, but they can and they will do it. If you could pay a player to compensate for the "fun" element he will lose, he might play the way you want him to play.
Everyone is selfish when it comes to having their "fun". Good db players will ask to enable db and the ones who hate chainsaws might suggest to remove them. Great pilots might even suggest extra rustlers at civ spawns for them and that too will be affecting the gameplay of others but hey! Who cares? Selfish :)
-
FIFA, I remember what that is
-
FIFA, I remember what that is
Wtf. Did that really happen lol. Corrupt people everywhere!
-
You know shit's got serious when a game is compared to real life
-
You know shit's got serious when a game is compared to real life
Sports are games too. So I guess you meant: You know shit's got serious when a game is compared to other games.
-
You know shit's got serious when a game is compared to real life
Sports are games too. So I guess you meant: You know shit's got serious when a game is compared to other games.
When a game is compared to sports*
Samp is just a game, it's not even an e-sport thing. If it were counter strike , then i might have agreed that playing to win is more important that having "fun".
-
11-12 years ago We have too clans and all those years I don't see any problem.
Who are you guys that tell me on who to shot?
Only Secs need to shoot anyone. and must kill them because if the wont shoot terrors its will destroy the game mode.
-
No i dont like this shit
-
Everyone is selfish when it comes to having their "fun". Good db players will ask to enable db and the ones who hate chainsaws might suggest to remove them. Great pilots might even suggest extra rustlers at civ spawns for them and that too will be affecting the gameplay of others but hey! Who cares? Selfish :)
And here we find the problem. People who don't shoot each other when they should don't care about fairness, they just care about themselves.
There's a major difference between your examples and enforcing the rule against helping the opposite team. DB, chainsaws (to an extent) and Rustlers are all things that everyone can use, regardless of their social status in the server. They're all something that is understandable and fair in that I can be a good DBer, have DBing shit added, but people can use that against me as well.
In contrast, you have to be part of a special group which has conspired together to make an alliance. You can't magically conjure up an alliance with the opposite team and use it against someone else. Someone without an alliance can't kill you while your friends watch and do nothing, but you can do that to them, if their teammates are also your friends. You also have to have knowledge of the alliances to even know how to avoid the shit that gets pulled. I had no idea IDF and GgT had a non-aggression agreement until I got killed by a GgT cop without an IDF terrorist teammate doing anything to stop it. I had to ask if they were "allied", and unsurprisingly they were. Explain to me how this could possibly be fair, or reasonable? The only thing you can say is that I could make my own clan, but that isn't solving the problem, is it? It's just pushing the bullshit to people who have even less power to retaliate.
While you're at it, someone explain to me how this will "destroy the server and/or the gamemode". I'd love to know. Would something as simple as just having "allied" players on the same side really ruin anything? Again, elaborate.
Difficulty of enforcement is not an excuse (if there is even that much difficulty), and just the fact that people are resorting to that argument should tell you something. Just because there are "gray areas" doesn't mean that the black-and-white shouldn't be addressed.
The "it's been this way for X years" argument is absurd. I guess what I should take from this is that clans have been breaking the rules for X years, and that long-established clans don't really deserve my respect because they've built their reputations on this shit?
You can claim again that I'm taking things too seriously and overcomplicating the issue, but I see walls of unsupported bullshit spouting from the pro-alliance side, none of which addresses what should be the core issue: is this behavior fair?
-
Here's another example where I and another player were killed by someone alllied to the president while my team did nothing - https://youtu.be/Acn2r-pHFBM
You can avoid shooting a player, run away from an attack on your teammates but if you do nothing while your teammates are getting shot at and then continue to stand next to the attacker without counterattacking then you are clearly allied to someone who is working against your team.
It's not about avoiding. It's about shooting someone who is a threat to your team either because they plan to or already have killed your teammates in your immediate vicinity.
-
12 years ago
keep it up m8 :D
-
12 years ago
keep it up m8 :D
yea.
-
@yomama
I thought i made the actual point of my post clear. But i guess you didn't get it...here repeating this:
"
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."
"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."
Even carg got it, why is it taking you so long? xD
-
@yomama
I thought i made the actual point of my post clear. But i guess you didn't get it...here repeating this:
"
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."
"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."
Even carg got it, why is it taking you so long? xD
Because it still isn't a reason to not enforce the rule. I certainly understand what you're trying to say. However, there are plenty of rules that not everyone follows, because they aren't willing to. That's the reason why certain people are selected to enforce them. You can't deny that clans officially changing their policies is an easy step. If players aren't willing to play by rules they already knew existed, then they should be punished.
Another thing: this isn't "habitual". Lots of people shoot at each other, then stop once they see the nicks or skins of their friends. It's a conscious choice, just like it's a conscious choice for me to shoot anyone. You've made it clear that people playing as security are able to make the fair choice and follow their duty, and that you believe they should do so. It's not like you're suddenly unable to shoot someone once you're a cop after you were shooting your friends as a security.
Since you apparently enjoy talking down to people: it's really simple. If something is unfair, then it shouldn't be allowed. We have many rules and systems in place that show that this is a commonly-held belief. Basically all of those rules are enforced and people make efforts to follow them in the interest of fairness, except the "don't help your opponents" rule. I have argued, multiple times, that this is unfair. Last I checked, nobody's made any real attempt to prove otherwise. The "actual point of [your] post" doesn't address my argument. While it's great that you can make a "point", how about, instead of attempting to make me look stupid by acting like I can't comprehend your irrelevant and inaccurate "point" that players are apparently incapable of shooting their friends like they do players who pose no threat to them, you tell me why this is fair. Prove me wrong, instead of throwing bullshit in an orthogonal direction and expecting me to address it. xD
-
Sorry, guys, but this is just ridiculous. For what my little brain can grasp of this topic, it was supposed to be a simple "Yes/No" to avoid what the other topic has become, but somehow this is turning out to be an unnecessary continuation.
-
Even carg got it, why is it taking you so long? xD
No I did not :O Is it something about Solod abusing dizzy? I don't understand. Please write 2 topics full of essays and keep telling yourself that things will change :P
-
Only 57 members voted till now. Where's more? :x
-
Even carg got it, why is it taking you so long? xD
No I did not :O Is it something about Solod abusing dizzy? I don't understand. Please write 2 topics full of essays and keep telling yourself that things will change :P
No more essays lol
Quoting you carg:
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.
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.
10/10 carg
@yomama, i never said that peace contracts are fair for the game. I said it is enjoyable for players that do it.
-
Add it..