@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.
