Removing slain players from the traitor/inno/detective pools.

So, after playing a large amount of games lately, I've noticed that slays adversely affect the gamestate in a negative way. For instance, if i issue two slays for the next round, and both of the two who I slayed ended up being traitors, the innocents would have a numerical advantage for that round that would make the traitor buddies who did not get slain have a harder round. This is similar to innocents, as if the players who were slain ended up being detectives or innocents, the traitors would be at a numerical advantage for the game.

What I though of recently was whether or not it would be possible to remove players who get issued slays from joining teams to begin with, and to put them in their own 'prison', where they face the same punishment as normal, but don't have to potentially make the game unfair for other players just because they are facing their punishment.

It was just a random thought, but I hadn't seen it suggested before on the forums yet. I understand that it would take some work with coding that could potentially not be done easily, but as of now I think it would be a good addition.

Feel free to pick apart my logic and make this into a crappy idea. I hadn't put much thought into the ramifications of this yet, so if it's a bad idea don't judge, I just want to hear other people's opinions on the topic.

 

Not a bad idea actually but -1 for me personally.

The way I've always seen it is that if a person RDMs, they're ruining someone's round whether it be detective traitor or innocent and if they're removed from the pool of roles then it kind of removes the purpose of it. By that I mean if they weren't going to have a role, then it's just like taking a 10 minute break in spectator while if they have a role assigned to them, that's a round they could've played but can't anymore because of the RDM. I know when I've had to slay myself for accidental RDM, I'd always be bummed out getting T that round and know to be more careful in the future. In turn if a player RDM'd and realized they could get slain on a T round, it might be more of an incentive to not RDM in the future. About the unfairness, again imo if players notice that RDM'ing will bring their role to a disadvantage, it could also give them incentive not to RDM

edit: Adding to the last sentence, it could bring the mentality of "don't want the game to be unfair? Don't rdm/tell others not to"

 

-1

 

I agree with what @Pandora said.

Also, I like it when I'm a traitor and I have less allies. More kills for me

 

-1, Because of Pandora's reasoning as well.

 

I don't believe RDM's and slays are so black and white like you claim it is. I think Graze's idea makes a LOT MORE sense in that you're not affecting the game-state for other players which would have an even larger impact on the players of the next round (and likely ruining THEIR round) Instead of justifying it from your own perspective as a player, look at it from a variety of perspectives to get the bigger picture.

First off we want to look at why people "RDM" and how effective slays are as a deterrent for RDMing.
1. RDMing as a traitor comes as either an accident or a complete lack of understanding for the game (or deliberate griefing) in any of these cases, what is the purpose of the slay?
a.An accident might be forgiven and written off, or it might not, so the offender sits out the next round. It's not intentional so therefore it doesn't matter how much you slay them: it'll happen because it's just something that happens, they're not willing it. Therefore, making them sit out a round regardless of whether they are assigned a role should make no difference.
b.If they haven't yet learned the game, then making them sit out without changing gamestate is purely beneficial in this case, after all, why would they aspire for T rounds if they don't understand the game? c.If they are griefing, there are more worries on their mind than getting T rounds, they should be worrying about playing on the server at all.

2. RDMing as an innocent/detective is slightly more complex: They might have killed under mistaken assumptions, had insufficient proof, or any of the above reasons for Traitors^
In the first two scenarios, I can see why you would think that "Oh, I was being careless and I could get traitor next round, so I'll be more careful and not RDM next time"
Which brings me back to the main point:

The purpose of the slay STAYS the SAME even though the slain player is removed from the pool of roles. It does not matter whether you are included in the pool of players to be assigned a role, if you are being slain that means you will not be playing next round. To reiterate, would you "[take] a 10 minute break in spectator" if you were going to get a T round? Meaning, why does it matter that you know if you'll be a Traitor or not, either way by being slain you won't get to play. If you want to think about it another way, every round is a chance for you to get a Traitor round, every round you don't get to play is a round less where you may be chosen. The effect of what Graze is suggesting is THE SAME for the slain player, while reducing negative effects on the gamestate for other players.

The problem about your last point about incentivizing "not-RDMing" is that in its current state, slays are negatively impacting OTHER players as a result of their punishment. There is no need for this negative externality if we only assigned roles to those playing in the next round excluding the slain players.

 

Theteutonic basically covers all the points that I would have made if everyone didn't immediately disagree with me.

Also in response to Shadow, That doesn't apply to everyone, and can often make the game unwinnable should you be on a server with equally skilled players.

 

Well the thing is it would be going into spectator mode then. I think that slays shouldn't maybe change the #'s but if we could make a pop up or something saying "You would have been a traitor " or something. It might do what you said, but also fulfill the idea of a round wasted.

 

Graze specified that there could be a separate part that's not quite spectator but would have the same effect in terms of issuing a slay. This is purely just to reinforce the idea and psychological effect of a slay that you guys have so ingrained.

 

Whether or not Shadow's serious, it seems inconsiderate to disregard the implications for the "less-skilled" players if you ask me

 

Mod issued a slay on player, Wilson.
Wilson was slain while taking part as a role as a Traitor.
System will begin to choose another Traitor because a Traitor was slain.
Jeremy was selected as a traitor.

Mhm?

 

Suppose there were 20 players, equating to 5 traitors. One person is slain and we're left with 19. Your system distorts the gamestate by putting 5 traitors in a game where there should only be 4. If he was an innocent, there would be no difference. But basically the gist here is that Graze's suggestion is the ONLY one that allows for a balanced match when slays occur.

 

For example:
A minimum of 8 players should have 2 traitors.
You were slain in a game with a total of 10 players.

10 - 1 = 9.

9 players left yet it still met the requirement of having 2 traitors.

Otherwise, if its below the requirement, no role transferring should occur.

What else am I missing?

 

This is the key part, no role transfer because we're excluding the slain player from being counted in the number of players that will be assigned a role. This system is what Graze was getting at, just he had it boiled down to a more concise version.

 

It doesn't make sense to me that someone else being punished for RDM means that next round every inno goes without a detective. A valuable resource to balancing the game out. Same with Traitor teams. It makes no sense to punish the rule abiding players who ARE playing the game. I mean, yeah, it'd still be like putting the RDMer in time out, but isn't that way slays already accomplish? They don't need to know their supposed role. They're just supposed to know that if they break the rules, they're gonna have a miserable time. Just like with any other kid learning discipline.


TL;DR
Bad apples ruin the experience for everyone else. Let's fix that.

 

+1 Punishments shouldn't mess with the playstyle

 

why does this have 4 "dumb" votes? I mean people that play the game fair shouldn't be punnished by other players slay. besides, it would not have any negative influence on the game...

 

The point of this thread isn't to compile dumb votes on other people's posts. If you want to do something like that, please do it on a different thread and not this one. This is about supporting something, or not supporting something, and just because other people have different views on something doesn't mean that you should vote it dumb. There is a disagree option for a reason.

 

As a response @Pandora, The jist of your point that I want to discuss is why you think that they wouldn't have a round? To me, it's obvious that if they get slain, they're not going to have a round either way, and the player knows this. I don't think personally that making a punishment seem more harsh as a deterrent to rdm is worth making the game numerically unfair for the players involved in the first place. It's punishing the masses for the actions of the few when a simpler solution can achieve both fairness and maintain the same level of punishment that the current one does. But I can see why others would think otherwise.

Chai brings up a solid idea of how this could happen by still presenting the message of what would have happened to the slain player while still re-rolling the role back into the pool. This would effectively act as a deterrent still, but still make the game be fair for those matches where 2 traitors get slain.

Interesting topic.

 

I was just thinking of something...

During the preparation phase, when everyone gets their guns, someone is slain when the round actually begins and roles are revealed, right? When someone is set to be slain, maybe once the timer hits zero, everyone's informed of the slayed special player, and innocent players can anonymously volunteer themselves to take on that special role, in a second 10 second preparing phase of such.


I remember this to be a similiar system implemented when I played TF2 and a gamemode called VS Saxton Hale, which is basically one god versus a whole team, and that would pop up when the team of one wasn't actually able to play.

Thoughts?