Change dumb RDM rule

Hey if I die I will lose 1 score point
Its ruin rounds

 

Losing karma isn't RDM. There are plenty of cases where you can lose karma and it's not RDM

 

Not really. Ever heard of unreported damage?

 

First of all, people, please realize that Harvest is talking about the logic of the rule, not what the extended rules say.

Consider this situation: You RDM an innocent a second before the round ends. It doesn't affect the round, as they're innocent, so should you not be slain? I'd say no, you still would need a slay. You wouldn't have a way of being positive the round would actually end, just like if you push someone into the trap pit on inno motel and they teleport. It's still RDM. Jihads, gauss rifles, and other explosives can be funky sometimes, and there's not always a 100% chance that you'll get the kill. I've seen it fail enough times to know.

There will be instances where common sense says you'll get the kill, but I've had jihads bug out so hard that I've survived with one hp after detonating one. I'd assume Highwon prefers to keep things simple and go by one ruling. For example, if you shoot someone and then give them a hp station, it's still RDM. Doesn't matter if it doesn't affect the round at all. The potential is there, so it's RDM.

 

Sorry, are we being condescending? Ever heard of killing an inno for committing a T act? That'll reduce your karma, but isn't slayable.

 

That is a good point @Han Solo , would this new rule apply to a situation where you're a innocent and there are only two other players left and you jihaded or fragged them both?

Edit: Actually jihading might end the round for the traitors, so no.. but fragging?

 

It would be kept simple though even with a slight if.

Lets say you are a T and do get killed by a jihad at the same time as the last innocent and you win anyway. They werent messing around or rdming on purpose, they went for the game win and got it, what do you get from reporting the jihader and getting them slain?
@Han Solo

I mean it would never happen but its quite a good question. As far as I have gotten answers from other common sense kills, you have to know your target 100%. You cant use "result justifies the deeds" (killing everyone else alive at the same time).

 

Honestly assumed this was always a thing since it's a pretty fucking petty thing to punish someone for, since all you need to do is rub 2 braincells together and see that there was no victim in that situation. The round is over.

So do you agree or do you disagree? Which one is it?

 

This shouldn't be punishable unless you fail to kill the last innocent. The round will end endyway.

 

how about u just warn, toxic ass losers

 

Added a poll.

Don't read this, go vote!

 

cmon ive already read it

 

Why does it need to be a popularity thing when it's been explained a million times why it's a dumb thing to punish ppl for?

 

People using "if you missed then what" as a reason, so what? if he hadn't been successful and killed himself/his t buddy but the inno somehow survived, yes its slayable, but if the round is over by this move, i see no point in a slay? seems stupid, as the round is over. so it really didnt matter. It literally only matters if it goes wrong, in which case yes, the jihadist would take responsibility...

I don't see why you'd be slain for it .-.

 

So I don't really have a good answer to that question, maybe someone else does. What Siddo suggested could be a result: people slacking off when they need to warn for explosives.

Let's say you're a detective and you shoot an innocent right when the round starts, but heal him up and it doesn't affect the round at all. Similar concept, but it's still RDM. I don't like that mods should have to slay for that, but that's the way Highwon wrote the rules. This change would be inconsistent, which is why I don't see it happening. I wouldn't really be against it though.

 

^
but this IS different, by damaging them you're leaving them vunerable for precious seconds as they panic to get their health back. The traitors could take advantage of that fact and kill them in the time before they heal, or it could cause mass RDM and confusion for the players around.
so it does effect the round. Even if for a short while, however jihading to end a round literally effects nothing.

 

Plus, it makes the detective buy a health station instead of something that could keep them alive better.

 

Honestly I think allowing people to jihad without warning because it's the last innocent drastically reduces the amount of fun traitors can have with the last kill, because honestly if there's like 4+ traitors and 1 innocent, it is not about killing the innocent anymore, but about doing it in a entertaining way, so having you T buddy come an kill both you and the innocent all of the sudden (specially because they could have had that jihad since the round started) is going to be fairly annoying.

So, because for me it would be annoying and because it seems pretty risk, I don't want it to change. Admin discretion, sure, changing the rules, no. -1

Now the semantics of saying that "as long as the round ends it's fine", even if the OP only intended it for the situation they said (of jihading the last innocent), so maybe these 3 questions can help:
1) With what things could you do this? Explosive barrels? T-traps? Normal traps? Map hazards? Discombob that throws everyone off the map/to their death? Frags? Jihads?
2) Does it apply to innocents killing the other last living players with a frag or other things in question 1 (things that kills them all at once)? And if yes, can a detective do that if their radar shows only 2 left?
3) How many players left on the enemy team before you're alowed to do this? Is it just the one last innocent, or can it be more?

 

So there's a potential for it to affect the round. That's what I said in my original post. Compare these two:

1) You shoot someone and heal them, nothing happens. 2) You shoot someone, but before you heal them the traitors take advantage of that and kill them.

1) You jihad without warning and kill your T buddy and also the innocent right at the end of the round, round is ended successfully. 2) You jihad without warning, but it goes wrong and you end up killing your T buddy instead.

But the issue is in the first example, both things would lead to a slay. Whereas in the second, it wouldn't be RDM except in the last scenario. It's inconsistent.

 

You can't base somethoing on "if the round is won"