Change dumb RDM rule

as long as round ends it's ok to kill someone you werent meant to??

tl;dr

 

Then you shouldn't also base something off "it could've happened"

 

Any rebuttal against the change is just a bunch of 'What if?'s and doesn't really help in the discussion.

Any time other than around the end of a round is not important, and current rules should still apply, a T fails to warn and kills a T Buddy will get slain, simple as that. What is being discussed is the very moment that the round ends. A detective damaging someone on purpose and giving them health is the same matter as two players 'agreeing' to a Crowbar Fight, it's just STILL RDM.

Again, another what if scenario, not all the rules are going to be perfect no matter how they are applied. Someone could take one single shot in my direction with a Glock because they misclick or just having fun, I can see that they are just kidding around, I can acknowledge that they are not a threat whatsoever, even if I witness them get proven, and I can still KILL them for T Baiting me. That's what loopholing is.

What would a T Buddy be robbed of being jihaded alongside the last innocent and the round end right then and there, with or without warning? It's a successful Traitor Win no matter how you put it. If the Innocent were to somehow survive by being a good distance away, duck behind a large prop or wall, or the use of the shield, it's just unforunate that a T buddy died because of it, if the Jihading T didn't warn, he'll get a slay, if he did warn, thats it, he can't be held accountable anymore than the T Buddy being at the wrong place at the wrong time.


So yes, a slight change to rule should be in order.

 

I'm aware that it's a different scenario. The example in my head would be a detective accidentally damaging someone, maybe mistaking them for someone else or seeing a muzzle flash, which does happen. The point is that it's also similar in that they both have the potential to affect the round, and this change would be inconsistent with other rules. We already have enough inconsistencies as it is.

 

To be fair, some people think that the inconsitency this will lead to should be kinda the norm, not the exclusion. Like the detective example, if I reported the detective who accidentally damages me and then gives me health station, imo thats basically toxic gameplay, im ruining his next round because he dealt me damage which in the end did not matter. Im going out of my way to ruin someone elses round for something that in the end didnt matter.
Obviously things are linear to keep the job easier for staff and so that every RDM leads to similar outcome(except admin discretion) but I feel like after we have so many rules and so many unwritten rules, it really does not matter if we have like few more rules that defend people from being slain given specific circumstances like this thread point here.

 

While I'm aware that my feelings don't make a bit of difference on the subject? I'd feel nasty enforcing a slay like this one. As I'm sure Jassa has pointed out somewhere or another, you get a warning when a teammate purchases a jihad. To me, the warning in this scenario seems redundant.

 

You don't have to purchase the jihad only when there is only one innocent left, you could have bought it at the start of the round, or picked up one from the body of one of your fallen T buddies.

 

I guess I'm flip flopping on what I said earlier here, but I wouldn't mind a few inconsistencies. However, something like this, which is preventable by ( if you've already binded ) just pressing one button, seems incredibly lazy. I'm still thinking about this idea, but I don't think it would be worth creating potentially confusing inconsistencies off something that should be easily avoided in the first place.

 

Winks post "Being able to kill a player without a mic for running to safe distance away from a c4 before calling it out did not feel fair at all." main point could had been solved with people making a simple keybind also. (As to highwons points I posted there also)

If we have rule changes because of people being too lazy to make keybinds, I dont see why making 1 more could be worse.

Also if worded correctly, I dont think few extra rules would be confusing at all.

 

I realized my mistake and didn't see the whole thing clearly. This mistake actually help me bring up something else, what if a T warned but did not give his T buddies enough time to act? He could've gotten the innocent but one or more T buddies as well, if I were a new player put into this situation, I would report this. Also another thing, what if the Jihading T warned, but one or more T buddies went out of their way to intentionally get killed by it, barring if the last innocent died as well or not.

It would save time to make the change than to have staff use up time to look back in the logs and determine the time differential between the warning and activating of Jihad. There's going to be players complaining that the Jihading T should get slain despite them winning the round, pretty much less than players complaining about Accidental RDM.

 

If and only if the round ends with that jihad it should be okay to not warn.
If someone uses jihad without warning and that doesn't make the round finish, it should be considered RDM.

So +1

 

Not really sure then, since a change has been made for similar reasons before. I didn't really like the C4 change for the same reasons as well.

I think it would be confusing toward a newer player that two acts, both affecting the round over all, receive different verdicts on whether to or to not slay.

 

I guess I can just see where both of them are coming from but I think the rule should be changed

 

I think the ends justified the means. I'd say it isn't rdm unless the round ends as a direct result of the jihad. If the round does not end than it is rdm if you don't warn.

So warn your jihad just to cover yourself.

 

To people saying "it doesn't matter if they're RDMed at the end of the round":

• Some people like killing each other at postround
• Maybe they wanted the kill on the inno and would've gotten it if they knew you were going to Jihad
• The Jihadist needs to be taught they need to warn, otherwise they may do it again, not at the end of the round

It's simple enough to say just warn for everything that may damage a T buddy. Why complicate it?

 

bind h "say_team jihading" ez solution

 

Why should postround be relevant to gamerules at all?

Why does it matter if someone wants to kill an innocent or not if the innocent dies by the jihad anyway? Jihad is longer than just spraying someone down with a gun, if they had time to kill the other guy before they can also do it while jihad is going off anyway.

Except people who are going to know the jihad exception rule as roundender are already going to know normal jihad rules.

 

Because you're taking away someone's positive experience in the game, regardless of if it's within the main round or not

Points, bragging rights, etc. Just because Ts win doesn't mean everything that the T's did all game was fair or right to each other.
And you can turn a corner and get caught in the middle of a jihad before there is any time to escape or kill the inno. You could also be waiting for the right time to kill the last inno as to not die immediately after you start shooting

That's not true...at all. Sounds more like an assumption than fact

 

Not sure if it's been said already, rate old if it has. The reason it's like this is in case jihader fucks up and doesn't kill the last inno.

 

Literally in the first post, I state that IF I didn't kill the last inno then it would be RDM. But as the round ends, it doesn't matter. Someone shouldn't be slain for what "might have" happened. Same way that you don't slay a false KOSer unless the person they KOSd was actually killed.

Please read the thread before posting.