New TTT Changelog Association

[Wreck]

I feel like the new rule that states that we can no longer kill traitors off association is dumb. This rule was fine where it was. Killing players off association is basically common sense knowing that the player that wasn't shooting at the traitor right next to them is also a T. Imagine players actually following this rule and they get into a situation where the traitor and an innocent starts shooting at each other. The traitor's buddy then comes up from behind and knows that he is shooting an innocent, so he decides to watch his buddies back. The innocent kills the traitor, knowing that the person right behind him, that was not shooting at him, is a traitor. But guess what? The new rule tells you not to kill that player. And if for some reason that traitor decides not to kill that innocent and just strolls away, the innocent will just have this thought knowing that he is a traitor. This rule doesn't make any sense, can the higher ups at least tell us why they have decided to remove this?

[Dominic]

There is no reason I should die for not shooting at a traitor, because I didn't do anything wrong. Not taking action shouldn't incriminate you, because chances are I'm not taking action because I don't know who to take action against. When two people are shooting at each other, I don't shoot at either one of them because I don't know who the traitor is. Then, if the innocent kills the traitor, he can gun me down too because I didn't shoot at the traitor?

 

Additionally, the whole thing about the traitor not shooting at you making you a traitor too is bullshit. Again, if a T doesn't shoot at me, I haven't done anything wrong and shouldn't be killed. Just because a T might have not seen me or purposely doesn't focus on me doesn't make me a T by "association".

 

You should be killing people by figuring out that they did something that would make them a traitor. In both of these situations, I'm not doing anything and therefore should not be killed, imo.

[Tyymunk]

Caution brought up a situation in the staff meeting where this rule makes absolutely no sense:

 

Basically if player A (innocent) and player B (traitor) are shooting at each other and player C (innocent) walks in. Player A (innocent) kills player B (traitor) and finds out he’s a traitor. Player A (innocent) now believes player C (innocent) is a traitor off association since he didn’t shoot at player B (dead traitor).

 

The rule is highly flawed and should’ve been questioned and removed a while ago. Not in favor of bringing it back since it can be easily abused.

[roux]

The rule change is, in one hand, fairly related with the AFK case. While that was not a central point of the argumentation, we were not allowed to kill AFKs under ANY circumstances, even with 4-5 unid'd bodies next to the player. On the other hand, it also aligns with our other rules in terms of consistency and fairness.

 

Dominic makes a fair point; do you deserve to be killed because you failed to shoot one of two players that engaged in a showdown, in which you risk not aligning with the right party, at random? In some occasion, I also understand your concerns because the term "association" is, and remains, vague in itself. However, the impact such a change could have on the core gameplay is estimated to be minimal, while also reducing a fair amount of sketchy scenarios for our admins to deal with.

 

In the event this change was miscalculated and destroyed the TTT dynamic, I would not doubt a revert in course. And keep in mind, that while the sentiment isn't popular, not all changes should be run through the playerbase, in every gamemode out there.

[Trazz]

I am perfectly fine with the association rule change. Situations said by @Tyymunk do occur a lot and if I remember that to kill off of association you had to be 100% certain like the KOS Off of Sound rule. Making it where you cannot kill someone off of association now will help eliminate misread situations that lead to an accidental rdm.

[Gentoo]

I honestly confused on how this has caused confusion in the past. Example: If you happen to walk into a hallway, and see 2 Traitors. One of them kills an Innocent, and they both run away. Are you saying the one dude who killed him is the ONLY one KOS'able? It's so obvious that they are BOTH traitors... If the traitor doesn't kill the other dude, I think we know why...

 

I think this example from @Wreck helps paint the picture pretty well. From the start, there are many situations like this that are very straightforward. Expanding further from here, there are cases that are less concrete but still perfectly logical (ie someone not shooting or being shot by someone who is KOS and/or later confirmed to be a T). It's seems that the defense for removing this rule is just pointing out situations where the logic could be a bit hazy without taking into account just how many situations would have concrete or even justifiable logic - why the rule was implemented in the first place. It seems that lax admining and open interpretation by players has allowed "association" to be defined in a way that you aren't comfortable with, and instead of redefining it, you just straight up removed it. I strongly feel that the team should work from the ground up when approaching issues and seek to better understand the problem at hand. Jumping to drastic changes like this does not seem like the proper answer, and is likely reason for so much of the immediate backlash. I don't want to make it sound like you guys haven't thought through these changes before implementing them, but opening the doors to discussion first would allow you to see differing viewpoints on issues and see potential flaws in otherwise seemingly sound logic.

[Zia]

This change has been reverted, thank you for everyone who participated in the discussion.

 

Changelog here - https://www.steam-gamers.net/forum/showthread.php?t=63540&page=9&p=1015938#post1015938