Conjoint Gaming [Game On]
CG Gaming Section => GarrysMod => Topic started by: ๖ۣۜNexus on July 18, 2013, 01:40:58 PM
-
Some people have said that to say that oneself is proven should be killable IF they didn't to anything to become proven.
So here is a place for discussion concerning this if it should becoming a killable action.
My personal opinion is that it should be killable under the cirumstances in which it's blatant that the person claiming proven has done nothing at all to become proven. EX: Someone saying that they killed a traitor when evidence shows that they didn't.
But it shouldn't be killable if the person has done an action where he/she thinks made themself proven but actually didn't. EX: If someone echos a previous call-out which gets a t discovered.
-
I agree, I've actually somewhat enforced this before. Blatant false proving is a pretty obvious traitorous action.
-
I agree although any wording of this rule would be tricky due to that second part.
-
Yes I totally agree
However, I think this can cause some RDM..
"I'm proven!" "No you're not kos _____!" when he actually is..
-
Ehhh.... I think adding in this would be kinda tricky. I'm thinking more of, What if they believe they themself *are* proven? i.e. Was shooting a traitor, did not get the kill, so it doesn't show up that they hit/shot the traitor.
-
As far as I'm concerned, enforcing this would ruin the entire point of TTT.
Its the Traitor's objective to kill the innocent by any means. That can also be by placing false information. TTT isn't a fair game at all to begin with, but that's why people play it!
I believe the problem you're looking for is that many players take what another says (whether true or false) without looking out for any other obvious
signs of deceit.
It comes down to the other players to catch them when they slip up.
How else do you expect the traitors to win, tell everyone the truth?
-
yeah the roles of traitor is liying if it's became killable to lie .... there's no point to play anymore you can suspect him but this should not be killable at all
-
Saying that you are proven innocent is different than saying that you are innocent.
-
As far as I'm concerned, enforcing this would ruin the entire point of TTT.
Its the Traitor's objective to kill the innocent by any means. That can also be by placing false information. TTT isn't a fair game at all to begin with, but that's why people play it!
I believe the problem you're looking for is that many players take what another says (whether true or false) without looking out for any other obvious
signs of deceit.
It comes down to the other players to catch them when they slip up.
How else do you expect the traitors to win, tell everyone the truth?
yes, yes YES this so much pretty much what I was gonna come in here and post.
-
The only problem I can see is if Inno A fights with the traitor while inno B try's sniping from a distance. Inno A does not notice the sniper shots because he is in the middle of the battle. Inno A kills the traitor but Inno B also claims they are proven. Inno A calls a kos on Inno B because he knows he was the one that killed him causing RDM
-
I don't know about making this an official rule... I forsee a lot of misunderstandings, and therefore a lot of RDM. Unless someone comes up with some masterful wording, I suggest waiting on this.
-
As far as I'm concerned, enforcing this would ruin the entire point of TTT.
Its the Traitor's objective to kill the innocent by any means. That can also be by placing false information. TTT isn't a fair game at all to begin with, but that's why people play it!
I believe the problem you're looking for is that many players take what another says (whether true or false) without looking out for any other obvious
signs of deceit.
It comes down to the other players to catch them when they slip up.
How else do you expect the traitors to win, tell everyone the truth?
How would it ruin the entire point of ttt. Traitor calls himself proven by "killing" a Traitor you know they didn't kill. So what, you just stair at them till they kill you? You should be able to kill them for a false claim on being proven, if the T is caught they need to get better at lying. What this does is Award players who actually have perception. It makes the Traitors just be a little smarter about who they claim proven on and for what actions. Yes it can cause problems due to the second thing added but if you word it correctly there will be no problem in regard to rdm.
-
Hold up, I'm gonna rain logic on you:
This should be SUSPICIOUS. Why?
It doesn't prove they are a traitor. It does make them more likely to be a traitor but it is not the same as saying "I'm a traitor." Also if multiple people are shooting the same guy if they have the same weapon a justifed inno on inno DM may occur, without any actual proof.
It will probably kill more inno's than traitors if this is made into a rule. Who is this actually going to effect, think about it!
-
As far as I'm concerned, enforcing this would ruin the entire point of TTT.
Its the Traitor's objective to kill the innocent by any means. That can also be by placing false information. TTT isn't a fair game at all to begin with, but that's why people play it!
I believe the problem you're looking for is that many players take what another says (whether true or false) without looking out for any other obvious
signs of deceit.
It comes down to the other players to catch them when they slip up.
How else do you expect the traitors to win, tell everyone the truth?
How would it ruin the entire point of ttt. Traitor calls himself proven by "killing" a Traitor you know they didn't kill. So what, you just stair at them till they kill you? You should be able to kill them for a false claim on being proven, if the T is caught they need to get better at lying. What this does is Award players who actually have perception. It makes the Traitors just be a little smarter about who they claim proven on and for what actions. Yes it can cause problems due to the second thing added but if you word it correctly there will be no problem in regard to rdm.
If you think someone is lying about being proven you call them out on it so people know they are lying and nothing has changed. Being able to kill someone because you THINK they're lying is completely against the way TTT is played. You are meant to have distrust for anything people tell you, you don't just take their word for it the same way you don't shoot them in the face because you don't believe them. It doesn't award people who have perception, it awards those that have a good hunch.
tldr, just because someone says they are proven doesn't mean you have to believe them.
-
I haven't played in years but it seems this is getting to be quite teh debate, so throwing my opinion in. This should be SUSPICIOUS behavior, not something that is KOS.
Actions, as they say, speak louder than words, I don't think claiming to be proven should be KOS
edit: pretty much what Kingtrue and Towersheep already said.
-
I don't know about making this an official rule... I forsee a lot of misunderstandings, and therefore a lot of RDM. Unless someone comes up with some masterful wording, I suggest waiting on this.
I agree on this, it would be an easily exploitable rule and would make it extremely easy to RDM.
-
Being able to kill someone because you THINK they're lying is completely against the way TTT is played. You are meant to have distrust for anything people tell you, you don't just take their word for it the same way you don't shoot them in the face because you don't believe them. It doesn't award people who have perception, it awards those that have a good hunch.
I said you KNOW they are not proven not THINK, big difference.
-
Being able to kill someone because you THINK they're lying is completely against the way TTT is played. You are meant to have distrust for anything people tell you, you don't just take their word for it the same way you don't shoot them in the face because you don't believe them. It doesn't award people who have perception, it awards those that have a good hunch.
I said you KNOW they are not proven not THINK, big difference.
When can you ever be 100% sure someone is lying about being proven? They could've attacked them before hand, got shot by them or could've been across the map sniping. Also if someone does RDM someone because they "KNEW" they weren't proven how can you prove that killing them wasn't justified or vice versa?
I know a good amount of Sherlock Holmes on the TTT server that will use this rule to call out anyone who says they're proven just because THEY didn't see them help kill the Traitor. Having this as a rule wouldn't solve any issues, it would just create them.
-
When can you ever be 100% sure someone is lying about being proven? They could've attacked them before hand, got shot by them or could've been across the map sniping. Also if someone does RDM someone because they "KNEW" they weren't proven how can you prove that killing them wasn't justified or vice versa?
-
When can you ever be 100% sure someone is lying about being proven? They could've attacked them before hand, got shot by them or could've been across the map sniping. Also if someone does RDM someone because they "KNEW" they weren't proven how can you prove that killing them wasn't justified or vice versa?
Round starts on Office. 2 people next to each other, one a traitor the other innocent. The Traitor whips out a knife and the inno deagles him in the face. The inno claims to be proven due to killing him, another traitor claims he shot at him too, the inno knows this is false since he personally took down the traitor on his own.
I have seen this happen, hell it just happened to scoobs, he whipped out his knife and I shot him straight in the face.
Edit: Leet why do you do that?
-
I think this should not be changed it ruins the point of TTT short and simple. smug
-
Here's an example:
- T attempts to kill inno, fails.
- Inno kills T
- T kills Inno, IDs both bodies and calls themself "proven"
This happened to me today and I can't remember if I was found out during this round, but I did get one free kill and at least a few people "knowing" I was proven. But in situations like this, I think that DNA and other evidence could lead to the false proven being found out.
Basically, a false proven should, in my opinion, only be suspicious because without other evidence, I agree with the previous posts - RDM, random call outs, and other problems would ensue with false provens being killable. There are enough smart people on the server to look past false provens.
-
It sounds like pretty much everyone agrees.
-
Here's an example:
- T attempts to kill inno, fails.
- Inno kills T
- T kills Inno, IDs both bodies and calls themself "proven"
I do that all the time trollface
-
Here's an example:
- T attempts to kill inno, fails.
- Inno kills T
- T kills Inno, IDs both bodies and calls themself "proven"
I do that all the time trollface
trollface
I try to but it doesn't happen to me that often for reasons of I suck at half my T rounds