Rule Change: C4/Tripmine Callouts & Proximity (Edit 5/16/17)

We literally added an entire fucking sub-menu to the F1 menu for binding. So thats weak.

 

Aye but you'd think you'd actually consult the people who play the servers before making a decision.

It was a rough estimate, obviously. But you nor your admins are in every round either, and this rule change has proved once again the incompetence.

 

Yes, this is exactly the same with tripwires right now? If Player A calls out tripwire, then 15 seconds later Player C sees Player B walks past a tripwire Player C can kill them. This is still like in the rules which is exactly why:

:we have admin discretion for people who loophole these rules.

If this is your reasoning for C4s then why didnt you make it consistent for all traitor equipment and make it legal to walk past any traitor equipment without calling it out? I dont see single reasoning that is unique to C4s. For bindings thing, as far as I am aware you can make custom bindings for people in settings, like you have done for the time etc.

 

@Opalium please explain yourself and this disgusting quote.

Oh its fine, i'd rather look like an ass and actually challenge stupidity that roll over and play sheep like most other people.

 

C4 is unique in the fact it has a rather large blast radius in comparison to the other pieces of equipment you listed. The fact a player may be put into a "call it out and die to the explosion, or not call it out and die because of player acting on a traitorous act" is one of the reasonings behind this, as stated before.

 

I've gotten killed probably dozens of times for not calling out C4 because I wanted to do my job stealthily- usually it's even when I'm in the process of disarming/destroying it. I don't have the best aim/reaction time in the game, so I rely on subterfuge, even as an inno, to get my job done. This means catching Ts unawares (and you can ask a lot of people how often I startle them because of this); because the actions I take are stealthy and semi-traitorous, I get shot all the time by innos who aren't using their brains.

So I guess, according to the language of this thread, this ruling "caters to my play style."

 

Something I've come up with while thinking about this, someone could find a c4 at ~30 seconds. they run away, then call it out. thats probably a bit more realistic, but when you consider how I would want people to play the game, itd be having them call it out, then run away, so now im conflicted on the matter :/

 

Situations of loop holing that are no longer possible due to this rule change
by Pacifist

Spoiler: Part I

The yellow dots represent players (be it any role other than detective) and the blue dot represents a detective. The Green dot represents a c4, and in this case a detective has planted it for 10 minutes. The detective (because of the old ruling) can now blast any person who enters the room if they don't immediately call out the 10 minute C4. The circle will always represent the radius of the C4 and is not to scale, rather just a figurative outline.

Spoiler: Part II

Yellow dots represent players, the green dot represnts a C4 and the blue dot represents an attacking player (be it detective or innocent). There is a C4 in a T room, that the player at position 1 has called out. Hearing this call out, the players at position 3 try to escape, but they never called out the c4 so the attacking player kills all 3 of them. Technically, this is ok because the rule specifies that being close enough to a c4 is grounds for kos if you don't call it out. Why call out a C4 when someone else already has?

Spoiler: Part III

Dots mean the same as the last two. Player moves toward a C4 that only has about 3 seconds left on it in the hopes he can defuse it. he is not thinking about calling out hte C4 because of course he wants only to defuse it. The player in blue notices this and shoots him as he mistakenly thinks that the player in yellow planted the c4, despite not having any visual or auditory of proof of this. Now the attacking player kills the player in yellow and they both die.

Spoiler: Conclusion

Look, I know that some of you are upset with the rule changing because it is that, a change. Something that you could kill for is no longer allowed and that can be frustrated if you are always playing in a style that requires you to always have an upper hand on the person you want to kill. Whether that be by choice or just because you are that way. I know, it sucks that now you have to have real proof that someone planted a C4, but think about the poor traitors who get a second chance now. Think about the players that no longer have to be thrown into situations where they either die by a C4 or die by a player, just because of an unlucky position. It's not a dumb rule change, there are reasons for it.

At the end of the day, it's a game guys. Your entire way of playing is not going to be shattered I assure you.

​

 

situation 1, this would already be an easy ban with deathscene, new rule barely / not at all changes it

situation 2, id say if you cant see the c4 you cant be kosd by it at all, current or old ruling.

situation 3, time remaining on the c4 shown in deathscene would have shown that the yellow dot being killed was rdm as they had no chance

 

so wait i cant kill people for helping out traitors by not calling out c4 or whats happening here?

 

i know ttt is full of kids but sure aren't we all able to type the two letters "c4"
if you get whiny because you cant deal with the misunderstanding that you got shot for not calling it out then you're a literal child
i love loopholing

 

Never really had to deal with a whole lot of people passing C4's as many a C4 has been planted in the T-rooms..

That said, from my messy brain's perspective, a flat-out pardon of any involvement with C4 save for directly arming/dropping it seems silly.
Case in point: Xpro's video.
Given the player's actions, it was essentially certain that he was a traitor from a logical perspective, yet due to the change in ruling, the kill would be invalid.

I won't argue that vicinity to C4 without calling it out should be traitorous, a player may be attempting to disarm it if they're near it and looking at it. Which is something I've been killed for - despite warning both for presence of C4, location thereof, and my intents to disarm it.

That said, I disagree with the notion that passing/leaving armed C4 should not be counted as traitorous for any reason.
I'd liken it to unidentified bodies. Passing them is a traitorous act. Identifying and moving to identify them is not.
In other words, leaving C4 without warning is traitorous, as you have failed to 'identify' it and make innocents aware. Moving to defuse should not be traitorous.

And this is coming from a text-only player with no binds set for grenades nor C4 callouts. I do it all by hand 'cause I'm lazy and dumb

Additionally, I find the argument, that players are put in an unfair situation where they die to warn or get killed for not warning, unreasonable. In theory, yes, but there are a great many ways you can get yourself killed through both action and inaction in TTT. And you don't always get a whole lot of time to make the decision (and act upon it) between the two.

As for the loopholing aspect, sure, this change, due to the fact that it is narrowing the scope of traitorous acts, will prevent some scenarios. But.. Were there really enough cases of loopholing via C4 to warrant a change of rules? Honest question, 'cause I don't know.

 

Can we have Mao specific rule added:
Call outs on clue are mandatory.

 

Also why not make new radio chats? For those who don't have mics and run before warning?

 

Core edit to TTT that has to be updated every time gmod updates.

 

The rule is fine the way it is, and that the ideology behind behind all rules (not that I know if it's true, but it's what I believe) is this: what do we expect from an average TTT player?
What we expect of the average player is their knowledge limited to basic TTT items, which includes simple mechanics of a C4: it can be defused, and it can be ran away from.

• Argument 1: A player may have ample time to call out a C4, as they were standing near it, so he/she should be considered traitorous.

One problem with this is that we shouldn't expect the average player to take the time and use their keyboard or their microphone to communicate in a first person shooter.
The nature of the game is fast-paced. If someone takes the time to type even something as simple as "C4", their heads can be blown off in an instant, or they won't be able to run away in time.
Why should someone be punished just because they could not call out the C4, but rather just want to save themselves from getting blasted?

Sure, we can add a ruling that says if there is a C4 with 30+ seconds left and a player runs away from it without calling it out, then that would be traitorous, but this adds gray area for loopholing.
If we base a ruling on time, we have to rely on the senses on the average player in which they are able to see the timer.
The timer cannot be clearly seen past around 225 units, and if we kill someone for being that far away while not calling it out, the verdict can be a blur and ambiguous for why that player was killed, since that player may not have known the exact time of the C4.
Also, the whole C4 timer can be completely obscured if you plant it in a deep corner, or if someone drops it upside-down and arms it, so a ruling on timer would be complicated there.

Referring to Xpro's video, that would just be considered high suspicion now, and it's possible (even at the slimmest chance) that he could've just been clueless on whether not to defuse it or run away from it as an innocent. Not saying that I wouldn't kill him in the same shoes of Xpro's (because I actually would,) but we have to consider that many of the experienced players here have the game-sense to tell whether a person is a traitor or not, despite us not witnessing them committing any traitorous acts. Unfortunately, this new ruling is now just part of this game-sense we have, and does not cater to the ruling we are used to, which allowed for more grounds for us to kill upon. It's no wonder why we have this much disagreement with the more experiences players, that we have to restrain ourselves from killing someone who is obviously a traitor, but only committing suspicious acts.

• Argument 2: Why doesn't the same ruling apply to people who ignore tripmines or unid bodies?

This brings me back to my first counter-argument, of what we should expect of an average player.

When it comes to unid bodies, a player can immediately help the innocents by just identifying the body, letting others know that this guy is dead, and that the corpse possess information that possibly leads to a traitor. We should expect that player to know how to ID bodies, as it is the third item on the list of traitorous acts: Not identifying bodies. Pressing E is simple, and refusing to do gives also immediate implication that you are trying to hinder the innocents by refusing such useful information. This information can be reached without needing to communicate through microphone or text.

For tripmines, a player can immediately help the innocents by shooting at the tripmine, so that your innocent teammates won't die to it. When you ignore the tripmine by running away from it, you are not doing a favor to yourself, nor are you doing a favor to your team. In this case, it would be your fault if you were not aware of the tripmine, as there is no excuse to why you would ignore it other than letting others have the chance to die to it or figure it out themselves. The average player shouldn't need to call out a tripmine if they can simply shoot it off.

On the other hand, running away from C4s without calling it out shouldn't be traitorous. We need to consider that defusing a C4 can also risk a consequence of blowing yourself up and your innocent teammates up. We should allow in this case then for players to run away from a C4 without calling it out, for they may need all the time to run away from it risk-free. It is a courtesy to let other players know about the C4, sure, but it obviously risks your life in the process, and you shouldn't be required to do so in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, I don't agree 100% with this ruling, but I feel like it's the best we got, considering that this leaves no possible room for loopholing. All the rules aren't perfect; they aren't the commandments that we should all follow mindlessly, and with that, I'm hoping that the upper administration is still actively looking out for flaws, and even still considering possible improvements for this new rule and other rules alike.

The thing about C4 mechanics is weird to begin with in a place like TTT. I wouldn't blame the people who are trying their best to balance the gameplay between innocents and traitors involving the C4, it can get complicated really fast.

I would also like to suggest something on top of my arguments: adding different and brief animations when a person decides to arm or defuse a C4. This would help innocents identify who is actually doing one or the other, as sometimes (as mentioned earlier) the timer can be obscured completely due to map layout, position of the C4, or just being behind someone in front of the C4. This is also considering that sound from the C4 isn't always heard, as players can be too loud on their mics, or constant gunfire/random SFX can just block out the beeping.

tl;dr The rule isn't perfect, and the C4 in TTT is weird in the first place, but I agree on why the change was made: that we expect basic knowledge from your average TTT player, excluding their needs to communicate through microphone/text.

 

U guys keep bringing up "the silent majority" and how much they love this new rule, but where are you guys getting this from? Like I said before I've yet to see a player complain about getting killed for ignoring C4 and I see no grounds to assume that the majority of players think killing for ignoring C4 is unfair.