PDA

View Full Version : TK Control



Demented
24th May 2007, 00:06
This is probably more of an idea for a server plug-in than an actual feature, but it had promise.

Vote-Nerf
Voting system, a la vote-kick or vote-ban. When a player is vote-nerfed, that player cannot injure teammates. That player also suffers some other penalty (anti-bunnyhopping feature?), as discouragement.

Done.
Unlike vote-kicks or vote-bans, this is actually a boon(!) to a player, since he can now spray wildly without fear of hitting anyone. Except the hidden, that is. It also renders a TKer impotent. Then there's that other penalty, to stop players from just vote-nerfing eachother and taking away friendly fire.

'Course, I suppose it's not nearly so satisfying as banning the sucker.

VoiceOfDecember
24th May 2007, 04:57
I like it. The only thing for me, personally, is sometimes as the hidden I get behind other confused IRIS members as cover, esp if a shottie has spotted me and let them demolish their team mates in the process of pot shotting me.

Maybe have mirror damage? First whatever ammount dmg is done to a teammate, any damage after the set ammount results in immunity to that player and shooter recieves mirror damage. Immunity lasts only so long. This way if there are a few players that wanna kill the tker, they can do it without dieing as 2 people could exceed the ff damage cap and kill him while him alone can only wound people. TK'ers foiled.

eg. Tk'er shoots me for 50dmg, I become immune, he continues and recieves a further 15dmg because he keeps on shooting as hes reached his limit. I shoot him for 45dmg and 1 other teammate shoots him for remaining 40dmg. Hes dead. I'm on 50hp. If he Tw's a few guys thats just gonna draw attention and hes dead quick smart.

Just off the top of my head though :p

starstriker1
24th May 2007, 05:10
This is basically a vote to give the player a BONUS, not punishment for teamkilling. Without fear of dealing damage, they can spray into a crowd of IRIS and kill the hidden...

-SM-SUCKER
24th May 2007, 08:40
Nice idea, but it has only benefits for the IRIS. The Hidden wouldn't gain anything. And playing without friendly fire is a great disadvatage for the Hidden. And like VoiceOfDecember said, you would lose the ability to provoke teamkills ;)

Demented
24th May 2007, 09:47
Yes, it'd take the form of a bonus. I was thinking it would need a counter-penalty to discourage players from voting themselves a bonus. However, my own ideas were/are quite ineffective...
They were:

Reduced weighting; pointless at best.
Can't jump; more irritating than discouraging.
Reduced speed; almost as irritating, but not as crippling.
Does half damage; intriguing, but 303s are still a menace.


Changing the behavior, instead of just stopping friendly fire, is also a possibility. Especially if it's more of a penalty and stops both TKing and griefing in its tracks. Of course, while that might be better, the idea of rendering a TKer 'impotent' is just sweet, sweet justice.


@VoD
That would help with those times when you whirl around and accidentally (more or less: the trigger didn't pull itself) smack your teammate in the face with a fist full of buckshot. But it doesn't solve teamwounders or packs of teamkillers, and the retal-TKing....
Come to think of it, straight-jacketing a player and then TKing him every round is just MEAN.

Doomsiren
24th May 2007, 12:20
why not give a warning? when he tked a few people already he will get 3 warnings when he shoots someone he will get 1 warning when he shoots someone another 2 times in the same round he will die automaticly. when he kills someone he is also killed

Daedalus
24th May 2007, 13:34
Instead of giving him friendlyfire 0, it should be two.

It should be an augmented form of friendlyfire as well. For each point of team damage, the attacker gets two. This way it can't be abused.

-SM-SUCKER
24th May 2007, 13:35
That's why friendlyfire 2 (mirror damage) is so tempting. The problem here is just that it messes up the weighting system because your negative weight gets doubled by inflicting damage to the person you shoot AND yourself, counting as 2 persons shot. And of course mirror damage is a HUGE benefit for the Hidden.
I prefer the admin version: Permban for deliberate teamwounding.

Ging
24th May 2007, 14:14
The problem here is just that it messes up the weighting system because your negative weight gets doubled by inflicting damage to the person you shoot AND yourself, counting as 2 persons shot.

How's that a problem?

That's the intended result of friendly fire 2.

Paegus
24th May 2007, 17:49
seriously. mp_friendlyfire 2 = :thumbsup:

i mean the only thing worse than getting TW/Ked is having the bastard who shot you up get hidden the next round...

sure it's annoying as hell for players who really didn't mean to but it's not hard to take your licks and just get over it.

Isolation
24th May 2007, 21:29
<_<
>_>

You could always make a plugin that strips the primary and then secondary (after continued tw/tk) weapons from the perp...

;)

There's just not enough admins to deal with them, or players that will bother reporting them.

Demented
24th May 2007, 22:07
Alright then, mirror damage sounds brilliant.
I figured it'd be a permanent thing, as a ban, but something that isn't nearly as abusable with a vote command, since it won't interrupt normal play very much. I'd put the mirror damage at 1.5x instead of 2x, but that's just tweaking the final details.

The point (for those who missed it) was to allow players to stop a TKer without needing Admin intervention or retaliatory TKing, and without the feature being as abusable as, say, votekick. That is, it won't interrupt normal play for a decent player.
(If it doubles as a way to discourage players from spraying and praying, that's good too.)

So, basic implementation? Commands?
The vote command is obvious...

-SM-SUCKER
24th May 2007, 22:19
Commands?
sv_friendlyfire 2 :)

Demented
24th May 2007, 22:33
Cute.
But you don't earn a cookie.

Paegus
24th May 2007, 23:18
that's wrong anyway... it's mp_friendlyfire 2

/gets co... jaffa cake!

Zabiela
25th May 2007, 01:52
So, basic implementation? Commands?
The vote command is obvious...

I say let players be able to vote a person into mp_friendlyfire 2, from a default server setting of 1, if its possible to have different settings of that per client...

Mayhem
25th May 2007, 07:26
I say let players be able to vote a person into mp_friendlyfire 2, from a default server setting of 1, if its possible to have different settings of that per client...

How many people even care to vote? Unless there are people with actual brains and regulars.

E: We'd just have another 'voteban' 'votekick' spam.

Doomsiren
25th May 2007, 07:47
how about this: he gets some additional warnings for shooting people or killing tem. when he got hes 3e warning and he shoots someone from hes team again he loses hes weapon and cannot use it anymore untill the next round. he will keep hes pistol but when he shoots someone with that he will lose the pistol to. leaving him with no weapons until the next round

Isolation
25th May 2007, 08:00
how about this: he gets some additional warnings for shooting people or killing tem. when he got hes 3e warning and he shoots someone from hes team again he loses hes weapon and cannot use it anymore untill the next round. he will keep hes pistol but when he shoots someone with that he will lose the pistol to. leaving him with no weapons until the next round

Nice way to sum up the exact concept I came up with ages ago (and referred to at the top of this page) ;)

Doomsiren
25th May 2007, 08:08
owh <.< ugh i will add this to catagorie: i should have read all the posts in this topic.

Demented
25th May 2007, 20:53
Hah. Disarming would actually be a fairly realistic option, too. A remote control gun lock device could disable an IRIS member's gun with the flick of a switch.

Of course, it's only worth considering now that two people (Iso&Doomsiren) have proposed the idea. Law of discussion. =P

Come up with an exact implementation... Key principles would be that it works automatically, and that a player's guns automatically stop working when fired at teammates. Go go go!


How many people even care to vote? Unless there are people with actual brains and regulars.

E: We'd just have another 'voteban' 'votekick' spam.

Too true. Most people don't even touch voting unless there's a UI involved. Though, I've only really seen that in large games, where you need to convince 10-15 people to vote in one direction... I've never seen voting in a game where the maximum was 9 players.

Isolation
25th May 2007, 22:44
Come up with an exact implementation... Key principles would be that it works automatically, and that a player's guns automatically stop working when fired at teammates. Go go go!

Already did in the thread I made some time ago. It involved using the already in-game weighting system to determine how much TW/TK is being done, and then stripping the weapon if X amount is reached. I also allowed for a way to earn weapons back too, by laying off TW and doing X amount of damage on 617 (which would be a relatively high number, making it hard to actually get the weapon back). Continued TW/TK would lead to the pistol being stripped, leaving an offender completely unarmed for the remainder of the map.

Naib
25th May 2007, 23:19
How about taking away ammo for the amount of damage they do to a team member? Make it so the clip will run out before they can kill someone that starts with full health. Not sure how that would work with the shotgun however

Paegus
26th May 2007, 00:20
so something like rounds_docked = (damage_dealt*max_rounds_per_mag)/target_health_after_hit which leaves the TWer empty in 3 close range shots from the fn2k. the shotgun is a problem and frankly it's just too contrived and artificial for my tastes.


stripping the primary gun after a certain amount would be more effective and far less complicated. i can imagine my teammates depriving me of my gun far more readily than magically disappearing bullets.

Isolation
26th May 2007, 01:35
Well, what I had in mind would have absolutely no player interaction whatsoever. It'd all be "behind the scenes" with a plugin or something else that tracks wounding/killing by just using the weighting, and if the target amount of damage is reached, the plugin takes appropriate action. No chance for abuse as far as I can see.

Paegus
26th May 2007, 09:17
so it just tracks weighting penalties incurred from team attacks? would it store cross-round? wouldn't be very effective if it didn't

but there's all kinds of extra things you could pile on though. if too much of the victim's health is lost to a given attacker that and the victim dies as a result of those attacks a portion of the the victim's death penalty to transfer to the killer. say if attacker does 100 damage then they get the full -20 in addition to their -100 for the damage they did. if they only did 75 damage but still killed him then they get -75 from the damage and -15 from the kill.

or perhaps more simply as soon as you've done enough team damage to have killed a team mate (who isn't you? you're hurting the team's overall chances of winning by hurting yourself so leave it up to the coder or better yet a cvar) you automatically forfeit hidden the next round that they would have been picked on. not just 'the next round' but possibly 5 rounds down the line if that's how long it takes them to get picked (on random servers for instance) so not only do you you not get hidden right after TW spreeing but it lays in wait and bites when you pass by. it would also need to track across rounds to be really effective i think. but that'll stop 1 shot accidentals from killing your chances but it could still be abused if the griefer waits until they see you low on health and then shots you. though that's far less common.

Isolation
26th May 2007, 22:04
so it just tracks weighting penalties incurred from team attacks? would it store cross-round? wouldn't be very effective if it didn't

I think I may have made a point about that in the original thread... I can't recall. If I did not, it would make sense to make it carry over obviously.

Merciless
7th June 2007, 19:14
if it was based on weighting what about non-weighted servers?

p.s. hi dudes.