Can we have stricter rules against friendlying?

[Roboute Guilliman]

Alright, well here's my rant against friendlies.

It's understandable if an entire server wants to friendly. If everyone wants to conga, as in literally, all 24 or all 32 people, fine. That's what people want to do.

However, when as much as 3 people end up friendlying, especially if they're on the same team, this creates a massive imbalance and stacking. A best case scenario means that the team with the friendlies is down by 3. A worst case scenario is that the friendlies are heavies who are giving out sandwiches to the enemy team, pushing the not-stacked team down even further.

The idea of an "extended' period of time is too long. 10 minutes, 5 minutes, hell even two minutes without 2 or 3 people on your team will result in unbalance in a best case scenario, or a curbstomp in a worst one.

My suggestion is this, unless it is setup or Trade/Achievement, friendlying should be banned. Period.

Now I am not suggesting we're banning people on sight for friendlying, give them a warning first, if they don't comply, then move on to bans. But, at the end of the day, we should take care of this issue. When your team is down by two or three useful players, the game because a chore because of the imbalance created.

So... what am I suggesting?

1. Kick friendlies. On sight. Thank you @Antamania for the idea.
2. Reword the rules. Bitching people are annoying, the people who actually read the rules actually have a clue.

 

[Antamania]

To quote myself...

[QUOTE="In my honest opinion you would be doing yourselves a massive favor by simply disabling the love & war taunts for good, because they truly are killing this game stone dead. These idiots will say something like "we're out of the way", well when you're on a map that other people are actually trying to play there's no such thing as "out of the way", because any area is useful. This is a daily occurance on the 32 player servers and it's honestly not 'losing its appeal' or 'dying down'. "Out of the way" is on your own server with a password...there's no reason to do this on a pub server other than to harass people that are genuinely playing the game.

It wouldn't do any good and would get more bitching on the forum than not. If you disable the friendly taunts, they'll just do "sandvich parties" as heavy. There's a large regular base on hightower us+ that just sits in the base and uses the server like a chatroom. If people don't want to play, they will simply not play..no amount of disabling certain taunts is going to change that unfortunately.

 

[KillerZebra]

We don't want people to leave

 

[shoooooooooooooooo]

why cant we just put "no friendlying" in the rules its not even that big a change and it'll get the point across much better then what we have now

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

why cant we just put "no friendlying" in the rules its not even that big a change and it'll get the point across. much better then what we have now

That's half of what I am trying to get at.

Looks like the other half was already in place.

 

[KillerZebra]

But thats not what you said at all. Your suggestion is to re-word a rule not add a new rule.

There is no reason to add it because its already in the rules. We don't see to be specific otherwise people will find more loopholes.

 

[DaivdBaekr]

We have stricter rules for friendlying. We ban for it. It doesn't get much stricter than that.

1. Kick friendlies. On sight. Thank you @Antamania for the idea.

Kicking immediately is an ok compromise between a psay / msay / csay warning and outright banning them on the spot, so that's fine to do.

I lean towards psaying the first person and giving them 30-60 seconds before kicking them if they ignore it. Once the first person is kicked I wait 30-60 seconds more and kick whoever's still doing it. If they come back and start doing it again or there's still people who aren't getting the hint after seeing multiple people getting kicked then I'll use bans.

2. Reword the rules. Bitching people are annoying, the people who actually read the rules actually have a clue.

If they're complaining about it then they either haven't read the rules in the first place, or are playing stupid, or are stupid.

 

[Meowcenary]

I am conflicted about this. I don't feel as if rewording the rule is going to change anything. Half the time when I ask people to stop friendlying they don't even know it's against the rules. You're laboring under the delusion that people actually read the rules before playing.

I think if it's not already a kick instantly...it should be. I don't think a text warning does anything against them, and a kick is harmless enough while getting your point across. So, if it's not already a thing, I'd support an instant kick instead of a warning that they're going to ignore 9/10 times anyway.

I will say that quite a few of the servers are almost unplayable at night because of this, and then they start trying to vote kick you if you kill them, and sometimes it succeeds. All in all it's pretty fucking annoying.

I think a lot of the warnings being ignored is due to admins using warnings that are very easy to miss. /msay is, in my opinion, the only decent warning command because the rest either require them to be reading the chat or last for a very short amount of time and are tucked further away from the middle of their screen.

When I switched to using /msay over the other warning methods people have been complying a lot more from what I've experienced.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

I think a lot of the warnings being ignored is due to admins using warnings that are very easy to miss. /msay is, in my opinion, the only decent warning command because the rest either require them to be reading the chat or last for a very short amount of time and are tucked further away from the middle of their screen.

When I switched to using /msay over the other warning methods people have been complying a lot more from what I've experienced.

I use CSAY. The big words on the screen tend to be difficult to miss.

 

[Meowcenary]

I use CSAY. The big words on the screen tend to be difficult to miss.

csay lasts for a short amount of time which is why I don't like it. When I have used it a lot of the server misses it before they have a chance to read it

 

[san7890]

That seems really, really harsh. If a couple of guys just want to conga around the base, they could do that. However, the fact that they cause an imbalance in teams make a lot of sense. My point is, being friendly is ok, but I do agree that it does create an imbalance.

 

[Chance]

That seems really, really harsh. If a couple of guys just want to conga around the base, they could do that. However, the fact that they cause an imbalance in teams make a lot of sense. My point is, being friendly is ok, but I do agree that it does create an imbalance.

You know what else is harsh? When a friendly gets killed and calls a voteban on the person who killed them. Happens most of the time.

 

[san7890]

You know what else is harsh? When a friendly gets killed and calls a voteban on the person who killed them. Happens most of the time.

I guess you're right. Maybe Skial should have a friendly server (not idle) where we can't kill and we can just use taunts.

 

[Meowcenary]

That seems really, really harsh. If a couple of guys just want to conga around the base, they could do that. However, the fact that they cause an imbalance in teams make a lot of sense. My point is, being friendly is ok, but I do agree that it does create an imbalance.

Friendlying isn't okay. Deadweight friendlies congaing around are taking up slots from people who actually want to play the game and its ruining the experience of other people by being dead weight to their team.

If you want to friendly go to trade or idle where its allowed. There's even a !friendly plugin on those servers.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

But thats not what you said at all. Your suggestion is to re-word a rule not add a new rule.

There is no reason to add it because its already in the rules. We don't see to be specific otherwise people will find more loopholes.

Just put "friendlying" underneath the tag. That'd accomplish the same thing.

 

[Sargent¥]

I personally give em a life or 2 to friendly, if they're just in spawn, about 2 minutes. They keep it going, I ban them. I don't think being short 2-3 players will make a difference, usually people start to friendly right away or they friendly their team is getting rolled and they're not good enough to hold their team or their own to begin with. Thing is when disabling action taunts, believe it or not, there's a competitive advantage for pushing forward, like conga moving people forward for example, gets you faster into the battle field (by just a bit).

 

[Ryulise]

I guess you're right. Maybe Skial should have a friendly server (not idle) where we can't kill and we can just use taunts.

idle + trade.

 

[Simcha]

The few times I've seen this come up I'm always amazed at how many people oppose a small rule change/rewording.

I can't tell you how many time someone else or I have tried to warn someone that they could get kicked/banned for freindlying, only to have them type "!rules" and say that no such thing exists.

If loopholes are what you're worried about, then just word the rules like this:

• Harming your team for an extended period of time.
  • Example: blocking sniper views, teleporter traps, refusing to help advance your teams position (including, but not limited to, friendlying)

This way specifies that friendlying is actually against the rules but doesn't add any room for loopholes. I feel like adding this could do a lot of good and prevent people from getting into so many arguments about the current ambiguity.

 

[Yuki Nagato]

On UKCS the servers actually load there own vtf files advertising stuff. You could do the same thing except it's sprays of the server rules. Most people don't ever type "!rules" or even know the forum exists since quick play is throwing lots of randoms in with regulars. So put the rules on display. They can be sprayed over but they always seem to correct themselves, so I think it must automatically respray basically.

 

[TheyCallMeArab]

How about this?:

>Player friendlying for a long period of time.
>Kick the player with this message or similar "You have been kicked for friendlying, if you join again and continue friendlying you will be banned."
>If the player comes back and continues, ban 'em.

 

[Roboute Guilliman]

How about this?:

>Player friendlying for a long period of time.
>Kick the player with this message or similar "You have been kicked for friendlying, if you join again and continue friendlying you will be banned."
>If the player comes back and continues, ban 'em.

That's actually what I do, when there is about two or three friendlies, kicking one of them is enough to make them all stop.

But... when there's more than that. Kick one of them, and riot is ensured and endless complaining about "SKIAL ADMIN CABOOSE LELELELEL XD" or "Not in da rules!"

Which is why I think as he pointed out:

The few times I've seen this come up I'm always amazed at how many people oppose a small rule change/rewording.

I can't tell you how many time someone else or I have tried to warn someone that they could get kicked/banned for freindlying, only to have them type "!rules" and say that no such thing exists.

If loopholes are what you're worried about, then just word the rules like this:

This way specifies that friendlying is actually against the rules but doesn't add any room for loopholes. I feel like adding this could do a lot of good and prevent people from getting into so many arguments about the current ambiguity.

We should have this:

• Harming your team for an extended period of time.
  • Example: blocking sniper views, teleporter traps, refusing to help advance your teams position (including, but not limited to, friendlying)

Or something like it.