Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-10-18 10:15

Metagaming a punishable offense


Recommended Posts

Been playing on this server a while now and have seen this happen a lot of times and it ruins the game. People announcing locations of bandits/survivors etc on the shout box moments after something happens should be a punishable offense in my eyes.

What are your guys views?

Link to comment
  • MVP

Agreed.

Though I think its important for people to be able to briefly discuss incidents after they happen to get an idea of what what went on and who was involved, there should be NO mention of any locations, and after finding out who you're dealing with, all discussion should be moved to a report discussion/report thread.

Link to comment
  • MVP

Agreed.

Though I think its important for people to be able to briefly discuss incidents after they happen to get an idea of what what went on and who was involved, there should be NO mention of any locations, and after finding out who you're dealing with, all discussion should be moved to a report discussion/report thread.

In reality I think the punishments should only be handed out for calling out events and identities that are happening at that moment in time. Or even telling people about a location where they may be heading towards.

Discussing previous events that had finished or anything casual and non-specific should be fine.

Link to comment
  • MVP

In reality I think the punishments should only be handed out for calling out events and identities that are happening at that moment in time. Or even telling people about a location where they may be heading towards.

Discussing previous events that had finished or anything casual and non-specific should be fine.

If its something that has happened a while ago, sure. I was more referring to situations where perhaps bandits may have set-up a road block, and a victim then proceeds to blurt out the position and the bandits involved on shoutbox.

Link to comment

Agreed.

Though I think its important for people to be able to briefly discuss incidents after they happen to get an idea of what what went on and who was involved, there should be NO mention of any locations, and after finding out who you're dealing with, all discussion should be moved to a report discussion/report thread.

In reality I think the punishments should only be handed out for calling out events and identities that are happening at that moment in time. Or even telling people about a location where they may be heading towards.

Discussing previous events that had finished or anything casual and non-specific should be fine.

This is exactly what just happened on the shoutbox, people announcing roadblock locations that they just got attacked at.

Link to comment
  • MVP

Before everyone start complaining about bandits wanting this rule...

I do agree with that. Meta-gaming is a game-breaker. Although, we can't remove (and shouldn't) ban every meta-gaming (like people asking for lifts).. Or maybe we should, doesn't really matter to me.

But yeah, giving away the locations of specific events (such as bandits, have no other example for now) should be banned.

Edit: Well, SumoS isn't a bandit but it doesn't matter. Muhuhu.

Link to comment
  • MVP

This is exactly what just happened on the shoutbox, people announcing roadblock locations that they just got attacked at.

I actually didn't know this, I must have missed it on shoutbox, but it was just the first example that came to mind.

Another more common example would be someone saying "Who are the two guys that just KoS'd me in cherno?". Regardless of whether it was actually a KoS or not, they're effectively warning people that there are bandits in Cherno.

If you are going to enquire on SB about a situation that has occurred, fine, but only for the purpose of IDing who was involved so you can talk about it in a discussion thread to make sure whether a report is necessary. Any mention of locations should be met with a forum warning and bans for repeat offenders IMO.

Good job on bringing it up Walshy, its something that seems to have been overlooked.

Link to comment

Unless of course, you deny knowing that knowledge. Avoiding a major city like Elektro because you know that it's a bandit hotspot before your character even knows about bandits can be considered metagaming, so this can be hard to define. Oh, and Khardia, you beat me to it ;)

Link to comment
  • MVP

Unless of course, you deny knowing that knowledge. Avoiding a major city like Elektro because you know that it's a bandit hotspot before your character even knows about bandits can be considered metagaming, so this can be hard to define. Oh, and Khardia, you beat me to it ;)

You can try and pretend you don't know, but you're still going to be more prepared than you would have been, even if you try not to be.

You're going to be more alert for starters, and you are going to be aware of any little factors that were mentioned, like number of bandits, skins, which clan, what weapons, if they had overwatch etc. All those factors are going to affect your decision making whether you want them to or not.

Link to comment
  • MVP

Isn't it, now? It goes against the "Common sense" rule, would it not?

I think it may be, technically, but its something that hasn't really been noticed. I think Walshy intentions were to bring it to the forefront of people minds, so that we can have it weeded out.

Link to comment
  • Emerald

There's alot in terms of RP that is unclear but still applies, but sure, I could see that. But it does go against the Common sense rule. Frankly it would just be easier for everyone here if rules were added that helps people that isn't used to RP, such as clearly stating what metagaming is and that it is not allowed.

Link to comment

I agree with Walshy also, people should not be able to announce bandits roadblocks and ambush since it's impossible in real life. You can't be killed and start shouting "Bandit roadbloack on the road near TP!!!"

I do agree to announce it between clan Teamspeak since in real life, we can use radios transmission.

And no objection about in-games warnings. Like if you just survived a robbery and you make your way to TP to warn the other survivors.

But of course, warnings in the shoutbox should be punished.

Stay in character rule mean that you NEED to stay in character. You can't just get OOC and start shouting about bandits ambush in the Shoutbox.

Whatever, I agree.

Link to comment

+1 to this thread. I am sick and tired of the meta gaming -_-

Hey i heard on shoutbox you were here! need a blood bag still?

DROP YOUR SHIT FOOL!

Shit....

if we truely wanted to RP. none of us wouldnt know each other (no clans etc) everyone of us ended up washed on shore. i feel that clans should be made all IC and in RP. but that would prove to be "too much" for some people.

Link to comment

I agree with the thread and many of the posts. My few cents are that players should not give away position of bandits or suvivors in SB. Same with need of blood, medical attention, deal with the situation ingame. If everyone knows where the bandits are hiding for an ambush then both the ambushers and the victims lost a chance of a fun roleplaying event.

Link to comment
Guest Jamie

Rolle: Shoutbox can be used for in-game communication.

That's what i think the quote said i cant find it, but yeah you are allowed to use shoutbox to talk to people in game.

Link to comment

OP makes a valid point, but if you're to deem revealing player locations ICly, inside the shoutbox as a punishable offence, then surely the same must apply for players who are announcing they require pickups, trading and other IC information shares over the shoutbox.

If you want a pickup, drop off, reveal a bandits location. Use PMs.

Link to comment
  • MVP

OP makes a valid point, but if you're to deem revealing player locations ICly, inside the shoutbox as a punishable offence, then surely the same must apply for players who are announcing they require pickups, trading and other IC information shares over the shoutbox.

If you want a pickup, drop off, reveal a bandits location. Use PMs.

If you did this, people would be banned/punished by the dozens. So lets not go there. Its not really neccecery.

I agree that the OP has a point, but I think its important to realize that it can be tricky to put a proper definition on metagaming, because information is not as restricted as it used to be.

Some radios are probably still working, and its not impossible or even difficult to relay information on enemy movements and their positions. What can be argued is what the shoutbox is IC:ly. Some sort of "commonly available radio channel"? Does it even exist ic:ly? And I am of course refering to the rare occassion of roleplayed transmissions over the shoutbox. Those do happen, even if 99.99% of the talk there is pure ooc stuff.

If it doesnt exist ic:ly, then should we ignore or even forbid any IC interaction across it? Personally I think it would be a waste of potential if we did, and I think people should be careful on jumping on some sort of metagaming bandwagon because information is relayed through the shoutbox.

The shoutbox is still a good tool to get community-wide messages out, and there's definetly potential for more roleplay there. Sorting everything out through ingame chat, PMs and teamspeak is messy, to say the very least.

If some measure was taken against metagaming in the shoutbox, it would need to be clearly defined and preferably target people that dont even take an effort to roleplay it.

Link to comment

What about the flip-side?

If someone can use the Shoutbox to declare locations or ambushes or intentions, does this not mean that those reading it can also hear it?

If this is so, why would the bandits stay in place, knowing others now know about their ambush point? Isn't it on the bandits to realize they've been busted and move on?

If this is so, why can't a bandit see someone calling for help, and head to that location to intercept before help arrives? Isn't it on the survivor to ensure they keep their location and situation private to those helping?

Why does every little sub-text of a rule need to be brought up? Can't we use common sense to understand that:

A. If you use a public Shoutbox to communicate IC information, others will see it and be able to act upon it just like the speaker.

B. If someone calls you out, you either reply or you don't. Who's going to make you admit to killing someone on Shoutbox, if you don't want to?

C. If it's public via Shoutbox, then it's public IC knowledge - simple. If you want to keep it hushed up, take it to private sources.


Overall, I can understand the need to examine certain situations, but we're almost getting to the point where every nuance of every rule of every possibility of every potential loophole needs to be discussed in length and ultimately declared as 'simple rules remain'...

It seems pretty clear to me:

You use public Shoutbox to share IC info, then everyone who sees it knows it. Simple!


I think we could focus on how the Shoutbox consists of both IC and OOC posting. Perhaps the problem is not having that clear-cut definition?

Yes? No?

In this instance, should there be two Shoutboxes? One IC and one OOC? Or do we nix OOC chat from the Shoutbox in general? Or do we keep it solely OOC?

As it stands, I find that definition far more important than whatever content is seen by others, honestly.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...