Rejected Automatically Mark Innos That Test As “Friend” To Everyone On The Server

Like the idea, but it would just end up being fort knox near the testers

-1, traitor testers make me angry. grr.

Genuinely though, I already don't really like tester-centric gameplay that much. It's fine if 5-6 goons wanna do that every round, but if it gets broadcast to everyone, it removes a lot of interesting play.
For instance, rn, traitors can claim "Oh I was tested :3" or call each other as inno. That deceitful strat is completely neutered by this and I think the game would be lesser for it.

Siddo said:

-1, traitor testers make me angry. grr.

Genuinely though, I already don't really like tester-centric gameplay. It's fine if 5-6 goons wanna do that every round, but if it gets broadcast to everyone, it removes a lot of interesting play.
For instance, rn, traitors can claim "Oh I was tested :3" or call each other as inno. That deceitful strat is completely neutered by this and I think the game would be lesser for it.

Click to expand...

As of now, nearly all of the rounds I’ve played recently with testers on the map, they basically never get used. And unless I see it or someone I know for a fact is inno or a detective verifies the test, I ignore testing claims altogether.

I feel like it would create super tester centric gameplay just after introduction, but would get balanced by fat jihads and getting locked in the tester with incinds.

SirLemoncakes said:

As of now, nearly all of the rounds I’ve played recently with testers on the map, they basically never get used. And unless I see it or someone I know for a fact is inno or a detective verifies the test, I ignore testing claims altogether.

I feel like it would create super tester centric gameplay just after introduction, but would get balanced by far jihads and getting locked in the tester with incinds.

Click to expand...

Of course a meta would establish itself and then get outcompeted by a different meta and eventually, the avatar, master of all 4 RDMs, will return.
I think that's an entirely valid and fair point.

Full transparency; I'm speaking purely from self-interest here: I think testers are boring. Making testers stronger is thus something I wouldn't enjoy.
I usually only play around them if I'm not actively paying that much attention (e.g. petting dog). 'cause it's low effort gaming.
But when I'm playing normally, I don't really use them and I don't really pay attention to them.

This would make rounds 10x more boring and would have everyone spam test and just kill the last t's I know most of us on this server already play ttt like deathmatch but this would remove a massive deduction aspect from this game, testing is already boring enough. I don't think it would be cool for traitors at all. maybe for the t's who like to Jihad 10 seconds in and sit out the next 5 minutes of the round. This would FORCE t's to spend a credit on c4 just to counter instantly being known as t after everyone tests

Siddo said:

-1, traitor testers make me angry. grr.

Genuinely though, I already don't really like tester-centric gameplay that much. It's fine if 5-6 goons wanna do that every round, but if it gets broadcast to everyone, it removes a lot of interesting play.
For instance, rn, traitors can claim "Oh I was tested :3" or call each other as inno. That deceitful strat is completely neutered by this and I think the game would be lesser for it.

Click to expand...

The more popular testers have a decent amount of counter play built in where this change incentivizes creativity:

67th way: More drowning action. Breakable tester. If a traitor ends up inside, they get a free teleport out.

Community Bowling: Tester has a door on the inside where the traitor can offer himself getting kosed to break the tester and a nice spot to plant some c4.

Minecraft: Tester has have the gold block, more emphasis on the power of hiding it. Tester has a t trap built in for traitors to trick the innocents.

I think the end result would be more varied gameplay options for both innocents and traitors

-1.

I like the chaos of no one knowing who has tested.

I personally really like Nuclear Power's tester, purely because I like seeing people turn green, red, and blue. If it's possible to expand that to apply to other maps then I love this.

In terms of actually gameplay though, I have mixed feelings. I think traitor testers make the game stale, but they can be interesting with proper counterplay. Wink mentioned a lot of interesting variations on testers, and I like those a lot. Outside of that though, basic testers that only offer the traitors some jihad opportunities are very boring to me. Innos grouping up is good for jihads, but makes actual gunfights a lot more difficult for the traitors. The innos also only need to group up for a short while, after which they can spread out and watch the tester from afar.

With all that said, I think this change could have the opposite effect. If I can test alone or with one other person and the entire server will know I'm proven, then nobody needs to group up at the tester. I'm neutral, maybe leaning negative on this change. I'd be very curious to see how it changes the gameplay, and solely for that reason I think it could be an interesting mixup sometime. However, I don't enjoy the gameplay of testers generally and I'm not too keen on the idea of buffing them.

SirLemoncakes said:

Testers doing that would be sick as hell for both innos and Traitors. It would give a huge incentive for innos to test, and create a target rich environment for traitors to get jihads, grenades, and other sick kills.

Click to expand...

Maybe a modification to this idea; The Detectives can spend a credit for an item that marks someone as innocent? Or announces someone as innocent in a popup or something.
Lest trustworthy, more general-gameplay centric.

Having the entire server know for sure someone is proven no matter where they are is overpowered. Some testers, like 67th way, get balanced because you have to be down in the tester area surrounded by T-rooms to both be tested and see who is tested

-1, takes away an element of deception where Ts can falsely say they are proven. I also feel like for Innos and D that keeping track of whos proven and manually marking them is part of the game. You need to do that process of elimination by yourself, it shouldn't be automated

i think this is something we can agree no one wants

You gotta remove this guys advisor after this

Due to the lack of support I'm gonna go ahead and Reject and Lock this suggestion. Thank you for your idea

Suggestion: Rejected
Thread: Locked