[Autumn]

The problem with letting it stay as is and treating it ICly is that it's a free win for the person betraying their team. Their teammates are helpless to stop them from murdering them all.

I'd honestly say until this is altered to allow any kind of fighting back it shouldn't be permissible to whip out a Betrayer's Wit and backstab your team in a serious PvP situation without prior consent. It's practically an auto-loss for the side who gets Betrayer's Wit'd, unless the enemy team is merciful and hard targets your dubious teammate.

This is very true, I'm sure this is not 100% an infallible plan as it could also take a bit of LOOC chatter to reasonably say "We're gonna fight back against you" and restart the fight, but game flow and RP flow wise this is a less than ideal precedent to adopt too, especially in widescale teamfights where both parties have full up teams. They're not exactly helpless though, it merely takes chatter to solve the issue at hand.

I am agreeing with you, personally, I think the most elegant solution to this is the ability to kick someone from your party mid-combat. Putting them onto a neutral team who can interact with both sides, or even swapping them over to the other team if the other team allows for this (or if Dev doesn't want to make a 3rd team). Either of these solutions may work and may even flow better than some other methods.

[Kameron8]

If an ally is using self-confusion to purposefully try and down their teammates ICly, they're not an ally anymore. The fight should be restarted with people on the appropriate sides at that point, because pointing at the mechanical pseudo-immunity being on the same team provides no longer makes any sense with the roleplay.

This is something that should be resolved OOCly before it even happens, rather than a mechanical workaround.

[Shujin]

While true, that also comes with a whole slew of problems.

Ending the fight->
Food Heals so the betrayers attacks is basically pointless->
if it was already a 4 versus 4 you have the issue of teams (though I guess you could do 4vs2 and 1vs1 but that also doesn't feel optimal, but at that point that person could have just betrayed before the fight actually starts and not waste everyones time.)

So while I agree, I do not think this can truly fully solved cleanly. Having the substatus/teamswap would atleast do something about this (I still want to see free for all battle mode <.<)

anyway, yeah...Kinda difficult to resolve while keeping RPflow in tact.

[Poruku]

Griefing should never be a means of winning a pvp encounter. Instead of messing with betrayer's wit just make a rule that forbids this sort of fuckery

[renowner]

Self confusion also allowing you to be hit by allies. . Maybe?
Personally I think the self confusion stuff is pretty abusable as is. . .I don't like it. I do think its dumb that you can't retaliate due to game mechanics.
But at the same time if you could just attack allies so freely, it makes the self confusion dumbness even easier to pull off as you yourself don't need confusion.

[FaeLenx]

While true, that also comes with a whole slew of problems.

Ending the fight->
Food Heals so the betrayers attacks is basically pointless->
if it was already a 4 versus 4 you have the issue of teams (though I guess you could do 4vs2 and 1vs1 but that also doesn't feel optimal, but at that point that person could have just betrayed before the fight actually starts and not waste everyones time.)

So while I agree, I do not think this can truly fully solved cleanly. Having the substatus/teamswap would atleast do something about this (I still want to see free for all battle mode <.<)

anyway, yeah...Kinda difficult to resolve while keeping RPflow in tact.

No it's not. Just betray before the fight starts like you said. If someone is intentionally throwing, even, they shouldn't join at all.

To keep the RP space at least somewhat healthy, we have to have at least some chill and understanding. Trying to game and act out every action as mechanically as possible won't work.

I'm against any sort of imbalanced fight, though. What's the point of getting into 4v1s as either attacker or defender?

[Shujin]

While true, that also comes with a whole slew of problems.

Ending the fight->
Food Heals so the betrayers attacks is basically pointless->
if it was already a 4 versus 4 you have the issue of teams (though I guess you could do 4vs2 and 1vs1 but that also doesn't feel optimal, but at that point that person could have just betrayed before the fight actually starts and not waste everyones time.)

So while I agree, I do not think this can truly fully solved cleanly. Having the substatus/teamswap would atleast do something about this (I still want to see free for all battle mode <.<)

anyway, yeah...Kinda difficult to resolve while keeping RPflow in tact.

No it's not. Just betray before the fight starts like you said. If someone is intentionally throwing, even, they shouldn't join at all.

To keep the RP space at least somewhat healthy, we have to have at least some chill and understanding. Trying to game and act out every action as mechanically as possible won't work.

I'm against any sort of imbalanced fight, though. What's the point of getting into 4v1s as either attacker or defender?

Thats what I said, yes.

[FaeLenx]

I wasn't expressly disagreeing with your entire post, just the idea that it is in some way hard to resolve. It's actually trivially easy to resolve. Or it should be. The only problem exists in people who are fundamentally acting in bad faith, and they'll find any hill to die on regardless.

Everything else you said was spot on.

[Shujin]

My comment was directly tied to Kams. Just ending the battle, because someone used the tome mid-battle for the intention of betraying, is just super disruptive, if you just have to end the fight anyway.

So yes, if you plan to betray do it before it, having it otherwise be an effect that can be used in battle in the current iteration with those intentions is just broken and unfair, I believe people simply want to have a "Safety Belt" here. Atleast I think that's what people are going at, I think everyone agrees that its used in that way is more that just unfair and should fall under abuse rules. But this is a Balance Fu and not Rule topic, so I figured people might wanna discuss ways were it can be acceptable, personal feelings aside.

Imbalanced Fights is fairly normal, got ganked with 12 versus 2 people before without forewarning, just how it goes. Its also makes sense when one group has 5 and the other only 3-4 people to maybe split the fights up. Is it fair? probably not. Does it have to be? Probably also not. Ganks happen all the time really. Number advantage is a thing.

[FaeLenx]

1. My comment was directly tied to Kams. Just ending the battle, because someone used the tome mid-battle for the intention of betraying, is just super disruptive, if you just have to end the fight anyway.

2. Imbalanced Fights is fairly normal, got ganked with 12 versus 2 people before without forewarning, just how it goes. Its also makes sense when one group has 5 and the other only 3-4 people to maybe split the fights up. Is it fair? probably not. Does it have to be? Probably also not. Ganks happen all the time really. Number advantage is a thing.

1. Fair.

2. It doesn't need to be like that and insisting that it does or accepting that it is just makes a worse experience for everyone.