To prevent the same player from being traitor every game, only allow traitor passing every other game (or max at 2 in a row?) when not in an event.
When there’s only one lobby, and the same person is traitor passing every game, it can get boring
I understand that when one player is paying coins to become a traitor (aka “t-passing”) a lot, it can make rounds feel predictable and reduce the social deduction element. However, I think that if someone has saved up enough coins and just wants to spend 30 minutes t-passing, I think they should have the freedom to do so. They’ve earned those coins and choosing when to use them is part of the fun and strategy.
Also, being traitor repeatedly actually makes it worse for them. If someone is constantly t-passing, other players will naturally start suspecting them more often and look at their every action or ask them to test more often. That added scrutiny can actually make it harder for them to succeed as a traitor, creating a sort of built-in deterrent. That social consequence feels like a good enough deterrent for most players.
Now, even if we did add a strict limit, like only allowing two consecutive t-passes followed by a 2 matches cooldown… That still wouldn’t fully solve the problem. Players who are determined to t-pass will just do so every 3rd and 4th game instead. In fact, such a restriction might unintentionally encourage players to t-pass at every opportunity. When the limiting factor shifts from coin availability to timing, players may feel pressured to use their t-passes as soon as the cooldown ends, especially if they’re competing for karma or progression. This creates a situation where optimal play becomes about working around the limit, rather than playing naturally.
There could also be some players that would quit mid-session if they feel they’re being locked out of playing the way they want to play.
We also already have some good systems in place to prevent abuse. For example, requiring at least one traitor per match to be selected randomly ensures that even in low-player lobbies, there’s always a chance for others to play traitor, no matter how many coins people are spending.
However, I wouldn’t be against adding a soft limit to encourage a more balanced use of t-passes. For example, something like dynamic pricing based on recent t-pass frequency could work well, let’s say:
- If a player has t-passed in 4 of their last 10 games (75 coins each), future t-passes could get more expensive:
- 5/10: 80 coins
- 6/10: 90 coins
- 7/10: 100 coins
- 8/10: 120 coins
- 9/10: 150 coins
- 10/10: 200 coins
This way, players can still pay to play traitor as much as they want, but they’ll have to spend significantly more if they’re doing it excessively. It maintains the freedom of the player to t-pass while encouraging role diversity across matches.
Curious to know what others think, do you think repeated t-passing is an issue? Do you agree with any of our thoughts? Do you know any better ways to handle it?
Thanks for the well thought out response!
Part of what makes me think some sort of throttling is necessary is that targeting isn’t allowed. So it feels like cheating to apply additional scrutiny to people who t pass every round. But I think the social consequence of t-passing every round probably would be sufficient if targeting was allowed on this specific grounds (ie amend “no targeting” to “no targeting for personal reasons”)
I think dynamic t-pass pricing is a good idea and worth exploring more.
What if, along with dynamic pricing, you could earn coins from inno passing? So people who are really tapped in to tpassing would be incentivized to inno pass to build up more coins for the future.
What if you could bid an amount on tpass? And then the t-pass traitors are selected by the top n - 1 bidders? Kind of a totally different idea than what happens now, but at least worth putting out there.
I totally get where you’re coming from, and it’s important that every player has a fair shot each round, but there’s a key difference between unfair targeting and reasonable suspicion, and that distinction is really important in a social deduction game like TIMV.
Players naturally remember patterns: who t-passes often, who plays very aggressively, who plays very passively, who places claymores when escaping,… And it’s not “cheating” to be a bit more cautious around certain players. That’s just part of strategy and human psychology. Social deduction games thrive on that kind of meta-awareness, and ignoring it entirely would actually flatten a lot of the depth.
That said, there’s a line that shouldn’t be crossed. For example, it wouldn’t be okay to publicly accuse someone at the start of the match just because they were a traitor other rounds. That kind of preemptive callout is what I’d consider actual targeting, since it’s not based on anything that’s happened in the current game. But being quietly cautious, watching how some players behave and looking for signs before trusting them, blocking with your sword if they get within hit range, etc… That’s fair game, and I’d argue it actually adds depth to the experience.
So to summarize, I’d say the fair balance is:
- It’s okay to be more observant and cautious around someone who often t-passes or keeping mental notes on patterns.
- It’s NOT okay: Publicly accusing, asking to test early, or attacking someone without any current-round behavior to justify it.
Suspicion is part of the core gameplay loop. As long as it’s not used to ruin someone else’s experience, I wouldn’t say it crosses the line into targeting.
Now about your idea of earning coins through inno passing, I think that would weaken the randomness even more and some players would just inno-pass on any map they consider not ideal for traitors, to save money for the maps where they’d want to be traitor, so personally I wouldn’t recommend it.
And bidding on t-pass could be an interesting an idea, it’d make people not know if they are traitors until the loot phase ends, but it could be fun to see bid wars during certain events that favour traitors.