The "No Meta-Gaming" Rule: Deconstructed

Uchies · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:15 pm

Table of Contents:

i. Introduction
ii. The Basics
iii. Commonly Misconstrued
iiii. Some Examples

i. Introduction; The NMG Rule

Welcome, and thank you for taking the time to click on this thread. In recent days, there have been mishandlings of a newly revised EgN rule. The rule, which reads "No hacking, scripts, exploits, metagaming, breaking role-play, or anything considered unfair", has been seen incorrectly administered by me and others. I have thus found it necessary to break down this rule, it's intended meaning and use, as well as examples (both correct and incorrect) and other readings. Seeing as the two main rule revisions were suggested by me, this is one instance that I paid extra attention to absorb everyone's input and interpretation in the original meeting of it's conception. It is suggested that everyone read this thread in it's entirety before choosing how to effectively administer this rule. Please note, that without the audio of the original meeting, some minute details may differ.

The main reason for this rule is to prevent CT's from entering secrets as soon as they leave the armory, balance fair-play, and to reward extra time to skilled Terrorists that are able to successfully rebel while remaining unnoticed.

ii. The Basics

One important thing to always remember, is that the no-meta-gaming rule is not the only rule on the server. When considering the no-meta-gaming rule, you must also consider all of the other rules. In fact, it's actually better if you think of the NMG rule as a secondary extension to the end of every other rule. Please take an extra glance at all of all of the rules, and remember that every other rule is just as important. Someone playing at a higher skill than you, and in a way that you do not like, does not mean that they are meta-gaming. There may also be legitimate instances of what you think is meta-gaming, but if you take into context the rest of the rules, then it may not.

Again, there are several rules that must be taken primarily into account:

a. You may not camp the armoury or secrets (CTs should be out of armory by 6:30) but you can enter secrets for a 10 second count to find active rebellers.
The key part of this rule to pay attention to is, "you can enter secrets for a 10 second count to find active rebellers". This rule alone solidifies the allowing of entering secrets to find active rebellers. The key word of this rule is 'active', and the way in which it relates to the NMG rule, is that it means you must have knowledge that a Terrorist is rebelling from one of many cues. This can include, but is not limited to:
-Seeing the Terrorist take the secret.
-Finding a broken vent.
-Taking a head count, doing a cell check, and knowing that one is missing.
-Information passed on to you by another CT.

b. A prisoner trying to access a secret is rebelling and is KOS.
The way the NMG rule applies to this is very simple. If you saw the Terrorist try to access the secret, you may kill them. However, if you did not see the Terrorist take the secret, they are not automatically KOS. They have already taken the secret, no one saw, and thus they are no longer "trying to access". A Terrorist could, for instance, be at the endpoint of a teleport and now following the orders by remaining frozen or traveling to the next destination as stated by the warden. If they are purposely disregarding the warden's orders, however, they are KOS as dictated by the other rules.

c. CTs may not enter secrets before leaving armory.
This should be rather self explanatory. Without leaving the armory, you have no way to know that a Terrorist has attempted to access a secret. So this rule is generally unaffected. Do not get into armory secrets without first establishing that there is an active rebeller.

iii. Commonly Misconstrued

"You saw the Terrorist take a secret, but it is meta-gaming to know where it leads."
This is false. Not only are you allowed to follow after the rebeller, but if you remember... You now know that someone is rebelling, and so you may now check the secret(s). The best way to explain this is with an example... A prison guard does not go to work everyday and check small nooks and crannies as soon as they get to work. However, if they find that someone is missing or has broken out (i.e. a broken vent), they will now go to check the nooks and crannies. It's also fair to say that a prison guard has knowledge of the grounds that they are working on. This enacts a mild roleplaying twist on the game, while still holding true to all the other rules.

"CT's are not allowed check non-secret areas at the beginning of the round, like the garage or kitchen on Electric Razor."
Once again, this is not true. While some non-main-cell areas may contain secrets, they themselves are not. It is fair to say that a prison guard would do a regular sweep of the grounds. The garage and kitchen on Electric Razor, for instance, contain secrets but are also regularly passed through during regular gameplay. It is not meta-gaming to check these areas, and if you enter one of these areas and witness a Terrorist trying to access one of the secrets, you may kill them.

"It's meta-gaming to consider a broken vent a sign of a prisoner."
If a prison guard was doing cell checks and found an empty cell with an escapable hole in the wall, the alarms would sound that someone was breaking out or actively rebelling. On a map like Spy v. Spy, if the in-cell vent is broken and it is still occupied, you can take into account other immediate cues... Such as the sound of someone running in the water inside the vent, or the fact that you saw someone drop down into it.

iiii. Some Examples

Example #1:

[this image shows a terrorist running towards vending-machine secret]

A terrorist runs to a secret and you see them use the teleporter. Since you saw the terrorist access / attempt to access, they are now kill-on-sight, and you may follow through the secret, or go to where it leads. This falls under the same idea, that while a prison guard may know of hidden locations within a facility, they wouldn't regularly sweep those areas without knowing that there was someone attempting to escape, or in this case, rebelling.

Example #2:

[this image shows a terrorist half-way through awp window]

Again, since you are seeing the terrorist attempting to enter the secret, you may now kill them or enter after them and kill them.

Example #3:

[this image shows a terrorist frozen in garage]

The warden gave the order "out-of-cell freeze". Upon inspecting the garage, you find a terrorist that is standing frozen inside garage. Since they are following the warden's orders, and you did not see them attempting to access a secret, you do not kill them. You let them continue following the warden's orders.

Conclusion

The NMG rule is only broad and heavily affects gameplay if you do not take into account the other elements of gameplay. Your gameplay should not be overly affected by these small rule-changes. Hopefully I was able to shine some light on the original discussions and intentions behind these changes. I would like to hear your feedback in the comments below. Do you think this is a good rule to have by original design, as laid out in the thread above? Thank you for taking the time to read my perspective that is also shared by others.

Signing out,
Uchies.

Link · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:24 pm

Still don't see how you're gonna stop people from sitting by garage door waiting to kill Ts that teleport.

Uchies · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:26 pm

Link wrote:

Still don't see how you're gonna stop people from sitting by garage door waiting to kill Ts that teleport.

There's already a rule for that. CT's are supposed to be fulfilling their duties. CT's sitting in garage for no reason are not fulfilling their duties.

Simple.

Cooper · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:51 pm

This explanation is really inaccurate when it comes to the meaning of metagaming. Either no metagaming at all like the rule says or change it to something more specific. You can't have a rule saying "No x" but then allow "x" but only in particular cases.

Uchies · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:54 pm

Cooper wrote:

This explanation is really inaccurate when it comes to the meaning of metagaming. Either no metagaming at all like the rule says or change it to something more specific. You can't have a rule saying "No x" but then allow "x" but only in particular cases.

I understand the rule sounds broad when taken by itself, that can be fixed, but this is what it meant.

dj7joke · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 8:51 pm

Good lord, thank the potato for this "skinning" of the dang meta rule lol~~~~

PEOPLE WILL FINALLY HAVE BRAIN CELLS!!!

(on a side note, i should sleep (sleep deprivation <3))

Uchies · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:13 pm

Yeah, I mean, most people understand. But just in case, you know!

No one complains about the "don't be an asshole" rule, but you can interpret it just as broad and objectively.

koolaid · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:31 pm

Hm, still think it should not be allowed for example on carceris, if someone goes through disco secret and a ct camps fucking soccer waiting for them to run through the vent.

Uchies · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:38 pm

koolaid wrote:

Hm, still think it should not be allowed for example on carceris, if someone goes through disco secret and a ct camps fucking soccer waiting for them to run through the vent.

It's not allowed, where did anyone say that was allowed?

koolaid · **Posted:** Mon Mar 12, 2018 9:54 pm

Uchies wrote:

It's not allowed, where did anyone say that was allowed?

You did

Uchies wrote:

iii. Commonly Misconstrued

"You saw the Terrorist take a secret, but it is meta-gaming to know where it leads."
This is false.

Register

Login

The "No Meta-Gaming" Rule: Deconstructed

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online