I’m not really sure why you just requoted the rule but I guess I can repeat my reasoning why the rule is stupid. The CTs called the war and played the advantage of getting to go to their chosen location and hold angles on pushing T’s, they should also be the ones responsible for progressing it. Bribee’s argument was rhat it wasn’t “fair” to make the outnumbered CTs push, but by definition this would be fair. The CTs called the war under their conditions, if they performed poorly it would be fair to make them push, it wouldn’t be fair however to punish the T’s because they performed welll. I’m not sure if you actually read my post based on your response but the analogy I used before was “We might as well give out participation trophies instead of LR so it’s “fair”. Numbers are irrelevant because the CTs brought the war upon themselves and had the opportunity to get the first choice of weapons and got the choice of where they wanted to hold, why not hold them accountable for their choices?

On top of all this the rule generally goes against other rules (ex. the one that says the round must progress) and even disincentivizes CTs killing T’s in order to keep the ratio in their favor and generally goes against the nature of the warday.

Also I don’t think anybody was talking about removing this right here and now, pretty much everyone from what I see wants it to be removed at the next admin meeting.

I would refrain from responding to specific points like this if you are just gonna twist the meaning or try to apply it to something which isn’t even relevant in the situation. You also clearly don’t know the difference between FAIR and EQUAL by the repeated use of “50/50”. Everyone having 50/50 odds is EQUAL, having different odds based on your role and skill is FAIR. Nobody was even referring to the “unfair rule” either. The game mode is naturally FAIR because of roles and skill and the only way to really make it unfair is making everything EQUAL (or allow cheats/exploits/mechanics which ruin RP) which nobody is suggesting, so pretty much all your related responses are either wrong by definition or a strawman.

I never was trying to say the CTs had to expand because of their role, but they are the ones responsible for the war in the first plce and did get multiple chances to overcome their number disadvantage (location, weapon choice, angles, strategy etc) so they should be the ones held accountable,if they do bad the T’s shouldn’t be forced to play at a disadvantage because they did well. Like I said the rule just makes other rules harder to enforce and even can incentivize CTs to not kill Ts so they don’t have to expand and keep their advantage.

In response to your suggestion, like Term said the T’s will still camp or adapt to the new rule and wait to teleport later, CTs will also tend to wait till the last minute as well.

fyi im just gonna cut out all irreverent information from your post as most of it just had personal attacks and were not points to argue.

i honestly dont really see any reason not to revise the rule to what i suggested based off of what you wrote.

Calling out faulty arguments and fallacious statements is not a personal attack, the part you “cut out” was addressing points that were objectively wrong and or irrelevant. Majority of your original post was talking about “fairness” but what you were defining as “fairness” is actually “equallity”, but we can just follow your red herring and set this aside.

The rule says CTs have to expand unless outnumbered, so yes there is a rule saying they have to be the ones to expand. I am specifically arguing about removing the “outnumbered clause” because its against the nature of wardays (CTs killing Ts and vice versa), makes other rules harder to enforce (ex making sure the round progresses), rewards bad play while punishing good play, and just adds an unecessary layer of confusion for not only players but admins as well. My reasoning was the numbers shouldn’t matter because they called the war willingly, they knew what they were getting into and they should have to suffer the consequences instead of making things more difficult for everyone.

Your revision has a lot of problems with it like I already said and not much would change, it’s pretty easy to disagree with. I really don’t know why this change was even voted in in the first place because I don’t recall there being much demand for it in the first place, the original rule was fine.

Term didn’t completely agree with your post, he said he thought T’s would still camp exits and such regardless which is what I was agreeing with. Just because he says he agrees doesn’t mean he agrees in every single aspect, he clearly pointed out areas where your suggestion would be weak or wouldn’t change much multiple times (even if he thought it could still be somewhat effective). I already gave you my ideas, T’s will still camp, CTs will put off expanding as long as they can, won’t change much outside of forced expansion which isn’t the only issue people have, the outnumbered part should be removed.

Best solution.... No more wardays!? I personally consider wardays to be free days anyways.

2018 Goals for EgN
******
***** *******
*** ********************

We've had this exact discussion a few times, and don't think it'll change anytime soon (on the T's behalf that is)
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=29026&hilit=beacons&start=0
viewtopic.php?f=148&t=31544&hilit=warday&start=0


Let me just start by saying that CT's are given as much of an advantage as the terrorists are. How often do you see the CT side call war day in soccer & garage, and lose when in war day zone?

Generally speaking, the percentage of T's that go into soccer / garage straightaway are immediately shutdown due to the CT's having the upper hand in terms of "who has the better angle". Whereas, normally, the few times the T's have the edge over the CT's is when the CT either misses their first shot and/or when there are multiple T's peeking an angle (other few possibilities as well i.e outnumbering, etc). Short said, CT's are given the advantage until war day expands which lessens their chance of surviving depending on whether the T's outnumber the CT's or not, and whether or not they go outside war zone. It's the root cause as to why T's don't immediately head into war zone neither is there a rule that's suggests them to do so. This being the case, like you had previously mentioned, once the war day expands, the T's are now given the advantage outside of war zone just like the CT's had inside war zone as they're now able to play by "who has the better angle".

Note war day's are called by the CT's *important notice*. They are the ones who call the war day, they are the ones who have to continue & progress the war day.

THIS DOESN'T MEAN THE TERRORIST'S DON'T HAVE TO PROGRESS THE ROUND ← p a y a t t e n t i o n t o t h i s


Don't really remember when this was added to the rule, but this it doesn't apply much to the OP post primarily because as much as this rule [protects] (said loosely) the CT's from being outnumbered therefore shot & killed. Won't change the fact that these terrorists are well, still free to hide stay outside war zone as needed be as there is no rule that suggests that the terrorists are to do so. Adding this bit, "CT’s must leave warzone if CTs outnumber the terrorists" is simply counter-intuitive and contradicting; more the less, it just complicates whenever a war day takes place in whole. What is expected of the counter-terrorists & terrorists (and admins in that matter) once the terrorists outnumber counter terrorist? Do the terrorists now have to advance the war day? Answer is simple as said, no, it doesn't insinuate that because these CT's are now "protected" by this rule, the reigns of the how the war day advances gets handed to the T's. Whether the war day progresses or not is held to the counter terrorists. But now what? How does the war day progress without interfering between this two? not rhetorical btw, stil curious if there a apt. way of working around this so yea, respond to me


Now this rule is VERY important, so pay attention to it. Regardless of whether it is bestowed upon an admin to make sure the round progresses, it is still hand-in-hand that both parties (terrorists and counter-terrorists) are to progress the round which includes war day (days). Although we can more than likely find an alternative to balance these two, this is what should be referenced when speaking of "how to progress a war day: 101". Initially, both teams should be progressing the round, but that doesn't mean the terrorists have to expand (into) the war day. Two very different subjects, keep in mind, yet the two play side-by-side.


War days aren't there so CT's can go out of their way to "kill T's without any repercussions". CT's call war day's without any other possible course of action determined by the terrorist side.

The terrorists don't have any option except kill or be killed. They shouldn't be the ones to expand or progress the war day for that matter.

The rule should be re-addressed / expressed differently in a Mootiny sort of way. But let's start by taking out "CT’s must leave warzone if CTs outnumber the terrorists", and leaving the rule as 66 War days will expand at 3:30 every time. CTs can use secrets after expansion. Jail Break General until further notice. There's no need to have any "CT's must expand war day / be out of war zone by 3:30" or remotely similar when we have "47 You must make sure the round progresses. Admin Guidelines". Bear in mind, this rule doesn't only apply to admins. It applies to the whole server which includes both terrorists and counter-terrorists, id est, war days further tune.

high key idk what anyone else said because i didnt really read through the rest of the posts, so if anything counteracts, oh well, my post is also quite messy so if something don' sound right im blaming it on being sleep deprived

Going to add this for future's sake:

Previous posts for reference purposes:

tl;dr it's under debate that T's are needed to expand the war day. The CT's called it, it's part of their role to progress the war day.

I dont want to sound rude but honestly it seems you dont understand what an argument is or your just here for the sake of disagreeing.

You keep arguing with me that the outnumbered rule should be gone and i've given reasons why I agree so idk what your arguing with there.

You still haven't given an argument as to why we should not revise the rule as i suggested, instead you just ignored all the reasons i gave as to it would improve the game and said "nah cts are bad they wont take advantage of that" which makes no sense as any good ct player would understand the benefits it provides. And regardless of that by your own argument the revision would not have any negative effects so there would be no reason not to at least try the revised version.

i personally think the "fairness" or "equality" of the game plays a role here.... will come back later on

the rule was made to stop CT's from camping the whole round in warzone, and i think we can all agree it helps partially but also has a HUGE unforseen result of CT's camping the warzone because they don't outnumber the T's.

i think that that is what is causing this whole situation since people disagree on what should be done in forms of revising the rule or enforcing it properly
and i see both possibilities working out as follows:

1) REVISION: we revise the rule to something different which will make sure CT's have no ooportunity to stay in warzone the entire round and forces them to leave and hunt the T's. aboviously giving them a timeframe in which they are able/forced to expand. reasons are stated by simplistic and i gave my thoughts about those alreadyso read up if interested

2) ENFORCING: u can give up multiple rules which would force admins and players to leave warzone and to make CT's leave warzone so the round progresses and such. yet there will be heavy debate about the rules being applied and alot of players will argue heavily about them having to expand when there are more T's than CT's and it will cause alot of discussion and hostility in the server. even if u would say "u need to mute those players and they need to take it private" but that will still cause hostility and anger with the players and i don't believe that is what we want, right?

my conclusion is that the best way to solve this is to change the rule just a little bit so it fits in more with the purpose we tried to give it and try to make it as loop-hole free as possible. of course both ideas have advantages and disadvantages but atleast this could be solved and we could try to focus on more important things like the fun of the players and having FAIR AND EQUAL games for everybody

because that is what people want, fair and equal gameplay, as in why should T's be forced to push the CT's when CT's called the warday? why would they have to die? sure it's a discussion about skill and such but the only part of that discussion that applies here is the part where T's shouldn't push CT's when they didn't chose to have a warday

SELF-CROWNED JUKE KING OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED JUKE KING OF 2018

SELF-CROWNED KNIFE KING OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED KNIFE KING OF 2018

SELF-CROWNED REBEL GOD OF 2017
SELF-CROWNED REBEL GOD OF 2018


rebeler since february 2016

we all have different lifes, different problems and different paths to take.....
but what we all wonder is: would they be proud of who i am today?

Princess Strawberry: "HEY, i know everything about Denmark , OK?
Princess Strawberry: "what kind of waffles do they eat in Denmark?"
Princess Strawberry: "OH WAIT SHIT THAT'S BELGIUM"

<16:59:31> "Eclipzx_" was banned for 10 minutes from the server by "GoopSauce" (pussy much?)

*warden*: There's 1 rebeler in garage please get him
*INBREADCATS*: It's only 1 rebeler,what can he do......oh shit it's terminator i'm coming

reboobalar: "term this is your warning because i know you're just gonna rebel"
reboobalar: "fuck this, im not going to be Ct with Term on their team"

Get outta here nobody likes you.