For convenience, here's the rule in full: "The last two Ts get Last Request (LR) regardless if they completed games or hid and can't be killed after LR for rebelling beforehand, unless they rebel after the first LR, or continue/begin to rebel after reaching LR." I've talked about this a little with Dev4stator, he said the two purposes of the rule were to: 1. Prevent delays, in the event that there's a missing T that CTs are unable to find. 2. Give the rebelling/missing T a "fair chance" to LR without the danger of being killed by CTs. Let me explain my issues with this logic. This post might look a little long and overdone, but I want to explain exactly why this rule is unfair and silly. Firstly, a Terrorist can be missing in a few ways. He could be - AFK in his cell. In this case, CTs can easily kill him. No delays necessary. - Actively rebelling, i.e. trying to find CTs and kill them. If this is the case, CTs should have no problem finding him and killing him. (Or, if he clutches and kills the CTs, it's gg and that's fine too). Again, no delays. - "Inactively" rebelling, i.e camping/fucking about trying to delay. This is the only scenario where annoying delays can or should happen. If this is the case, either an admin can step in and warn him, or - what will realistically happen - someone can just ghost. So we don't really need this rule in the first place. Not only is this rule unnecessary to prevent delays in the above case, it causes problems in other situations. For example (and this addresses point 2), 1 T is rebelling and hasn't been killed yet, and 4 other Ts are playing warden's games. Is the warden supposed to say "Okay Ts, I know you've played along and expected the last 2 to get LR, but there's another Terrorist being naughty so instead only one of you guys is going to get it." I invite anyone who supports this rule to warden sometime and do this. The natural response you will get is "Ehh wtf mang that's not really fair?" I've seen this happen a couple of times, and if admins are on they invariably say "Yeah it's unfair but rules are rules." If most everyone who actually plays on the servers agrees the rule is unfair I think it's time for a change. Another situation: warden has commanded Ts to do a challenge (e.g. make a hard jump) by 5:00, fail to die. Turns out only 1 of the Ts manages the jump, and a few of them are still waiting and refusing to do it, so the CTs kill them. Under this rule, someone will say "Whoever killed the last T freekilled because last 2 Ts always get LR." Literally without fail, every time this happens the whole server responds with "That's retarded, what kind of dumb rule is that." I don't mean to insult whoever suggested it, but that's the reality. People respond this way because it's not fair to the Ts who were killed before, attempting the challenge. Those Ts will think "Bruh why did I attempt it if someone who didn't is going to get LR anyway?" Now, someone could respond to this argument with "Well then warden should just play different games instead of stupid jumping challenges", and I respond to that with: the rules should as far as possible let wardens do what they want, not restrict them. Now Dev4stator said that killing the Ts who failed in this situation is "pointless", and I completely disagree. The point is to treat everyone equally. If you don't treat people equally, they - understandably - get annoyed. The purpose of JB is to have fun, and the rules should (as far as reasonably possible) encourage that, not piss people off. Again, I invite anyone who supports the rule to actually go on the server and see what happens in the situations I've described. People are not happy with this rule, and I'm honestly not just saying that because of my opinions. I've been playing on the server a lot in the past week and haven't seen anyone respond positively to the rule in the situations above, saying "Yeah that makes sense, it's completely fair what are you talking about guys!?". Anyway, that's what I think.
Well explained, and I agree. To strengthen your point ask those who disagree with the rule to add comments to this thread to show that it isn’t just 1 opinion but many. It’s difficult for clan members to understand the reality without being there constantly to witness how the rule restricts.
Your missing whole point of the game mode though! I’ve been about from the start when initially it was first created on a i3D server and it doesn’t matter if you’ve followed the commands of cts, Rebelled and survived or hid in a cell and camped. Whole point of LR (last request) is its the Ts turn to try and kill the CT and win the game round. Doesn’t matter how originally you got to LR as long as it’s played fairly. Ts have the right to rebel, hide or do what ever they wish to get to LR. CTs Job is to maintain jail security and to make sure Ts are present to all games, count checks. Stop wining that you can’t count a missing T and get CTs to do there game role and actively monitor jail security. At end of day CTs have got upper hand, they spawn with guns and should be in control. Just be more commanding.
I get what your arguments and it is the responsibility of the CT's to make sure that no one rebels but when you play certain games e.g. on Vip in the mix you have the roullete button and you make them jump between the poles sometimes only one person completes the jump and the rest don't and we can't kill the rest because the last one will end up whining about how the ct's freekilled him. [/QUOTE]Stop wining that you can’t count a missing T and get CTs to do there game role and actively monitor jail security.[/QUOTE] We are winning that's why the ts are complaining when they don't complete the game and other t's do and they die. This rule enforces something that jailbreak rounds do themselves and enforcing that behaviour by means of a rule forces that ct's to play in an overly thappy and nonfun way.
I understand what your trying to say but it’s down to the CT’s to maintain jail security. They should be able to move T’s to isolation or medic and do a count or check Ts are present. If CTs don’t find all the missing T’s, the Ts who are willing can Tell Cts there is only 5 of us here and 2 in cells please kill them first, Be a snitch or prepare to die for the T who’s playing the game mode in there own way. CTs can also ask you to snitch the location of a rebelling T but you don’t have to tell him. The rule is to secure the issues of Cts originally killing rebels and people hiding in cells at end of game because they didn’t do the games and when it come to Lr the Cts would still kill them. Now they don’t get killed, the game is played correctly and it opens the door to CTs to play more role play and interact with Ts and say snitch, role calls and everything else other than get the round over, kill them kill these,
[/QUOTE] I get what your arguments and it is the responsibility of the CT's to make sure that no one rebels but when you play certain games e.g. on Vip in the mix you have the roullete button and you make them jump between the poles sometimes only one person completes the jump and the rest don't and we can't kill the rest because the last one will end up whining about how the ct's freekilled him.[/QUOTE] By reffering to your example this is rule breaking because you are actually favourtising the T(s) who are the last alive, however didn't make the jump. In order to not to have this situation, don't play this game till LR, just sort some out and play something else. This also goes to games like: throw the ball inside the basket, "ball toss", traitor, etc. This is what I do so the new rule perfectly match in on.
In this example, the warden is suppose to say: "We failed and maybe we should do better next round." How did you lose that T in the first place? If you counted and done everything you could as CT then maybe that T is meant to win anyway since he/she is better than CTs with all the guns. The T is doing what he is meant to be doing, Ts are either to follow the commands or rebel. CTs are suppose to find and kill the rebels or make them come back somehow. CT are failing when there is a T being "naughty" and you just stand there with rest of the T being able to do nothing about it. If you can manage to kill the escaped T or make them come back before last 2 Ts then you are able to "correct" this example... If not then CTs failed and the escaping T outsmarted you, he gets LR, end of story. The CT shouldn't just kill every loser T in this example... They should do a game with the loser Ts e.g. maybe a colour game. Yea the winner (the only one to make that jump) might have to wait a bit... maybe give a toygun if you are a warden. Now what I had wrote here are just examples, every Warden may do things his/her own way depending on their creativity.
The point of the game mode is to for as many people as possible to have fun; this rule is making many people unhappy, i.e. not having fun. Also, I asked Pure on server when this rule was introduced, and he said about a month ago. Assuming he's roughly accurate, why has this rule not been in place for much longer, if it's integral to the game mode? (Obviously feel free to correct me if his estimate is wildly off.) I don't know why you think I'm whining as a CT. This rule makes it EASIER for the CTs, because they can just ignore the rebel/hiding T, at the expense of the Ts following orders. It doesn't encourage CTs to be good at their job, which is also relevant to what Nomy's saying below. And this is an important point: it's easy to just say "lol git gud at being CT" (for the record I'm not shit at it, irrelevant though), but if your rules do not actually give people an incentive to be "gud", they won't. Okay, this is your interpretation of this element of the game format, I can respect that. My interpretation would be that the "reward" for rebelling is winning the round by killing all the CTs. (Moreover, the words "Last Request" imply it's a gift from the CTs for good behaviour; it's a request, after all.) This is all more philosophical than it needs to be, though. Ultimately, the server rules should be flexible and ready to change if the community (i.e. the group of people that play on the server regularly) thinks it would have more fun with different ones. Obviously, it's your playground and you can run it how you want, but I don't think it's that unreasonable for this kind of rule to be decided democratically.
You asking a couple of people in steam chat if they want the rule or not on the server doesn't mean the whole server agrees on removing the rule.
I think now the CTs have to take into account the hiding T where as before, the hiding T was to be killed even if he/she won the LR. By introducing this rule, we have gone back to how it was originally. The way it's meant to be. I think it's more like the Last Meal given to the condemned prisoner. But all this aside, this rule was decided democratically internally by clan members. Thanks for your opinion.
If the way it's supposedly "meant to be" comes at the expense of people's enjoyment, why does anyone care? Well, that's the classic problem of clan members not actually representing the people who play on the servers. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I didn't ask anyone in steam chat. I have experienced the situations I've mentioned multiple times, and each time there was mass vocal/text opposition to the rule on the server; not a single time did anyone defend it, except a couple of admins who admitted it was stupid "but rules are rules". So y'know from a purely statistical point of view I think it's pretty unlikely that, if you took a poll the current active player-base, a majority would be in favour of keeping the rule.
The game play / instance of how you get to LR has always been in place but because it ain’t wrote down people don’t understand it’s in play. We only made it into an official jailbreak rule because constantly CT players was killing Ts who was either hiding in cells and Ts who successfully rebelled and got to LR stage. Then when the T finished his LR the CTs would try to kill him before he gets to select his next LR. It’s harder game play to actually Rebel and survive an entire round and then get LR. Same with hiding in a Cell and getting LR as Cts are meant to be doing there Jobs and checking cells, making players give up Ts, counting Ts, so on. The whole game play was there prior Jailbreak needs to go back to its roots atm to many people are spamming mmd, ffd, special day, and sadly to say commanding has gone down hill. I remember when we would have 20mins rounds and it was hilarious with a full server. It wasn’t about getting kills, getting round over quick, first reaction last reaction, admins quick to ban/mute but more about a community playing together and having a laugh.
I too am an adult and played jailbreak in the golden days of yore when there were never any shit wardens and everyone had 100% fun every second of every round and everyone was just a lot more funny. Wait, hang on a second, if I think about it actually I remember plenty of shit wardens, just like now, and plenty of boring rounds, just like now, and plenty of unfunny jokes being told, just like now. What you're doing is selectively remembering the good bits of times gone by and conveniently forgetting the bad bits. Honestly, I've been a part of so many CS communities over the years, it's hilarious that time and time again you see the "old-timers" talking about how much better things were back in the day. At the end of the day, I'm still playing jailbreak because I still have a lot of fun on it, and I made this thread because it's seems to me that the people playing it on this server (most of whom are probably not clan members) would have a bit more fun if the rule changed. That's all. Ultimately it's up to the old-timers if they want to take off the rose-tinted glasses or not. If you don't want to listen to the community, that's your choice.
i can't say remove the rule cause i like it and i used it many times but there is only one thing bothering me in the server i saw 2 different types of rule 19: some players don't kill the rebel when he is one of the 2 last Ts even if he didn't do LR and the other type like @Chris told me and like i saw him doing it: you can kill the rebel before doing LR even if he is one of the 2 last and bouth types say that they understand the rule 19 100% and that they saw the thread https://hellclan.co.uk/threads/39853/page-5#post-376025 so if you can tell us wich is the right type?!
It Doesn’t matter how a T gets to Last request. Once there are 2 Ts left all previous stuff doesn’t matter as now it’s Ts turn to try and win the round through LR. Only reason for a CT to kill a T at this stage is: 1) CT wins the LR the T chooses 2) T cheats in LR 3) T chooses to Rebel and continue to Kill CT 4) Any rules the T may break, (Rebelling) The objective is for CTs to remove all rebelling Ts before getting down to final 2 Ts. If CTs fail this then the rebeller is rewarded by doing the LR
That's why nomy created a forums website which includes sections in which you can ask the clan members. Rule 19 only started because if the question of a player, a clan member answered and added this rule because it showed that this wasn't clear to the majority of players, including me. Why taking a poll? The rule already existed indirectly, it just got more defined by the hell admins, that's it, no need for that. So you played multiple times and you still don't know that CTs are still eager to find rebellers and hiders. You said: " I don't know why you think I'm whining as a CT. This rule makes it EASIER for the CTs, because they can just ignore the rebel/hiding T, at the expense of the Ts following orders." That isn't the case. No need to explain that.
do you remember when we was in minecraft_daylight and you told us to choose between the Tree or the other 3 platforms and you said i will type numbers in Ct chat to kill 2 out of 4 and you killed them even one of them had LR and he wasn't rebelling!
This is not what you just said if the previous post. I killed all the people on 2-3 which left one T alive, I did a game to choose between several places and the 2 i had typed into CT chat would die, I killed them all on there and didn't leave 1 alive to Lr with the other T. To then which I said, it depends on the circumstances , they way you are trying to explain it is weird and wrong in my eyes. Correct me if I am wrong but you are coming across like this, We play roulette, red/blue. 1 T is in red, 20 is in blue, red wins, your saying I should kill all blue apart from 1? No, I kill them all unless the very last person in blue is fast enough to do his lr before being slaughtered with the rest of his buddys, if so hes free to carry on doing his lrs after that.
![]HeLL[ Clan](styles/quark/quark/hell_noshadow_by_amin.png)