Breblo Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 20 Joined: 10/31/09 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 This thread is in regards to the new Warning Shots are required rule. This rule has its good times and its bad times. It makes every Terrorists job easier and every Counter-Terrorists job 10x harder. As we know being a Counter-Terrorist is hard enough as it is. I believe that this warning shot rule was put into affect by people who probably don't play Prison Break. Which is why, I would say 60-75% of the PB population do not like it. With warning shots we can no longer kill people for not following rules. What they are doing may seem as a non rebellious act but I would say 85% of the time it WILL lead to a rebellious act. Which leaves Counter-Terrorists stuck because people could just say, Blah blah, I didn't hear the rules or I was getting the phone! This rule needs a major rethinking or a modification. If it is wanted to keep this rule you could possibly change it to "Warning shots are required unless a CT clearly states if you do not do something or if you go somewhere you will die unconditionally" I, and probably most of the PB community would greatly appreciate the reconsideration of this rule. Thank you, Breblo 4 Link to comment
anomo Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 220 Joined: 10/15/08 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 (edited) i agree, i think there should be a REQUESTED warning WITH NAME! but i hate the fact that you have to shoot... Edit: Unless its something like running for a tele/vent/has gun etc. and FIRST Edited December 21, 2009 by anomo More info about what i think should be the new rule Link to comment
Dracula Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 4685 Joined: 03/26/08 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 (edited) Remove it, as ive said. Edited December 21, 2009 by Dracula Link to comment
Jayman Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 131 Joined: 03/31/09 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 I think Breblo is spot on about his information. I think they should make a major rethinking of this rule, and decide once and for all to either keep it, remove it, or make it more specific about what a "warning shot" really is. I don't know if this is right but, when I state a rule to the T's and say "or die" at the end of it, I don't think a warning shot should be required because that is there warning, and they shouldn't even be trying to run around. If this is wrong, please correct me. I personaly, would like to see the warning shots rule, folded up, packed, and burned for good! What ever your decisions may be I respect them and hope you make a good choice. Thank you, Jayman3902 Link to comment
Daze Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 6741 Joined: 06/10/08 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 Add it, the remove it, the add it again and oh wait let's take it off. what the fuck Link to comment
Breblo Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 20 Joined: 10/31/09 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 I am not sure who wanted it to be added but I am sure that most of the ACTIVE users want something done about it, either removed or reworded. Link to comment
Desum Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 1078 Joined: 07/20/08 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 Add it, the remove it, the add it again and oh wait let's take it off. what the fuck Daze, the problem with that statement is that most people didn't want to add it in the first place. Only a handful of people, most of which don't even play PB that much, wanted the warning shot rule at all. So, of course we'd make threads to remove it. PS... IB4L Link to comment
Micro Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 561 Joined: 04/03/09 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 the fact that there is a warning shot system happing some take it over the top and and abuse it saying "it was a warning shot srry" when the person never did one thing wrong it should stay and be changed to help understand it better Link to comment
Exacto-Be Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 763 Joined: 10/17/09 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 Add it, the remove it, the add it again and oh wait let's take it off. what the fuck lol i can understand ur frustration ... reason why ws were put in was cuz ppl could kill terror for doing minor rebellions ... like if they (accidentaly) jumped out of pool they got headshotted ... this made it a no-fun for terror ... so the idea came up that putting ws on would prevent this ... now the problem is that terror abuse this rule to rush at a ct & then complain that the ct didnt warn but just shot them in the head .... solution ... specify the ws ... give warnings for rebels that aren't dangerous but if they are dangerous, just shoot the hell out of them so if a t rush at u ... u shoot without warning but if a t leaves pool at the other side of the pool than u are, u can't shoot him anyhow warningshots has 2 sides ... neg & pos ... u guys gotta accept 1 of these sides & stick to it Link to comment
Crimson Posted December 21, 2009 Content Count: 5303 Joined: 05/20/08 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2009 (edited) I'm thinking of scrapping EVERY rule, and rewritting them for the new year. Pending BD Approval, though.. 8 Edited December 21, 2009 by Crimson Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Reply to Thread
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now