"Crossfire"

[IrohJinnouchi]

Crossfire itself is really annoying for Ts because most of the time if someone gets crossfired they aren't allowed to go to medic most of the time. The only time they are allowed to go is when a lot of Ts are hit in crossfire. I want to add a new rule to what is considered crossfire. This rule is that "it is NOT crossfire if the CT does not hit the intended T". I doubt you could enforce this rule with most rapid fire guns but i'm trying to make this rule mostly for AWP using CTs. I see this a lot in JB, a CT tries to kill a KOS T with an AWP and "crossfires" an innocent T, they don't even kill or hit the KOS T, then they call crossfire and don't have to slay. i want this rule to affect all guns because most people in JB don't want to get killed or hit in crossfire just because the CT is terrible at aiming.

[All Ts]

If a CT is really bad, extremely careless or purposefully trying to kill other Ts it's already against the rules as far as crossfire goes.

 

Even if it is against the rules they still don't have to let you go to medic though.

[Luke]

Medic isn't and should never be a requirement, though it may be frustrating genuine crossfire will always end up occurring.

 

I do not however believe that the current rules need any adjusting, simply that some players in the server like to throw 'crossfire' into their sentences to get away with certain shots. I think the current ruling is okay.

 

If - for example - a CT is unnecessarily within the situation using an AWP against a group of Ts and just happens to only strike the innocent one then he should be slayed. Things should only be deemed crossfire if there is a necessity to eliminate a threat (even then, crossfire isn't always an excuse) and the occasional accidental situation.

[Four]

Since this is of the topic, What if you are using an awp, shoot a rebeller and kill him, and the shot kills an innocent T as well, would you have to slay for that?

[All Ts]

Since this is of the topic, What if you are using an awp, shoot a rebeller and kill him, and the shot kills an innocent T as well, would you have to slay for that?

 

Depends on whether it was super careless, but otherwise this is pretty much the definition of crossfire so no.

[Caution]

I have no idea where this "having to slay" trend started, but it's pretty dumb. Admins really should not be requiring people to slay when shit is an obvious accident or obviously crossfire; it comes off as power hungry and douchey. If someone is going over the line with it, then sure - but there is no reason to require somebody to slay over it happening once. Shit happens.

[Chloe Gallagher]

I have no idea where this "having to slay" trend started, but it's pretty dumb. Admins really should not be requiring people to slay when shit is an obvious accident or obviously crossfire; it comes off as power hungry and douchey. If someone is going over the line with it, then sure - but there is no reason to require somebody to slay over it happening once. Shit happens.

 

It's more of an honour system really. If I fuck up and kill someone by mistake, I'll slay only fair that we both miss out.

 

Really though, if you kill or hit someone with crossfire just apologize at the very least.