Jump to content

? servers

? players online

JB "CT Lock" Command

Recommended Posts


  • Content Count:  391
  • Joined:  12/24/16
  • Status:  Offline

Make a command that admins can use that will lock the CT side and prevent people from joining CT so they will stay on T. This command could be very very useful in events so that admins can control the amount of CTs they would want on at a time for certain events. I see a lot of events get out of control b/c admins aren't able to send all of the people who aren't supposed to be on CT on CT.

 

PS Also allow admins to move people from T to CT and vise versa

 

@Dominic @eXtr3m3 @Manny

  • Like 5
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  824
  • Joined:  10/15/18
  • Status:  Offline

I personally don’t see the need for this as admins already have the ability to switch the team a player is on. If a player were to switch from t to ct side and stack ratio, an admin could simply move them back over to t and warn them to not switch back for ratio.

  • Like 1
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  3294
  • Joined:  10/28/18
  • Status:  Offline

Admins are already allowed, and incentivized, to move players from T to CT. Who they switch, however, is up to their discretion. If I'm not wrong there's already a CT lock when ratio gets bad. I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  5674
  • Joined:  01/07/16
  • Status:  Offline

Admins should not be forcing players onto CT, allowing that would be one of the worst things we could do for the server. You'd be forcing players into situations where they could potentially accidentally break rules and get themselves banned, we encourage new players to play T for a reason.

  • Like 8
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1987
  • Joined:  12/24/18
  • Status:  Offline

Make a command that admins can use that will lock the CT side and prevent people from joining CT so they will stay on T.

 

We already contain the power to move people from CT to T and if they switch back after being moved several times and told not to switch there’s the CTBAN option that keep the targeted player off of CT x amount of time spent alive in game.

 

PS Also allow admins to move people from T to CT

 

That’s gonna be a fat no. People will join CT if they want and any rule breaking that occurs will be on them. If we end up forcing them onto CT and they break a rule it will be on us.

 

Make a command that admins can use that will lock the CT side and prevent people from joining CT so they will stay on T. This command could be very very useful in events so that admins can control the amount of CTs they would want on at a time for certain events.

 

For a plug-in to only be implemented during the events I would mind seeing that happen for the reason stated, but for just in general no.

  • Like 1
Edited by Trazz
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  64
  • Joined:  06/24/19
  • Status:  Offline

Most of the time there is no reason to move T's to CT, because more people like to play CT, and have all the power, lol. Anyways piggy-backing off of @Dominic we dont wanna force people who are uncomfortable on CT to play, and most likely break rules... As well there is a "CT lock" that automatically kicks in, it does not seem to work though maybe some improvements to that?

Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1583
  • Joined:  06/19/17
  • Status:  Offline

Damn people really shitting on Kicks. I believe that he is specifically referring to EVENTS for the most part, including admins vs members and Juggernaut where specific people need to be on each team.

 

I think it would be more feasible to only lock people out of CT, but allow them to join T if they would like, requiring admins to switch them back to CT.

  • Like 2
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  1799
  • Joined:  12/31/17
  • Status:  Offline

I like this specifically for events, which is the exact reason for the post.

This command could be very very useful in events so that admins can control the amount of CTs they would want on at a time for certain events. I see a lot of events get out of control b/c admins aren't able to send all of the people who aren't supposed to be on CT on CT.

 

 

Not sure why people are freaking out thinking this would be used during regular play. Most likely if this were to happen the command would be locked to CA+ and used only for events. The best example I can think, of when this will be used, is during events like Protect the President. When we want to control who joins CT and easily move people from one team to another, so we can give everyone a fair chance of getting the VIP.

 

This discussion will continue among the higher-ups & CAs but I can't see this being at the top of our priorities if we decide to go through with it at some point.

  • Like 4
Link to comment

  • Content Count:  3294
  • Joined:  10/28/18
  • Status:  Offline

I like this specifically for events, which is the exact reason for the post.

 

Not sure why people are freaking out thinking this would be used during regular play. Most likely if this were to happen the command would be locked to CA+ and used only for events. The best example I can think, of when this will be used, is during events like Protect the President. When we want to control who joins CT and easily move people from one team to another, so we can give everyone a fair chance of getting the VIP.

 

This discussion will continue among the higher-ups & CAs but I can't see this being at the top of our priorities if we decide to go through with it at some point.

 

Thanks for the clarity, but yeah @Kicks this idea would be great for events like Admins Vs. Players.

 

 

Admins should not be forcing players onto CT, allowing that would be one of the worst things we could do for the server. You'd be forcing players into situations where they could potentially accidentally break rules and get themselves banned, we encourage new players to play T for a reason.

 

Anyways piggy-backing off of @Dominic we dont wanna force people who are uncomfortable on CT to play, and most likely break rules... As well there is a "CT lock" that automatically kicks in, it does not seem to work though maybe some improvements to that?

 

My apologies, I was referencing a thread where a CA (I believe) said this. I can't find that thread, and I also don't remember if an official answer was given or not.

Link to comment

Reply to Thread

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...