Not Planned Let's talk: One Marker Lives

[milo]

One marker lives is inherently just a toxic game- meant to be fast, based on luck (or ghosting), and a way for CTs to simply just kill people. The major problem with the game is that it is just a way to just kill a large amount of the Ts because, let's be real, everyone plays it with 4 markers and it results in it being a 1/4 chance to live. Roulette on it's own is arguably a toxic game, but when you bring the stakes to 1/4? It's not fun for anyone. For some reason, over the past couple of weeks, there has been a spike in the usage of the game, and, what directly lead me to create this post, is the usage of it as a custom day. I understand the validity of custom days is all up to admin discretion or whatever it is, but the day and game is so incredibly toxic that it outshines even the most toxic custom days, second to only fish in a barrel (which is essentially just MFK).

TLDR One marker lives should be restricted as a valid custom day (or, even further, changed as a whole) due to it's nature as a game.
but, that's just my two cents ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[SneakyTurtle]

-1, 1 marker lives is basically 4 corners if you do it with, well, 4 markers and 1/4 to live is fine in my book.
Not too long ago there wasn't a rule restricting you to playing 25% non-map games so you could do afk colors which if you stand on top of 4 platforms to maximize your chance of living is 1/6.
Just because the warden is being toxic we shouldn't change the rules, the better solution is to w/w/b for toxicity b being a ct ban.

 

[Larry David]

+1
Completely agree. There are players who take warden just to play one game (or two, depending on online admin unclear rule interpretations) and then do 1 marker lives, every time they get warden.

It's clear these players have mal intentions or become stunlocked when they take warden, and play one-marker to compensate for their lack of creativity. It has been awhile since anyone has innovated on jailbreak, and rules aside, people play the game for fun and 1 marker lives drives us in the wrong direction.

As for SneakyTurtle, there shouldn't be a precedent of banning on the basis of toxicity, there should just be anti-toxicity baked into the rules themselves.

 

[milo]

-1, 1 marker lives is basically 4 corners if you do it with, well, 4 markers and 1/4 to live is fine in my book.
Not too long ago there wasn't a rule restricting you to playing 25% non-map games so you could do afk colors which if you stand on top of 4 platforms to maximize your chance of living is 1/6.
Just because the warden is being toxic we shouldn't change the rules, the better solution is to w/w/b for toxicity b being a ct ban.

4 corners barely ever gets played as opposed to 1 marker lives, and the problem with toxicity w/w/b is that toxicity is even more admin discretion-y than any other rules which basically means the amount of bans is so miniscule to the toxicity as a whole.

 

[4g0tt3nSou1]

I think one marker lives needs to be one marker dies, and rather I have a problem with the methodology of validating it on the admin side.

 

[whnheaven]

I think one marker lives needs to be one marker dies, and rather I have a problem with the methodology of validating it on the admin side.

I weigh one marker lives, repeated cancer jumps, (games that exert purposely being toxic) kills server pop. +1 on setting harder requirements/ rules to allow players to actually play map games rather than feed certain peoples ego.

 

[Majesty]

my opinion is i dont mind it, there's already a player restriction so maybe add a 2 map game restriction to it as well

 

[SneakyTurtle]

my opinion is i dont mind it, there's already a player restriction so maybe add a 2 map game restriction to it as well

same here, if anything should change there should be a restriction on when you can play it, completely removing something is never the best solution

toxicity is even more admin discretion-y than any other rules which basically means the amount of bans is so miniscule to the toxicity as a whole.

I agree, but I think we should push for awareness that this is something admins should pay more attention to, rather than removing a game from being played just because of a couple of abusers

 

[Crazy]

I mean the rule is already pretty restrictive on luck-based games.

• Under 15 players
• MUST have 25% chance to live
• Can't be first game

One marker lives is the same as some map games that are out there just in different variations. I don't think the rule needs changing, as that is already pretty balance imo.

That also being said, this talk of admins punishing this for being "too toxic" just for playing the game can't happen either. It's a game and the warden can play it, as much as it might suck for the Ts (just like tower of hell sucks, or any roulette game sucks. Some games just suck). To be honest, that's just the video game. Sometimes the warden does be like that. (now if they are playing it every day that's a different story obviously).

I would be more interested in talking about primaray secondary mele grenade than this game.
-1

 

[Larry David]

Sometimes the warden does be like that. (now if they are playing it every day that's a different story obviously).

This is the whole problem of the topic, as I see it—Wardens who play this second game, round after round.

 

[santa]

This has actually been in talks recently about possibly changing the amount of people you have to have to play certain games like one marker lives. Will get back to you when the AT team/Leadership have made up their mind.

 

[Majesty]

This is the whole problem of the topic, as I see it—Wardens who play this second game, round after round.

if this is the case they can be ct banned for excessive toxicity because continuously playing a game that's luck based every round is toxic

 

[gliptal]

The fact these r the t/ct ratios of the only 2 people against this says a lot .

To be honest, that's just the video game. Sometimes the warden does be like that. (now if they are playing it every day that's a different story obviously).

I would be more interested in talking about primaray secondary mele grenade than this game.
-1

I don't understand how this is okay because it doesn't go against any of listed rules, but other luck based games have already been specifically excluded in the rules like fish in a barrel. Also how does primary secondary melee make more sense to remove when the T has better odds at winning that?

The only case where one marker lives makes sense is when warden runs out of time and no other game will get to LR fast enough. However, 9/10 it is the warden's fault for not going through the round quickly enough. Now the remaining Ts who have won multiple games to get to the end of the round are given a 25% chance of getting LR, no skill involved (unless you have a friend on CT), and 30+ dead Ts have to wait an additional 2 minutes for LR to finish after what is likely a full 8 minute round.

+1

 

[IAmU1tra]

I don't think it's bad if you need to end the round really quickly but some people do it all the time. It needs to be limited stronger I'm kinda between. Maybe make is have to be at least 50/50 +1/-1

 

[Majesty]

View attachment 14341
The fact these r the t/ct ratios of the only 2 people against this says a lot .


I don't understand how this is okay because it doesn't go against any of listed rules, but other luck based games have already been specifically excluded in the rules like fish in a barrel. Also how does primary secondary melee make more sense to remove when the T has better odds at winning that?

The only case where one marker lives makes sense is when warden runs out of time and no other game will get to LR fast enough. However, 9/10 it is the warden's fault for not going through the round quickly enough. Now the remaining Ts who have won multiple games to get to the end of the round are given a 25% chance of getting LR, no skill involved (unless you have a friend on CT), and 30+ dead Ts have to wait an additional 2 minutes for LR to finish after what is likely a full 8 minute round.

+1

im not against it being played im against people playing it second game every round over and over

we shouldn't ban the game outright just make it so people cant abuse it

and my team ratio is pretty balanced idk what that has to do with it

 

[gliptal]

im not against it being played im against people playing it second game every round over and over

we shouldn't ban the game outright just make it so people cant abuse it

and my team ratio is pretty balanced idk what that has to do with it

Why shouldnt the game be banned ? There is so little reason for it to be allowed.
Also ur ct ratio is probably in the top 15%, it should matter

 

[Majesty]

Why shouldnt the game be banned ? There is so little reason for it to be allowed.
Also ur ct ratio is probably in the top 15%, it should matter

my time played has nothing to do with my opinion on the game. it's just four corners and some maps have that as a built-in map game.

personally I couldn't care less if it was removed but I also don't see a reason why it should be. so I guess ill change my opinion to a +1/-1

 

[milo]

my time played has nothing to do with my opinion on the game. it's just four corners and some maps have that as a built-in map game.

personally I couldn't care less if it was removed but I also don't see a reason why it should be. so I guess ill change my opinion to a +1/-1

would just like to remind you guys that 4 corners is normally equivalent to one marker dies, not one marker lives. the game kills one of the four corners, not three.

 

[Majesty]

would just like to remind you guys that 4 corners is normally equivalent to one marker dies, not one marker lives. the game kills one of the four corners, not three.

oh right, i guess sort of the same, just the luck is different. idk either way idec what happens to the game