Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - Printable Version

+- SourceOP (http://forums.sourceop.com)
+-- Forum: SourceOP Server (http://forums.sourceop.com/SourceOP-Server-forum)
+--- Forum: Problems/Help (http://forums.sourceop.com/Problems-Help-forum)
+--- Thread: Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws (/Banned-Consistently-exploiting-architectural-flaws-thread)

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - OmegaZero_Alpha - Sep 22, 2010

jerclay Wrote:That's my point. It was UNINTENDED to be overpowered and it's not an EXPLOIT to use. ie, not all unintended things are an exploit when willfully used. That third option I mentioned earlier, and that you apparently missed.

DUNNOLOL Wrote:My god you have no clue how making a video game works.

The stats were intentionally made the way they were for testing purposes knowing that they would change it later. They don't put internal modifiers there for aesthetic value. Your examples continue to be absolute shit.

everybody Wrote:Stop posting.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - jerclay - Sep 22, 2010

OmegaZero_Alpha Wrote:The stats were intentionally made the way they were for testing purposes knowing that they would change it later. They don't put internal modifiers there for aesthetic value. Your examples continue to be absolute shit.

Ridiculous. Not only is it by definition not testing if it's in production, you're going well beyond your original definition of intended and exploit to custom tailor your argument. Either my outcome is an exploit, or you have to drill down to thinking it was unintended to have it allow things to pass through it (never mind that ridiculous assumption). If my outcome is an exploit, it's not about the aesthetic value. If it's the window itself, I have to willfully know it's not intended (even though it appears in other maps and has the same properties), and that's not true at all.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - OmegaZero_Alpha - Sep 22, 2010

jerclay Wrote:Ridiculous. Not only is it by definition not testing if it's in production, you're going well beyond your original definition of intended and exploit to custom tailor your argument.

jerclay actually Wrote:I have never played a game made by valve, nor have I ever heard of valve or the team fortress team

Its okay, man. We were all newbies once.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - WombRaider - Sep 22, 2010

shut the fuck up oza

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - jerclay - Sep 22, 2010

I originally wrote something about ignoring the underlying joke of buying products still in beta, but knowing he'd bark up that stupid tree if I left it out was too good to pass up, so I deleted it.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - OmegaZero_Alpha - Sep 22, 2010

OH, yeah. Valve hasn't released blatantly unfinished or untested items publicly just drastically change them later.

You are totally right.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - WombRaider - Sep 22, 2010

WombRaider Wrote:shut the fuck up oza

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - jerclay - Sep 22, 2010

OmegaZero_Alpha Wrote:OH, yeah. Valve hasn't released blatantly unfinished or untested items publicly just drastically change them later.

You are totally right.

It's a shame intent and reality are two different things, huh? And the blinders have to be on pretty restrictive to apply that to Natasha and not open windows. But hey, anything goes in the name of semantic victories, I guess.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - Squirrelygod - Sep 22, 2010

Congratulations everyone, for 10 pages of facepalm worthy shit.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - Rostov - Sep 23, 2010

Squirrelygod Wrote:Congratulations everyone, for 10 pages of facepalm worthy shit.

Just doing my part.

---