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 - Hell-met - Sep 27, 2010

engineers used to be able to go under the map on gravelpit

clearly this is intended

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - Adder - Sep 27, 2010

Clearly this isn't a black and white issue because it varies from situation from situation and admin to admin, so everyone arguing semantics on what constitutes and exploit can stop.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - OmegaZero_Alpha - Sep 27, 2010

Hell-met Wrote:engineers used to be able to go under the map on gravelpit

clearly this is intended

And you aren't guilty if you built 900 sentries at once during the glitch-fest because it isn't an exploit it is just an unintended gameplay flaw that allows you a clear advantage and there is totally a difference because natascha was overpowered and if using that wasn't an exploit then... then...

I can't even fake this guy's side of an argument sarcastically...

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - WombRaider - Sep 27, 2010

jesus christ oza shut the motherfuck up.


your inability to see the differences between shooting through a window and obvious game breaking glitches clearly demonstrates that despite what you'd have us believe you're still a stupid fucking kid

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - OmegaZero_Alpha - Sep 27, 2010

WombRaider Wrote:My opinion > Your opinion
Insert random baseless insults and swear words because swear words make me a grown up

Your argument is well thought out, appropriate and relevant. Please continue.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - Yabden - Oct 01, 2010

OmegaZero_Alpha Wrote:

Yabden Wrote:Fixing the window is looking at the problem from the wrong perspective

Eliminating the whole battlement wall and ceiling is the way to go

The snipers up there aren't doing anything but taking up slots anyways

Yeah, lets completely butcher a map instead of clogging a 2x3 window.

Someone is lacking a sense of humor.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - jerclay - Oct 03, 2010

Five serious counter-points have been brought to the table, with one being questionable and pending Valve response, and only one holding any water at this time:

1. The object within the map design has evidence of a mistake on the designer's part.

Not true. That object has the same properties as other objects that are supposed to let things like grenades through. That same window object appears on other maps with the same properties.

2. It's unfair - the other side can't do that.

Not true. BLU has slats in the roof that allow the same thing. Maybe a point if it was from the hay room on the BLU side, but we're talking about the battlement roof. Disallowing grenades through that window makes the map less symmetrical, as a matter of fact. Despite what people who "actually play 2fort and actually understand the issue" say.

3. It's unfair - it's too difficult to counter.

If that was true, it would be a problem whether you were shooting the other battlements or in front of your base. There isn't a problem when shooting the front of your base. You can even shoot from battlement to battlement on the opposite side with a wall protecting you. No, "difficulty to counter" isn't defined by which enemies you kill.

4. It's unfair - Valve says so.

Well, that's up to them. It's feasible they state, despite all other spots they allow grenades through open objects (including that same window object in other maps), that this one is unfair.

5. It's unfair - admin says so.

The only one that holds water at this time. The motherly "because I said so" response. An admin could say it's unfair to give them headshots, and because it's their ball, they have every right to leave with their ball in hand if they don't like something.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - Snarf - Oct 03, 2010

You seriously still fucking care?

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - OmegaZero_Alpha - Oct 03, 2010

Snarf Wrote:You seriously still fucking care?

I have more of a problem with him just repeating the same fallacious bullshit.

---

Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws - glouch - Oct 03, 2010

Snarf Wrote:You seriously still fucking care?

uhh snarf where did you find that image? 8O :blurp:

---