Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws

[ibby]

Yay DF to the rescue!

[Pocket]

ummm....

what is a SourceOP?

like what does it mean or stand for

[Snarf]

Source operations? Unless it's an acronym.

[Yabden]

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

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

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.

[WombRaider]

I have sent email to Robin which will hopefully settle this.

Both sides of this debate have merritt. Personally, I wouldn't have banned for it, but only to avoid drama like this. It is pretty clear to me that it shouldn't be allowed but it's minor enough and easy enough to counter that I wouldn't worry about it.

To be perfectly honest I don't think his view on this should matter one way or the other.

Even if it was unintentional, the fact that it exists on both sides makes it fair to both teams, and the only players who would have trouble stopping it would be really bad ones.

My main issue is hell-met's definition of an exploit. It includes things like wrangler jumping, rafter camping, pyro rocket jumps, hiding stickies inside of props, or a triple stickyjump that you survive my landing on a part of a building.

[Hell-met]

It includes things like wrangler jumping, rafter camping, pyro rocket jumps, hiding stickies inside of props, or a triple stickyjump that you survive my landing on a part of a building.

oh?

[Snarf]

My main issue is hell-met's definition of an exploit. It includes things like wrangler jumping, rafter camping, pyro rocket jumps, hiding stickies inside of props, or a triple stickyjump that you survive my landing on a part of a building.

What the fuck?

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

It includes things like wrangler jumping, rafter camping, pyro rocket jumps, hiding stickies inside of props, or a triple stickyjump that you survive my landing on a part of a building.

oh?

He found a long time ago it is easier to win an argument when you choose your opponent's views for them.

[jerclay]

It includes things like wrangler jumping, rafter camping, pyro rocket jumps, hiding stickies inside of props, or a triple stickyjump that you survive my landing on a part of a building.

oh?

He's commenting how on how you're allowing "exploit" to slide into the defintion of "unintended."

See, an exploit is always about a very specific action, and not the result of a sum of actions. For example, it's considered an exploit to kill people thorugh setup grates. That's very specific - killing people who are assumed to be safe, when you're in an assumed-safe position yourself.

But this doesn't have that. As I've pointed out, I'm no safer than someone sticky trapping the front of the base from the same position. I can only cover as much area as I do from the other side of the battlements. Neither is considered an exploit. And saying that the combination of two aspects that are not an exploit, makes it an exploit... What other exploit works that way?

And we're spending a bunch of time harping on that window. Ignoring that the same window model has other maps it appears on with the same physics (just none have as much potential), the slats on the BLU base side give even more potential, and match the missing slats on the BLU bridge physics-wise. To state shooting stickies through one set of slats is forbidden, yet getting headshots through the other is ok, is just plain inconsistent.