Banned: Consistently exploiting architectural flaws

[WombRaider]

I didn't feel I needed to read the full thread because I actually PLAY on 2fort and I actually understand the issue, and I agree that the subject is debatable. If you had read MY post you would have noted that in any debate the person who has the end-all authority as to the matter is the server administration. As son as they make their decision the matter is as good as closed and your opinion is invalid.

So when hell-met decides to say that rocket jumping onto a light or something like that is an exploit we should just accept our bans because he's an admin and knows best?

As has been proven many, many times: the administration can be WRONG.

Calling this an exploit doesn't mean it actually is one.

It may be fucking stupid to sit there all map and do this, but it's certainly a viable strategy.

[OmegaZero_Alpha]

How is being dead-weight a viable strategy? (ignoring the fact that it is 2fort)

You are essentially trying to be offense and turtle at the same time. You boost your kill count but you aren't really being helpful.

And just because the administration has been wrong doesn't mean that we don't have to listen to what they say.

[Hell-met]

I was wondering how long until you'd stop defending the reasoning you gave after it was shown flawed, and just resort to belitting the idea in general. Four pages. It's easy to predict if (that was the first reply), the hard part is predicting when.

I can't resist laughing at some stubborn twit making youtube videos on a expired ban matter.

Get over yourself.

On a side-note, you haven't shown my idea as flawed anywhere else other than in your imaginary world.

So when hell-met decides to say that rocket jumping onto a light or something like that is an exploit we should just accept our bans because he's an admin and knows best?

except it won't happen.

if you're on a tiny ledge or prop somewhere in the battlefield or enemy base, you're vulnerable as shit.

And just because the administration has been wrong doesn't mean that we don't have to listen to what they say.

being wrong is subjective.

You can kill opposing snipers without ever getting yourself killed with the scottishresistance by shooting inside a cosmetic prop. This is an exploit in my book.

[Adder]

except it won't happen.

if you're on a tiny ledge or prop somewhere in the battlefield or enemy base, you're vulnerable as shit.

So basically you banned him because you couldn't kill him easily, how is that any different from grate campers?

[WombRaider]

im sure the guy was just as easy to kill as any other demoman who sticky trapped a door.

BUT OH NO A SNIPER COULDN'T SHOOT AT HIM

[jerclay]

I didn't feel I needed to read the full thread because I actually PLAY on 2fort and I actually understand the issue, and I agree that the subject is debatable.

The reason he and I accused you of not reading the thread and misunderstanding the issue is because you stated the other team couldn't do it. That is false, and has already been covered in this thread.

Welcome to the world of politics and lawmaking. If you had any higher understanding of the matter you would realize that rules HAVE to be intentionally vague (while being clear at the same time) as to make them better fit every scenario. Rules aren't about being an end-all guide book giving you every scenario, they are to start out as a rough-cut guideline to be further defined by higher powers as situations arise.

That's one of my points, though. Part of a meant-to-be-10-day ban was justified because the admin is acting as if it's cut and dry that it's against the rules.

You are being egotistical to even think that you are important enough for Hell-met to ban you for 'personal reasons'.

Even though he's kicked me before, was his first ban (per him), and he meant it to be 10 days? You can try to frame this scenario as not being unique, but that's not true.

"And that begs the question: If he says that it isn't intended to be used that way would you gracefully back away when you received a permanent ban?"

First of all, "not intended" is a far cry from "exploit." There are TONS of examples in TF2 that weren't intended but aren't an exploit. But if he stated it really is exploiting I wouldn't do it again, even on other servers.

You are essentially trying to be offense and turtle at the same time. You boost your kill count but you aren't really being helpful.

Because it squelches the opposing battlements? And I've seen admins spend a half hour or more doing nothing other than running a DR spy, going to the battlements / front of the bridge, getting killed, then running back into the base. It's at least as helpful as that is.

And just because the administration has been wrong doesn't mean that we don't have to listen to what they say.

Look, I realize if the administration were to state we're disallowed to headshot them, I have to listen. It doesn't mean there's no weight in showing they're wrong.

On a side-note, you haven't shown my idea as flawed anywhere else other than in your imaginary world.

And the map design world. You felt pointing out some property on the object showed it was just a mistake and not intentional to allow objects to pass through. I showed they have other objects with the same properties that of course they allow objects to pass through.

You can kill opposing snipers without ever getting yourself killed with the scottishresistance by shooting inside a cosmetic prop. This is an exploit in my book.

I can do it with either sticky gun, but whatever. I've already shown it means nothing that it's a cosmetic prop (the door frame is a cosmetic prop - are we not allowed to use those as well?). And the only difference between doing that and shooting people directly in front of the base, is who I kill.

So basically you banned him because you couldn't kill him easily, how is that any different from grate campers?

Get this - I could camp the front of the bridge from the exact same position, without issue. It isn't because of how safe I am. It's because of who I can kill - the precious sniper deck.

[Hell-met]

So basically you banned him because you couldn't kill him easily

An exploit gives you an advantage. An advantage makes you do better ingame. It's basically a loop.

how is that any different from grate campers?

grate campers have no access to instant safety and you can come from behind and kill them.

And the map design world. You felt pointing out some property on the object showed it was just a mistake and not intentional to allow objects to pass through. I showed they have other objects with the same properties that of course they allow objects to pass through.

Show me again without a monstreous wall of text.

I can do it with either sticky gun, but whatever.

No, you can't. If you do it with the regular stickygun, your stickies on the balcony blow up.

[jerclay]

Show me again without a monstreous wall of text.

Uh, you even quoted and replied to it:

The door frame (doorframe002C.mdl), to the opening of the battlements for each side have the same collision property. The slats in the bridge roof - which I've been shot multiple times by snipers, including Ibby and Skyrider - have the same physics as the slats on the BLU battlement roof...

I don't see the comparison. The snipers shooting you through the bridge rooftop are out on the battlements and vulnerable.

I then stated I brought that up to show my point was of the architecture and the balance was a separate issue, and here we are.

No, you can't. If you do it with the regular stickygun, your stickies on the balcony blow up.

So? I just go back to spawn and refuel more often. But hey, are you stating it's ok as long as I use the normal sticky gun?

[Hell-met]

I then stated I brought that up to show my point was of the architecture and the balance was a separate issue, and here we are.

There's a reason all 5CP and CTF maps are symmetrical.

So? I just go back to spawn and refuel more often. But hey, are you stating it's ok as long as I use the normal sticky gun?

At this point it wouldn't exactly make much sense to allow this.

I see you're trying to prove you're the good guy in this matter. But in the end, all your insisting only makes me remember to have a better eye on you ingame.

If you have a problem, PM DF.

[WombRaider]

At this point it wouldn't exactly make much sense to allow this.

why not? half your problem was him being able to defend himself against someone jumping up to the battlements.