Throughout the battle defenders were jumping out and landing on the spikes, some taking no damage and destroying our ladders. Its only when we retreated that you stopped...
Yeah the amount of castles that I've defended where the Coalition or Templars have retreated and bunkered up in the one tower that they managed to take. We had to just deal with it and get everyone together to kill the remaining guys.
The rules should apply to everyone, but ofcourse bias admins are just going to stay bias.
Throughout the battle defenders were jumping out and landing on the spikes, some taking no damage and destroying our ladders. Its only when we retreated that you stopped...
I don't understand why defenders brought up the jumping stuff. If you are defending you can decide to stay in your castle, and you certainly don't need an excuse for it.
Falling damage in native and in crpg are different AFAIK (and ofc it's higher in crpg). You saw what happened when defenders jumped out in the best spot - half of them died (including me with full hp). I see nothing wrong with admins kicking you because defenders should not go out when they have no ways to go out without getting damaged. I take here a neutral spot and clearly believe admins did right.The point is that the distance from the wall to the ground is lower there than the spot where you jumped out, regardless of falling damage settings, jeez. And yes, we did see what happened when a bunch of you jumped out like a bunch of retards intentionally getting as much height as possible and missing the spikes intentionally, I am sure you all felt mighty clever in your little channel.
I don't understand why defenders brought up the jumping stuff. If you are defending you can decide to stay in your castle, and you certainly don't need an excuse for it.Sadly you don't know shit about the usual course of action of these same admins when they are on the attacking side. I fully agree with this point, but just because one clan has admins should not mean that they get to camp as attackers while the other clan does not.
There is a bit of a difference in staying inside the enemy castle and in your own spawn. But don't let me ruin a complaint about bias.Indeed, when you are inside the enemy's castle you at least have the opportunity to attack, while we hadn't. Yet I remember clearly losing about a 100 tickets when trying to clear out a tower as defenders in Uxhal, while the timer was down to -4 minutes. The same principle applies, attackers should attack, defenders should defend.
If Attackers camp, the defenders automatically win, right, due to the timer running out? Or are we talking about when the timer has already ran out and it is "after the fact" for defender clean-up of remaining attackers?
Note that I was not there, I'm just trying to figure out what happened.
If Attackers camp, the defenders automatically win, right, due to the timer running out? Or are we talking about when the timer has already ran out and it is "after the fact" for defender clean-up of remaining attackers?
Note that I was not there, I'm just trying to figure out what happened.
If Attackers camp, the defenders automatically win, right, due to the timer running out?I'd wish that was the case. As clearly as I can put it, the attackers retreated and held outside, while having no ladders remaining. The defenders did not come out to kill them, but instead kicked the entire attacking team.
Note that I was not there, I'm just trying to figure out what happened.
I'd wish that was the case. As clearly as I can put it, the attackers retreated and held outside, while having no ladders remaining. The defenders did not come out to kill them, but instead kicked the entire attacking team.
Which is a fair course of action, if it weren't for the dozen similar situations where the same clans that were now defending camped as attackers after retreating and made the defenders lose considerable amount of tickets by waiting for them to come kill them. Of course way after the timer had run out and without a single admin even opening his mouth, even though they were surely present. Please note that Grey and DRZ do not have admins.
So once more:
The problem was not the kicking in itself, but the fact that this kicking never occured when similar situations occured the other way around
I'd wish that was the case. As clearly as I can put it, the attackers retreated and held outside, while having no ladders remaining. The defenders did not come out to kill them, but instead kicked the entire attacking team.
Which is a fair course of action, if it weren't for the dozen similar situations where the same clans that were now defending camped as attackers after retreating and made the defenders lose considerable amount of tickets by waiting for them to come kill them. Of course way after the timer had run out and without a single admin even opening his mouth, even though they were surely present. Please note that Grey and DRZ do not have admins.
Sadly you don't know shit about the usual course of action of these same admins when they are on the attacking side. I fully agree with this point, but just because one clan has admins should not mean that they get to camp as attackers while the other clan does not.
I think we can all agree that having to go kill the attackers as defenders is stupid, the issue here is that the same thing resulted in camping till the defenders killed them for one side, while it resulted in the kicking of all the attackers for the other side.
I'd wish that was the case. As clearly as I can put it, the attackers retreated and held outside, while having no ladders remaining. The defenders did not come out to kill them, but instead kicked the entire attacking team.
Which is a fair course of action, if it weren't for the dozen similar situations where the same clans that were now defending camped as attackers after retreating and made the defenders lose considerable amount of tickets by waiting for them to come kill them. Of course way after the timer had run out and without a single admin even opening his mouth, even though they were surely present. Please note that Grey and DRZ do not have admins.
So once more:
The problem was not the kicking in itself, but the fact that this kicking never occured when similar situations occured the other way around
Indeed, when you are inside the enemy's castle you at least have the opportunity to attack, while we hadn't. Yet I remember clearly losing about a 100 tickets when trying to clear out a tower as defenders in Uxhal, while the timer was down to -4 minutes. The same principle applies, attackers should attack, defenders should defend.Yeah the amount of castles that I've defended where the Coalition or Templars have retreated and bunkered up in the one tower that they managed to take. We had to just deal with it and get everyone together to kill the remaining guys.There is a bit of a difference in staying inside the enemy castle and in your own spawn. But don't let me ruin a complaint about bias.
The rules should apply to everyone, but ofcourse bias admins are just going to stay bias.
There is a bit of a difference in staying inside the enemy castle and in your own spawn. But don't let me ruin a complaint about bias.If you're sitting in a tower and not planning on ever attacking you're delaying. Same way as if they're sitting outside the walls. The only difference is that they couldn't possibly attack, and were unwilling to do so, while you were unwilling to attack, but not unable to do so, and you can't even prove that difference existed, as it isn't impossible that one of them had a ladder and just didn't feel like showing it because he wanted to chill out in a tower/outside the walls instead of attacking.
Indeed, when you are inside the enemy's castle you at least have the opportunity to attack, while we hadn't. Yet I remember clearly losing about a 100 tickets when trying to clear out a tower as defenders in Uxhal, while the timer was down to -4 minutes. The same principle applies, attackers should attack, defenders should defend.
Attackers should leave the server if they can no longer attack.
If however I am inside your castle, raping your women, you probably have an incentive to stop it.
If you boys are having your own fun outside our castle, I don't care about that.
Then we should be talking about the other cases, not this one.Technically we are. Seems clear to me that a a siege should end if the timer has run down, regardless of how much attackers are alive. I think retreating should result in the automatic end of the battle to solve all these problems. The mechanics are flawed, tt is up to the devs to change them. In the case that you don't or can't, how about we make it an official rule that when the timer has run down or when the attackers have retreated, they should leave the server?
So you accuse certain admins (including me) of being biased for things that happened (atleast according to you) in the past? This was probably my 5th strategus siege, so I am pretty sure that I haven't been around when this happened before. A lot of people in our team told us that "your" (:rolleyes:) admins also did this btw. Note that this was a special situation which is quite unlikely normally. We would have charged out of our castle if there were gates (even if when we didn't had to).Yes, there are obvious double standards here and I think all the present admins were being biased towards the clans they belong to. This was not that special a situation, you could have killed us, with bad losses, but assaulting a tower filled with great mauls yields exactly the same results. I have seen such a situation unfold multiple times and there were either no admins present on our side or they didn't know how to deal with it (there are just 2 Byzantium admins, can't recall that much Nords). I have never seen the attackers being kicked at the end before.
Probably there is a good reason why the Greys and DRZ don't have an admin yet, especially not in strategus (I don't have anything against those clans, just saying). Nords and Byzantium have enough admins afaik (who are all doing a great job like the rest), so seriously what is your point? :rolleyes:
If however I am inside your castle, raping your women, you probably have an incentive to stop it.If a small band of enemies is locking you down in a castle while you have an army inside it, you probably have an incentive to clear them out. If you have to resort to this reasoning to justify not attacking and delaying as an attacker I just don't know what to say anymore.
If you boys are having your own fun outside our castle, I don't care about that.
If you're sitting in a tower and not planning on ever attacking you're delaying. Same way as if they're sitting outside the walls. The only difference is that they couldn't possibly attack, and were unwilling to do so, while you were willing to attack, but not unable to do so, and you can't even prove that difference existed, as it isn't impossible that one of them had a ladder and just didn't feel like showing it because he wanted to chill out in a tower/outside the walls instead of attacking.
Churchill 1+ing a post like his with that broken logic clearly proves you're biased.
No, they are not the same. You might as well complain about bias in banning teamkillers but not those who kill enemies.They are the same, both guys aren't willing to attack, and are attackers. You cannot prove one of them wasn't holding a ladder, and as long as that can't be proven they're exactly the same scenario.
They are all just players after all.
Official rules should provide clarity for future cases, cause it is clear to me that admins that are present do not have the required objectivity.
If you're sitting in a tower and not planning on ever attacking you're delaying. Same way as if they're sitting outside the walls. The only difference is that they couldn't possibly attack, and were unwilling to do so, while you were unwilling to attack, but not unable to do so, and you can't even prove that difference existed, as it isn't impossible that one of them had a ladder and just didn't feel like showing it because he wanted to chill out in a tower/outside the walls instead of attacking.So attackers can decide to not bring ladders cos defenders have to come out? :lol:
Churchill 1+ing a post like his with that broken logic clearly proves you're biased.
They are the same, both guys aren't willing to attack, and are attackers. You cannot prove one of them wasn't holding a ladder, and as long as that can't be proven they're exactly the same scenario.
They are clear. Camping as attackers after time ran out is delaying and thus kickable. It doesn't stop tons of drama and accusations of bias either way though.
So attackers can decide to not bring ladders cos defenders have to come out? :lol:No, attackers should get banned and kicked for flat out delaying, whether it's in a tower or at their spawn.
People are really funny
No, attackers should get banned and kicked for flat out delaying, whether it's in a tower or at their spawn.so having enough ladder is attackers' responsibility. u admit that
so having enough ladder is attackers' responsibility. u admit thatYes, never claimed anything else, but not having ladders and not attacking is no worse than sitting in a tower able to attack and not doing it.
Yes, never claimed anything else, but not having ladders and not attacking is no worse than sitting in a tower able to attack and not doing it.Then why should defenders attack attackers while they have enough food and women inside? Think the issue realist and decide on it again please. You attack a castle, you finish your food, you got some illness in the army and you still camp near the castle. Will attackers wait for death or retreat? this kicking shows you retreat, right?
The easiest solution to this, like someone suggested, is that attackers are automatically kicked after the time runs out.
That would be impartial and fair for everyone and Strat battles would happen more on time.
Perhaps the EU admin team is biased as fuck in general?
The easiest solution to this, like someone suggested, is that attackers are automatically kicked after the time runs out.The fact that this hasn't been done already even though it's obviously a good thing leads me to believe we can't count on this getting implemented anytime soon.
That would be impartial and fair for everyone and Strat battles would happen more on time.
But there is no way to jump down as a crowd and get no damage. You either jump in a crowd and die or you jump 1 by 1 and get killed by attackers who are camping there.Heh, funny. Kinda similar to going up a stairway one by one and getting killed by the attackers who are camping up the tower wouldn't you say?
Also your statement about defenders trying to get the maximum damage while jumping down is a total bullshit. Who in the world would waste tickets by just dying?Apparently you guys. Wasting 10 tickets to justify not going out to save some more tickets. Someone on your team stated in chat 'It's raining men' after which you all jumped in retarded manner from the wall which obviously showed little intention of surviving the drop. It was obvious really, maybe you were doing the best you could to survive, but some on your team surely weren't. A little effort in looking for a better spot to jump down could also have yielded much better results.
This is possibly the first thread about slight admin abooze for EU. I've seen atleast 4 threads recently about NA admins.
We clarified these rules like a year ago with Meow, cmp, whoever else so the NA admin team knew what was up. I remember kicking a bunch of EU fallen for doing this same shit in an NA strat battle. The rage and entitlement was hilarious. BUT ON EU WE CAN DO THIS EVERY TIME..
Perhaps the EU admin team is biased as fuck in general?
Heh, funny. Kinda similar to going up a stairway one by one and getting killed by the attackers who are camping up the tower wouldn't you say?
Why are you even talking about this? I wasn't there when I don't even know who did this. If somebody didn't get caught on doing something wrong that's not players' fault but admins'.I am talking about that because that is the entire point of this thread :rolleyes:. The admins didn't do jack shit about that, while they should have, but now it concerned their clans losing tickets it suddenly was no problem for them to act.
Could have sworn I saw an attacker or two constantly getting ladders from the weapon rack and dropping them unused on the ground, had quite a big pile in the endAnd yes towards the end we were spawning with as many items and ladders as possible and dropping/dieing with them as you do to lower the amount the enemy receives but again in Crpg, items disappear after an extended period of time so we had no ladders to use. - as some have said attackers who retreat should just lose all their forces but maybe not lose those tickets which are still active or maybe they should as they were doomed anyway? but realistically they would kill off some of the defenders troops and the way it is now is the most realistic as attackers would have to leave a couple men behind to cover their escape and it should be the defenders responsibility to hunt them down as we have in the past which has cost us but it's not like hundreds of years ago they could just delete people who were either hiding in a tower or stuck outside a castle with no way in. And yet again the contradiction with the abuse of admin Powa to favor ones team is what annoyed me and that we didn't get to try and take as many kills at the end which the attackers have done in the past.
alright man up teeth its the same thing when the last guy cant get reached so he have to jump down in this case the defenders had no chance to jump down due to a long jump a a swarm which would kill the survivors.Common sense is a little less common everytime the admins are on the attacking team, though. Apparently you don't really get what the thread is about, yet you feel like you have to ignorantly post here, well don't.
common sence is common.
apparently you have to bring this up because you feel cheated in some way, well dont.
If you think this is about admin abuse, please use my thread in admin feedback to discuss it. I made the call to kick attackers as the senior admin in there, so I call responsibility for this. However, I'd take the same course of action even if it was clanmates camping when the battle timer is at -6 and I've got other stuff to do.Of course I can't really blame you personally for making a decision that wasn't made whenever it was in the advantage of your side of Strat, but it does make you the inconsistent admin compared to the others. However I do agree with the decision you made, and I really hope that you will in fact make this decision when your faction is delaying. At least there is 3 admins that I know of who supported making this decision now, so I really expect these 3 to do some kicking regardless of who is delaying. Otherwise they are confirmed badmins. Maybe you could state a general statement that attackers should be kicked when delaying on your little admin forum, so there is more consistency.
The easiest solution to this, like someone suggested, is that attackers are automatically kicked after the time runs out.This seems like a good idea, but I've seen too many battles come down to after the timer, with both sides having little to no tickets.
That would be impartial and fair for everyone and Strat battles would happen more on time.
Cyrus, Everkistus and Erzengel - frustration floods your eyes and mind. If you can't control your negative emotions, why do you want to be admins? I know that due to my personal preferences and strong temptation I don't want to be an admin, because objectivity often requires effort, but if this shit has run like in last time, maybe I should apply for admin :lol:
I've written before that both sides cheat .... maybe by accident or on purpose.
I see this on both sides and to deny this is ridiculous.
I know that you are trolling, but it is really getting boring.
I'm sorry if boring :)
It seems easy enough to me to distinguish between someone who is still in your castle and someone who is outside.It's not. When talking about a huge scene like Uxhal, camping the gatehouse of the outer wall, with not a single building being between the outer and second wall, is exactly the same as being outside the castle to me. That did cost Grey Order a 100 tickets and 4 minutes past the timer to clear out though and not even a single warning was issued.
I just don't get what the problem is here, I have looked at these rules and I don't see it.:wink: innocence(click to show/hide)
It's not. When talking about a huge scene like Uxhal, camping the gatehouse of the outer wall, with not a single building being between the outer and second wall, is exactly the same as being outside the castle to me. That did cost Grey Order a 100 tickets and 4 minutes past the timer to clear out though and not even a single warning was issued.Well the whole construction is bad and bad. Left ladder is not holding on spikes its just erected like **** from ground ..
I just don't get what the problem is here, I have looked at these rules and I don't see it.
1) Ladders
1.1) Floating ladders. You are not allowed to stay on floating ladders. If for some reason your ladder becomes floating, you are to get off it, even if it means suicide.
1.2) Ladderplacement. For now there are no rules on unrealistic ladders, so they are allowed. (as long as you keep the other rules in mind)
It's not floating and there are no rules on unrealistic ladders, with 'unrealistic' being a very vague definition anyway, but I guess that is why there are no rules about it.
Yeah, the targeted multiaccounting bans...
No bias at all.
As ever, storm in a tea cup.Now this is an altogether lovely saying that I must remember, it sounds so much better then "Making mountains out of molehills."
Remember when you tried to prove that they were deliberately ignoring some multiaccounters, so you banned one on your own "evidence," and then it turned out it was just your personal bias and you were deadmined?
Remember when Kesh posted on his girlfriends forum account? That basically proves at least account sharing is happening, so yeah, gg.
Yeah... So since FCC is apparently free of multi-accounters, who exactly are they ignoring now?
Fallen ofc
You've repeatedly proven that you are one of the most biased people in the entire community given your impressive hatred towards a rather large selection of the community (That somehow even surpasses the hatred that a lot of anti-UIF old-schoolers have towards UIF, which is saying something), but please, do go one preaching your self-rightous "I only want [selective] justice [without evidence]" speels that you seem so fond of.
Now this is an altogether lovely saying that I must remember, it sounds so much better then "Making mountains out of molehills."
Forum account sharing is hardly the same as game sharing, since one has zero impact in game and can happen due to simple mistakes, hence why Kesh was unbanned.Goats, also Smoothrich and CNN told me not to trust you guys!!
He admitted it wasn't a simple mistake, and stop bullshitting, forum accountsharers can 1+ eachother to give them a higher renowncount!!
0As for the next statement of yours, I've personally stamped out a single incident of a member trying to multi-account before it even happened a year and a half ago (perhaps two), and I thin000000000,00k 0w0,e0've only had to do that just one other time (roughly two years ago). I might be forgetting one other incident, but everytime we have always nipped it in the bud the instant Leadership found out about it.
There is no plausible way anyone can run a clan and not find out if he has a multi-accounter inside it for long...
You see, The Fallen are not as incredibly stupid as a lot of the community, and seem to understand this basic concept: Nobody knows what tool cmp uses to catch multi-accounters, but it works, so you will get caught... So we don't do it. It really is that simple, hence why we've never been mass-banned for it.
Multi-accounting and thinking you won't get caught is like installing autoblock and thinking you won't get caught. It is just pure stupidity. I still remember the sour taste I had in my mouth when a Fallen showed up on one of the autoblocker waves way long ago, but we have yet to have that happen again for anything else.
Nobody multi accounts in Fallen, and I'd love for anyone to prove otherwise, but please do share your theory on why we do it unless it is typical "I don't like Fallen so I bet they are dirty cheaters."
Anyone who thinks they can get away with multi-accounting or autoblocking is a delusional fool.
Kesh plays on Busty's account nearly 24/7, Busty has probably played no more then half a dozzen hours of cRPG in her life even if her account is the second most active Strategus army/Strategus merc for FCC, he's a rampant account sharer, and many people in FCC were encouraged for the past 2-3 Strategus's to multiaccount, account share, and so forth on a very large scale. These are all facts. If you knew why Kesh was unbanned you'd probably laugh because he's so blatantly guilty still, but I'm not gonna talk about The Truth in ways that can compromise things.
The fact is I'm sure Kesh would've stayed banned if it was done by Meow or Tomas and he was in UIF. Almost all "investigations" for multiaccounting were just deferred to biased admins who only "investigated" flagged accounts who were russians because "its more likely lol." I bet dozens of them were multiaccount banned with much flimsier evidence, because they are all treated like shit by devs and admins and that's really the main point of the thread. The insane amounts of bias by a small insular circle jerk community that made sure half the groups don't have admins and get blanket banned in whimsical ways.
I'm not biased against individuals or people in clans, but by observing (or trying to change) some of the admin bureaucracy in the game it becomes really obvious that most people involved are more or less racists who jerk it to banning people they don't like with flimsy evidence, and will treat people with more condemning evidence they do like with lenience. Then some people try to be impartial and fair and they're the ones who look bad in comparison.
Obviously that's how most institutions end up being run I suppose. Still pretty funny to watch how shitty it is and how pervasive for years those negative stereotypes and senses of entitlement can be.
many people in FCC were encouraged for the past 2-3 Strategus's to multiaccount, account share, and so forth on a very large scale. These are allfacts.shit smoothrich makes up in his head to justify his abuse of admin powers and feel justified and persecuted like a martyr while being the most biasedadminex-admin in the game.
I'm not biased against individuals or people in clans, but by observing (or trying to change) some of the admin bureaucracy in the game it becomes really obvious that most people involved are more or less racists who jerk it to banning people they don't like with flimsy evidence, and will treat people with more condemning evidence they do like with lenience. Then some people try to be impartial and fair and they're the ones who look bad in comparison.
stuff
(click to show/hide)
I just don't get what the problem is here, I have looked at these rules and I don't see it.:wink: innocence(click to show/hide)
...
It's not floating and there are no rules on unrealistic ladders, with 'unrealistic' being a very vague definition anyway, but I guess that is why there are no rules about it.
1.3) Siege-equipment on ladders is not allowed. This includes using siege shields, other ladders and everything you can make with a construction-site.
I just don't get what the problem is here, I have looked at these rules and I don't see it.
...
It's not floating and there are no rules on unrealistic ladders, with 'unrealistic' being a very vague definition anyway, but I guess that is why there are no rules about it.
Ladders are siege equipment. Do not place ladders while standing on another ladder. The ladder targeted in the screenshot is indeed in breach of the rules.
That rule could have clearer language. "Siege equipment" is never defined in the rules, leaving the term ambiguous. Someone in good faith could interpret it to mean siege shields and constructables.Because its true. You cannot place siege shields, ladders, c sites on top of the ladders :) The rule is fine as it is.
A simple and clear rule would be: 1.3) Do not place anything on ladders.
Minimal room for misinterpretation.
Edit: On the edit on the rules: That works better.
Because its true. You cannot place siege shields, ladders, c sites on top of the ladders :)
Ladders are siege equipment. Do not place ladders while standing on another ladder. The ladder targeted in the screenshot is indeed in breach of the rules. Rule has now been updated for clarity.Thanks, much better.
Ladders are siege equipment. Do not place ladders while standing on another ladder. The ladder targeted in the screenshot is indeed in breach of the rules. Rule has now been updated for clarity.But they are now doing it. When I am writing here, they are in the fight. :rolleyes:
But they are now doing it. When I am writing here, they are in the fight. :rolleyes:You should make a banthread in the global section. 1+ for screens.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Edit:And they are still doing it
Ave Rus set a ladder here but couldnt took the shot here.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Edit2:And more coming(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Here, he intended to set it but canary warned him and he didnt.(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)(click to show/hide)
Question: Is setting ladders on siege shields bannable? It creates an advantage in an open area battle.(click to show/hide)
Abay. Post some more pictures please, I don't think people get it :?
Question: Is setting ladders on siege shields bannable? It creates an advantage in an open area battle.(click to show/hide)
My guess is that abay is showing the obvious exploiting done by multiple players on the side you played for bagge... Just a guess.
Question: Is setting ladders on siege shields bannable? It creates an advantage in an open area battle.Its not a siege shield actually. :wink: It's undestroyable map object
visitors can't see pics , please register or login
you cant put a siege shield on a ladder, you can put a ladder on a siege shield, so long as the base of the ladder is touching the ground.
you cant put a siege shield on a ladder, you can put a ladder on a siege shield, so long as the base of the ladder is touching the ground.makes sense, thanks :)
I lol'd so hard I almost crapped myself. Good show Vibe!(click to show/hide)