cRPG

Strategus => Strategus Issues => Topic started by: partyboy on April 19, 2013, 07:10:10 am

Title: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: partyboy on April 19, 2013, 07:10:10 am
fix your damn game
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Sparvico on April 19, 2013, 07:11:27 am
So say we all.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Wesleysnipes on April 19, 2013, 07:16:29 am
It took bird brain into the negative time in order to make a decision. Down with the green bird! Remove that admin!
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Homey_D_Clown on April 19, 2013, 07:18:38 am
it's unfortunate you guys didn't have better armor to sit afk and leech with in the unreachable spot for 2 hours.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Relit on April 19, 2013, 07:25:45 am
Ten years I was a referee for the NHAHA (volunteer) and I have never seen a bigger display of dilatory in my life. It is almost as if the admins went out of their way to waste as much time as possible JUST to say that they gave it "due process". I have handed out real life suspensions to athletes after careful review in less time and with even more unclear rules/precedents. Absolutely shameful.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Artyem on April 19, 2013, 07:35:28 am
Well, I guess we'll just see how the admins respond to this!

Congratulations on another thrilling city cap, FCC!
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Rhekimos on April 19, 2013, 07:53:57 am
Plain ridiculous.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: partyboy on April 19, 2013, 08:18:24 am
It took bird brain into the negative time in order to make a decision. Down with the green bird! Remove that admin!

FWIW it was Hosp leadership who decided "fuck it" even though they were playing the game as it was designed.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Little Lord Lollipop on April 19, 2013, 08:19:17 am
Yeah kudos for Hosp taking the higher ground.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: MrShine on April 19, 2013, 08:35:52 am
strat has bugs that aren't always fixed in a timely way, and strat is dying.  News at 11.

Hospitaller decided to cede the castle when they didn't have to.  They did this because they felt that using the bugs to win a hollow victory wasn't worth it.  They could have easily said "fuck it", and continued the cycle of bug abusing.

I think that's worth repeating, they (eventually) chose to give the castle up over winning.  Afterall, what's the point of winning something when no one cares or plays?

People are bitching about how long it took to come to a decision; please realize that this was a shit situation that was one big gray area where no admin decision would have been received happily from everyone.  Think of the end result as a compromise, both sides didn't get everything they wanted, but the end result of the battle was changed.  Also blaming Canary is dumb, not only was he not the only one discussion things, admins shouldn't be put in a situation where massive strat bugs force them to choose who wins and who loses in the first place.

The light at the end of the tunnel is maybe both sides can try to stop abusing things like this for the sake of winning.  Obviously we all want to win, but this is a situation where you have to ask yourself "at what cost?".  We're the c-rpg community, and we aren't that big.  If you are a dirty snake who abuses known bugs to win, you're going to find yourself short on playmates.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 19, 2013, 08:44:54 am
I was absent from the battle.  Does anyone have any logs of actual admin messages?
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Smoothrich on April 19, 2013, 08:50:47 am
How about one of you idiots explain what actually happened for drama/breaking bullshit news of how cRPG is a garbage game so we can actually be informed instead of just bitching about something nerdy with zero context
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Relit on April 19, 2013, 08:56:27 am
strat has bugs that aren't always fixed in a timely way, and strat is dying.  News at 11.

Hospitaller decided to cede the castle when they didn't have to.  They did this because they felt that using the bugs to win a hollow victory wasn't worth it.  They could have easily said "fuck it", and continued the cycle of bug abusing.

Congratulations to Hospitallers for taking the high road. I do not think anybody has a issue with them or how THEY handled it.

People are bitching about how long it took to come to a decision; please realize that this was a shit situation that was one big gray area where no admin decision would have been received happily from everyone.  Think of the end result as a compromise, both sides didn't get everything they wanted, but the end result of the battle was changed.  Also blaming Canary is dumb, not only was he not the only one discussion things, admins shouldn't be put in a situation where massive strat bugs force them to choose who wins and who loses in the first place.

Please spare us the tired argument of admins being placed in bad positions, wherein they have to hurt somebodies feelings. The position you volunteered for is one where you can not always make somebody happy, if you can not accept that, then perhaps you are in the wrong position. Also who else should be blamed? Canary was the highest ranking admin in the server, it is his position to make the tough calls that the other admins can not or will not make. Expecting people to actually do what they volunteered for is not that unheard of.

The light at the end of the tunnel is maybe both sides can try to stop abusing things like this for the sake of winning.  Obviously we all want to win, but this is a situation where you have to ask yourself "at what cost?".  We're the c-rpg community, and we aren't that big.  If you are a dirty snake who abuses known bugs to win, you're going to find yourself short on playmates.

Who exactly are you accusing here? Coming from a admin no less. Do you, MrShine, have proof of somebody abusing bugs? If so, why are you not enforcing the rules then?

That we even got into this situation is a sad display of the general lack of consistent leadership from our admins and even more of a lack of attention/caring from the developers.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Smoothrich on April 19, 2013, 09:06:34 am

Who exactly are you accusing here? Coming from a admin no less. Do you, MrShine, have proof of somebody abusing bugs? If so, why are you not enforcing the rules then?

That we even got into this situation is a sad display of the general lack of consistent leadership from our admins and even more of a lack of attention/caring from the developers.

Pretty sure that "enforcing rules" seems to get you deadminned/threatened to be permabanned in this community.  The devs are ignorant and the admins are all shamelessly petty and corrupt or obsessed with internet Power due to failed real lives (or use the position to pursue pedophiliac urges with impunity despite warning the heads of the game).  Expect nothing to ever be done about anything remotely attempting to enforce fair rules and fun in the game unless you bribe admins with cRPG gold/looms or are in a clan with them.  I'm dead serious.

Fuck Admins.  Fuck cRPG.  Play Other Games 2013.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 19, 2013, 09:10:35 am
Typical Smoothrich, trying to paint himself a martyr in a situation that has nothing to do with him and bring attention to himself.

The devs are ignorant and the admins are all shamelessly petty and corrupt or obsessed with internet Power due to failed real lives (or use the position to pursue pedophiliac urges with impunity despite warning the heads of the game).  Expect nothing to ever be done about anything remotely attempting to enforce fair rules and fun in the game unless you bribe admins with cRPG gold/looms or are in a clan with them.  I'm dead serious.

This, however, does hold some truth to it.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Spanish on April 19, 2013, 11:33:28 am
Hmm smoothrich seems unhappy, I wonder why that would be.


All of the admins that we're on the server discussed the problem at hand a problem I wasn't even aware of until Kesh popped into hosp TS. The thing is that it wasnt even a bug we really intentionally took advantage of similiar to the case of when Hosps sieged a castle with glitched walls, that broke from catapults on the inside but were perfectly fine on the outside. It wasn't the defenses fault that the castle broke but it still gave them a huge advantage by forcing the attackers to rely on ladders which came to the point that we couldn't even get onto the castle walls. Hosps took quite a loss at that battle we complained about it but we didn't blame the defense for abusing it. They just did what anybody could and played around it.

Granted the situation here is different but its shares the same similarity that it wasn't the defenses fault that they got stuck with a bug that crippled the offenses ability to take over the castle. We all saw this and forcing the Defense to pay for a bug and forcing them out wasn't something any of us wanted to do. So blaming it all on Canary is not called for as it really should be blamed on the Devs for not fixing a known glitch or really anything in strat. I also would of liked a siege that wasn't horrendously flawed as the Occitan battles following were much more enjoyable  than having to deal with such a convoluted mess.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 19, 2013, 11:42:37 am
I believe the rule is if you are in an unplayable area, you must do your best to get out, or go spec/quit.  Normally, it doesn't take Canary an hour to enforce this on battle, I wonder why it did here.

There is no question of fault here, we are not trying to place blame.  But, if we must, it is the devs or map makers.  We have addressed this issue many many months ago and nothing was done.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Malaclypse on April 19, 2013, 11:48:40 am
I believe the rule is if you are in an unplayable area, you must do your best to get out

Well, I think the vast majority of those who spawned back there, including myself for a number of lives, tried to get out and indeed did get out (though our lives outside of said spot were usually short, violent affairs). A few times I just randomly spawned at another flag somewhere else in the town for no apparent reason.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: FRANK_THE_TANK on April 19, 2013, 12:03:27 pm
Ten years I was a referee for the NHAHA (volunteer) and I have never seen a bigger display of dilatory in my life. It is almost as if the admins went out of their way to waste as much time as possible JUST to say that they gave it "due process". I have handed out real life suspensions to athletes after careful review in less time and with even more unclear rules/precedents. Absolutely shameful.

You made me look up a word!!! Bravo sir, and thank you for extending my vocabulary. I had thought it not possible to learn anything but insults on this forum!
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: MrShine on April 19, 2013, 02:20:38 pm
Please spare us the tired argument of admins being placed in bad positions, wherein they have to hurt somebodies feelings. The position you volunteered for is one where you can not always make somebody happy, if you can not accept that, then perhaps you are in the wrong position. Also who else should be blamed? Canary was the highest ranking admin in the server, it is his position to make the tough calls that the other admins can not or will not make. Expecting people to actually do what they volunteered for is not that unheard of.

Who exactly are you accusing here? Coming from a admin no less. Do you, MrShine, have proof of somebody abusing bugs? If so, why are you not enforcing the rules then?

That we even got into this situation is a sad display of the general lack of consistent leadership from our admins and even more of a lack of attention/caring from the developers.

My point is there was no "right answer", so any admin call is essentially weighing which action is the least abusive.  It's not a matter of "it's a tough call people are going to be mad at me", it's a matter of "there is no correct call". 

Also, don't play coy.  We all know strat has had plenty of crazy bugs, and I'm sure nearly every faction has been on the giving & receiving ends of those bugs.  With that in mind, we can either play the game a) where everything goes, taking advantage of absurd bugs that we know shouldn't be there or b) play the game in the spirit of how it was designed to be played.  All I'm saying is Hospitaller chose b), and hopefully that example can be followed for the remainder of strat from all factions.   This is a situation where our community needs to police themselves, not call for a higher ruling from admins like some sort of supreme court.

Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Turboflex on April 19, 2013, 04:20:58 pm
strat has bugs that aren't always fixed in a timely way, and strat is dying.  News at 11.

Hospitaller decided to cede the castle when they didn't have to.  They did this because they felt that using the bugs to win a hollow victory wasn't worth it.  They could have easily said "fuck it", and continued the cycle of bug abusing.

I think that's worth repeating, they (eventually) chose to give the castle up over winning.  Afterall, what's the point of winning something when no one cares or plays?

People are bitching about how long it took to come to a decision; please realize that this was a shit situation that was one big gray area where no admin decision would have been received happily from everyone.  Think of the end result as a compromise, both sides didn't get everything they wanted, but the end result of the battle was changed.  Also blaming Canary is dumb, not only was he not the only one discussion things, admins shouldn't be put in a situation where massive strat bugs force them to choose who wins and who loses in the first place.

The light at the end of the tunnel is maybe both sides can try to stop abusing things like this for the sake of winning.  Obviously we all want to win, but this is a situation where you have to ask yourself "at what cost?".  We're the c-rpg community, and we aren't that big.  If you are a dirty snake who abuses known bugs to win, you're going to find yourself short on playmates.

Hospi still had a very low chance of winning. What would have happened was with timer out we would have killed your final 300 tickets eventually. We had plate on, you were naked and coming through a very limited choke that was surrounded. We were building healing tents too so even if you managed to land a cudgel hit it on someone they'd heal it. It would have taken another hour but we woulda killed those 300 tickets it eventually with you guys on 60 second respawns.

So I am glad Hospi finally conceded and spared us all that long tedious ordeal of another hour of peasant killing at 2am but it really should have been conceded 1 hour before when you ran out of gear and we had complete control of the city with the only thing preventing a flag cap being the unreachable flag.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Wesleysnipes on April 19, 2013, 04:26:44 pm
It was clear FCC had complete control of the city. It was a matter of an unreachable flag that spared Hosp for some time. I think most players on FCC side including me were mad about the admins decision( that took way too long ). Also we are blaming Canary because he doesn't give a shit about FCC( everyone knows ). You can side track or stand up for your fellow admin. But I know Canary is biased. If it was Chaos in FCC's position Canary would jump on it right away like a bird to a worm. In NA1 as murder stated. I hate this bird brain. I think he was a good admin when he started but now he is a "has been". If you can't handle such an important responsibility just step down and do us all a favor. A bigger favour if you can pop a couple pills at the same time.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Malaclypse on April 19, 2013, 04:52:04 pm
It was clear FCC had complete control of the city.  Also we are blaming Canary because he doesn't give a shit about FCC( everyone knows ). You can side track or stand up for your fellow admin. But I know Canary is biased. If it was Chaos in FCC's position Canary would jump on it right away like a bird to a worm. In NA1 as murder stated. I hate this bird brain. I think he was a good admin when he started but now he is a "has been". If you can't handle such an important responsibility just step down and do us all a favor. A bigger favour if you can pop a couple pills at the same time.

This post makes a ton of assumptions. Wesley assumes that any feelings Canary may have towards FCC are related to what he does as an admin. Wesley assumes that he would act differently with different factions involved. Wesley assumes that what he thinks about an admin has anything to do with whether or not they're fulfilling their duties. Wesley assumes that arbitrating on Strategus is an important responsbility. Wesley implies that MrShine and Desire were either completely impotent or are also biased.

I'm not sure what the last sentence means. Could be taken a few ways. I'll make my own assumption and assume Wesley's not the kind of scumbag who would want someone to kill themselves over a video game; maybe he's a medical professional who's made some sort of diagnosis, or maybe he's advocating some over the counter medication or black market fare, idk. He'll have to elaborate.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 19, 2013, 05:21:48 pm
This post makes a ton of assumptions. Wesley assumes that any feelings Canary may have towards FCC are related to what he does as an admin. Wesley assumes that he would act differently with different factions involved. Wesley assumes that what he thinks about an admin has anything to do with whether or not they're fulfilling their duties. Wesley assumes that arbitrating on Strategus is an important responsbility. Wesley implies that MrShine and Desire were either completely impotent or are also biased.

I'm not sure what the last sentence means. Could be taken a few ways. I'll make my own assumption and assume Wesley's not the kind of scumbag who would want someone to kill themselves over a video game; maybe he's a medical professional who's made some sort of diagnosis, or maybe he's advocating some over the counter medication or black market fare, idk. He'll have to elaborate.

Relax Mal, Wesley is only implying that Canary forgot to take his Common Sense pills.

Anyway, you should really let Canary explain himself, you are not his keeper.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Warborn304 on April 19, 2013, 05:52:42 pm
I also would of liked a siege that wasn't horrendously flawed as the Occitan battles following were much more enjoyable  than having to deal with such a convoluted mess.

Once I saw this I'll just have to say this, and if anyone wants to talk about it PM me or steam me.

You thought the Occitan battles following this were much more enjoyable with the overcast of that COMPLETE SHIT siege looming overhead? It is fairly obviously what should have been done about that Hosp siege, and being in hosp TS listening to all of that was painful. I'm glad I had to do roll call for these "much more enjoyable" battles, that you participated in.

Let me explain the atmosphere that I am talking about when I am saying that this siege was the worst thing that I have ever seen. Anyone who plays strat should have fun, and get XP. Anything past that is a pain in the ass, that is my philosophy. So there shouldn't be yelling, worrying about K/D, no 5+ Leaders yelling 30 different things. It should be one guy, leading a party so everyone can have fun/xp. The great thing about strat is that people can actually get life experience leading other people around, and participate in something that they may not otherwise experience outside of the game.

HOWEVER, This siege glorified what is wrong with c-rpg in so many different ways.
It's very clear that:

The devs aren't patching, or hot fixing any of this shit. My personal opinion is to freeze or end strat. Let the devs fix all of these problems so the game is actually functional to a level that is somewhat enjoyable and we can proceed.

As for the Occitan battle being more enjoyable after this shit siege? Really? From what I hear Occitan dupe bugged all of their armor. We send waves of genuine armies that have been worked up to since the beginning only to have them pretty much spawn camped near the end with lots of tickets left. because of plate and mauls.

IF you really wanted to have fun in these battles you would level the playing ground. Trust me, at least I am trying to catch up to Occitan's equipment and shit so I can give my mercs fun, because I cannot foresee Occitan doing anything to let this be fun. So in short the battles following we're the same convoluted mess, if you think that what Occitan is doing is fun, your perception of things is skewed.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Canary on April 19, 2013, 06:29:29 pm
Hello. I guess I'll explain part of what went down last night from my perspective.

I believe the rule is if you are in an unplayable area, you must do your best to get out, or go spec/quit.  Normally, it doesn't take Canary an hour to enforce this on battle, I wonder why it did here.

It took longer than it would have in the battle server because there was more at stake. Instead of smoothing the progression from round to round during any similar situation that would come up in the regular battle server we had to actually look at different sides of an issue in order not to waste the resources of dozens of peoples' spent time with what might have been a bad call.

The rule you're referring to, incidentally, is no camping unreachable areas, not "being in an 'unplayable area'", whatever that means. A more appropriate rule to cite would be NOT OK: exploiting invisible barriers. To what extent spawning uncontrollably in an area of a map you can't easily escape from is considered "exploiting", well, that's the question, isn't it?

And it was less than an hour, actually. I was still spawning on flags in the proper part of the town by the time I decided to stop respawning altogether in order to confer better with the other admins via I-chat. Attackers only started "going for flags" around 47 minutes before the fight ended, including overtime due to attacker retreat.


Listen:

Here's why we didn't make a ruling before the issue came to the forefront of the battle (that is, when the attacking side was asking admins to make a ruling before it really came up so that they could change their strategy): It would have hinged upon admins predicting the outcome of a battle and assigning victory based upon that prediction. Before the issue had even come into play. Past battles had seen victory for attackers in spite of the bug at this fief, so it wasn't a certainty that it was going to become this big of a problem. In the past we've kicked people behind the barrier, but they were hiding, not fighting, and tickets were down to zero for defense.


While there are precedents for defenders delaying at the end of strat fights and being kicked for it, it almost always comes down to them positioning themselves in an area of a fief without any spawn flags (or tickets remaining). If they're in an otherwise unreachable position under more normal circumstances (say, if attackers run out of ladders) and if they have got a flag they can continue to spawn on, they are allowed to remain there by rights.

There are also precedents for attacker spawns having invisible walls making them unreachable to defenders to capture. It's not immediately punishable to be in a position behind an invisible wall, in a strategus scenario that would be a ridiculous rule to enforce in light of the unpredictable nature of map quality and spawn selection. If you're attacking from behind the barrier, there's a problem, yes. If you're standing behind the barrier and doing nothing and you're one of the last players alive at the end of a fight, that is also a problem. It's unfortunate for defenders, when there could be a theoretical scenario where the flag being captured would've swayed the outcome of the fight. When battles have come down to attackers having only one remaining flag behind a barrier, they aren't immediately removed from the server assuming they're still attempting to attack the defense (after coming out of the barrier, of course).

There were several reasons not to jump to conclusions and start kicking the entire defending team for spawning at a spot where the attackers had an incredibly difficult time reaching them.

In the end we were going to go with giving it to the attackers on this one. However, along the line of discussing the issue with other admins, I wound up in a conversation with Hospitaller leadership. I started talking to Peppovitch about the nature of strategus issues and the glitch in question, about the exploitation of game mechanics and the feeling of abandonment by the devs most players are feeling. I talked with him about how this battle would go if there was no glitched spawn. How it could serve the game to play it as it was intended, despite the intended mechanics being broken. I discussed with him how he had an opportunity to play better, and eventually he took it. Instead of handing out rulings, I allowed the people at the short end of the stick to be the better men.

I'm sorry that it took so long to get to the conclusion. (most of all to Les Chevaliers Occitan and Velucan Empire, as their following battle was delayed by several minutes, and also to the mercs involved in the following fights)

I'm not sorry that I helped some players treat the game better and play it better, instead of sullying it with unnecessary arbitration and furthering the rift between already clashing personalities. I'm not sorry if you guys have more respect for the Hospitallers and their actions as a result of this, even if that means I lose more of your already waning respect for me.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Haramir on April 19, 2013, 06:32:12 pm
Once I saw this I'll just have to say this, and if anyone wants to talk about it PM me or steam me.

You thought the Occitan battles following this were much more enjoyable with the overcast of that COMPLETE SHIT siege looming overhead? It is fairly obviously what should have been done about that Hosp siege, and being in hosp TS listening to all of that was painful. I'm glad I had to do roll call for these "much more enjoyable" battles, that you participated in.

Let me explain the atmosphere that I am talking about when I am saying that this siege was the worst thing that I have ever seen. Anyone who plays strat should have fun, and get XP. Anything past that is a pain in the ass, that is my philosophy. So there shouldn't be yelling, worrying about K/D, no 5+ Leaders yelling 30 different things. It should be one guy, leading a party so everyone can have fun/xp. The great thing about strat is that people can actually get life experience leading other people around, and participate in something that they may not otherwise experience outside of the game.

HOWEVER, This siege glorified what is wrong with c-rpg in so many different ways.
It's very clear that:
  • Siege equipment is broken
  • Maps and bugs bias the attackers or defenders
  • People are clearly going to exploit these bugs.
  • People have no common sense
  • Devs are MIA and essentially strat is FUCKED.

The devs aren't patching, or hot fixing any of this shit. My personal opinion is to freeze or end strat. Let the devs fix all of these problems so the game is actually functional to a level that is somewhat enjoyable and we can proceed.

As for the Occitan battle being more enjoyable after this shit siege? Really? From what I hear Occitan dupe bugged all of their armor. We send waves of genuine armies that have been worked up to since the beginning only to have them pretty much spawn camped near the end with lots of tickets left. because of plate and mauls.

IF you really wanted to have fun in these battles you would level the playing ground. Trust me, at least I am trying to catch up to Occitan's equipment and shit so I can give my mercs fun, because I cannot foresee Occitan doing anything to let this be fun. So in short the battles following we're the same convoluted mess, if you think that what Occitan is doing is fun, your perception of things is skewed.

We only had one equipment bug and it only give us some money which we publicly aknowlege.  All it gave us is some sets of armor equal or lower to all what you are currently using.  All we did from the beginning is adapting to your attack, we start using maul because that what we looted from you. 

Its pretty strange to whine about our gear when you almost always have superior gear and more troops to sacrifice.

Losing a battle does not give you the right to say shitty thing about us, LCO are eventually going to be wipe out and you don't see us insulting everybody about it.

Talking about what would be fair and fun would have been to gave us our castle back after the retreat bug, your are the big faction stomping us.  I don't understand why on earth the more your faction are attacking us, the more you hate us for defending ourselves, maybe we should just had run away so none of these hundred big battle with super XP could of exist
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: BoneSaw on April 19, 2013, 07:22:13 pm
Word up partyboy. Damn mod runs worse than the van I live in, down by the river.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 19, 2013, 08:19:48 pm
Canary, can you cite the rule that says when you spawn in an unreachable area, you can stay there longer than you have to?  I feel you are just making up a rule or addendum.

I am not trying to call you out as a bad admin, rather that we have a bad system.  Most rules in this game are a half sentence at best, with no clarification.  The only follow up to any and all rules is use common sense.  Common sense changes depending on which way the wind is blowing or which parties are involved.  As you know, your faction and mine are currently rattling swords at each other.  I want better written rules and when possible the exclusion of admins from the decision that are not truly neutral, due to strat relations.  Unfortunately, the only active admins are in Chaos.  Also unfortunately, you write walls of text at me conveying what could be written in a sentence.  You refuse to comment during battles, except maybe wheb i report a ladder over a flag.  Then you wonder why people are upset when you are oddly silent when bigger issues arise.  Then you go further to accuse me and my kin of wanting to break the game and exploiting every rule under the sun.  Meanwhile, we have reported every bug regardless of the outcome, but you refuse to read past Kesh's atrocious writing style to see the actual message.  We have suggested, debated and argued for bug fixes which go completely ignored.  I have personally investigated and researched bugs, tried to recreate and document them, only to get accused of trolling or griefing.  This is a beta, you are supposed to break the game.  In other communities, you are praised and possibly rewarded when you find and isolate a bug, here you are threatened with a ban.

Canary, I submit that you should clarify the rules instead is following them loosely when it is convenient.  If need be, poll and discuss much like Haboe did.  I challenge you to stop being a politician and start being an admin.  We do not need another Shik, Smoothrich or Cyrus_HRE on our hands.  Once the rules are clear, it will much harder for the masses to be upset with you, and you will stop having to appease everyone when rules and punishments are followed to a T.  Also hire more admins so you don't always have to make the decisions.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Matey on April 19, 2013, 08:25:38 pm
It was clear FCC had complete control of the city. It was a matter of an unreachable flag that spared Hosp for some time. I think most players on FCC side including me were mad about the admins decision( that took way too long ). Also we are blaming Canary because he doesn't give a shit about FCC( everyone knows ). You can side track or stand up for your fellow admin. But I know Canary is biased. If it was Chaos in FCC's position Canary would jump on it right away like a bird to a worm. In NA1 as murder stated. I hate this bird brain. I think he was a good admin when he started but now he is a "has been". If you can't handle such an important responsibility just step down and do us all a favor. A bigger favour if you can pop a couple pills at the same time.

I disagree with the assertion that Canary wasn't taking actions because of his bias. The problem with Canary is that he doesn't take action at all if he can avoid it, regardless of who is involved. I don't just mean if he can find a better solution or anything, I mean he will let problems exist and let things go to hell if it means he won't have to make a decision.

also, our strategy at the start of the battle was to leave all flags up so we could kill all the tickets; I started pushing for another strategy of taking all the flags and forcing an admin decision because there were about 6 admins on and the result of the battle was so very obvious as we were doing nothing but spawn camping the defenders 10-15min into the fight. We ended up not really making up our mind whether to capture flags or try to kill them all and so Canary used that as an excuse to ignore the problem as long as possible. Anyone who says hospitaller had a chance to win that fight is on crack or in favour of exploiting bugged spawns. I'll tell you this much though; if anyone else comes and attacks Ichimur and gets all of the non-bugged spawns and has the city clearly under control, I will hit that retreat button or order everyone to quit. If we find ourselves in a situation with no chance at victory besides trying to delay a battle by camping almost impossible to reach spots then I'd rather just retreat and not waste everyone's time.


P.S.
  We do not need another Shik, Smoothrich or Cyrus_HRE on our hands.  Once the rules are clear, it will much harder for the masses to be upset with you, and you will stop having to appease everyone when rules and punishments are followed to a T.  Also hire more admins so you don't always have to make the decisions.
Canary could never be like smooth or cyrus as Canary is never willing to take any action.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Rainbow on April 19, 2013, 08:29:56 pm
I have never had a single issue with any admin ever.  I respect all of you guys and I know you have to make tough calls and get shit on every day. 

I will say that last nights battle was an absolute NO BRAINER how it should have been handled.  There isn't anything to think about or talk about.  Nobody had the courage to stand up and do the right thing throughout the entire battle.  It isn't easy standing up for what is right when surrounded by your friends.  It truly takes a special kind of person who can take on that role.

With that being said, the XP ticks were horrid and the battle dragged on for way too long when the ending was obvious from the beginning.  There were AFK people in unreachable spawn points which is an obvious violation but was overlooked. 

Again I have never had a single... not one issue with any admin.  I'm just very dissapointed by last nights actions. 

Have the strength to do what is right without compromise.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Turboflex on April 19, 2013, 09:02:19 pm
yes anyone could see the battle was over 20 mins in when Hospi was out of gear and it was nakeds vs plate, and we were all over the city camping spawns. And that's even with 10-15 guys not helping to kill cuz they were trying to break through invisible wall with ladders, horses and c-sites. We only avoided capping flags for a while cuz we didnt want to send enemies to unreachable flag while we tried to glitch through so we could hopefully resolve it without relying on capricous admins. People on our side were under orders not to cap during this phases even tho it could have easily been done.

Canary you can write all the walls of text filled with pseudo legalese you want but anyone who was there and being honest knows that common sense showed the battle was over after 20 mins and it was a clear cut flag cap situation, the only thing keeping it going was the flag behind invis wall. The only thing that kept it going was lack of admin willingness to step in and invoke common sense to say this is over, and lack of Hospitaller decency to concede. Cuz of these two things we all had to waste an hour of time on a tedious peasant slaughter and the next battle got delayed.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Canuck on April 19, 2013, 09:04:04 pm
I don't know why all of this drama couldn't have been avoided. FCC (And I'm sure Hospitaller did too) knew about the unreachable flag before the battle. Was there no attempt by either party to set forth reasonable terms to the end of the battle with the admins or each other?  That could have made it all much simpler. Instead of putting it all on Canary, or any of the other admins in these battles, why don't the factions involved just parley and talk about shitty bugs and issues together, instead of getting all worked up every time?

In my opinion though, this one should have been called the moment we were all trapped inside the spawn. And those who were doing nothing but sitting inside of the area should have been kicked. However, most of us were still trying to escape and continue the fight, so the idea that we were all sitting back there abusing it is wrong. Still, even without the unreachable flag, we would have likely lost, because from about the 5 minute mark on we were down to peasant gear.

also, our strategy at the start of the battle was to leave all flags up so we could kill all the tickets; I started pushing for another strategy of taking all the flags and forcing an admin decision because there were about 6 admins on and the result of the battle was so very obvious as we were doing nothing but spawn camping the defenders 10-15min into the fight. We ended up not really making up our mind whether to capture flags or try to kill them all and so Canary used that as an excuse to ignore the problem as long as possible.

I think the decision would have been reached much quicker for Canary, if you had tried from the beginning to set all the flags down. The fact that we were able to run around setting flags up for so long makes it harder for it to be called earlier without being considered unfair.

Now just sell the fief to Partyboy so we never have to do that over again.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Gmnotutoo on April 19, 2013, 09:14:11 pm
I spent an hour riding around in a circle on a horse.

Props go out to Spaniard, it was a hard decision to make for a person in his position. I consider you a good friend and a great admin, but your decision last night elevated you to awesome-hood. Who knows how many hours it would have taken to finish that battle.

What stands out most from Ichamur's battle is how utterly biased people are. Tretter encouraging his faction's side to abuse a glitch while saying the FCC deserves it. How petty do you have to be man? You're not just hurting the fcc; you're wasting the time of 35 mercs from other clans, you're wasting time from your factions side at the same time, it delays the other battles that come after and causes everyone to not get any sleep because they already committed to be there. Some people even have to miss out on these delayed battles because of it. Your actions hurt the community, not just the FCC.

I'll keep my opinions of Canary away from this thread and will post them in the appropriate channel.

edit: I also have the utmost respect to the players on the hospitaller's merc list who attempted to leave that glitched area to try to fight. It was a shame you all had to experience that.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Turboflex on April 19, 2013, 09:32:07 pm
I think the decision would have been reached much quicker for Canary, if you had tried from the beginning to set all the flags down. The fact that we were able to run around setting flags up for so long makes it harder for it to be called earlier without being considered unfair.

Now just sell the fief to Partyboy so we never have to do that over again.

After we controlled city and Hospis spawning naked we asked Canary what he would do if we put all flags down and they were stuck spawning in glitch area and he just gave vague answers which is why he was criticized so much.

We risked getting screwed if we put them all down and they just camped out there, so spawn camping them and leaving flags up was more productive on paper cuz at least we could get their tickets down by killing them.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Turboflex on April 19, 2013, 09:34:34 pm
Tretter encouraging his faction's side to abuse a glitch while saying the FCC deserves it. How petty do you have to be man?

even tanken was telling him to stfu he was being such an embarrassing dweeb
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Smoothrich on April 20, 2013, 07:20:23 am
who cares lol, stop bitching about videogame bugs and unpaid admins actions about them, no one wants to actually kick or ban people for stupid shit that is no one's fault (except worthless devs, request your money back from meleegaming ASAP, i'd rather have rent then a fake shit game that will never be released)
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Harrys Oil Can on April 20, 2013, 01:05:56 pm
who cares lol, stop bitching about videogame bugs and unpaid admins actions about them, no one wants to actually kick or ban people for stupid shit that is no one's fault (except worthless devs, request your money back from meleegaming ASAP, i'd rather have rent then a fake shit game that will never be released)
THIS IS STRATEGUS, HOW DARE YOU INSULT!

Go play hopscotch or somethin with your gay dad.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Matey on April 20, 2013, 08:19:21 pm
who cares lol, stop bitching about videogame bugs and unpaid admins actions about them, no one wants to actually kick or ban people for stupid shit that is no one's fault (except worthless devs, request your money back from meleegaming ASAP, i'd rather have rent then a fake shit game that will never be released)

I can't help but think smooth is trying to get permaban so that he can quit crpg/strat for good.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Malaclypse on April 20, 2013, 10:58:27 pm
Should probably note that the offending flag has been fixed (http://forum.meleegaming.com/scene-editing/strategus-city-improvement-project/msg766757/#msg766757) now, though there's still the matter of the change being uploaded into the next patch by whoever deals with that sort of thing.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 21, 2013, 12:07:57 am
Should probably note that the offending flag has been fixed (http://forum.meleegaming.com/scene-editing/strategus-city-improvement-project/msg766757/#msg766757) now, though there's still the matter of the change being uploaded into the next patch by whoever deals with that sort of thing.

Convenient that it got done right after we took the town, not 4 months ago when the bug was first revealed.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Malaclypse on April 21, 2013, 12:12:55 am
Convenient that it got done right after we took the town, not 4 months ago when the bug was first revealed.

Yes, and it wasn't even the person who was supposed to deal with city maps who fixed it. As in literally anyone (you, me, et cetera) could have fixed it months ago as well and provided the file to be uploaded- but nobody else did. Not a member of the faction it belonged to (Hospitaller), not a member of the faction which attacked it (Remnant), not a member of the faction which attacked it the second time (FCC).
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Sparvico on April 21, 2013, 12:49:16 am
No one takes initiative, they like whining about it.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Zoarander on April 21, 2013, 04:54:16 am
So after taking the 45 minutes to read this whole thread i realized something. that's 45 minutes i will never get back. I earned almost 700k that night in the ~2 hours we fought. sooooooooooo don't know why everyone is railing on an unpaid volunteer admin who couldn't make a call in reality because he was fighting for a side also as I sit here thinking about it isn't there more then just 1 admin in the game???? and yes i think its stupid how everyone is really angry about it. Because in the big picture FCC still got the town and hosp didn't abuse the bug, they were telling there members to get out of the "unreachable" (FCC made it in there a ton) spawn. FCC coulda have asked for a sooner end if they had just capped all the flags instead of leaving them up. Because while those flags are still up hosp could still kill FCC tickets, which they did.

In the end FCC you still got your city so stop whining, canary haters your silly children or adults who have failed at life, and everyone else... well we had fun.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on April 21, 2013, 07:09:14 am
Can we all not just sit down together and hug it out and then agree that Canary is awesome, that Smoothrich should be made an admin again, and that Kesh should be permad again?
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Matey on April 21, 2013, 07:14:46 am
Can we all not just sit down together and hug it out and then agree that Canary is awesome, that Smoothrich should be made an admin again, and that Kesh should be permad again?

U DUM. Go back to EU and turtle up! If NA enjoyed hugging it out we wouldn't be having all these wars.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Zlisch_The_Butcher on April 21, 2013, 09:05:34 am
U DUM. Go back to EU and turtle up! If NA enjoyed hugging it out we wouldn't be having all these wars.
But ain't war like essentially a lot of men camping together with no girls allowed? And in order to get a good stab at whoever you're fighting you gotta get real close to them.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Matey on April 21, 2013, 09:59:20 am
But ain't war like essentially a lot of men camping together with no girls allowed? And in order to get a good stab at whoever you're fighting you gotta get real close to them.

never heard of camp followers? plus our armies are equal opportunity... everyone can come die to get xp for the nobles together.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Gmnotutoo on April 21, 2013, 05:13:23 pm
So after taking the 45 minutes to read this whole thread i realized something. that's 45 minutes i will never get back. I earned almost 700k that night in the ~2 hours we fought. sooooooooooo don't know why everyone is railing on an unpaid volunteer admin who couldn't make a call in reality because he was fighting for a side also as I sit here thinking about it isn't there more then just 1 admin in the game???? and yes i think its stupid how everyone is really angry about it. Because in the big picture FCC still got the town and hosp didn't abuse the bug, they were telling there members to get out of the "unreachable" (FCC made it in there a ton) spawn. FCC coulda have asked for a sooner end if they had just capped all the flags instead of leaving them up. Because while those flags are still up hosp could still kill FCC tickets, which they did.

In the end FCC you still got your city so stop whining, canary haters your silly children or adults who have failed at life, and everyone else... well we had fun.

Who are you to tell people to stop complaining about a leader they didn't get to vote for and now don't agree with the way he handled a situation? Although they shouldn't be doing it here but in his forum feedback thread.

Tretter gave a public impression that he and others were going to abuse this exploit out of spite.

Your claim of the FCC making it in there a ton is also skewed. Please find the actual number of people that made it in there, then post the time frame it took to figure out how to get in there, then figure out how much time the battle had left at the point of discovery, and finally list how many people died trying to figure out ways to reach that spot. If you can't, then don't try to manipulate the events to support your opinion.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: MrShine on April 21, 2013, 06:14:04 pm
Your claim of the FCC making it in there a ton is also skewed. Please find the actual number of people that made in there, then post the time frame it took to figure out how to get in there, then figure out how much time the battle had left at the point of discovery, and finally list how many people died trying to figure out ways to reach that spot. If you can't, then don't try to manipulate the events to support your opinion.

That argument would have more credence if FCC actively put down flags when they could have (like 20 minutes into the battle).  Then instead of farting around & spawn camping for a half hour that time could have been spent finding a way into the 'unreachable' flag location, & admins would have had more time to observe if people were able to get in/out, and if defenders were actively able/trying to get flags back or not.

If anything, that would have helped unmuddy the waters, since throughout the battle even though attackers COULD have controlled flags they weren't, which means defense was still putting up an active fight all around the map.  It would have avoided the extra layer of required admin arbitration, and there would have been time to make that decision.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision, etc.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Gmnotutoo on April 21, 2013, 06:40:56 pm
That argument would have more credence if FCC actively put down flags when they could have (like 20 minutes into the battle).  Then instead of farting around & spawn camping for a half hour that time could have been spent finding a way into the 'unreachable' flag location, & admins would have had more time to observe if people were able to get in/out, and if defenders were actively able/trying to get flags back or not.

If anything, that would have helped unmuddy the waters, since throughout the battle even though attackers COULD have controlled flags they weren't, which means defense was still putting up an active fight all around the map.  It would have avoided the extra layer of required admin arbitration, and there would have been time to make that decision.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision, etc.

My argument is a request for facts, Shine. There is nothing wrong with what I requested. Whether it paints the picture in favor or against the FCC, its a request for facts. If someone can't produce the facts to back up their claims, then I wanted to make sure that people realized that his message is opinion-based.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Matey on April 21, 2013, 07:25:16 pm
That argument would have more credence if FCC actively put down flags when they could have (like 20 minutes into the battle).  Then instead of farting around & spawn camping for a half hour that time could have been spent finding a way into the 'unreachable' flag location, & admins would have had more time to observe if people were able to get in/out, and if defenders were actively able/trying to get flags back or not.

If anything, that would have helped unmuddy the waters, since throughout the battle even though attackers COULD have controlled flags they weren't, which means defense was still putting up an active fight all around the map.  It would have avoided the extra layer of required admin arbitration, and there would have been time to make that decision.

Hindsight has 20/20 vision, etc.

I brought the issue to admin attention with 60min remaining. Also, we had 5 people dedicated to breaking into that spot since the start of the battle; the idea was to find a way into that spot and cap those flags while few/no enemies spawned there. unfortunately it took us about 70 minutes to actually get anyone into that spot and by that time those were the only enemy flags remaining and it was impossible for the couple of people who could make it in there to cap those flags. I asked early on if capping all other flags would lead to an admin decision and got the response "we will cross that bridge when we get there" which was not a very useful response. The result was that we continued with our original strategy for another 30minutes.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Keshian on April 21, 2013, 08:35:56 pm
I brought the issue to admin attention with 60min remaining. Also, we had 5 people dedicated to breaking into that spot since the start of the battle; the idea was to find a way into that spot and cap those flags while few/no enemies spawned there. unfortunately it took us about 70 minutes to actually get anyone into that spot and by that time those were the only enemy flags remaining and it was impossible for the couple of people who could make it in there to cap those flags. I asked early on if capping all other flags would lead to an admin decision and got the response "we will cross that bridge when we get there" which was not a very useful response. The result was that we continued with our original strategy for another 30minutes.

Yeah canary was singularly unhelpful in this department.  if we capped flags like "mrshine thought was a smart idea" every single person would be spawning in unreachable zone, we got non-comittal response from devs on that and even after we capped all flags still nothing, only reason at the end was it was obvious even with timer run out we would have won regardless as we lost 3 guys killing a 100 with less than 300 to go.  if we had done mr shine's brilliant strategy we would have had 800 or more tickets left to fight because defenders died a  LOT slower spawning in unreachable zone.  Every flag we put down teleported more and more of them to unreachable zone for us making killing them slower.  With no strong or clear admin decision-maker willing to actually do their job we had no choice but to do our best to kill all the population since that was the only other way to take it without losing an entire shiny 1900 man army to a bug head admin was afraid to make a decision on despite no doubt who had won.

P.S. Half our deaths were tks or falls trying to reach unreachable flag.  And matey called it in the battle - they finally submitted the ichamur fix as soon as we took it.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 21, 2013, 09:16:59 pm
So it sounds like the result of Canary's indecisiveness cost us ~300 of population, the loss of some troops and gear, but most importantly "not an hour" but 40 minutes of everyones' time.

If only there were some sort of pre-defined precedence that could remove the tough decision making from a situation like that...  We need better rules, and we need them yesterday.

My argument is a request for facts, Shine. There is nothing wrong with what I requested. Whether it paints the picture in favor or against the FCC, its a request for facts. If someone can't produce the facts to back up their claims, then I wanted to make sure that people realized that his message is opinion-based.

I agree with Gmno.  This is the internet, and we can't prove motive no matter how hard we try.  Unless every boxed copy of M&B Warband comes with a polygraph tester, we should just give up everytime motive is involved.  Even if we did have polygraphs, what's to stop us from hooking up our cats?  Unfortunately, the entire administration for bans is based around motive, which means that admins can punish certain people more severely just because they "believe."  Unfortunately, the head admin decided to remove a new admin who actually defined whic punishments would be doled out ahead of time.  It leaves no room for questions, yet, the head admin did not see this as a good thing.

Anyway, by continuing to post in this thread, MrShine continually digs his viewpoint into the anti-FCC camp.  It's obvious that he is no longer able to make a neutral decision based on facts at this point, and its questionable if he was ever able to in the first place.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: MrShine on April 21, 2013, 10:09:32 pm
Yeah canary was singularly unhelpful in this department.  if we capped flags like "mrshine thought was a smart idea" every single person would be spawning in unreachable zone,
Exactly, and if you did this earlier in the battle all the defenders would have all been spawning in the 'unreachable' location with a lot more time to spare, making it more clear that the only reason the defenders were still in the battle was because the spawn prevented people from getting out & in.  I'm saying the waters would have been less muddied, which would have made an admin decision much easier.

Quote
If we had done mr shine's brilliant strategy we would have had 800 or more tickets left to fight because defenders died a  LOT slower spawning in unreachable zone.
The problem is you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You tried to make a contingency (kill all defenders by spawncamping within the timelimit), but at the same time you expected admins to rule the fight in your favor if your contingency didn't work.   Both plans worked against each-other & made things more confusing.

Quote
With no strong or clear admin decision-maker willing to actually do their job we had no choice but to do our best to kill all the population since that was the only other way to take it without losing an entire shiny 1900 man army to a bug head admin was afraid to make a decision on despite no doubt who had won.
It's funny you say that, because the easiest thing we could have done is said  "sorry, strat bug. submit a bug report".  Technically defenders still had a flag up, and time expired.  Technically defenders were still fighting on other flags, and some were able to get out and continue the fight. If you want to get technical about it, you could argue that admins shouldn't be making rulings on bugs like this, because it's really up to the developers to fix bugs & weigh in on these sorts of things. 

Anyways, you got your way in the end.  Hospitallers ceded the fight (which was IMO a very good thing of them to do), and admins forced defenders to leave the battle.  The end result is you have the city, and no defenders survived.  Yes, it took admins longer than you wanted to make a ruling in the bug-riddled abortion of a battle, boo hoo.

Quote

 And matey called it in the battle - they finally submitted the ichamur fix as soon as we took it.
You should view this as a positive thing - a big battle brought a bug front and center, and someone spent time to fix the bug.  Now, when the fix will actually get patched is another issue entirely, but at least now we have precedence for how to handle this sort of situation in the future. 



Anyway, by continuing to post in this thread, MrShine continually digs his viewpoint into the anti-FCC camp.  It's obvious that he is no longer able to make a neutral decision based on facts at this point, and its questionable if he was ever able to in the first place.
I'm posting in this thread because the situation sucked for everyone & I was there.  A decision was made that benefited FCC but they/you still aren't happy about it, and that annoys me.  I think it was good of Hospitaller to give the city up, and I hope that will be a good example for the rest of strat, where new bugs (and there WILL be new bugs) are handled reasonably between opposing factions.

..I don't see how that should discredit my decision making, but I'm sorry if you feel that way.  Regarding an 'anti-FCC bias', just ask any other Astralis member how active I am in strat  :lol:  it's hard to develop a bias against a faction in strat when you hardly play.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: DUKE DICKBUTT on April 21, 2013, 11:04:47 pm
I'm posting in this thread because the situation sucked for everyone & I was there.  A decision was made that benefited FCC but they/you still aren't happy about it, and that annoys me.  I think it was good of Hospitaller to give the city up, and I hope that will be a good example for the rest of strat, where new bugs (and there WILL be new bugs) are handled reasonably between opposing factions.

..I don't see how that should discredit my decision making, but I'm sorry if you feel that way.  Regarding an 'anti-FCC bias', just ask any other Astralis member how active I am in strat  :lol:  it's hard to develop a bias against a faction in strat when you hardly play.
So it sounds like the result of Canary's indecisiveness cost us ~300 of population, the loss of some troops and gear, but most importantly "not an hour" but 40 minutes of everyones' time.
You can obviously read, so you should be able to see what is actually being argued here, but it is apparent that you are so anti-FCC you can't.  Of course the decision did eventually benefit us.  However, it was still costlier than it needed to be to our faction as well as other's.  Occitan comes to mind.  I am asking you guys to a better job and a better job all around.  If you have checked some of my other posts, I continually ask for the rules to be clarified and expanded.  There will be no decisions that will have to be defended if the rules are clear.  Hell, you don't even have a solid structure for ban sentences, it's just whatever the admin at the time feels like.  I offer suggestions, argue articulately, clearly express my views, and critique the current processes.  But I suppose you write that all off as trolling.

The contingency was the right thing to do.  As stated before, if you are in an unreachable area (whether or not you spawn there), it is your responsibility to exit that area ASAP or leave the game.  That does not change whether it is NA1, NA2, or NA3.

No one is saying that Canary is doing the wrong thing by fixing the map.  The timing is, of course, questionable.  It was not fixed after the first attack on it months ago.  It was not fixed after the first, second, third or fourth attacks in this recent series, even though the improper flag was apparent in every battle.  But it happens ASAP as soon as Canary is forced to make a ruling on it.  Here are the battles to prove it, and it was apparent in every single one of them.  I've also taken the liberty to list the admins who were present.

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=1879 SMOOTHRICH and Desire present
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3253 Canary
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3266 Dach, Canary
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3280 Desire
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3315 Canary, Desire
http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=3326 MrShine, Dach, Canary, Desire

MrShine, I don't expect you to know everything, but there are certain things you are doing here.  You are arguing for things when you are clearly the least educated one on this matter, yet somehow the most vocal.  The other thing is you are putting words into others' mouths.  You accuse us of arguing for things that we aren't and you defend Canary when he is silent and pleading the Fifth.  Please show us that you have some sort of reading comprehension.  Read what is written, think about it, gather facts, then post a thoughtful reply.  If you read every other word, you can of course, make it seem like anyone is saying anything.  At this point, I would rather hear Smoothrich's opinion in the matter despite the fact that he is not even an admin anymore, because he has at least proven that he is capable for a well written and insightful post.
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Gmnotutoo on April 21, 2013, 11:21:25 pm
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


/thread ended for the benefit of all
Title: Re: The Seige of New Ichamur and the Glorious Peasant Defence
Post by: Keshian on April 21, 2013, 11:24:20 pm
Exactly, and if you did this earlier in the battle all the defenders would have all been spawning in the 'unreachable' location with a lot more time to spare, making it more clear that the only reason the defenders were still in the battle was because the spawn prevented people from getting out & in.  I'm saying the waters would have been less muddied, which would have made an admin decision much easier.

And based on your decision we would have lost 1900 shiny troops solely to bug.  We were forced to try and kill the entire population exactly because you couldn't make a decision based on what was obviously taking place

The problem is you were trying to have your cake and eat it too.  You tried to make a contingency (kill all defenders by spawncamping within the timelimit), but at the same time you expected admins to rule the fight in your favor if your contingency didn't work.   Both plans worked against each-other & made things more confusing.

What happens when admins are too afraid and just play noncommittal - forced into having to do something we didn't really want to have to do, had absolutely no choice unless we wanted to lose all the troops and gear to the bug - namely kill the entire population, despite doing 10:1 k/d (minus the intentional tks to get into unreachable zone with horses or getting stuck in spikes trying to get there)

It's funny you say that, because the easiest thing we could have done is said  "sorry, strat bug. submit a bug report".  Technically defenders still had a flag up, and time expired.  Technically defenders were still fighting on other flags, and some were able to get out and continue the fight. If you want to get technical about it, you could argue that admins shouldn't be making rulings on bugs like this, because it's really up to the developers to fix bugs & weigh in on these sorts of things. 

Its funny because yous till didn't have the balls to make a decision, we had won at that point with 300 tickets to go and we were killing 100 and losing only 3 at that point in the chokepoint with full plate against unarmed peasants, so it was inevitable win though it would have delayed the next battle  another hour, which was really the final decision - to stop the strat battle delay not "give" us something we already had in the bag.  We would have lost most likely capping all other flags 20 minutes earlier (they were all capped for the last 20 minutes of the battle except the bugged one) as no admin acted upon the bug issue.

a big battle brought a bug front and center, and someone spent time to fix the bug.  Now, when the fix will actually get patched is another issue entirely, but at least now we have precedence for how to handle this sort of situation in the future. 


You got to be joking - we fought a battle with 3000 troops there 3 months earlier lost due to the bug and that wasn't enough to draw attention to it?  No, it was probably fixed months ago and only submitted as soon as hosp lost the fief.  And precedence for what?  That admins will do absolutely nothing for fear of being judged for doing their job in a bug-riddled game that requires adminning issues to be resolved regarding those bugs?

I'm posting in this thread because the situation sucked for everyone & I was there.  A decision was made that benefited FCC but they/you still aren't happy about it, and that annoys me.  I think it was good of Hospitaller to give the city up, and I hope that will be a good example for the rest of strat, where new bugs (and there WILL be new bugs) are handled reasonably between opposing factions.

..I don't see how that should discredit my decision making, but I'm sorry if you feel that way.  Regarding an 'anti-FCC bias', just ask any other Astralis member how active I am in strat  :lol:  it's hard to develop a bias against a faction in strat when you hardly play.


I dont think most people would put you on the list of admins that cannot act impartially, we really need some fresh blood and not just chaos people that are buddies with canary, get rid of the cronyism and diversify the adminships.  And the decision didn't benefit FCC - we had already won based on what was happening it was just a question of how long the next 2 battles would be delayed.  A decision that benefitted us based on actual awareness of what was taking place would have been letting it be known in the purple text that once all the flags were capped except the unreachable one that the city would be considered to be taken and kick people then.  Would have given us 2000+ population.  But no decision was ever really made so we won by killing everything, only possible by delaying capping flags by an extra 20-40 minutes.  300 left after timer up and we kill 100 and lose 3 just would have taken 30-60 minutes longer.