61
Closed Requests / Re: Ramon RS
« on: March 26, 2013, 04:06:41 pm »
Seriously vovka? all you got out of it is he kicked the guy? LOL
Seems valid to me, intentional teamhits and teamkill.
Seems valid to me, intentional teamhits and teamkill.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
62
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 26, 2013, 12:34:19 am »Sigh.(click to show/hide)
Oh, so you understood I wrote an argument ad personam which does not in any way contribute to the discussion? I bow before your great intellect, you could have as well just read the spoiler warning and save your time. At least I did not try to make it a valid point for the discussion. But if you really want to continue in the discussion, then all I have to say to your previous theatrical post is that your arguments, even if valid, are not to the point as my arguments were based on the fact that people write FUCK OFF to admins warning in pink chat. As I said, either follow what the admin tells you and then question his interpretation on the forum/irc chat, or write FUCK OFF to his warning, dont listen to him and risk getting banned, simple as that. Period. That. Is. The. Rule. As some would say.
63
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 26, 2013, 12:00:14 am »
Do not read this unless you really wanna spend 2 minutes on a comment that does not in any way contribute to this discussion.
(click to show/hide)
64
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 25, 2013, 08:34:26 pm »So you're saying that the people still fighting were justified in being banned?
No, Im talking about those who were not fighting, I have said earlier I do not fully support that admins decision. L2r as I will ignore your trolling and playing with words in the future. It is not my fault you understood only half of the story.
65
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 25, 2013, 08:06:12 pm »
Badplayer: In your case the players actually had a chance to shoot you down or use pikes to take you down, whereas the guys in this battle did not have that chance.
Heroin: Im sorry but I really have no idea how to respond to that, youre jumping from one completely irrational argument to another. If you just care about how to play bugged game then I guess the admin cared just about you not playing it the way you shouldnt? I still dont understand the discussion, if the admin warns you something is against the rules, you should stop doing it immediately, not question whether it is or it is not against the rules, as the judges interpret the law, the admins interpret the game rules. You should have seen this coming when you started shouting FUCK OFF on all these warnings, you clearly shown where you stand and you should take the responsibility for it like a man. I would have taken it if you have followed the admins orders and then make this thread questioning whether it is the right interpretation of the game rules or not. But you clearly disobeyed the GM and you were punished for it, no need to rage, we all have been there, we all had to experience this to understand what follows if you dont listen to the admin.
Heroin: Im sorry but I really have no idea how to respond to that, youre jumping from one completely irrational argument to another. If you just care about how to play bugged game then I guess the admin cared just about you not playing it the way you shouldnt? I still dont understand the discussion, if the admin warns you something is against the rules, you should stop doing it immediately, not question whether it is or it is not against the rules, as the judges interpret the law, the admins interpret the game rules. You should have seen this coming when you started shouting FUCK OFF on all these warnings, you clearly shown where you stand and you should take the responsibility for it like a man. I would have taken it if you have followed the admins orders and then make this thread questioning whether it is the right interpretation of the game rules or not. But you clearly disobeyed the GM and you were punished for it, no need to rage, we all have been there, we all had to experience this to understand what follows if you dont listen to the admin.
66
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 25, 2013, 01:26:12 pm »by the above logic, ANY strategy that attempts to win by adapting to the situation would be considered abusing that bug under the wording you used
Yes, any strategy that works with the fact there is something working differently than it should be (misuse) shall get you banned. Havent read the rest, sorry. You dont have to justify yourself here, as I said, the admins will solve all this elsewhere anyway and all of this will most likely be ignored. I just dont understand your frustration about me being biased, I know neither you nor the admin, I was writing down what seemed logical to me, my sense can be wrong, but so can yours.
And if it turns out the admin did right, you should be glad you only lost 100 tickets, we lost thousands of tickets coz of the server not working at all, battles were skipped and defender automatically won.
67
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 25, 2013, 01:15:00 am »
I dont really get this, first of all I dont understand some of those turning this topic into EU stupid players on the bad side and NA clever players (aha! they have no cav coz of the bug, lets abuse it a lil) on the good side. I understand some people see abusing game mechanics that by common sense should not work like that as a clever move, but thats a question of an individual, not a question of EU/NA.
Just a quick note: Bjarky had an interesting quote, stating that using a bug to your advantage is a bannable offence. There is nothing bad about using the "make it longer so the attackers army runs away" tactic in a normal scenario, but this was not a normal scenario as it was a bugged fight. If it was not a bugged battle and the attackers had cavalry, you would not use this tactic, thus using it with the knowledge of the fact the enemy cant use horses due to the bug is actually using the bug to your advantage. On the other hand banning the whole team for the sake of few retarded leaders seems like problems with anger management.
Second of all it is funny to see how the guys defending the admin get negative votes and the opposite ones having the positive votes, I cant help it but have the feeling all it means is there is a lot of kids on the "positive" side thinking their minus to those horrible persons and their plus to their buddies actually means something (yes Kesh you are there as well!!!). I feel like the only reason for the voting system would be to appreciate smbdy's ideas without having to write "+1 to that mate!!".
Third of all, I would understand if the person in question would be a normal player, but since it is an admin, none of the discussion here will be read anyway, the admin will most likely have a talk with one of the higher admins which will just use the screen shots. Any discussion is completely useless as the admin will be questioned elsewhere, youre just wasting your time you can use for downvoting and upvoting like the good lad you are!
Just a quick note: Bjarky had an interesting quote, stating that using a bug to your advantage is a bannable offence. There is nothing bad about using the "make it longer so the attackers army runs away" tactic in a normal scenario, but this was not a normal scenario as it was a bugged fight. If it was not a bugged battle and the attackers had cavalry, you would not use this tactic, thus using it with the knowledge of the fact the enemy cant use horses due to the bug is actually using the bug to your advantage. On the other hand banning the whole team for the sake of few retarded leaders seems like problems with anger management.
Second of all it is funny to see how the guys defending the admin get negative votes and the opposite ones having the positive votes, I cant help it but have the feeling all it means is there is a lot of kids on the "positive" side thinking their minus to those horrible persons and their plus to their buddies actually means something (yes Kesh you are there as well!!!). I feel like the only reason for the voting system would be to appreciate smbdy's ideas without having to write "+1 to that mate!!".
Third of all, I would understand if the person in question would be a normal player, but since it is an admin, none of the discussion here will be read anyway, the admin will most likely have a talk with one of the higher admins which will just use the screen shots. Any discussion is completely useless as the admin will be questioned elsewhere, youre just wasting your time you can use for downvoting and upvoting like the good lad you are!
68
Closed Requests / Re: Unban
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:52:57 pm »
He banned you for 1h and the ban is already off so this is not the place to put your thread at.
69
Strategus General Discussion / Re: Zlisch's suggested strat tweaks
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:43:34 pm »(click to show/hide)
peas are not good for you, you will shit bricks after these.
Bowing to Zlitsch's brilliant ideas. You have my vote sir!
70
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:32:38 pm »But what if they are waiting for the last 2 mins to lapse, at which point the attackers will no longer be able to spawn, and then they can fight and win? It's not delaying if you have a genuine chance of victory.
This is a very problematic situation because as far as I understand the battle was all naked people as the server was down and the gear was not loading, thus there was no cavalry available and thus the rules should not count the cav in, but I dont know, 1st rule is use the common sense but that is very problematic in this situation, I would first see if the admin had any personal interest in winning the battle and then if any of the banned persons can prove they actually listened to the warning and joined the fight, as far as I see from the screen shots only the people who failed to follow the warning were banned.
71
Strategus Issues / Re: Possible Serious Admin Abuse
« on: March 24, 2013, 01:05:08 pm »+1 to that post!!!!!!!!!!! above!
You know you can actually just click the plus button and stfu. Anyway not contributing to the fight and running away from the enemies to the end of the map IS delaying. I can see from the screen shots people have been warned several times and in case their response is FUCK YOU and they are ignoring the warning for a ban incoming, they deserve the ban, on EU2 every time I see somebody doing something bannable I warn them on chat not to do it or risk getting banned, it's up to them which one they pick. On the other hand banning the whole team seems a bit harsh, ban should be issued only on those, who failed to follow the warning, surely not everyone on the team and definitely not the ones who actually followed the instructions and started fighting after the warning.
But from what I have seen in the screen shots, some of the players deserved the ban anyway, such as Rohypnol for griefing (if you dont like the game then Im sure you wouldnt mind not playing it for a while) or Zaren_Astralis for misusing admin chat and griefing there as well or Luk_Astralis for griefing about the admin (My brother has been once kicked out of EU6 for the very same reason, he trash talked one of the players who happened to be an admin as well).
72
Strategus Issues / Re: Covered Flags
« on: March 23, 2013, 11:37:32 pm »No, I never said Im doing it as a troll, I said I'm feeding trolls. Thats like equating the zookeeper to a monkey because he feeds monkeys. Also I have no life, I am over 400 lbs, bald, middle aged, unemployed, and full of pretentious nerd rage which I express from my bedroom in my mothers basement where I play in my whitey tighties and belittle her if my cookies are burnt or my kool-aid is not delivered promptly so jokes on you.
(click to show/hide)
73
Strategus Issues / Re: Covered Flags
« on: March 23, 2013, 05:40:00 pm »
Im being objective, I dont know any of the guys on either side, Im just commenting on what I see. I will just ignore the stupid "quit crying you still won" argument that does not actually help in any way and ask you guys, would you really not see some people throwing 65 materials in the c. site for at least 5 minutes? when youre constantly being spawned right next to it? Im sorry but more than a whining on this thread you deserve a laugh in your face for even showing up here and seriously trying to defend this bullshit by saying "nobody knew whats going on, it came out of nowhere :O".
And sorry Brontosauce but I have no idea what GF in this context means so I cant really comment on that one.
And sorry Brontosauce but I have no idea what GF in this context means so I cant really comment on that one.
74
Strategus Issues / Re: Covered Flags
« on: March 23, 2013, 02:27:43 am »
I dont know dude, Im pretty sure archers would have used the "half" sky ladders (that are allowed) for their advantage as they do in all the battles, they wouldnt build the whole tower coz of it...paranoia is one thing, obvious exploit another, I mean how can anybody really try to question this?? Not to mention this "funny" little note by Tydeus not trying to explain anything, just laughing in Matey's face:)
75
Strategus Issues / Re: Covered Flags
« on: March 22, 2013, 10:29:43 pm »
This is clearly a bannable offence on EU, both blocks are actually paying huge attention to it as they know it is bannable and in case any person is stupid enough to do it, they get shouted at on TS and the item is immediately destroyed by his own team. I can't possibly understand a situation with two GMs/devs in the team and this shit still happening, I would seriously reconsider their privileges.