the vast majority of the EU_cRPG_1 admin team

[Wookimonsta]

oh look, the children are complaining

[Fasader]

Oh wow, let's grief each other and blame admins for it in the end.

[[ptx]]

This^
Even if it means agreeing with fasamy old friend 

Two things that people don't seem to get:
A) 99% of bans ARE NOT PERMANENT. The ingame message is simply incorrect.
B) Griefing has NO JUSTIFICATION, EVER. If you grief and i catch you at it, you can write a 500 word essay explaining the history of that accident and how it supposedly justifies it, NOBODY CARES.

[Joker86]

oh look, the children are complaining

I made a serious suggestion with a possible solution to the problem, and this is all I get? 

Wookimonsta, as I never did anything bad to you, don't you think people deserve it to be taken seriously by default, if they did not do anything bad? Yes, I critisized you, but I hope you can still cope with it? 

[nuffen]

By unreachable, we mean unreachable for everyone on opposite team. If they got 1 thrower and 3 non-ranged, they are unreachable for those 3.
On the other hand, I wouldnt bother to kick if the opposite team only had archers/xbowmen.
Point is, at the end of a round, you shouldnt be able to attack someone who have no means of answering the attacks at all, dragging the combat out forever.

I think theres a difference with HA (yes, I kicked a HA once for this, and I regret it, it was wrong of me). When someone is camping on a roof, the obious answer is to stay out of range/behind something to force the camper down. With a HA, you cant do that, as she/he will/should follow you.

[Joker86]

By unreachable, we mean unreachable for everyone on opposite team.

No, I think everyone should always, all the time, be rachable for everyone.

So if an enemy archer, let's say Mustikki, is the last survivor on a roof, she is allowed to stay up there against 25 heavily armoured tincans and a peasant with stones? She is reachable for the peasant, so... she can so what she wants, as long as she doesn't shoot the peasant 

What I want to say: you can't allow certain classes to have advantages over other classes only because of the combination of their fighting style (=ranged) with the map landscape (=rooftops).

So if I play as an archer I can sometimes put in god mode against some classes, but if I play meele infantry I have to hide? Really?

Class balance works this way: Infantryman and archer spawn seperatedly on the map. While the infantryman is approaching the archer, the archer got the bigger chance of killing the infantryman (because latter has a 0% chance of killing the archer). As soon as the infantryman reaches the archer, it's the infantryman with the higher frag chance (though the archer has not a 0% chance of killing the opponent).

Is this euqation only valid at the end of a round? Because for the maintime we would have this equation:

As long as the infantryman approaches the archer latter has a chance of killing him. As soon as the infantryman gets close to the archer on the rooftop he has to hide to not get shot, and has to wait, and to try to survive the enemy infantry which is supported by an immortal archer. Helping out teammates on other places of the map is risky, as you have to cross the archer's line of fire. He is a constant threat which can only be taken out as last by you. It's because... well... the map, the game mechanics (= destructible ladders) und the rules allow it.


Edit: this point of view I've got is the reason why is so FUCKING HATE HORSE ARCHERS!!! But luckily the patch made the class as shitty as it deserved it. So I will just ignore them for the sake of argumentation, although they are, concerning this problem in theory, the BIGGER issue. 

[nuffen]

No, I think everyone should always, all the time, be rachable for everyone.

So if an enemy archer, let's say Mustikki, is the last survivor on a roof, she is allowed to stay up there against 25 heavily armoured tincans and a peasant with stones? She is reachable for the peasant, so... she can so what she wants, as long as she doesn't shoot the peasant 

Im getting a little bit confused. I said he shouldnt be unreachable for _anyone_ at the opposite team. That means that little stonethrowing peasant is irrelevant, as there are 15 tincans who cant reach him. This also means 15 archers dont help as long as 1 tincan cant reach him/her (tho, Id wait out the situation there, as that one archer is soon dead anyway).

You disagree with this and states that he/she gotta be reachable for _everyone_. The only ones I didnt include is the campers teammates. Only way I can read you is that an infantery TEAMMATE of the camper is enough to force the camper down because he cant teamhit him? huh?
I hope we're just misunderstanding each other here.

[Murmillus_Prime]

Oh wow, let's grief each other and blame admins for it in the end.

How about, let's get griefed by players and then banned by an admin for going to a part of the map as the last player for no longer than a minute, which IS NOT GRIEF. When some people decided it was acceptable to start teamkilling and trolling a person infront of everyone, that was grief, and did an admin act then? NO. WHY? because some admins think it's acceptable to watch other people bully an individual and when that individual decides to give them what they deserve, that individual becomes the target of an irrational ban/kick, because the most important factor in my story is that I told the WHOLE ENEMY TEAM my location, which was completley reachable by any one of them, there was still over 2.30 on the clock, therefore the round only run for under 5 minutes anyway, and I didn't exactly draw the whole map out to the end, as my last team mates to die before me were around the 3 minute mark, I had hardly commited any offence other than stating my intention to piss Ragingscotsman off by delaying the round slightly.

So, lets forget that other players are allowed to break rules sometimes and then when admins feel like it, they'll over react when it's somone they don't like (me), and see it from this point of view.

 I hadn't delayed the round much, so even then it didn't warrant a ban, possibly a kick but even then I had not delayed the round as much as many many other players I've seen, most of these players weren't banned or kicked. But because it's ol whiney murmillus, we'll let him get teamkilled on purpose, we'll let people piss him off, wind him up, and when ol murmillus decides he's had enough and wants some payback, we'll give him a ban too.

And you call me a griefer? Idiots.

I don't care if you don't like me, forget that for a minute and weigh my argument up rationally. Yeah you're quick to judge somone you don't like, but if you have any matter between your two ears, put yourself in my shoes and honestly say if that happened to you, would you not be pissed off?

[Wookimonsta]

I made a serious suggestion with a possible solution to the problem, and this is all I get? 

Wookimonsta, as I never did anything bad to you, don't you think people deserve it to be taken seriously by default, if they did not do anything bad? Yes, I critisized you, but I hope you can still cope with it? 

don't take it personally, but I can't take anyone serious.

Also, that's not how you spell criticized.

[[ptx]]

Are you even talking about EU (official servers), murmillus? because you have never been banned here, lol.
Also,

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Murmillus_Prime]

I was on EU1 I think lastnight, and was perm banned by an admin I dont recognise after telling everyone where I was.

[Wookimonsta]

mate, it just SAYS permaban. But i think there are maybe 3 permabans on the banlist. Most bans are 1 day bans.

[[ptx]]

Either you making stuff up or that was in eu4, in which case - wrong thread.

[Wookimonsta]

HERE IS AN EXPLANATION FOR ALL YOU MONGLERS!

You see, we have two options:
Option A) We act strict and ban everyone we think is doing bad things. This means we get the majority of people acting bad but also kick/ban people who weren't really doing anything bad.

Option B) We don't really do much and thus no one who is undeserving is banned, however people who are deserving are often also not banned.

We try to stay in between the two, but it isn't always easy. Sometimes we are stricter, sometimes we aren't. We don't always see the entire fight and some fights we don't see at all. We try our best to get rid of assholes on the server. But your definition of asshole isn't the same as ours, neither is it the same throughout the admin team.

You won't always find 100% fairness, but we are trying. Admins are also players, who have taken that extra responsibility to keep out the assholes.

And yes, sometimes we kick you when you don't think you deserve it, but we do. Deal with that shit and don't come whining.

And yes, sometimes we even change the map. I don't do it mid round, some people don't want it mid map, but deal with that shit. I sometimes change the map if I think teams are heavily imbalanced or the map is. It's not because I'm bored, its cause im doing my job.


If you are really that pissed about being moderated (cause thats what it is, even if you don't like it) then either stop coming to the attention of admins or play a different mod.

EDIT: Oh and a protip, if you come on the unban section and go: "I AM TOTALLY INNOCENT ADMIN ABUSE!", i automatically add another day to your punishment. Admit you fucked up or ask to be unbanned ina  friendly manner.

[Meow]

it was EU1 and as multiple people pointed out if it says perma ban in chat it's most likely not a perma ban.
also the admin was shazbot who ever that may be.
so it was neither made up nor on EU4...