Rules clarification. Standing on portcullis and using CS to unbalance maps

[Moncho]

I would like to know what the rules about certain behaviours on siege are. I have seen them seldom, and knew of them for quite a while, but never used them as I think they should not be allowed as they render the maps in question unconquerable and undefendable. Also they are being used more and more often these last few days.

Here they are:
Using a construction site to make a castle bypassing most of the castle and making it almost undefendable (allows access to both gates, much more easily than to defenders).

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Standing on gate mechanisms, preventing attackers (and anyone in general) from opening it, especially on maps where it is very hard to capture the flag without opening that gate.

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Btw, please bring admins to siege mode

[Uther Pendragon]

...
Btw, please bring admins to siege mode

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[IG_Saint]

Just to be clear, all of this is just my opinion, not an official admin response about what's going to be done about this.

There aren't really any rules concerning this, unless you stretch the meaning of: "NOT OK: using a siege shield to reach a roof that can't be reached normally" which is really meant for battle. I'd also be against adding a rule against using a CS to reach higher places, mainly because it will be hard to admin and to avoid unneccassary drama when there aren't any admins on. Just get the map maker to fix the one map where this "exploit" can be used.

The portcullis thing I haven't seen in a long time and again I've only seen it used on that one map in the screenshot. Lowering the portcullis a bit so it's easier to attack someone that's on it, would seem like the easiest solution.

[Haboe]

If you can reach it, you are allowed to reach it. All places you are not allowed to reach are unreachable (even with siege equipment etc).
Its easy to kill a guy standing on the gate-controle-thingy.

And its allowed to block paths with a construction site, its not allowed to spam them and make the flag unreachable.

[Miwiw]

Here they are:
Using a construction site to make a castle bypassing most of the castle and making it almost undefendable (allows access to both gates, much more easily than to defenders).

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Already posted a screenshot in that map thread. It doesn't look wanted..

http://forum.meleegaming.com/scene-editing/%28feedback%29-maps-on-official-servers/msg692603/#new

[IG_Saint]

If you can reach it, you are allowed to reach it. All places you are not allowed to reach are unreachable (even with siege equipment etc).

Not quite true, going out of map bounds is specifically not allowed, even though it is "reachable" on at least one siege map. For battle there's the rule I used above which again specifically says you aren't allowed to use a siege shield to reach an unreachable place.

And its allowed to block paths with a construction site, its not allowed to spam them and make the flag unreachable.

Again, not true, you're allowed to place more than one CS, the rule simply says "no siege equipment spam" and "NOT OK: Creating a weapon rack and spawning more than a few items to block movement". Generally I go with 2 to 3 construction sites per doorway depending on the size. Actually putting down more than 2 or 3 is pretty hard anyway without a weapon rack.

[Rumblood]

Again, not true, you're allowed to place more than one CS, the rule simply says "no siege equipment spam" and "NOT OK: Creating a weapon rack and spawning more than a few items to block movement". Generally I go with 2 to 3 construction sites per doorway depending on the size. Actually putting down more than 2 or 3 is pretty hard anyway without a weapon rack.

Perfect example of a vaguely written rule.

No siege equipment spam

    OK: Planting ladders to get to roofs or walls
    OK: Blocking a door with a construction site
    OK: Planting siege shields to provide cover from ranged fire
    NOT OK: Creating a weapon rack and spawning more than a few items to block movement

You can block A door with A (singular) construction site. So only 1 as I read it.
You can only spawn a few items to block movement at additional doors (very poorly written here, what exactly is a "few" 3? 5? 7?  and what if the first "few" were destroyed?). Still only A (single) construction site per door (again, as I read it to apply).

Siege is an absolute clusterfuck of a mode to Admin, and this is the perfect example of why. Even the Admins themselves can't agree on what exactly the rules mean and even when we do, whether or not a situation calls for an application of that rule is up to interpretation. If a door is double width, that allows for 2 CS right? But its a single door and so only 1 CS! No, its a double wide...

It is little wonder very few Admins are willing to wade into that dung heap. The only thing we can do is discuss it with the other admins online and come to a consensus. EU and NA are separate however, and so even when one group comes to a consensus, it doesn't mean it will be the same across the whole.

Rule of thumb: If an Admin online tells you not to do it, it is against the rules and you need to stop. If they don't, well it may or may not be against the rules. Common sense is what applies in these situations, just be aware that common sense is a nebulous term and varies from person to person.

Ditto to IG_Saints statement that my opinion doesn't represent an *official* admin stance.

[Haboe]

Not quite true, going out of map bounds is specifically not allowed, even though it is "reachable" on at least one siege map. For battle there's the rule I used above which again specifically says you aren't allowed to use a siege shield to reach an unreachable place.

Common sense rule i would say. Outside the map is always reachable by using for example the siegetowerbug.

Again, not true, you're allowed to place more than one CS, the rule simply says "no siege equipment spam" and "NOT OK: Creating a weapon rack and spawning more than a few items to block movement". Generally I go with 2 to 3 construction sites per doorway depending on the size. Actually putting down more than 2 or 3 is pretty hard anyway without a weapon rack.

Putting 3 consites in a door is what i would call spam already

[Moncho]

Common sense rule i would say. Outside the map is always reachable by using for example the siegetowerbug.

And that's where I wanted to arrive.
Common sense would say, in the cases of the OP, that since it makes those maps so one sided, it should not be allowed.

The portcullis thing I haven't seen in a long time and again I've only seen it used on that one map in the screenshot. Lowering the portcullis a bit so it's easier to attack someone that's on it, would seem like the easiest solution.

What about placing a horizontal invisible barrier right on top of it, so that it does not prevent the opening/closing but still allows to be up there if they want to.
And I have also seen it in the sarranid native castle with the small openable gate that is almost necessary to win, though not so often.
Image:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

[Rumblood]

What about placing a horizontal invisible barrier right on top of it, so that it does not prevent the opening/closing but still allows to be up there if they want to.
And I have also seen it in the sarranid native castle with the small openable gate that is almost necessary to win, though not so often.
Image:

(click to show/hide)

visitors can't see pics , please register or login

I would put that suggestion to Jacko for the siege maps as an addition. While I don't think standing on it is that great an issue as you can kill the person, that sounds like a reasonable suggestion. (Though is the guy standing up there really going to allow you to stand there for the duration of the timer without killing you?)

[Moncho]

The issue is when a guy with high shield skill and a big shield (or even a 13 shield skill troll) stands there just holding rmb. They do not even attack, simply hold RMB tanking as many hits as it takes. Shooting them from above would be doable, if archers thought...

And he will try to kill you, but most of the people who open it are shielders anyway, who will just receive a few hits to their shield for the duration.
So it is much easier for someone to kill you from your back, which is fully uncovered as you are looking in this direction.

[Rumblood]

The issue is when a guy with high shield skill and a big shield (or even a 13 shield skill troll) stands there just holding rmb. They do not even attack, simply hold RMB tanking as many hits as it takes. Shooting them from above would be doable, if archers thought...

And he will try to kill you, but most of the people who open it are shielders anyway, who will just receive a few hits to their shield for the duration.
So it is much easier for someone to kill you from your back, which is fully uncovered as you are looking in this direction.

Yep, that would be an issue. Put it Jacko.

[Kafein]

Haha I've been doing this standing on portcullis switches a lot back in Native. Usually that was to prevent retards to open it.

The other one I agree 100% to punish.

[Moncho]

bump.
This happened twice today again, and admins on the server were not sure whether it was allowed or not, so it would be nice to reach a consensus (especially about the standing on gate opener, as I have not seen the other map in a while, was it removed from rotation?)

[Teeth]

I don't find standing on top of the gate mechanism abusing anything, more like a valid tactic, you need to clear out the room before you can open it anyway. All it takes is a few kickslashes to get rid off him, as long as you can just simply jump on top of it. It's hard to see on your screenshot but it looks like the mechanism is elevated quite a bit above the ground, which would mean he got up there with a siege shield or construction site. In which case this seems more like a mappers issue than a rule issue.

If you can somehow tell me the actual name of these two maps I could fix these things straight away, which would be a very quick and efficient way to solve the problem, if it weren't for a complete lack of map updates.