Possible Serious Admin Abuse

[Mongolista]

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!

[Lt_Anders]

1) Was not there

2) In battle servers,(which those same rules apply to Strat) You can run as MUCH as you want as long as there is 1 other person fighting. As you are not delaying(since you have a teammate who is engaging and killing the guys that aren't chasing you). It is a valid, legal Battle tactic. This same tactic is allowed on strat. Even if the entire team RUNS like chickens, if 2 guys fight, then it's not delaying, regardless of anything else.

3) Common Sense: Would tell me that banning(for 1 hour too) the entire enemy team is not common sense. Period. Don't try and Hide behind this clause and rule on the delaying justification. I've clearly shown that those tactics are not against the rules. Also, if someone insists on just blocking, that's not breaking any rules. Ever heard of shields? They do the same damn thing. If someone has 13 shield skill, and 10 people whack on his shield, he doesn't have to unblock as he's fighting. Regardless of how lame it can be, it's perfectly acceptable.

Revoke the damn admins rights.

Please re-read that. It's quite informative.

[Heroin]

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.

No. Having an unusual scenario arise due to a bug that we have no control over doesn't immediately invalidate an otherwise valid tactic. Especially when said tactic is THE defining tactic in strat battles for outnumbered defenders. This was the plan before the battle began. (Further, 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.)

Any experienced strat player with sense will agree: If you're on defense and outnumbered, your best chance of victory lies in surviving long enough for the attacker's time to run out, then killing those left on the field.

Telling us we're not allowed to try to win with our plan now, because both sides spawned without gear is arbitrary and biased. That's akin to an attacker bringing no horses/archers, and my entire army being mounted. I'd still avoid them till their time ran out, and run them down afterwards.

And before you say that's different, it's not. The defender isn't responsible for what the attacker brings to battle, just like the defender isn't responsible for the smooth running of the servers, and the proper loading of gear. It's also not our fault the attackers didn't have enough athletics to keep us from dropping their flags and raising our own.

None of this justifies banning the entire enemy team with 2 minutes left to ensure your own team's victory.

[Mongolista]

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.

[BADPLAYER_old2]

I fought in a battle once on EU where I was the only person on a team, with a Rouncey and no armour/weapons while the enemy had both so all I did was run around and keep putting my flags back up til one of them got bored enough to leave, then I took his weapon and capped the flags to win. There was an admin online while I did this, so there is precedent of this not being against the rules.

http://c-rpg.net/index.php?page=battlesparticipated#!?page=battledetail&id=1177


Sounds just like Cyrus is a.. mad bad.

[Heroin]

Yes, any strategy that works with the fact there is something working differently than it should be (misuse) shall get you banned.

That's like saying I'm not allowed to swing my sword if my enemy is having a problem swinging his. I am a player of the game. My only job is to play the game. I don't need to change my tactics or stop playing the game following the normal rules just because the game is not functioning optimally.

Making the game function optimally is the devs job. Ban them if you're unsatisfied with the way they're fulfilling their side of the deal.

As for me, and those on my team, we were doing exactly what we were supposed to be doing as players of the game.

[Arthur_]

what about we'd say everyone is wrong and everyone gets unbanned (I guess we allready are) and you all better take a look at the topic of the month on this forum :

http://forum.meleegaming.com/announcements/t47296/

Also It was unfair to get them banned, since they were fighting but admin banned them anyway, BUT Im not saying those guys didn't delay, some of them did but it was still allowed if you ask me, since they did it becouse of trying to get flags up and people regrouped (I was in Guard's team btw).

[Mongolista]

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.

[CrazyCracka420]

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.

So you're saying that the people still fighting were justified in being banned? 

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



I'm on a roll today, shutting down forum baddies.  L2P is now going to stand for "learn 2 post"

[Mongolista]

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. 

[Lt_Anders]

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. 

And?
If at least 2 people are fighting, the rest do not have to fight. Period. That. Is. The. Rule. Delaying is refusing to fight when you are last alive. You can delay as much as you want in regular battle and let the enemy team chase you as long as someone else is able to fight. The moment you are the last person, you are delaying and refusing to fight. In this battle, there WERE people fighting, and the rest were doing what they wanted(as in live longer). Ever heard of Sacrifice? Throw away a pawn to save a queen, and that's what they were doing!

Since people keep bringing up the "They were delaying!" Bullshit: HERE:
No drawing/delaying the round on purpose (i.e. running away or camping unreachable places when you're one of the last people alive)

The rules for ALL SERVERS, BATTLE AND STRAT! If it's fine in battle, it is fine in strat.

So, if everyone was naked, then it's an equivelent battle and it then comes down to capping flags and forcing them to come to you. The attackers ATTEMPTED this, but defenders never let them(by leaving a few pawns to prevent this) and ensured the majority of their team was being as unkillable as possible(the queen).
Common Sense would dictate that
1) Running away to force the enemy to lose is a valid tactic.
I'm fairly certain I can list 1    (Same battle but to form post about it)(or more) battles that were won by this tactic. (there was also a fallen battle that was won by bumping the enemy to death, taking their weapons after that and killing them. In this battle they used speed as their advantage, and targeted those who were isolated and won.)
2) Attackers must Kill Defenders
3) Defenders must survive(Coincides with #1)

Abusing Bug to gain Undeserved benefits:
1) if this was a normal battle, they could do the exact same thing as this. Running and not engaging is a valid, legal tactic regardless of gear setup.
2) "But....but....it was a bugged battle, so the rules don't apply like that!"
Bullshit. The rules always apply. VE versus LCO. Site bugged, and VE had nothing to assault castle with. SO you know what happened? Attackers were told to quit(as they could not attack as they had no siege gear) and they lost that battle(of course both sides worked out stuff to return lost gear) but VE was forced to lose 1600 troops because of the rules, even though it was a bug.
http://forum.meleegaming.com/strategus-issues/the-bug-at-new-caraf-castle/


So go take this bullshit about supporting the ban and flush it right down the toilet. There's already 1 linked precedent for a bugged battle and enforced rules, and the rules them selves being damn clear over this.

[cmp]

Adminship suspended pending further investigation.

[Keshian]

VE versus LCO. Site bugged, and VE had nothing to assault castle with. SO you know what happened? Attackers were told to quit(as they could not attack as they had no siege gear) and they lost that battle(of course both sides worked out stuff to return lost gear) but VE was forced to lose 1600 troops because of the rules, even though it was a bug.
http://forum.meleegaming.com/strategus-issues/the-bug-at-new-caraf-castle/


So go take this bullshit about supporting the ban and flush it right down the toilet. There's already 1 linked precedent for a bugged battle and enforced rules, and the rules them selves being damn clear over this.

This seems to go in support of the admin's actions.  They couldn't attack because of bug and rather than exploiting and just running every which way hoping enemy team would quit from boredom and eat up their time, they were forced to call a retreat by the admin there.  They could have complained that if the bug hadn't occurred they shouldn't be required to retreat by an admin, but it was the only logical response form an admin given the circumstances had changed because of the bug.  Same situation - only logical response from the enemy side abusing the bug by running everywhere on the map so theys tarted abnning. 


I remember a strategus 1 battle where 1 pecores guy kept running away with 1000 tickets left alive (you couldn't cap flags back then), we were the attacking nords and the admin eventually banned him (decision was upheld), because he was blatantly wasting people's time (griefing/trolling).  He may have eventually "won" if we all grew bored enough to quit nut it was winning by abuse.

[Lt_Anders]

Whatever. Look above your post kesh and please be quiet.

(click to show/hide)

This seems to go in support of the admin's actions.  They couldn't attack because of bug and rather than exploiting and just running every which way hoping enemy team would quit from boredom and eat up their time, they were forced to call a retreat by the admin there.  They could have complained that if the bug hadn't occurred they shouldn't be required to retreat by an admin, but it was the only logical response form an admin given the circumstances had changed because of the bug.  Same situation - only logical response from the enemy side abusing the bug by running everywhere on the map so theys tarted abnning. 

You can selectively remove 1 section, but that doesn't discredit anything I said. Rules were "overly" enforced to ensure a victory.

He is on probation now. So, it's done and it means that higher ups at least partially think that what I wrote is correct.(Not saying my post did it, I was the only to make a rather co-ordinated post about the stupidity of everything. It's probably coincidence that cmp posted after that.)

Also, the "they couldn't attack" is bullshit. they could attack and did so. Just the others used only a few guys to attack and let the rest of the team avoid dieing. In those screenshots were several deaths, so they had the capability to kill, just the other team used tactics and strategy to force you to split up and chase them rather than making a concrete legit move.

As far as the LCO battle: they were told to quit because not attacking is delaying and against the rules. It's attackers job to bring proper siege gear to take the castle. If their is none or otherwise, you have to retreat(unless a valid breach is made)

I remember a strategus 1 battle where 1 pecores guy kept running away with 1000 tickets left alive (you couldn't cap flags back then), we were the attacking nords and the admin eventually banned him (decision was upheld), because he was blatantly wasting people's time (griefing/trolling).  He may have eventually "won" if we all grew bored enough to quit nut it was winning by abuse.

Grasping at branches. Unlike yours, though, I have 2 solid concrete examples that can be read and verified. In addition, you're talking strat 2 or mid strat 3. Either way, mechanics are completely different than that.

No point arguing, the point of this thread has served it's purpose to get attention onto this case.

[Mongolista]

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)

Lt_Anders I must say the anger in your posts is very inspiring, I would like to offer you a help. If you suffer from some kind of serious frustration we can talk about it, in fact you can talk about it right here, we're all one big circle of trust. I must say I like the way you put different "voices" and re-word the things to make it look like you're the big boy and I'm the scared little shit, well, be the big boy, I have a lot to say to your amusing post, unfortunately the way you act repelled me from doing so (as well as the fact it does really not matter anymore). You may even be right (dont worry, youre not, its just a phrase), but your acting like a kid just kinda makes it all look hilarious and Im pretty sure nobody will take you seriously (except for Kesh!!!!). A little tip, if you re-word people's comments into theatre drama, the only possible outcome can be patting your head, saying "good one".