Two Concerns

[Earl_Vencar.:LLS:.]

Concern 1: Rule 1e ' Do not go for the next objective while the current one is not done. This will be considered as glitching.' Where to draw the line? I give out the example of the game of Pharaohs just played (I understand Pharaohs is glitch pleasure house, but still) - Objective 2 was completed 5 seconds after Objective 1 via (I presume) the deemers provided for defence team to use. Sure, it was something we could have defended against, but we shouldn't have to pull off resources to defend an objective we shouldn't really be concerned with (a general point; this is not a Pharaohs rant, but a rant about player attitude and rule clarification). On the same map, someone just happened to be lying in wait at the final objective and had no intention of completing the previous objective. I point these out to compare with another example: the manta jump over the wall, final objective at Gasoline, whereby the player then hides and pounces. This is accepted. So I'm concerned about the confusion between what is acceptable, and what isn't.

Concern 2 (maybe this would be better in a separate thread): the emergence of the racing pacifist. I understand why people would choose not to fight when the player counts are relatively low (say 4 -6 players), but there seems to be a growing number of players who are now constantly advocating pacifism, regardless of the player count. These players, more often than not, then either sulk or insult or harrass those players who do fight. I'm concerned that certain players are becoming disillusioned with traditional racing assault, and are beginning to believe that all maps should be non-violent. Two vague quotes from today: 'Do not fight, this is rais. We rais, not fight' and 'Do not fight without a vehicle. If you lose your vehicle, then suicide and don't fight'. These were semi-regular players, the type we see perhaps two or three times a week. I'm not sure what can be done.

[Azarael]

The first Pharaoh example you gave is a violation and a very common one using the defense speedpad for redeemers, which is accessible to attack on 1st. Map ideally needs fixing, that one's a bit of a grey area. The second example is a kick. Player attitude on LDG is known to be poor; never expect players to respect what was intended by a mapper or what makes for a fairer or interesting game. They must be forced to respect the limits.

If the player can and does take an objective through some mechanism which allows them to go for it before the previous one is completed (unless such a mechanism was built into the map and intended, as in the case of SubRosa 1st/2nd) then that's a kick as well. Otherwise, ignore it.

Racing pacifism... there's no easy answer to this one. Seeing how policy will most likely shift involves predicting Izumo's reaction to it, and while Izumo is generally a proponent of whatever the majority school of thought is, he's also personally anti-unarmed, so I think he'll take the neutral stance and say that those who choose not to fight are welcome to make that decision, but any such agreement of pacifism is just that: a gentlemen's agreement and not enforceable. So, in short, one can be pacifist if one wishes, but others can kill one and one has no right to complain about that. For my part, I find it a natural consequence, both because race for the majority of its participants is about fun and not being serious, and because weapons have never really worked too well with race anyway. I've long proposed unarmed race with an emphasis on individual driving skill, rather than providing a very dumbed-down combat implementation on maps which are very easy to drive.

In general, harassment from others when one is playing within the rules is something which can be reported.

[iZumo]

Deemers for defenders on Pharaoh are grey area IMO, since while it's clear it's intended for defenders, it's still "normally accessible" to the attackers without any special effort or bypass needed. I myself never considered this one as a glitch. Generally I'd see this in a way: if map is open to the next objective (darknight + last objective (shielded until the jump objective is made)) then it's OK. If you need to do some unusual effort to get there / bypass something then it's a glitch. However no bans for grey area cases.

As for racing pacifism - as Aza said, gentlemen's agreement and not enforcable. However if sbdy breaks "the deal" and gets harrased then that's reportable. If you get kick voted then all kick voters get banned for kick vote abuse upon reporting.

[proof]

The first Pharaoh example you gave is a violation and a very common one using the defense speedpad for redeemers, which is accessible to attack on 1st. Map ideally needs fixing, that one's a bit of a grey area. The second example is a kick. Player attitude on LDG is known to be poor; never expect players to respect what was intended by a mapper or what makes for a fairer or interesting game. They must be forced to respect the limits.

If the player can and does take an objective through some mechanism which allows them to go for it before the previous one is completed (unless such a mechanism was built into the map and intended, as in the case of SubRosa 1st/2nd) then that's a kick as well. Otherwise, ignore it.

Rofl, do you even hear yourself?

Subrosa is a kick. You did nothing when Fallen did that because needed him on your team.
And now the Deemer is a violation? Is it because Earl is refering to me (yes I did that because on subrosa you said "blabla amazing how this applies to race only" = its allowed). Yet Phararo is listed in AS.
Just go kill yourself lol

Sometimes I think you got an enlightment in a dream at night "Azarael, I have a mission for you: Turn the strict rules of ldg into a big joke. Oh and, please just mess up the gameplay of Ballx. You know what, just try to make the ldg server empty, that will do, too"

[iZumo]

Subrosa LE has been explicitly modified to allow that, that lantern isn't placed randomly on both first and last objective.

[Azarael]

I hope H&some's thick head is permeable by Izumo's words, because it's clear that nothing I say will get through it.

I won't bother responding to any further drivel from him.

[iRobot]

It would take one of the mappers here merely seconds to add a sentinel to the redeemer location on Pharaoh and the topic could be ended there. Instead we waste time with circular logic and hyperbole's.

[Socio]

Yeah, the first-second objective jump over the gate in Subrosa LE is okay, because of that added lamppost which is not present in default BP2-Subrosa. Same goes for the last objective wall-dodge jump.

I agree on everything else what has been said about "grey area" on Pharao and other maps. I once wanted to ban UltrabloxX for going for defenders Redeemers on Pharao, but had to lift it after a discussion about it.

[Azarael]

Done.

Anyway, the topic became about going for the next objective in general, so it wouldn't have ended there.

[iRobot]

The lamppost is redundant anyway, you can just drive the hellbender and when it gets destroyed due to amazing ut2004 physics you get thrown up in the air when it explodes. You can easily hop over the wall doing that.