Hello There, Guest!

22-09-2011, 08:44 AM | Post: #61
Moke 
(22-09-2011 07:38 AM)SD149 Wrote:  
(21-09-2011 08:58 PM)Lennna Wrote:  
(21-09-2011 08:30 PM)SD149 Wrote:  
Quote:Imposing rules that limit player items:

While we would prefer most, if not all servers to be accessible to ALL players, this sometimes is not the case and we do not have issues with rules that are imposed on servers that will limit players to certain items (for example: Only default weapons) BUT this comes with two conditions. That players are notified before and after connecting to your server and that the server is run in UNRANKED mode.

Well banning PP is limiting a player item is it not? It says there are 2 conditions, one of them is being in unranked mode...

Yet so many ranked servers limit player items? Mixed messages given off.

Disallowing the Pirate Pistol =/= limiting players to certain items

You are limiting which weapons the player can use though. You are not letting him/her use the PP, this is limiting a player item. I really don't know how you managed to come up with your last statement.

I read the rules more or less the same way Lennna does.

the wording is "that will limit players to certain items (for example: Only default weapons)"

so limiting a "few" weapons is ok, but if you limit players to only use certain ones... like the example above... or ONLY knifes.. or ONLY PP or something of that sort then you need to make it unranked

but the rules are alittle ambigious, and people seems to be confused (myself included), so lets wait for VitalBullet to correct them Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 10:23 AM | Post: #62
Mrs.Murder 
(22-09-2011 08:44 AM)Moke Wrote:  the wording is "that will limit players to certain items (for example: Only default weapons)"

so limiting a "few" weapons is ok, but if you limit players to only use certain ones... like the example above... or ONLY knifes.. or ONLY PP or something of that sort then you need to make it unranked

Nowhere in the rules does it say that limiting "a few" weapons is ok. Do people have issues understanding the concept of examples or what?
Not allowing one certain weapon = limiting players to certain items.

A commando who isn't allowed to use a knife (default weapon...) is limited to pistols and sniper rifles.
A gunner who isn't allowed to use LR shotgun is limited to MGs, SR/MR shotty and PP.
A soldier who isn't allowed to use PP is limited to shotguns, other pistols and SMGs.
A commando who isn't allowed to use MGL is limited to dynamite.
A soldier who isn't allowed to use Harry's hand cannon is limited to PP, shottys and SMGs etc.

Not allowing ONE weapon is no different from not allowing several weapons.

Since these are RANKED servers, you cannot tell players which weapons they are and aren't allowed to use. Doesn't that makes sense? I think it makes sense. Also:
"While we would prefer most, if not all servers to be accessible to ALL players, this sometimes is not the case"
This has to do with servers not being accessible to players.
Also:
"(Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons)"
Ie, saying "No dual LR shotgun" is ok - since this combo can be exploited.

ALSO, the main rule states:
"# YOU CAN kick players if you impose rules such as a class limit, no widgets, no certain weapons, IF you clearly state these rules in your server banner and welcome message (more on this below)"
Ok, so you CAN kick if you set a rule that says "No MGL" - BUT (huge but) the server has to be unranked.

I do not understand how people can misinterpret: "YOU CAN kick players if you impose rules such as... no certain weapons... IF the server is unranked"

I joined a "no knife" server and asked why it was "no knives". The answer: "Because people don't like knives".

Quote:but the rules are alittle ambigious, and people seems to be confused (myself included), so lets wait for VitalBullet to correct them Wink

Looking forward to a blue response, and I hope these new rules are meant to prevent admins from limiting players to certain items, just because admin QQs over PPs, MGLs and knives.


Twitch stream :: Xtian's House of Fatality ::
DF pre-nerf "mini-montage" :: Pirate pistol (pre-nerf) montage :: RR HOTH gameplay :: BB HOTH gameplay

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

I am the baddest beech up in the pet store.

We can has female heroes soon?

(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 10:24 AM by Mrs.Murder.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 10:31 AM | Post: #63
Mrs.Murder 
(21-09-2011 07:38 PM)Notyou Wrote:  And you know for a fact that this is what VitalBullet edited/added?

Yes. I have read these rules countless times before. BFHxtian had to remove his concept days (commando/soldier/gunner only) because of these new rules.
These are new.

Ps. I agree with Firebaall and SD149
PPS. These greens interpreting these rules in their own (weird) ways is confusing people. Especially when one of them is directly affiliated with certain servers that ban a certain weapon... personal interest much?


Twitch stream :: Xtian's House of Fatality ::
DF pre-nerf "mini-montage" :: Pirate pistol (pre-nerf) montage :: RR HOTH gameplay :: BB HOTH gameplay

(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

I am the baddest beech up in the pet store.

We can has female heroes soon?

(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 10:37 AM by Mrs.Murder.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 10:58 AM | Post: #64
Notyou 
(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  Looking forward to a blue response, and I hope these new rules are meant to prevent admins from limiting players to certain items, just because admin QQs over PPs, MGLs and knives.
I am not an admin and I QQ about PP so your statement is false. Tongue

I can still see both interpretations being right.
Limiting a player to use a certain weapon =/= Limiting a player to NOT use a certain weapon
At least not on the legal side of the coin.

But let's see what the blues will say.

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 11:37 AM | Post: #65
tktktk6a 
(22-09-2011 10:58 AM)Notyou Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  Looking forward to a blue response, and I hope these new rules are meant to prevent admins from limiting players to certain items, just because admin QQs over PPs, MGLs and knives.
I am not an admin and I QQ about PP so your statement is false. Tongue

I can still see both interpretations being right.
Limiting a player to use a certain weapon =/= Limiting a player to NOT use a certain weapon
At least not on the legal side of the coin.

But let's see what the blues will say.

You are to focused on that one example that is given, but forget the category it resides in, "Imposing rules that limit player items:". It does not matter what or how many weapon/widgets/clothing that you limit. No matter what you limit, from almost everything to just a single weapon, there are the two conditions of server applying such rules in banner/rules and being unranked, the only exceptions are the exploitable weapon combinations like dualing weapons to bypass rate of fire. Which obiously is okay to have as a rule on ranked server.

I don`t understand how this can be viewed in another way, unless you really want it to be another way.

Limiting = limiting, right? And the only exception is exploitable combinations.(like dual lr shotty)

If all items are 100%, only allowing the option of 90%,50% or 99.9% does not matter, it is per definition limiting. Look it up Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 11:45 AM | Post: #66
Moke 
(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  Not allowing one certain weapon = limiting players to certain items.

I disagree, not allowing 1 weapon is NOT Limiting players to CERTAIN items.

In my opinion "limit players to certain items" should be worded "Limiting players use of certain weapons" if the point is to obtain your interpretation of the rules.

this is why I think they're not 100% clear.

(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  Since these are RANKED servers, you cannot tell players which weapons they are and aren't allowed to use. Doesn't that makes sense? I think it makes sense.

It does. I agree, it just not the way I read the rules.


(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  "(Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons)"

I think thats something he editted in this morning Tongue

(22-09-2011 10:31 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  PPS. These greens interpreting these rules in their own (weird) ways is confusing people. Especially when one of them is directly affiliated with certain servers that ban a certain weapon... personal interest much?

c'mon now... keep the personal implied insults out of the debate.

people will simply flip it around.. look at your PP montage in your siganture, and see YOUR personal interest in the matter.

Keep it clean please.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 11:54 AM | Post: #67
Moke 
(22-09-2011 11:45 AM)Moke Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  "(Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons)"

I think thats something he editted in this morning Tongue

Oh.. and just to throw in some more "legal flip flopping" Tongue

the above mentioned exeption says "INCLUDE"... not "LIMITED TO" Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 12:26 PM | Post: #68
bfhXTIAN 
I need help with reading the "Server Admins - Do's and Don'ts" so that I can continue with my Commando/Soldier/Gunner - only days on a ranked server...

Can you please help me? Tongue

[Image: xtianrcon_banner.png]

(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 12:31 PM by bfhXTIAN.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 01:23 PM | Post: #69
tktktk6a 
(22-09-2011 12:26 PM)bfhXTIAN Wrote:  I need help with reading the "Server Admins - Do's and Don'ts" so that I can continue with my Commando/Soldier/Gunner - only days on a ranked server...

Can you please help me? Tongue

lol xtian Big Grin

"If you wish to eliminate a class from your server then it must be running in unranked mode and you server banner and welcome message should clearly state this."

It says "eliminate", and you do not wish to eliminate them. You just want to kick them! TaTa! Tongue

bad joke, sorry Blush
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 03:05 PM | Post: #70
Firebaall 
Clarification has been made by VB. Banning PP is not legal without making the server unranked first.

Goodbye stat padding servers! Welcome to the game that everybody else has to play.

[Image: rocketboys2.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 03:20 PM | Post: #71
tktktk6a 
(22-09-2011 03:05 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  Clarification has been made by VB. Banning PP is not legal without making the server unranked first.

Goodbye stat padding servers! Welcome to the game that everybody else has to play.

Is it anywhere on forum? Appreciate a link if possible.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 03:29 PM | Post: #72
Firebaall 
(22-09-2011 11:54 AM)Moke Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 11:45 AM)Moke Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  "(Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons)"

I think thats something he editted in this morning Tongue

Oh.. and just to throw in some more "legal flip flopping" Tongue

the above mentioned exeption says "INCLUDE"... not "LIMITED TO" Wink

Do you really want to play with what he wrote, when the original intent of new rule for servers that limit items must be now unranked is confirmed? You know, the basis of the arguement/discussion?

If so, please send him a request to explain what "Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons" includes exactly.

From my understanding, it means the weapon combos that have the potential to be used in an exploitable manner. These specifically include dual LR shotguns, and dual knives. Now at this time it's important to point out that they aren't an exploit directly, but have the potential to be.

However, lets get this ironed out now so it's not a problem later.

Please request VB to be more specific on this exact issue, so people don't take an artistic license with the intention of the rules.

(22-09-2011 03:20 PM)Kallman Wrote:  Is it anywhere on forum? Appreciate a link if possible.

It's in the do's and don'ts. Revised today.

[Image: rocketboys2.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 03:30 PM by Firebaall.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 03:39 PM | Post: #73
Zellron 
Would you give me a link to bookmark this server? This is a very nice rule, if only was it combined with 2 commando limit.

On a side note, I don't really get the problem. It's not like you're forced to play there, you can always change the server you play on.

(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 03:44 PM by Zellron.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 03:50 PM | Post: #74
Vadeous 
Wow that's ********


GOGOGOGO Pirate pistol + GL spam all the way, you're pr0!

Oh, get your tonics also, cuz throwing one in 1vs1 makes you a pr0

Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 03:54 PM | Post: #75
Firebaall 
(22-09-2011 03:39 PM)Zellron Wrote:  Would you give me a link to bookmark this server? This is a very nice rule, if only was it combined with 2 commando limit.

On a side note, I don't really get the problem. It's not like you're forced to play there, you can always change the server you play on.

It's not just one server. It's now all servers. Smile

The major issue (from my point of view), is "play now" traffic. It can trap you on these servers that limit items, or have goofy rules that modify the gameplay.

For instance, if you click the "play now" button, and you start to join a server that has rules limiting items (that you don't agree with), you're forced to hit escape, and try again. Here's where the problem comes in. Many times, more often than not, matchmaking puts you right back on that very same server. This isn't fair.

The nice thing about forcing custom rule servers to go unranked, is they will never influence or trap "play now" traffic again! If you modify how the game is played, you shouldn't expect to be ranked or get public traffic.

[Image: rocketboys2.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 03:57 PM by Firebaall.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 04:13 PM | Post: #76
Moke 
(22-09-2011 11:54 AM)Moke Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 11:45 AM)Moke Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 10:23 AM)Mrs.Murder Wrote:  "(Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons)"

I think thats something he editted in this morning Tongue

Oh.. and just to throw in some more "legal flip flopping" Tongue

the above mentioned exeption says "INCLUDE"... not "LIMITED TO" Wink
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(22-09-2011 03:29 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  If so, please send him a request to explain what "Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons" includes exactly.

allready done before I started replying this morning Wink

(22-09-2011 03:29 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  From my understanding, it means the weapon combos that have the potential to be used in an exploitable manner. These specifically include dual LR shotguns, and dual knives. Now at this time it's important to point out that they aren't an exploit directly, but have the potential to be.

yes, please note the "include" part... it doesnt say that those are the only exeptions, if that was the intention, he wouldnt have used the word "include"

(22-09-2011 03:29 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  However, lets get this ironed out now so it's not a problem later.

Couldnt agree more Smile

(22-09-2011 03:29 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  , so people don't take an artistic license with the intention of the rules.

thats what I would like to avoid Wink
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 04:40 PM | Post: #77
Firebaall 
(22-09-2011 04:13 PM)Moke Wrote:  
(22-09-2011 03:29 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  From my understanding, it means the weapon combos that have the potential to be used in an exploitable manner. These specifically include dual LR shotguns, and dual knives. Now at this time it's important to point out that they aren't an exploit directly, but have the potential to be.

yes, please note the "include" part... it doesnt say that those are the only exeptions, if that was the intention, he wouldnt have used the word "include"

Personally, I think you're reaching. I can't blame you though. If I were unhappy with a rule, I'd be contesting/clarifying it too. Especially if the language allowed even just a little wiggle room from it's intent.

Without clear language in rule, there are none.

[Image: rocketboys2.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 05:04 PM | Post: #78
tktktk6a 
(22-09-2011 03:29 PM)Firebaall Wrote:  It's in the do's and don'ts. Revised today.

Help me out, I must be blind.. I don't see any changes other than "(Exceptions include limiting the use of exploitable weapons)".
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 05:12 PM | Post: #79
Firebaall 
PM sent with a link where the VB revisions were listed.

I'd expect one more revision to stamp out the wiggle room though.

[Image: rocketboys2.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
22-09-2011, 05:12 PM | Post: #80
Firebaall 
Bah! Bit by the IEDP

[Image: rocketboys2.jpg]
(This post was last modified: 22-09-2011 05:12 PM by Firebaall.)
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply




Forum Jump:



X
Add this person to your friends list
Remove this person from your friends list
/en/ajax/checkFriendStatus
/en/ajax/friend