Why are main MK players banned

Geschreven door clovis1122, 20.06.2014 at 18:33

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 20.06.2014 at 18:22

This is a touchy subject, since in one form or another, the majority of competitive players use some sort of bug that isn't suppose to be a part of the game. How many of us go to Denmark from berlin without trans as Germany? How many use the passageway below the Denmark canal? Or the one below that? How many use the France passageway to get from Bilbao to the center of UK? These are not official passageways that were intended for the game. Yet a lot of people use them. I do as well. What justifies a bug that can be used or a bug that can't be used? If we say 'all bugs should not be used or you will be banned' are you really going to ban every single person who uses one of the bugs I wrote above? That would be a lot of banned people. I think a lot of people are against these newly found bugs because they are new and everybody doesn't know how to use them yet. When rewalling first came up, a lot of people complained about it and a lot of people wanted it gone. But now it's a (almost) universally accepted tactic. Granted, rewalling isn't a bug. But it's not like the tactic was included in the tutorial. It's more of an accidental result from how the coding behind atwar was configured.

So, if we are going to start a war against bugs being used, all of us need to examine our own gameplay and accept the fact that we need to give up using these bugs to our advantage if we are going to point fingers at other people who use newly found bugs.

omg Support Fockmeeard.... joking. There is a big difference between " Bugs which doesnt charge the mechanic and gameplay" (like those passagers, get a trans on sweden lake and so on". Because none of those bugs can guarantee you a win or a unfair advantage,

Now, there are bugs "which cercainly can charge mechanic and gameplay. A lot." that is the chase of the bugs we are discussing here, bypass walls. Rewall also charge gameplay and still there are more of us who hate it that those who like it. Is not universally accepted.

after attacking a wall can't you put another unit next to the wall of te enemy, to stop him from rewalling

Geschreven door Eagle_alt, 20.06.2014 at 18:18

AND DESU BANNED MY ALT AND MAIN LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

and banned the alt i loaned to Mauzer Panteri ;_;

Geschreven door Permamuted, 20.06.2014 at 18:30

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 20.06.2014 at 18:22

This is a touchy subject, since in one form or another, the majority of competitive players use some sort of bug that isn't suppose to be a part of the game. How many of us go to Denmark from berlin without trans as Germany? How many use the passageway below the Denmark canal? Or the one below that? How many use the France passageway to get from Bilbao to the center of UK? These are not official passageways that were intended for the game. Yet a lot of people use them. I do as well. What justifies a bug that can be used or a bug that can't be used? If we say 'all bugs should not be used or you will be banned' are you really going to ban every single person who uses one of the bugs I wrote above? That would be a lot of banned people. I think a lot of people are against these newly found bugs because they are new and everybody doesn't know how to use them yet. When rewalling first came up, a lot of people complained about it and a lot of people wanted it gone. But now it's a (almost) universally accepted tactic. Granted, rewalling isn't a bug. But it's not like the tactic was included in the tutorial. It's more of an accidental result from how the coding behind atwar was configured.

So, if we are going to start a war against bugs being used, all of us need to examine our own gameplay and accept the fact that we need to give up using these bugs to our advantage if we are going to point fingers at other people who use newly found bugs.

these things arent as black and whitte as that though. you cant just say a bug is a bug. on one hand youve got bugs that have become an accepted part of gameplay(passing through narrow bodies of land with trans, passing over small patches of water without trans, inf walls on water etc. ) not so much bugs but game mechanic oversights.

then on the other hand youve bypassing walls, hitting land targets with destroyers and doubling unit range by abusing zooming out. blatant exploits.

"you cant just say a bug is a bug"

I can. Regardless of the degree of an advantage you have when using a certain bug, you still have an advantage. It doesn't matter how much of an advantage it is, you are still using a bug for an advantage. Which, as tophats pointed out earlier, is against the rules. Who declared these bugs were an accepted part of gameplay? You just assume that because nobody has spoken out about them because the majority of competitive players know how to use them and do not wish to have these bugs be banned from used because they are so effective. This is the first time we have talked about the legitimacy of using bugs. We have not come together and really discussed if these bugs are acceptable, so you cannot make that claim that these bugs are accepted.

"not so much bugs but game mechanic oversights." You can say that to justify about every bug if you honestly believe that.

Geschreven door clovis1122, 20.06.2014 at 18:33

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 20.06.2014 at 18:22

This is a touchy subject, since in one form or another, the majority of competitive players use some sort of bug that isn't suppose to be a part of the game. How many of us go to Denmark from berlin without trans as Germany? How many use the passageway below the Denmark canal? Or the one below that? How many use the France passageway to get from Bilbao to the center of UK? These are not official passageways that were intended for the game. Yet a lot of people use them. I do as well. What justifies a bug that can be used or a bug that can't be used? If we say 'all bugs should not be used or you will be banned' are you really going to ban every single person who uses one of the bugs I wrote above? That would be a lot of banned people. I think a lot of people are against these newly found bugs because they are new and everybody doesn't know how to use them yet. When rewalling first came up, a lot of people complained about it and a lot of people wanted it gone. But now it's a (almost) universally accepted tactic. Granted, rewalling isn't a bug. But it's not like the tactic was included in the tutorial. It's more of an accidental result from how the coding behind atwar was configured.

So, if we are going to start a war against bugs being used, all of us need to examine our own gameplay and accept the fact that we need to give up using these bugs to our advantage if we are going to point fingers at other people who use newly found bugs.

omg Support Fockmeeard.... joking. There is a big difference between " Bugs which doesnt charge the mechanic and gameplay" (like those passagers, get a trans on sweden lake and so on". Because none of those bugs can guarantee you a win or a unfair advantage,

Now, there are bugs "which cercainly can charge mechanic and gameplay. A lot." that is the chase of the bugs we are discussing here, bypass walls. Rewall also charge gameplay and still there are more of us who hate it that those who like it. Is not universally accepted.

Read my response to Laochra. Since you two practically wrote the same thing.

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 20.06.2014 at 19:14

"you cant just say a bug is a bug"

I can. Regardless of the degree of an advantage you have when using a certain bug, you still have an advantage. It doesn't matter how much of an advantage it is, you are still using a bug for an advantage. Which, as tophats pointed out earlier, is against the rules. Who declared these bugs were an accepted part of gameplay? You just assume that because nobody has spoken out about them because the majority of competitive players know how to use them and do not wish to have these bugs be banned from used because they are so effective. This is the first time we have talked about the legitimacy of using bugs. We have not come together and really discussed if these bugs are acceptable, so you cannot make that claim that these bugs are accepted.

"not so much bugs but game mechanic oversights." You can say that to justify about every bug if you honestly believe that.

true, perhaps if this was a court of law your argument might hold some hope for mk, but its not. and as i said its not as black and white as that, the ability to pass over narrow strips of water is obviously a side effect of being able to cross rivers on maps. now can you compare the degree of abuse of this with abusing the zoom feature to bypass walls, double units range etc? or then if someone found a bug that gives unlimited protocoins?

apllying your own logical judgement, its pretty clear which of these are more damaging to the game, and lets not forget.

"Please note that our Rules and Guidelines have been modified. As of May 10th 2014, all players will act within accordance to the following Rules and Guidelines. These Rules and Guidelines can change at the discretion of moderators as necessary to best benefit the community and to cultivate an atmosphere appropriate to a gaming environment. There will always be areas that will be handled on a per incident basis by moderators. Even when not specified, staff has the sole right and final judgement of how to interpret and apply these Rules and Guidelines to any specific circumstance and situation, including proper punishment. The rules may, at any time, be applied or changed by any moderator or admin if they feel right. Relying on rules is therefore useless"

Geschreven door clovis1122, 20.06.2014 at 19:26

Well I did and I didnt really the same words as him. But it seems you didnt read mine, Didnt you?

I explained there are bugs which charge game mechanics, and there are some that doesnt. Nobody will break a legg for you use britanny shortcut, or pass from germany to denmark. Serious.

But, those bugs which alter the game mechanics, such as bypass wall and so on, Theses are the dangerous. I dont support rewalling because it break game mechanics, and you can make an unbreakable wall if well planned.

In a broad sense, you did. You both made the argument that there are two types of bugs and they each effect the game in different ways.

So. just because nobody complains about the use of certain bugs, it makes the use of those bugs ok? What if everybody loved these new bugs that MK discovered? Would you still want them banned even though they are dangerous to the game?

Geschreven door Permamuted, 20.06.2014 at 19:34

true, perhaps if this was a court of law your argument might hold some hope for mk, but its not. and as i said its not as black and white as that, the ability to pass over narrow strips of water is obviously a side effect of being able to cross rivers on maps. now can you compare the degree of abuse of this with abusing the zoom feature to bypass walls, double units range etc? or then if someone found a bug that gives unlimited protocoins?

apllying your own logical judgement, its pretty clear which of these are more damaging to the game, and lets not forget.

"Please note that our Rules and Guidelines have been modified. As of May 10th 2014, all players will act within accordance to the following Rules and Guidelines. These Rules and Guidelines can change at the discretion of moderators as necessary to best benefit the community and to cultivate an atmosphere appropriate to a gaming environment. There will always be areas that will be handled on a per incident basis by moderators. Even when not specified, staff has the sole right and final judgement of how to interpret and apply these Rules and Guidelines to any specific circumstance and situation, including proper punishment. The rules may, at any time, be applied or changed by any moderator or admin if they feel right. Relying on rules is therefore useless"

Oh, believe me, in no way am I trying to get the MK members unbanned. They used bugs, therefore they were banned. Totally support their banishment. I'm just saying, that since we are now on a new found level of banning for using bugs, we should work out if all bug use should be banned or if all bug use should be allowed. I am making the argument that all bug use should be banned if we are now deciding to ban people for bug use.

"apllying your own logical judgement, its pretty clear which of these are more damaging to the game, and lets not forget."

In the part I have in bold, you are literally implying that all bugs are damaging to the game and that some of more damaging than others. So tell me Laochra, if all bugs are damaging to the game in your opinion, shouldn't all bugs be banned?

>Knez used it once, only once in cw
>we didnt use it in any important match

no, just no

and btw:

> we only did the bugs in few stupid games with bunch of low ranks

rules of AW:

Game Behavior

1: Doing anything that interferes with the ability of other users to enjoy playing a game in accordance with its rules, or that materially increases the expense or difficulty of staff in maintaining the game for the enjoyment of all its users is not permitted.

2: Exploiting any bug to gain an unfair advantage in the game and/or communicating the existence of any such bug (either directly or through public posting) to any other user is not permitted.

plus, there is no difference between low ranks and high ranks when it comes to the AW law

Alts aren't allowed, plz ban eagles ip and all of his alts, he should take the ban that he deserves.

but mauzer and unleashed shoudn't be banned.

Wait one sec, so the bug here is putting destroyers or trans into cities such as berlin, vienna, and paris? If so I recall in Illyrification CW vs SM Tirpitz had 4 boat trans in Berlin and I told tops that, but he said it's ok since I have Ukr and he has UK he's allowed to do that. If I'm talking about the wrong thing, then please excuse me.

I don't think ban is solution to stop bugs in aw , mk players used them for fun but some hight rank players use them to win sm players also i hope admins can find a way to stop them

Tirpitz doesn't know how to use bugs, nor has he ever intended to try. Lots of us had that wtf moment where sea transes end up in land, but not intentionally. So if you're gonna go hand picking every single person who has a trans ended up in land then might as well ban half of AW. The difference here is these guys know how to bug n stuff, but Tirp had it done unintentionally.

Please guys stop this witch hunt for unintentional bugs before it starts. Like the post above me says he states some people use them for fun, others to win, and "sm also". I say if anyone has evidence just SS and give to mods, but no need for these comments which are based on no evidence and will certainly cause some disturbance among the AW community. Yes, the sole reason I posted is to defend my clan/mates. Deal with it.

I didn't mentioned names i said few players for each clan use them and sm players also and be sure on it .i'm not defending anyone ,i show the reality of things

Some clarifications for the sake of truth.only few people knew the bugs from before, like alex meza.i was trying to get him to teach me months ago but he wouldnt.eab knew also, he capped my walled cap in a game one year ago.
MK did not know these bugs, they must have found out recently.when i left mk they didnt even know how to make rome a port.and illyrians dont know these bugs also.its unlikely Lao did what u say he did, cause none of us knew how to do these bugs.

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 20.06.2014 at 19:47

In the part I have in bold, you are literally implying that all bugs are damaging to the game and that some of more damaging than others. So tell me Laochra, if all bugs are damaging to the game in your opinion, shouldn't all bugs be banned?

no i was simply replying to your implication that a bug is a bug. i dont consider those maneuvres you labelled bugs. and apparently most the competitive community, the mods and ivan and amok dont either since they arent banning people for using them. and its their opinion that matters. if you feel strongly about this fock i suggest you go about making them official.

Geschreven door Khal.eesi, 21.06.2014 at 02:56

Some clarifications for the sake of truth.only few people knew the bugs from before, like alex meza.i was trying to get him to teach me months ago but he wouldnt.eab knew also, he capped my walled cap in a game one year ago.
MK did not know these bugs, they must have found out recently.when i left mk they didnt even know how to make rome a port.and illyrians dont know these bugs also.its unlikely Lao did what u say he did, cause none of us knew how to do these bugs.

I don't completely agree. Pontez I think knew how to use Rome as a port. Here is a video Alex had posted in bumms forum sometime back.

So I guess some of illyria knew how to use. I have never found them using it though.

I don't think using rome is a port is that much of an unfair bug. I mean, lots of people used that from a long time ago. Admins/mods need to tell us how to differentiate between unfair bugs and ones we can use/always use.

Some bugs add onto the layer of skills, others do the opposite.

To clarify:
Land bridges requires micromanagement of units to maneuver effectively across short land gaps. This micromanagement, or effective maneuvering of units adds to the game's experience.
You could easily argue that bypassing through walls is also micromanagement, cleverly maneuvering past the defence lines. But what this differs from the first example is that, this makes walls redundant. It actually destroys a part of an existing layer of skill. A negative impact on the game play.

How about that for a way of differentiating future bugs; We keep the ones that add to the game, ban or fix the ones that don't.
If you're reluctant to believe what I said will work, take the re-wall as an example. When it was first discovered, many were against it. It returned to the scene again, a few months ago, where a few players began to believe that it wasn't all that bad. I personally was against it. It took me awhile to see why it was more beneficial to keep re-wall, rather than to ban it. Frankly speaking, it was because of all the wrong arguments that were being given for it and that clearly distracted me. But in the end, permitting re-walls was just an easier option for the community because it's not exactly easy to spot when it has been intentionally done as it does happen out of the blue sometimes. And more importantly, it does not destroy a layer of skill, but rather builds onto it by making it more difficult to ensure that an enemy player's wall has been broken.

And if you're going to tell me walls do not add any layer of skill to game play, then I suggest you think about why we have so many different types of walls. Or just play against b0nker2. If nothing can convince your opinion of walls, b0nker and his walls will.

Well, I guess we all know what is fair and what is unfair. Don't we? Do we really need to "define" what are bugs that may be exploited and the ones that shall remain untouched? Are we really that ignorant?
Abusing transports and other naval units to get to the middle of Spain (or any non-port city) is somehow obvious to be "cheating" the way up. Isn't it?
Using bugs to take walled cities is also something that goes way against the very idea behind the existence of walls. Doesn't it?

Using bypasses with transports or bridging land gaps add to the game and even define the protective counter-measures players have developed. They are beneficial bugs that do not attempt against the original battle logic.

Do we really have to discuss this or isn't this matter quite obvious???

Geschreven door Columna Durruti, 21.06.2014 at 07:23

Well, I guess we all know what is fair and what is unfair. Don't we? Do we really need to "define" what are bugs that may be exploited and the ones that shall remain untouched? Are we really that ignorant?
Abusing transports and other naval units to get to the middle of Spain (or any non-port city) is somehow obvious to be "cheating" the way up. Isn't it?
Using bugs to take walled cities is also something that goes way against the very idea behind the existence of walls. Doesn't it?

Using bypasses with transports or bridging land gaps add to the game and even define the protective counter-measures players have developed. They are beneficial bugs that do not attempt against the original battle logic.

Do we really have to discuss this or isn't this matter quite obvious???

You'll be surprised to know how oblivious people can be. Not that I disagree with you. It's just a sad fact. This of course happens everywhere, not just here.

I promise you, the conversation would have been going back and forth if I hadn't put an obvious, yet necessary label defining and differentiating the two. It is obvious for a reason though. To keep it simple enough to avoid any further unnecessary remarks.

Regardless, I don't think it was wrong of Fock to have brought it up. It's a valid thing to consider, especially with a player base that has differing views on many things.


EDIT: I don't mean to sound obnoxious. Not the intention here.

Geschreven door The Tactician, 21.06.2014 at 05:09

I don't think using rome is a port is that much of an unfair bug. I mean, lots of people used that from a long time ago. Admins/mods need to tell us how to differentiate between unfair bugs and ones we can use/always use.

Using rome as a port should be punish with ban, the city is coded as a non-port, this is as bad as teleporting units from japan to europe.

If everyone used bugs it would be fair

Could someone ban death for me.

Geschreven door Guest, 21.06.2014 at 09:29

If everyone used bugs it would be fair

Agree

Geschreven door Spart, 21.06.2014 at 10:59

Geschreven door Guest, 21.06.2014 at 09:29

If everyone used bugs it would be fair

Agree

including first turn wf, then no one will cried because of wf

Geschreven door Legendary Hero, 21.06.2014 at 11:00

Geschreven door Spart, 21.06.2014 at 10:59

Geschreven door Guest, 21.06.2014 at 09:29

If everyone used bugs it would be fair

Agree

including first turn wf, then no one will cried because of wf

Also agree

Geschreven door Goblin, 21.06.2014 at 11:13

Geschreven door Legendary Hero, 21.06.2014 at 11:00

Geschreven door Spart, 21.06.2014 at 10:59

Geschreven door Guest, 21.06.2014 at 09:29

If everyone used bugs it would be fair

Agree

including first turn wf, then no one will cried because of wf

Good thing i cant use blitz and wall fuck you first turn from far away while you perhapse cant do the same to me ...oh wait.

i counter with blitzkreig and use sentry plane too

Geschreven door Columna Durruti, 21.06.2014 at 07:23

Well, I guess we all know what is fair and what is unfair. Don't we? Do we really need to "define" what are bugs that may be exploited and the ones that shall remain untouched? Are we really that ignorant?
Abusing transports and other naval units to get to the middle of Spain (or any non-port city) is somehow obvious to be "cheating" the way up. Isn't it?
Using bugs to take walled cities is also something that goes way against the very idea behind the existence of walls. Doesn't it?

Using bypasses with transports or bridging land gaps add to the game and even define the protective counter-measures players have developed. They are beneficial bugs that do not attempt against the original battle logic.

Do we really have to discuss this or isn't this matter quite obvious???

I'm a bit disappointed hearing this from a mod tbh. You claim using naval units to bypass land to get to a capital is a bug that should be banned from use, correct? Or is it only limited to getting to the capital of spain? Because the same bug is already accepted in this community. We all use naval units to cross land to get to a country's capital, correct? We roll over Denmark to hit Denmark's cap, Sweden cap, and/or Poland cap, correct? Whether you're bypassing land in Spain or bypassing land in Denmark, you using the same exact bug, just exploiting a different country.

Also, if these bugs add to gameplay and are great for the community, why haven't they become official? Why haven't these passageways been added to the map? Go ask Tik-tok and Tunder3 and im sure they'll tell you it isn't rocket science to add a couple of canals to the map.

My point is, these passageways aren't public knowledge. Only competitive players and those taught by competitive players know how to use these passageways, thus giving an unfair advantage to those who do not know of these passageways. This is against the rules. is it not? But I suppose since Ivan and Amok let you bend the rules as you please, I suppose it really isn't in your mind then.

Geschreven door Permamuted, 21.06.2014 at 11:11

Geschreven door Meester, 21.06.2014 at 09:39

Could someone ban death for me.

support.

XAXAXAXA

XAXAXAXAXAXAXAXAXA

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 21.06.2014 at 11:27

Geschreven door Columna Durruti, 21.06.2014 at 07:23

Well, I guess we all know what is fair and what is unfair. Don't we? Do we really need to "define" what are bugs that may be exploited and the ones that shall remain untouched? Are we really that ignorant?
Abusing transports and other naval units to get to the middle of Spain (or any non-port city) is somehow obvious to be "cheating" the way up. Isn't it?
Using bugs to take walled cities is also something that goes way against the very idea behind the existence of walls. Doesn't it?

Using bypasses with transports or bridging land gaps add to the game and even define the protective counter-measures players have developed. They are beneficial bugs that do not attempt against the original battle logic.

Do we really have to discuss this or isn't this matter quite obvious???

I'm a bit disappointed hearing this from a mod tbh. You claim using naval units to bypass land to get to a capital is a bug that should be banned from use, correct? Or is it only limited to getting to the capital of spain? Because the same bug is already accepted in this community. We all use naval units to cross land to get to a country's capital, correct? We roll over Denmark to hit Denmark's cap, Sweden cap, and/or Poland cap, correct? Whether you're bypassing land in Spain or bypassing land in Denmark, you using the same exact bug, just exploiting a different country.

Wrong. Capping Madrid (or taking any other non-port city/capital) is taking advantage of a different bug than the "bypasses" or "bridging land gaps". Absolutely different. Like taking walled cities.

Geschreven door Fockmeeard, 21.06.2014 at 11:27

Also, if these bugs add to gameplay and are great for the community, why haven't they become official? Why haven't these passageways been added to the map? Go ask Tik-tok and Tunder3 and im sure they'll tell you it isn't rocket science to add a couple of canals to the map.

My point is, these passageways aren't public knowledge. Only competitive players and those taught by competitive players know how to use these passageways, thus giving an unfair advantage to those who do not know of these passageways. This is against the rules. is it not? But I suppose since Ivan and Amok let you bend the rules as you please, I suppose it really isn't in your mind then.

Or those players that check the forum. They are "public secrets".

The point is, IMO bridging land gaps and using naval bypasses add to the game dynamics, while using bugs to take walled cities or sending naval units land inwards are attacking the very foundations of AW dynamics/logic.