QF Winner A plays QF Winner D
QF WInner B plays QF Winner C
QF WInner B plays QF Winner C
[WIS] Questions & Suggestions
- Thread starter Golodir
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
bomba12131
Knight at Arms
isnt feinting technically a minor glich exploit?
bomba12131 said:
I agree it is odd to punish a player for abusing a glitch accessible to everyone. Warband has a plethora of abusable glitches and deciding which ones are acceptable leaves the door wide open for admin bias and possibly abuse. While bomba may have jokingly mentioned feinting, it is actually a glitch by definition; will you warn/ban anyone who feints?
Of course not, because it is a ridiculous proposition. Similarly, could the administration explain why normanguy was warned for abusing a more obscure glitch? I cannot find any rule stating that glitching is not allowed, and the rule cited only mentions the administration being able to request recordings regardless of the reason.
Of course not, because it is a ridiculous proposition. Similarly, could the administration explain why normanguy was warned for abusing a more obscure glitch? I cannot find any rule stating that glitching is not allowed, and the rule cited only mentions the administration being able to request recordings regardless of the reason.
If you try to remount a new horse that's nearby while dismounting your current horse, you don't have to walk to the new horse but teleport on top of it. It does not actually allow you to teleport to a horse further away than a two-second walk (tested), so its use is quite limited. It also only works if you dismount yourself, so using it as a quick escape after getting dismounted is a no-no.
It's like aiming into walls in order to see what's behind...
Actually theres plenty of stuff like that; bumpcouching, ammo glitch
Have never seen anything of this being punished
Actually theres plenty of stuff like that; bumpcouching, ammo glitch
Have never seen anything of this being punished
We can't control the feints nor everyone looking behind a wall, this however is something that barely anyone does, or knows how to do, and he's doing it consistently, so ofc we're preventing in. The reason we didn't reveal the glitch was mainly to prevent curiosity from people to indagate on it and make more people to abuse it, same way feints or looking behind walls were quickly abused back in the day.
But after your brightest comments comparing feints with a glitch of this type and describing how the glitch works can only say that you made sure we'll get to see it again, so good work with that.
But after your brightest comments comparing feints with a glitch of this type and describing how the glitch works can only say that you made sure we'll get to see it again, so good work with that.
So what if for example I kick my enemy, but my teammate just goes through him because that's how the game works, it is a glitch technically, but we all just accepted it, same goes for copying the more expensive ammunition for rangers, same goes for the things already mentioned above. I would also go a little bit further into it, because knowing more glitches makes you a better player in certain situations. A good example of that in eSports is maybe bunny hopping in csgo, or teams using runboosts, all of those were once considered glitches, but they are a common thing nowadays.
Edit:
It's also worth mentioning that there has to be a point at which we stop using this argument, it could be that teleporting is too much already
Edit:
It's also worth mentioning that there has to be a point at which we stop using this argument, it could be that teleporting is too much already
Feints, wall-clipping to see on the other side are glitches standarised since they were extremely easy to find and there's no way to prevent everyone from executing them. Bumpcouch is a tough example i'll give you that, however harder to manipulate than the horse mounting teleport(imo). On the other hand what you just described habrak is something involved in the game that we cannot control. I tried to explain to a few people on steam that this glitch should be banned as It's literally exploiting a teleport, obviously a game glitch that a player can consistently execute despite its 'difficulty', but not something they would naturally do while playing the game. Same way than the wall box in sandiboush where archers jump out of bounds and start shotting at people.
I considered this glitch to be something that shouldn't be allowed as many players would agree, and to keep it somewhat private would prevent many players from trying to learn how it works and to use it in the near future. You don't get that we should distinguish between glitches as rules don't really dictate which type of ones should be banned and which not. But some sort of decision has to be made anytime a glitch comes out, either allow it as it's not controllable or ban it due its nature or function. Think this should be enough to understand our perspective.
I considered this glitch to be something that shouldn't be allowed as many players would agree, and to keep it somewhat private would prevent many players from trying to learn how it works and to use it in the near future. You don't get that we should distinguish between glitches as rules don't really dictate which type of ones should be banned and which not. But some sort of decision has to be made anytime a glitch comes out, either allow it as it's not controllable or ban it due its nature or function. Think this should be enough to understand our perspective.
Your example on CSGO can be applied to Warband as well Habrak. A glitch which turns into a proper game mechanic because it only works properly through hours of practice (such as run-boosting or bunny hopping) can be acceptable, but not all will. A most common example of a glitch exploit which isn't easy to do but still helps you gain a significant advantage on CSGO would be pixel exploit on certain areas of the map and the CSGO hosts made a ruling on that long ago to avoid it being replicated for future events.
You have these on warbands as well and lots are commonly accepted in competitive plays but when something new comes out as the glitch Normanguy used, it's important to ask ourselves wherever or not we want the meta to turn into plays such as the one Watly described above. I myself have mixed feelings on that question, I think it's at least worth discussing about it because as far as I'm concerned, I find it difficult to believe people treating looking into a wall texture to see what's behind it (which is more or less the basic equivalent of a short time wall-hack) the same way as some of the aforementioned glitches. We don't punish the first one because it's realistically really hard to catch but I'm not sure you can make an argument for it being especially hard to master therefore making it a really skilled game mechanic, unlike some other glitches.
I agree there should be a rule on glitching but as you may understand it, it's quite impossible to list every single game exploits. Even if said rules happen to be there, you still would have to treat every issue at case per case.
Edit: Charli answered most of the points I made anyways.
You have these on warbands as well and lots are commonly accepted in competitive plays but when something new comes out as the glitch Normanguy used, it's important to ask ourselves wherever or not we want the meta to turn into plays such as the one Watly described above. I myself have mixed feelings on that question, I think it's at least worth discussing about it because as far as I'm concerned, I find it difficult to believe people treating looking into a wall texture to see what's behind it (which is more or less the basic equivalent of a short time wall-hack) the same way as some of the aforementioned glitches. We don't punish the first one because it's realistically really hard to catch but I'm not sure you can make an argument for it being especially hard to master therefore making it a really skilled game mechanic, unlike some other glitches.
I agree there should be a rule on glitching but as you may understand it, it's quite impossible to list every single game exploits. Even if said rules happen to be there, you still would have to treat every issue at case per case.
Edit: Charli answered most of the points I made anyways.
Also from my warband experience I know that this glitch is not new, however I also understand that not everyone has knowledge about everything. And we should indeed have a discussion that actually gets us somewhere, maybe to a point at which we have an exact set of rules on glitching aswell, it should be up to all of us to report everything suspicious in terms of using glitches whether they are caused by the mechanics of the game or map designs.
While I understand your point of view, I will have to disagree with it.
Yes, people generally tend to reveal why they got warned if they disagree with it. You cannot prevent the spread of knowledge on glitches, especially with a glitch so simple to execute.
You try to argue why this glitch is somehow different from other glitches, but the only reason this glitch has remained obscure until now is that it requires you to press one specific button you generally do not use while dismounting. This is not a strange key combination in hindsight and might have comfortably become a standard game mechanic in another timeline.
I can also get you a group of players that would argue you are being silly by disallowing this glitch. There is no meta-defining aspect to it, as its range is extremely limited. It is also extremely simple to learn, meaning you would be fighting an uphill battle were it to be spread.
This aside from the overall argument that the line between acceptable glitches is based on whether they are obscure or not. While feinting is hard to prevent, looking through walls can definitely be punished when caught on stream. However, you opted not to make a rule and punish for them, so this makes you look biased.
I understand your concerns and the difficulty of differentiating "legal" glitching. However, you now punished a player who thought he was perfectly aware of both the letter and spirit of the rule and believed he was following it to the letter. I believe the warning should be rescinded, as he did not break any rules, and you should at least attempt to make a rule that captures your beliefs on what is acceptable glitching and what is not. I will always appreciate the time and effort people put in to host tournaments, but it is unfair to treat innovators in this manner.
If you simply cannot manage, you could implement a rule along the line "In case of glitching, the administration will settle any disputes on what is a gamemechanic and what is a glitch."
Charlini said:
Yes, people generally tend to reveal why they got warned if they disagree with it. You cannot prevent the spread of knowledge on glitches, especially with a glitch so simple to execute.
Charlini said:
You try to argue why this glitch is somehow different from other glitches, but the only reason this glitch has remained obscure until now is that it requires you to press one specific button you generally do not use while dismounting. This is not a strange key combination in hindsight and might have comfortably become a standard game mechanic in another timeline.
I can also get you a group of players that would argue you are being silly by disallowing this glitch. There is no meta-defining aspect to it, as its range is extremely limited. It is also extremely simple to learn, meaning you would be fighting an uphill battle were it to be spread.
This aside from the overall argument that the line between acceptable glitches is based on whether they are obscure or not. While feinting is hard to prevent, looking through walls can definitely be punished when caught on stream. However, you opted not to make a rule and punish for them, so this makes you look biased.
I understand your concerns and the difficulty of differentiating "legal" glitching. However, you now punished a player who thought he was perfectly aware of both the letter and spirit of the rule and believed he was following it to the letter. I believe the warning should be rescinded, as he did not break any rules, and you should at least attempt to make a rule that captures your beliefs on what is acceptable glitching and what is not. I will always appreciate the time and effort people put in to host tournaments, but it is unfair to treat innovators in this manner.
If you simply cannot manage, you could implement a rule along the line "In case of glitching, the administration will settle any disputes on what is a gamemechanic and what is a glitch."
Alyss said:
shooting through board shields with crossbows is an intended game mechanic, just sucks for rhodoks : P
what about using overhead attack with polearms to avoid hitting teammates because it most likely goes through teammates. It is glitch too.
bomba12131
Knight at Arms
I get what you're saying Charlini, but I think such minor exploits shouldn't be punished. Imagine people banning them from the early days onwards - there wouldn't be any duelkids or turkish kickers around. Having a trick up your sleeve that is just as "minor" as feinting and glichting through your teammate/enemy but which, technically, everyone can learn doesn't sound bad to me.
This as well of course.Rider_of_Rohirrim said:
bomba12131 said:
We're reconsidering to remove the 'punish' if you guys wanna keep calling it that way even if it was just a warning + forcing to record which apparently he was doing anyway. It was just to ensure he doesn't do it again(we had no other method). Will give an update before Quarters are played.
To the rest comparing between the different type of glitches treating them all the same... Just read what I typed this morning and you may actually find an answer to your ironic 'posts'.
Edit: This doesn't take away that we're gonna limit the usage of this glitch with a rule, if someone else hosts a tournament and you feel like allowing it and are ready to see people teleporting for 3 meters to instantly mount on horses then go ahead it's your choice. Not something I wanna see in anything im running. Complete non-sense to compare this case with feinting or anything similar as explained hours ago.
