Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Banned

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Banned

    Originally posted by R.J.Macreedy31
    If I can't bomb your uncap, then you should not be able to use the IGLA there. If I'm chasing a plane into the Essex territory and not allowed to touch anything on the deck, why are some people still spamming missles at me from the Essex? Where is my defense? I should be allowed to take you out if you start to target me from an uncappable.

    RJ

    indeed

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Banned

      Originally posted by stunt ridah
      Deliverence I think you missed this 1 line [B]
      Jesus, did you not listen in your english lesson at school?

      I didnt miss that line at all, its in my post quite clearly. What you seem to be missing is the fact that it is contained within a 'sample' rule as part of that rule.

      This whole portion is a SAMPLE of a rule that a server CAN have. It also says that Server admins CAN modify rules. Which is the bit you dont quite get. Tell you what, ill leave out all the crap, and just quote the portions you are having trouble understanding.

      This is the bit which says server admins can change the rules, see, understand?

      Server Administrators may implement and enforce rules that result in minor changes to gameplay behaviour or styles as long as these are clearly stated before a player starts playing on a server.
      This is the bit which says that the rules listed a) to g) are examples of rules that servers can have. Understand?

      Examples of such rules that are acceptable are:
      And lastly, the one you seem obsessed with, and note the quote above, it is an EXAMPLE rule that a server CAN have. Ie a server CAN (if THEY want) say that you cannot attack red circles, but you can bomb assets.

      Equally, they CAN (if they want) say that you cannot attack red circles at all, including bombing assets.

      Do you understand NOW? Or do we really need to get IndianScout in here?

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Banned

        Originally posted by R.J.Macreedy31
        If I can't bomb your uncap, then you should not be able to use the IGLA there. If I'm chasing a plane into the Essex territory and not allowed to touch anything on the deck, why are some people still spamming missles at me from the Essex? Where is my defense? I should be allowed to take you out if you start to target me from an uncappable.

        This uncap rule creates so many grey areas it almost always results in my being kicked. I don't have the time nor the patience to play on servers with a customized ruleset that requires nothing short of a law degree to interpret.
        agreed

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Banned

          Again, i suggest you read it properly, that is an EXAMPLE of a rule a server CAN have, just as they could have this rule:

          Making attacks on enemy main bases (flags that cannot be captured), including artillery strikes, vehicle drops to block runways, bombing runs with aircraft or sustained infantry attacks. (Note that only Spec-Ops are allowed to attack commander assets)

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Banned

            Gotta love admins/players who hide behind all these nonsensical rules.
            Once I got kicked & banned for "attacking an enemy jet as it was reloading/repairing". ie flying over the carrier.

            Edit: (Note that specific attacks targeting the enemy commander’s asset buildings are always allowed, even if they are within the enemy main base.)
            This sounds to me like it contravenes any rules the server may put in place about not entering uncaps. You are "ALWAYS ALLOWED" to enter an uncap if your sole intent is to destroy enemy assets, by any means. The precious ROE guarantees this right. What does it matter if it's C4 or bombs?

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Banned

              Ahhhh sh**, you see? its not hard to understand.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Banned

                Very well said!

                Fact is, the people that are complaining the most about rules, don't PAY for nothing, they just want all servers to be the way THEY want them.

                Solution for you complainers: PAY FOR YOUR OWN SERVER AND RUN IT HOWEVER YOU WANT IT!

                or

                DON'T PLAY ON SERVERS THAT HAVE RULES YOU DON'T LIKE!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Banned

                  Originally posted by KoMeT*[NL]
                  Because they mostly shoot and rules are rules a support guy has nothing do on the carrier the Spec Ops have four C-4'S if a Support guy could have been his slave then they would give the Spec Ops more C-4'S.. So Support guys aren't allowed on the carrier.

                  And besided wouldn't it be rather annoying constantly having your essets destroyed? I guess the Support guy wouldn't die without shooting so he shoots back..
                  So the commander, who shouldnt be flying goes and kills the two of them....Hence the annyoance of losing his/her assets is not a problem....GOSH!!!

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Banned

                    Hmm why didnt people on the carrier just hop in the bigass AA guns?? no need for a ban IMO

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Banned

                      I dont know, thats all it would have taken. Also if one person wanted to fly against me I would have been to busy to bomb assets. But they were wrong to ban me, as it states in ROE bombing runs specificly targeting enemy commanders assets are always allowed. That means server admins are not allowed to change that rule.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Banned

                        Originally posted by stunt ridah
                        I dont know, thats all it would have taken. Also if one person wanted to fly against me I would have been to busy to bomb assets. But they were wrong to ban me, as it states in ROE bombing runs specificly targeting enemy commanders assets are always allowed. That means server admins are not allowed to change that rule.
                        Good luck attempting to convince server admins you have a valid argument. Fact is, you're in the minority when it comes to using planes to take out enemy assets and you'd probably be better off finding another server to play on.

                        RJ

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Banned

                          Ya i know the whole thing is agravating I rarly use planes at all. I have over 500 hours played and about 15 hours or so logged in aircraft and half that in helos. But when I do fly and there are no ground targets to bomb and no one to shoot down then I like helping my team out by making sure the enemy has no assets.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Banned

                            Originally posted by stunt ridah
                            I dont know, thats all it would have taken. Also if one person wanted to fly against me I would have been to busy to bomb assets. But they were wrong to ban me, as it states in ROE bombing runs specificly targeting enemy commanders assets are always allowed. That means server admins are not allowed to change that rule.
                            You dont get it do you? Do u really think the hundreds of servers out there with exactly that rule would have rules like that if they werent allowed? If you exclude all the K/P servers, the vast majority abide to the RoE by the letter, ours included. We are perfectly entitled to have such a rule, as has been clarified by RoE staff in the past. Seriously man, read that whole section of the RoE, then read it again, hell, get someone else to read it and ask them what they think it means. The portion you seem intent on jibbering on about is an 'example' of a rule a server 'may' (or may not) have.

                            They werent wrong to ban you, they were perfectly entitled to, and many other, perfectly legitimate admins, who know the RoE very well would have done the same.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Banned

                              Originally posted by Deliverance
                              You dont get it do you? Do u really think the hundreds of servers out there with exactly that rule would have rules like that if they werent allowed? If you exclude all the K/P servers, the vast majority abide to the RoE by the letter, ours included. We are perfectly entitled to have such a rule, as has been clarified by RoE staff in the past. Seriously man, read that whole section of the RoE, then read it again, hell, get someone else to read it and ask them what they think it means. The portion you seem intent on jibbering on about is an 'example' of a rule a server 'may' (or may not) have.

                              They werent wrong to ban you, they were perfectly entitled to, and many other, perfectly legitimate admins, who know the RoE very well would have done the same.
                              Whatever man all this bickering is childish, I think when they are talking about what server admins can change and then they say always allowed that tells me they cannot change that specific rule because its always allowed.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Banned

                                Originally posted by stunt ridah
                                Whatever man all this bickering is childish, I think when they are talking about what server admins can change and then they say always allowed that tells me they cannot change that specific rule because its always allowed.
                                Maybe it is, i find bad mouthing admins, and perfectly legitimate decisions because your unable to comprehend a simple portion of the English language somewhat childish. An admins job is hard enough having to deal with cheaters, stat padders, and general smacktards to have to also deal with those who choose to ignore perfectly legal rules because they misguidedly beleive that the admin/server is not allowed to have that rule.

                                You still dont understand that that is a SAMPLE, and EXAMPLE, a POSSIBLE rule that a server can have. They dont have to have it, but they can if they wish. They can also then modify that rule as they see fit, providing it doesnt contravene any other portion of the RoE and is stated on loading and/or ingame.

                                I see complaints all the time on this board about how people are unfairly kicked, or they feel wronged (like yours for example) and more often than not, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why that person was kicked/banned, but the other side rarely gets told. Im sticking up for the admins here. I dont even know what server u went on, nor do i care, but i can garuntee you that whose ever it was would be replying exactly as i have.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X