Groentjuh's Server

[Ale]

 SAS

[Rene]

i just want to say, the general consensus was being a research center away from your spawnpoint. so your position on that screenshot seems fine to me but it's just my call and i'm no longer a ref. just giving a feedback to your thoughts, with my past experiences.

[Ale]

Maybe I was within the range of a RC length, maybe I wasnt but the point I want to make is a different one. I am complaining about SAS usage of his ref powers in general, bringing this particular case as an example for his behaviour.

[jazzking]

Well I'm not going to talk about what happened since I'm ill-informed.

But Ale, you've made the same statements about ref inaction being good in the interest of "fluidity" before. Numerous rules are enforced despite no effect on outcome of the match, racism rule for example. Its purpose is to help everyone be having fun. It doesn't take drastic outcome-changing exploits to diminish the enjoyment of the game for other people, siege camping is a perfect example. Imo siege camping essentially robs players of their fun, although since it doesn't always break the rules, I use the RC length metric, and try to check that they didn't just spawn, shield isn't down, etc.

If you've been watching the world cup you'll notice that these reputed refs are constantly interrupting the fluidity of the game and are in fact not invisible in the slightest.

[drk]

My own opinion is that SAS was wrong slaying you there (guess he was mad after he failed with saccing the shield) and his excuses would be the best way to end this talk.

[SAS]

First of all Ale , i'm happy u actually start complaining here in the forums, unlike the rest whiners in the game that know only how to curse a ref in-game but will never actually try to prove their claims.
Second of all I want to clear a few things,
1. i think u were pretty close to the garrison there and I do think it was siege camping,
2. when I slayed u, i was a scav, saccing that shield was hopeless anyway in my case, I didn't gain anything from slaying u rather than enforcing the rule I thought is right.
3. I don't put ref powers in the last 2 months until idiots start ruining the game, then they force me to use ref powers.
4. many times ppl claim I use ref powers to my advantage, nobody count the times I slay behe campers in my own team in the middle of enemy demo runners.
5. Ale, I would also want you to reconsider your behavior towards the server, refs, and me. it's nice that u tell all the rest are shit, however, don't forget to judge your own words and acts we both know.

but, I do appreciate u come to the forums to debate such stuff rather than just rage in the server, and if drk finds this as a mistake of mine, I will learn from that to the future. but its important he will see all the facts. (i myself couldn't see the screenshot/demo u posted here, but anyway i remember the picture in my head clearly.)

[drk]

I think that 'siege camping at sub/gar' means that siege camps so close to it that it can get back in faster than you can sac it or to recharge itself for frags.
From the screenshot I see (if that is true) that ale was away from gar, under the tower, defending while it was being built. So you can kill him using blaze/tempest/sac etc. He could not avoid that so easy.
That's why I don't see a reason to slay him in that episode.

[Groentjuh]

[SAS]

true, however, if i would temp he could go inside gar without dying and if i blaze, i would die by towers. the shield tower groent posted on his photo was a tower at the time. anyway blazing a bally is possible on almost every scenario since it takes maybe 4 sec to blaze it down, the bally need to be really 2 m close to garr/sh to avoid that.

[Ale]

[SAS]

some ppl would exploit to make their team win, it doesn't mean thats allowed.
and i gave blaze example because every bally can be blazed, so what is siege camping? a bally that is touching the garr? because otherwise almost every bally far 2 meter from gar is blazeable, yet it's still considered camping. there's no specific range of sieges to be far from spawn points, there's an estimate of the ref if the bally can return to the gar or not. anyway the siege camp is not only because of siege survival, it's about unfair advantage that u can kill someone all the time with 1 hit in your base and recharge your bullets in a sec and keep on camping. thats the real prob in siege camping.

[Ale]

[SAS]

i think this actually need to be discussed much more. since i see all the time refs slaying sieges that are staying at enemy base, it doesn't matter that u go the whole game with the bally, it matters that u stayed for a long period of time in base, and any1 who comes close to the base will die in 1 shot.
actually i would appreciate more refs to disccuss this, cuz this claim i did wrong is really stupid the more i think about it

[drk]

[Ale]

@drk: Why does that sound stupid to be legit? If he is willing to wait ages for a single kill let him. His team will suffer from his absence on the field elsewhere. Also JmZ is not that hard to pwn. I kill his summ 90% of the times I face it. So let him have his 1 shot at you, if he misses, smash his horned face with a nice elec buff or something.

@SAS: As i said several times before, it's the job of a referee (at least in any other game on this planet) to prevent players from getting away with unfair behaviour (@jazzking: and this includes racism and other kinds of maltreatment of players) and not just applying rules without using the freaking brain god hopefully gave you. Balli camping alone is not unfair. Like every other unit, ballistas are balanced and got their upsides and downsides (Nomad: speed vs weakness, Legio: strength vs slowness and so on). Surely as balli you can kill someone with a single shot, but once he's close enough you're screwed because this unit absolutely sucks in close ranged fights. However ballicamping becomes unfair when you exploit the game mechanics by taking advantage of a spawnarea, moving back into the loudout screen every time someone gets to close. By that you simply avoid the disadvantage a ballista brings with it and only make use of its advantages. It's your job as a referee to see if one is trying to make use of that mechanism, actually avoiding the disadvantages of the unit he chose and therefor is playing unfair. If and only if that is the case you may swing into action, using your ref powers to punish one for beeing a bad sportsman and a dick.
I for myself was not doing such and you should have known. You know me for a long time now, have you ever seen me not playing for my team? Have you ever witnissed me going for my own advantage, ignoring the fate of my team? Do you actually know how often I helped newbies, defended smaller units vs buffwhoring pricks and punished dickheads for their bad behaviour in my own way? As I mentioned before, I would have died for and with that shield. There is no scenario where I would have gone back to garr to avoid my own death (or reload). I was not doing what the rule was made to prevent afterall and that is why you did wrong.

Also i'm not invincible as ballista. My aim is like 20-30% and I would have had 2-3 shots at max before you would have reached the shield. That I hit you with my first shot was simple luck. Therefore your statement