Tired of removing without warning

**Shotman** · 03-02-2013

From my experience, forcefield is really annoying. The positive part is it protects: conts, SP, SM and other stuff behind the forcefield. The negative parts: a player can be crouched down near the FF (where he would get no damage), can't defend nuke (take them down), you can't shoot friendly projectiles through them, and you can't repair. Also why do you say it does not matter to mario when that forcefield cost that game, so it actually where people built things, you don't want the enemy team to gain RU quickly.

Fleece, please take an account that there are many stubborn people in public that will not listen or learn from their mistakes.

Also Leo would you actually not remove someone's leech when your team is losing and giving the enemy tons of RU? Also Leo, mario always tell people to remove it when it is a leech and 95% of the time, they don't listen. They listen is when they see their stuff getting removed, and cried.

**|uK|fleecey** · 03-02-2013

Originally Posted by HeatWave

From my experience, forcefield is really annoying. The positive part is it protects: conts, SP, SM and other stuff behind the forcefield. The negative parts: a player can be crouched down near the FF (where he would get no damage), can't defend nuke (take them down), you can't shoot friendly projectiles through them, and you can't repair. Also why do you say it does not matter to mario when that forcefield cost that game, so it actually where people built things, you don't want the enemy team to gain RU quickly.

Fleece, please take an account that there are many stubborn people in public that will not listen or learn from their mistakes.

Also Leo would you actually not remove someone's leech when your team is losing and giving the enemy tons of RU? Also Leo, mario always tell people to remove it when it is a leech and 95% of the time, they don't listen. They listen is when they see their stuff getting removed, and cried.

Trust me, i know.. I just wonder how termi can be stupid as fuck? Didnt get the point... Sigh!

**_Leo_** · 03-02-2013

Originally Posted by HeatWave

Also Leo would you actually not remove someone's leech when your team is losing and giving the enemy tons of RU? Also Leo, mario always tell people to remove it when it is a leech and 95% of the time, they don't listen. They listen is when they see their stuff getting removed, and cried.

Could you please read the whole discussion before posting?
I already wrote what I would do. This post is about Enzo (the retard) who removed a forcefield without warning nor answering why. No Mario.
But I see there is no point here. Some players wont stick to the rules (they say it openly here). Enzo can hardly write here in the forum, so I can understand he is completely unable to answer during the game.
In the end, this will lead us to matches with a lot of people removing other's buildings. Just like they shot to each other in the Supplier.

And, of course, every one is warned (in case you don't speak Spanish) that Enzo is going to remove any building he doesn't like. Period.

**terminator** · 03-02-2013

I wonder how retarded you can be not to know expressing yourself when obviously no one manage to get your point and majority to disagree with

**UcHiHa** · 03-02-2013

Leech is coming...

[R]^m4r!o* · 03-02-2013

leo hoy te vi jugar y hiciste 5 conts juntos en clarion en la casa del medio y te los removieron por que era leech, a si que dejate de weas y de crear leeech idiot plz

**_Leo_** · 03-02-2013

Originally Posted by [R

^m4r!o*;52994]leo hoy te vi jugar y hiciste 5 conts juntos en clarion en la casa del medio...

You're wrong. I made two conts inside the house, someone else made two conts more. Then a looser came a removed all the conts but one.

I know you are kind of newbie, but If you point to the buildings you can see who the owner is. Of course, you didn't do that so you thought all the conts were mine. No matter how many times you get back here to explain how great your idea of removing building is. It's wrong. And you should speak english in a forum were everyone speak english. You are being very disrespectful here and in the game.

**Novak** · 03-02-2013

Originally Posted by |uK|fleecey

Trust me, i know.. I just wonder how termi can be stupid as fuck? Didnt get the point... Sigh!

The following is merely a suggestion based on my opinion and what is likely popular opinion among regular public players with decent skill level as well as perhaps some advanced players.

Will start by copying and pasting the last portion of my first post, the 4th message on page 1 of this thread.

'Many noobs don't understand that their buildings are actually what I would call a form of teamkilling since their buildings are leech or tactically incorrect. Noobs shouldn't have a sense of entitlement about their builds, but do deserve an explanation so they can improve. If they go against that, it is on them and not really in the interests of improving server game play to cater to that IMO.'

A larger point was being made that perhaps it would be a good thing if an acknowledged secondary objective of the siege public server is to train competent siege players for pugs and matches rather than having it be just a noob breeding ground. If I am not mistaken, termi's post about making buildings in the middle of a map was just playing on the level of logic that fleece used. It is understood that the rule 'No removing' is making the best out of a situation of a high degree of bickering and differing beliefs in what constitutes 'good' from 'bad' builds. Yet it should be obvious to any experienced sieger which builds explicitly hurt the team and, yes, they DO have an obligation to educate the noob who built it in a polite manner because as I said in that same post, this is about UT etiquette.

Looking at fleece's last three posts on this thread, I see conflict increased (insulting R, insulting terminator twice) and a noob (Leo/YPF) entitled to not learn better building techniques.

Now, if there is an issue regarding the validity of a build, no need to bicker about it on the server. Post it on the forum and get an explanation for theoretical understanding. For instance, lets look at the forcefield in front of super container on Clarion. I never quite understood the theory for why a forcefield would be put there, but I do know this: nukes are usually shot down with shock rifle, and forcefield limits the ability to kill the nuker and/or take down the nuke as nuker is landing in front of core. It gives an advantage to the enemy which can be quite costly. Often killing the nuker is a team effort, meaning it takes 2 or 3 combos all at once to kill the nuker. Also, when the nuker does nuke the core, RU return is higher with forcefield there. Can anyone present a case for why to make forcefield? Does forcefield make it harder to nuke core? Super container already blocks the core. If it wasn't made to block the core, it should be remade.

Again, this is merely suggestion. I suspect uK wants to see more siegers with improved skill level and improved game play on public. This is a step in that direction.

**Novak** · 03-02-2013

In thinking about it more, putting forcefield in front of super container seems like a stylistic move. If enemy nuke strikes outer edge of forcefield, it will not hit core, thus making the nuke a fail. Also with new siege version, mines can be placed and upgraded inside the forcefield. If that is done, then nuke vulnerability zone is decreased and RU return for nuker is slightly less. since they need to land the nuke a little farther out from the forcefield/super container. If this is the case, the only case for removal of forcefielld would be to move the forcefield if it was built too far out, for example, not to remove altogether. Comments, please.

**_Leo_** · 03-02-2013

Originally Posted by K_Soze

...and a noob (Leo/YPF) entitled to not learn better building techniques.

Of course, you have nothing to support that stupid statement. Unless you can quote me saying I was pissed off by the forcefield Enzo removed instead of the WAY he did it. Or perhaps you are inside my mind and you know what I think.

Since most buildings give RU back when hit by enemy fire. Every building is a leech. I guess that's why it's perfectly fine for any retard, to remove a SC in Clarion (for example). Well, that's pretty stupid too.

The point is, it is not about building removal. It's the same old story. Getting warned for breaking a rule, later seeing everyone break that rule and being supported by the admins. Why? Well, there is always an explanation. This "different rules for different players" makes the game boring. And useless, if you think someone can learn to build with players like Enzo and such.

--- Updated ---

Originally Posted by K_Soze

If this is the case, the only case for removal of forcefielld would be to move the forcefield if it was built too far out, for example, not to remove altogether. Comments, please.

You keep missing the point.

In your opinion: should a player remove other player's buildings without warning nor later explanation? (when it isn't blocking nor game killing)

User Tag List

Thread: Tired of removing without warning

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Warning in my UT.log

FireFox script warning

WARNING: This aint kool-aid

Warning:

Im getting tired of this

Members who have read this thread : 89

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions