Question about shooting the supplier [Archive] - UnrealTournament Siege, Bunnytrack, Combogib, Instagib, UT99, UT4 clan & Server Discussion

PDA

View Full Version : Question about shooting the supplier



luis
03-24-2013, 12:00 AM
when you're playing and you see that there are people in the supplier enemy, you usually shoot or they kill you.


http://i50.tinypic.com/pyx5z.jpg

But now it turns out that you can not shoot the supplier because if you do ... you'll be banned.

Today on map chimplex into the enemy base, I killed a lot of players on the supplier, i go to attack the basecore and instantly received a warning from the (New Mod Noob) "Higor" telling me "if you shoot the supplier again you will be banned for 20".

supplier spam is constantly shooting the supplier, not once

¿the new rule is never ever ever shoot the supplier?
¿the guys in the supplier can raped us and we cant doing nothing?

L0nEwolF
03-24-2013, 12:16 AM
Just play in another server the post wont change shit xD

|uK|kenneth
03-24-2013, 04:40 AM
this will never end...

|uK|fleecey
03-24-2013, 05:48 AM
You do know that you lose RU shooting people in the supplier, Higor you should increase that you lose even more when you shot at it, so people realize they lose ru, not getting it.

SAM
03-24-2013, 08:16 AM
Yeah lonewolf they should play on your dead server that is full of cheaters. Let's not forget how you cheated too?

About banning people shooting at supplier....that's a bit unnecessary. Just warn people and leave it at that.

terminator
03-24-2013, 08:31 AM
It would be pretty unfair ban. What pple expect... to walk past by a horde of players which will obviously shoot back from supplier.. wtf?? what kind of game is that when people shoot at you from supplier and u're not allowed to shoot back.
It's crap i say. It cannot be sup spamming if player meant to kill players from supplier in order to pass by and reach the core.
Higor, if the case was as i just mentioned above, then this is rather LAME warning and threatening to player who actually tried to reach your core. Is it even possible to reach it in any other way??
We really need a definition of spamming a supplier. Personally i wouldn't care if i'd lose 50 or 5000000 RU there since my goal would be to reach the core asap, not being a lamer. And i surely would drop 6pack at supplier especially if i'd see someone tries to shoot me back from it

luis
03-24-2013, 08:48 AM
About banning people shooting at supplier....that's a bit unnecessary. Just warn people and leave it at that.

I hope to see what Higor have to say about that.

because apparently shooting the supplier only 1 time is "spam" and he love the ban hammer.

SAM
03-24-2013, 09:13 AM
Well the problem in this situation is as termi pointed out. You either kill or get killed and if people in supplier are shooting at you, what do you do? You kill, because its UT.

I did say a long time ago that supplier should give you protection for the first 5 seconds you enter. However, as soon as you shoot, the protection wears off. This doesn't mean that it becomes a nuclear bunker because obviously....check for whether a wardhead has been launched before applying protection....things like this will prevent these issues. We can't penalise players for playing the game....if we want things certain ways, then we need to find ways in game to manipulate how it is played...

|uK|chiseller
03-24-2013, 09:56 AM
The rule right now is perfectly fine, it just needs to be enforced properly.
There's nothing wrong with shooting the supplier once on your way to the core or whatever you are doing. If you happen do it more than once on a single run you will get warned.

Moskva
03-24-2013, 12:38 PM
Can we like get rid of Wolf forever?

Holy shit that guy is useless

And he is convinced his shitpiece dead server gets played

So he can justify his fucking mexican wetback ass working 23 hours a day to afford it

Dont even have to mention he is an ex cheater as his negro existence is bad itself

terminator
03-24-2013, 01:55 PM
So please instruct mods like Higor to watch on that. I've been banned on face once and i clearly see he probably didn't understand that rule. (if it was the case as i explained)

|uK|B|aZe//.
03-24-2013, 07:34 PM
can i just add that spamming for the sake of spamming when you can get to the core just as easily and end the game is what should be considered here?

ive seen and banned many people for spamming constantly when they could have ended the game i.e. cores difference is 100 - your teams 20 or whatever and instead some moron spams sup

L0nEwolF
03-25-2013, 02:37 AM
thats why supplyer must be at smart spot i shoot supplyer all the time to get to the core we all do, be honest... camping on supplyer and kill ppl thats gay =)

Feralidragon
03-25-2013, 07:17 AM
I will just say this one last time, and it's my very last input on Siege: every single one of your rules can be transformed into flawless code.
I have been saying this for years and this is the last time I will reiterate this.

Higor: Afaik, you even said something similar yourself once not long ago, how come these sort of things are not being focused on in new versions while new items are? I agree with adding content, but these are long term issues that need to be dealt with first and foremost by the Siege code itself, and they're not that hard to implement.

This is also another one of the reasons I stopped playing Siege: uK is the only viable Siege option to play the gametype nowadays, but personally I never know what's right or wrong. In order to play, I have to spend more time thinking about the 1000 rules I must not break rather than enjoying the game, to the point it became a hassle to play rather than being fun.
This also means that the first thing I had to do even months ago once I entered the server was type "!rules" instead of my WASD keys and mouse button to start playing.

So, once more, to stick in: instead of rules, add code to automatically enforce them, not by kicking or banning, but by penalizing in points or avoid things altogether, and that way everyone can focus 100% into playing the game rather than deciding if something is ok or not to do by the server rules.
Best regards

Higor
03-25-2013, 02:20 PM
So, once more, to stick in: instead of rules, add code to automatically enforce them, not by kicking or banning, but by penalizing in points or avoid things altogether, and that way everyone can focus 100% into playing the game rather than deciding if something is ok or not to do by the server rules.
Best regards

Note taken, penalty added.

SAM
03-25-2013, 03:54 PM
So, once more, to stick in: instead of rules, add code to automatically enforce them, not by kicking or banning, but by penalizing in points or avoid things altogether, and that way everyone can focus 100% into playing the game rather than deciding if something is ok or not to do by the server rules.

This has always been my view to be honest.....I've always been very tolerant and I prefer to let players play how they would without being stupidly lame...and it worked until I had no time to moderate myself....opinions vary between moderators and that's normal. I can't instill myself into them unfortunately :(

You should have input...it's always positive :)

Scourge
04-06-2013, 04:12 PM
A small suggestion for Higor/SAM: Can we have non-passive RU gains or losses reported for each hit? Like a flashing +5 if we ripper a container?

|uK|Chronox
04-08-2013, 12:18 PM
I tend to kick and warn, not ban.

Dragon is right, instead of "gay" rules that piss of players (some, not all), players should be penalized for doing sup spam AND receive a Message on their screen "You ve lost X ammount of RU for Sup killing X times". Long but something like that.

This way when sup spammers check their RU they will note they either lost some or leeched very little amounts...

Nukes are another case, directly nuking a supplier or not, you get kills, hence why it shouldn't be penalized, but if a mod is nearby, a Warn/Kick should be enough. (or make nuke sup kills not RU worthy)

Scourge OMG thats the same we have over BFP4f ! it would be awesome to implement that ! Nice idea, hope it is a possibility.

utbusta
04-08-2013, 12:38 PM
It would be pretty unfair ban. What pple expect... to walk past by a horde of players which will obviously shoot back from supplier.. wtf?? what kind of game is that when people shoot at you from supplier and u're not allowed to shoot back.
It's crap i say. It cannot be sup spamming if player meant to kill players from supplier in order to pass by and reach the core.
Higor, if the case was as i just mentioned above, then this is rather LAME warning and threatening to player who actually tried to reach your core. Is it even possible to reach it in any other way??
We really need a definition of spamming a supplier. Personally i wouldn't care if i'd lose 50 or 5000000 RU there since my goal would be to reach the core asap, not being a lamer. And i surely would drop 6pack at supplier especially if i'd see someone tries to shoot me back from it

Agreed, not all of you can zip your way to the core untouched like me.

Novak
04-08-2013, 10:24 PM
what kind of game is that when people shoot at you from supplier and u're not allowed to shoot back.

That is the issue. Getting past players should be the obligation of the attacker, especially since the siege game play changed to award more RU for hitting core. Attackers should not expect a free pass with lame shot at supplier.

Players should not be able to sit in supplier and fire on the attacker, yet their sitting there makes them a potential threat. My suggestion is to code it so that any player receiving ammo or armor from a supplier/ss cannot fire the ammo until they are physically out of the supplier. Additionally, either give the player(s) in the supplier immunity or raise the RU loss on the supplier kill to something like 300-500. That is a compromise for both parties. It gives an extra split second or three for the attacker to advance as well as anticipate the defenders' actions and also allows defenders protection to reset their bearing.

Another possibility that came to mind is to enforce the -50 RU for the first player killed in supplier, but then make it 300-500 RU when one or more additional players are killed on the same run (that is punitive enough, does not need to be 300 RU per kill). This preserves endgame strategy for team supplier killing and other supplier killing strategies that inevitably come into play (killing nuker, trans'er, jetpacker). Maybe add code that says 'if player killed in supplier has nuke, trans or jetpack, do not lose RU'.

|uK|Chronox
04-11-2013, 08:02 PM
BUMPY !

How is progress ?

Novak
04-11-2013, 11:16 PM
Transferring the thread I created to here, responding to Chronox. Please explain the poorness of my suggestions. Would be nice to hear a uK admin explain it from their perspective.

|uK|Chronox
04-12-2013, 11:26 AM
Read the entire thread K_soze, you can make better suggestion if you read about the problem further.

|uK|Altered_Ego
04-13-2013, 11:28 PM
Fighting the supplier spam is about as effective as the US Government fighting illegal drug trafficking. Everyone does and has been doing it for years. Hell I even spam it. Then 3 enemies come and nuke my teams supplier. Why are we still beating this same dead horse?

Btw, I just wanted to mention that none of my feelings were hurt while reading or responding to this thread. Just an FYI in case any one cares.

Banny
04-22-2013, 07:20 AM
Apart from losing RU, why not make the player freeze for double or 3/2 the time they have sup spamm'd. For example If they sup spam 2 times then the player should be frozen for like 3-4 seconds with a message on screen " You have been frozen for sup spam," then the timer showing in how much time time he can resume.

Shotman
04-22-2013, 02:25 PM
I could just picture that idea banny. In Niven the whole enemy team frozen. Lel looks funny in my mind.

Banny
04-22-2013, 02:44 PM
That's an exception :P..

Cella
04-22-2013, 02:53 PM
I'd glitch the shitout of that by surviving my nuke cause of freezing if that would be a possibility. (mainly in maps like niven and civilwar where a nuke pretty much always kill people in sup.

The Cybernator
05-06-2013, 12:45 AM
Just a thought:

Why don't we make it okay to attack the supplier? I mean, it would just force each team to build their supplier in a more protected location, and instead of having the game blurred by regulation, supplier location would be an integral and dynamic part of the game. As such, if you build a supplier in a good spot then you will not have to worry about attackers. Otherwise, you are constantly vulnerable to attack. Why regulate it? Why not just make it so that it is okay to attack the supplier?

I think the problem will take care of itself.

Actually, I think the same thing about camping. Let people camp. They will find out soon why camping doesn't work, because they will get owned so fast by more advanced players.

|uK|fleecey
05-06-2013, 04:14 AM
What advanced players?

Novak
05-06-2013, 10:51 AM
Let people camp. They will find out soon why camping doesn't work, because they will get owned so fast by more advanced players.

A lot of players don't know the actual definition of camping in siege. It is when a player is not exposed (you can only see their head over a cliff/wall, for instance). I guarantee you if Diablo, for instance, started camping on maps like Black River from the mountain area, he would not get owned very fast. The rule was made from my estimate as a way to make the game a little more fair and set guidelines for game play. Players who don't follow it are influencing game play. Camping can actually work quite well.

Also, Niven and Simplex are, by and large, not camp maps. Staying inside one's own base and spamming a door is not camping, it is just defensive spamming. Staying inside one's base area is called defending, not camping. 'Chasing' somebody who is trying to get a free pass into your base is called defending. Any questions?

Class dismissed.

|uK|kenneth
05-06-2013, 11:10 AM
Diablo, for instance, started camping on maps like Black River from the mountain area, he would not get owned very fast.

sneaky bastard!

|uK|chiseller
05-06-2013, 11:39 AM
The Cybernator

Sounds good in theory but it doesn't work in actual game.
If one of the "advanced" players decides to camp for a whole map you might as well go scrub a toilet. That will probably be more fun than having to deal with him for an hour.

The Cybernator
05-08-2013, 07:04 AM
Hmm, I am still a bit skeptical. Of course, I mean this with all due respect, and I'm not trying to antagonize those who have worked hard to develop rules. I'm just talking out of my ass and seeing who on UK is willing to sniff.

Okay, so I understand that getting rid of camping levels the playing field, but why not just have it be dog eat dog? It'd be so fuckin' militaristic! I'm not sure a camper would be THAT hard to deal with, and even if they were, then both teams have the opportunity to camp. I think it would make the game more tactical and force players to cooperate/communicate more.

|uK|chiseller
05-08-2013, 04:03 PM
I agree with you that it should be allowed but not on public.

Higor
05-08-2013, 07:51 PM
RC20 does punish the team for a sup-spam kill.

Back on RC15, I added the negative RU bonus.
On RC20, I layered on top of that the core halting.

What does that do?
Simple: the core generates ru to all players, if a sup spam kill happens, the core will not generate the following 50 shared RU.
Will halt it for a few seconds before generating again, the lower the playercount, the longer the time it halts.

What's my point here?
Sup spamming benefits the entire attacking team, so the entire attacking team will now notice when sup spamming is in progress by not getting RU from core for a few seconds.

--- Updated ---

Cyber, the problem with camping isn't camping, it's ZeroPing which doesn't let you hit campers.

|uK|Chronox
05-09-2013, 12:45 AM
RC20 does punish the team for a sup-spam kill.

Back on RC15, I added the negative RU bonus.
On RC20, I layered on top of that the core halting.

What does that do?
Simple: the core generates ru to all players, if a sup spam kill happens, the core will not generate the following 50 shared RU.
Will halt it for a few seconds before generating again, the lower the playercount, the longer the time it halts.

What's my point here?
Sup spamming benefits the entire attacking team, so the entire attacking team will now notice when sup spamming is in progress by not getting RU from core for a few seconds.

--- Updated ---

Cyber, the problem with camping isn't camping, it's ZeroPing which doesn't let you hit campers.

Sexy coding Higor :Q____________

Mess up with the Sniper rifle, or make SAM alter the Tick Rate or something (There was some value that made buildings disappear when changing angles or something, which happens always).

Banny
05-09-2013, 02:36 AM
Sup spamming benefits the entire attacking team, so the entire attacking team will now notice when sup spamming is in progress by not getting RU from core for a few seconds.

Just hope while playing Niven you're not in the team of Kikto, TRO , U2CHILE, etc.

Higor
05-09-2013, 02:47 AM
Just hope while playing Niven you're not in the team of Kikto, TRO , U2CHILE, etc.

I wonder if they'll manage to completely shut down core RU generation on their teams...

|uK|chiseller
05-09-2013, 07:01 AM
What's my point here?
Sup spamming benefits the entire attacking team, so the entire attacking team will now notice when sup spamming is in progress by not getting RU from core for a few seconds.[COLOR="Red"]

That would be good for the pug version but I really don't see the point in having this on the public. 90% of the time you can't reason with your teammates and the whole team will suffer because of one idiot.

Novak
05-09-2013, 11:21 AM
My understanding is that one round of rockets into the supplier is not spam. Why not make it neutral (no RU gain or loss) for that shot rather than losing RU for regular game tactics? Repeated shots at supplier is spam so make that RU loss.