there's been discussion about RULES concerning aliens structures and exploits tonight.

so in short, starcetereus mentioned that he asked the admin team about their understanding of the following rule:

(iv) Intentionally abuse bugs and glitches to hinder movement or abilities.

and he got the response that this rule applies to walking structures through each other (whips through harvesters// putting structures inside each other like you can by echoing things etcetc)

at the same time they (admins) said that another very common alien comm activity, namely putting PVE structures on cysts, is NOT included in this definition of exploiting pve movement. EDIT: DONT MIND THIS PART STAR WAS TALKING TO MEGA

Now my question is, why? Do we really want to keep this in the game? Because the way I see it, while we're already at it, we can just as much remove another amazingly strong alien exploit from comp games. Nothing's as frustrating as solo pushing an rt that has a crag sitting on the cyst. You'll just get cleard because you need to shoot the crag in order to be effective at all. This is literally forcing the marine to kill the crag, then maybe the cysts, then the rt. That's like more than a whole minute worth of time aliens get (that is, if they don't have any lifeforms giving it any attention at all)

If we're already making a rule for pve abuse, put STRUCTURES ON TOP OF CYSTS right on that list of banned things.

I wouldn't see the logic behind not enforcing that as part of the other exploit things.




So my goal of this thread is to have a crisp clear definition of the exploiting rules that we curretnly have in the league, because i'm sure a lot of this is unclear to a lot of people.
Also I'd like to have people agree on whether or not it is an exploit to move structures through each other, and whether or not it's an exploit to have structures standing ON TOP of each other.
It'd be SICK to have a concluding statement by admins so that we have a general RULE to follow. GO AHEAD FRIENDS

https://go.twitch.tv/videos/183739812?t=1h13m30s


https://go.twitch.tv/videos/183721196?t=2h26m

https://go.twitch.tv/videos/183721196?t=2h26m
https://go.twitch.tv/videos/183739812?t=1h13m30s the case in question

saving a whip by intentionally walking it through an rt several times is a pretty clear cut example of exploiting IMO

Just to intervene right here, PLEASE don't derail this thread into specific cases where it happened or whatever, this is very important to me and i just want to incite discussion to get results on whether or not this rule is possible to enforce, and if the community actually wants this rule.

Hiding cysts under a crag/shade etc feels cheap, it genuinely feels like an exploit, and I say that having done it many times.

The rules are definitely unclear on the topic, so I would like to see some clarification. Though I do worry, marines are already able to clear pretty easily, if you were to take this away from alien commanders, would it be worth buffing Cyst HP a little (up to say, 220 - 250?) with the cyst radius allowing the comm to place 3 cysts (max 4 on "some") around rts, having the hp of cysts be 180 makes for pretty easy clearing. It used to be that 1 shotgun blast and a little welding killed a cysts (in dragons compmod) now it is a LOT easier.

anyway, on topic, I agree that moving structures on top of each other or through each other to prevent damage should be considered an exploit... moving mobile structures to prevent movement and/or abilities is already against the rules, so it seems like with the rule Bauer quoted and this one (see below) this would be the logical conclusion to blocking cysts.

(iv) Intentionally abuse bugs and glitches to hinder movement or abilities with mobile Structures/ Units/ entities.

The rule of thumb here "it is reasonably clear that the structure is out of the bounds of normal play on a map". I really don't see a problem why alien structures can't be placed on top of cyst. Cyst is a little objects, marines don't get collision when stepping on it, so why alien structures should get collision? Or I don't understand the topic?

Pushing an RT with a crag placed on a cyst is one of the more frustrating experiences I have when I push an RT, so I'd appreciate if putting PvE on cysts would be forbidden.

However I don't see a problem with clogs (maybe hydras) protecting cysts.

I agree with CrazyCat in regards to placing structures like crags on top of cysts. I feel like you almost always need to kill crags before worrying about cysts. Even if the crag isn't on a cyst, you still go for the crag first, then the cysts. It's not like the crag being on top of the cyst changes snything. It's like clogs on cysts imo.

When it comes to moving structures through other structures to save them, I 100% think it's a bullshit exploit. To me, doing this little trick is akin to having a free constant bonewall. The problem is I don't think it's something that should/can be enforced as illegal. I mean if someone does it in a match, moving a crag through an RT one time, how do you prove intent? What is the punishment? Is the round forfeited? My point is that until this 'mechanic'/exploit is fixed there's no way to enforce any such rule. Same goes for structures on cysts really.

Mephilles says

Pushing an RT with a crag placed on a cyst is one of the more frustrating experiences I have when I push an RT, so I'd appreciate if putting PvE on cysts would be forbidden.

I believe the key distinction to be made here is the classification of whether or not a cyst is supposed to have a collision box. If the cyst is not supposed to have a collision box, then placing a structure on top of it is not a bug and is fair game. RTs on the other hand do have a collision box, therefore walking another structure with a collision box inside of it is indeed a bug, and abusing said bug is in fact exploiting. From a gameplay perspective, a crag on top of a cyst is supposed to counter solo pressure moderately well, but with 2 marines the crag melts easily and then that's 13 team res killed so it's not an issue imo.

loMe says

The problem is I don't think it's something that should/can be enforced as illegal. I mean if someone does it in a match, moving a crag through an RT one time, how do you prove intent?

In the specific case I linked, it's very obvious that it was intentional. A good metric I described to figure out if it was intentional or not is if the pve walks through an rt once and if it doubles back and does it again it's intentional, otherwise you can't really prove it was not accidental. And if an alien comm "accidently" does it once every time the pve in question comes under attack, you can pretty quickly see a pattern that would be considered abusing. Doing it once does not really have much effect, doing it multiple times definitely has an effect and is exploiting.

Walking a structure through another structure once can be enough to save the structure though. If it's reprimandable at all, it should always be enforced imo. I mean yeah it's definitely something that can be abused more evidently, but the fact is if you even do it once it's still an exploit.

Alien commander waits til crag is 25%, walks it through harvestors and bonewalls the marine preventing him from moving to finish off the structure.

I just think in order to prevent it, the exploit itself has to be fixed. I'm fine with a rule in the meantime, but rulings on it are very subjective.

loMe says

Alien commander waits crag is 25%, walks it through harvestors and bonewalls the marine preventing him from moving to finish off the structure.

That example only works if the marine is about to be cleared, in which case you can do the same thing by just bonewalling the pve, you dont even need to walk it through the RT. With stuff like this you have to balance enforceability with viability, and automatically punishing someone whenever pve walks through an rt, accidental or not, is just as unfair as not enforcing the rule at all. Until the issue gets fixed I believe my metric is a good way to determine accidental vs intentional. Frequency of accidentally abusing the bug will also be taken into account. If someone who does it "accidently" quite frequently, does it once in an official match, that may be punished the same way as if someone who never did it before passed it through the RT multiple times.

And yet it still happens and is abused. "Only works if..." Stop right there.

loMe says

I agree with CrazyCat in regards to placing structures like crags on top of cysts. I feel like you almost always need to kill crags before worrying about cysts. Even if the crag isn't on a cyst, you still go for the crag first, then the cysts. It's not like the crag being on top of the cyst changes snything. It's like clogs on cysts imo.

the problem with this is your goal. you're thinking that when players are pushing they're only supposed to be shooting the crag, so why bother making a rule about the crag blocking the cyst?

if your goal as a marine is to make a player hop in the hive and recyst, you're wasting time of a player and res, youre also introducing a component of forcing a mistake from your enemies. but this is prevented because of the crag on top of the cyst.

what if the crag on top of a cyst is between a hive and a natural, and you want to break the chain. you're forced to kill the crag before killing the chain.

i just dont think your argument of "you have to kill the crag first to deal with the cyst" holds up, because you're only talking about 1 scenario of many

just a quick update i accidentally copy pasted the wrong rule, the one up for discussion is this one

(iv) Intentionally abuse bugs and glitches to hinder movement or abilities.

Starcetereus says

Until the issue gets fixed I believe my metric is a good way to determine accidental vs intentional. Frequency of accidentally abusing the bug will also be taken into account. If someone who does it "accidently" quite frequently, does it once in an official match, that may be punished the same way as if someone who never did it before passed it through the RT multiple times.

i got a big problem with this

I am also worried about comms getting punished for doing it on accident. That happens.

That said, I do agree structure upon structure is a nono.
The exception in my eyes would indeed be cysts. They are small, and it makes reasonable sense that other things can move over it.

Add to this a comm glancing over the field and quickly placing or moving stuff, and im far less comfortable making 'placing stuff on cysts' an issue.

Hello @adminteam can we have some discussion on this topic

Whats possible in the game = what you can do in the game

BauerJankins says

Hello @adminteam can we have some discussion on this topic

"The number you have dialed is not in use"

Bauer your a Referee yourself that has been reefing in the past so what do you think is possible to execute from these Rules:

10. Exploits
(a) Players may not:

(i) Intentionally place structures in places where it is reasonably clear that the structure is out of the bounds of normal play on a map (For example, on top of wall geometry).
I guess pretty easy and logical to look after as a Referee as soon as you see it tell them to move it out of the geometry on non mobile structures well i guess they need to recycle it ?

(ii) Place structures on infestation originating from a cyst, gorge tunnels, or contamination on another side of a wall.
Has been there for 1-2 Seasons and everyone understood it and stooped doing it easy to control as a Referee

(iii) Use any macros, scripts, or other tools outside NS2 that confer unfair advantage.
This is arguable harder to control but its still necessary right ?

(iv) Intentionally abuse bugs and glitches to hinder movement or abilities with mobile Structures/ Units/ entities.
Was initially created right inb4 S11 to stop blocking a Onos with arcs or a Marine with Pve from walking past.

And Btw the Admin team already suggested to remove this Rule so (iv) might just go away.
I thought its actually easy to track but what are the consequences giving them their onos back ? ^^
yeah it has to go away




Ok Bauer now to your Point you are telling me you want a rule so you as a Referee would have to in a 90 minute div3 round look all over the map the whole 90 minutes that the commander places no PVE on top of cysts and as soon as the commander with 300ActionsPerMinute moves a Crag whip etc on the other side of the map where nothing is happening on top of a cysts you want to warn him about that...

1 Word Ridiculous


The only way you can have Pve not moving on top of cysts is code based means comp mod or uwe modder's need to give cysts a collusion.

So if you are wanting to give them collusion there are a few Problems:
1) Its horrible for the Game performance Ghoul told us its additional ents and that's bad (cysts are already the most performance consuming part of the game at least a few patches ago)
2) Its not intentional that cysts have a collusion from Uwe you would get stuck with pve/drifters marines lifeforms on them.
3) If you give cysts a collusion you would for example block your pve out on jambi oxy if you want to move it over the catwalk or other small areas..
4) Uwe posted in their discord that the next Patch might have biomass4 on 1 hive and Flamers with a Fire-con and more pvp damage so maybe people could buy more gls and flamers, beside Grenades are ridiculous good against pve cost 10 tres and 1 pres (and they stay in your inventory when you die???)


So the whole cysts collusion box has multiple issues to fix and if you honestly sum it up its annoying as marine but its a lot of trouble to get a proper solution done on that and it should be code based.

Now to the whole Moving Whips/Shades/Crags/Shifts etc trough other stuff and that they clump up.

Again performance Reasons why it has been coded like that from uwe.
If they clump up while moving they waste less resources of the game.

I would rather not like to Rule this and this should be Fixed with code but if they say its not possible or too hard and to performance killing well better find ways of weapons etc like grenades etc to deal with these issues.



Then your Initial topic Moving the Whip trough the RT:
I am no modder but can you guys not just make the RT "collusion model"or the "pathing mesh" different just as big as the Visible Model in build state.
So that's easy fixed ? ^^ Far better then having a Ref watch out for this.

Mega says

Ok Bauer now to your Point you are telling me you want a rule so you as a Referee would have to in a 90 minute div3 round look all over the map the whole 90 minutes that the commander places no PVE on top of cysts and as soon as the commander with 300ActionsPerMinute moves a Crag whip etc on the other side of the map where nothing is happening on top of a cysts you want to warn him about that...

1 Word Ridiculous

I think it's quite practical to enforce this rule. It's not like there are dozens of crags on the map. Even if you miss the khamm dropping it, it only matters when a marine is there, and there're only 5 or 6 of those to track. Nowadays refs basically do nothing after setting up the game (which is still work of course). Why can't they follow along during the game too? Hint: they should already have been tracking structure placement and checking if it's in a wall.


PS: I think the infestation-through-walls rule is too lax. Personally I do not like that you can cyst topo power from behind the wall, or east stuff from nano, for example. But it might be too hard to craft a good rule that doesn't restrict aliens too harshly and doesn't rely on refs being fair.

What you are saying mega, that it's apparently not possible to enforce the expanded UNDERSTANDING of the rule (IV), is very much my whole point. First of all, your new rule IV is written to be very unclear about what is actually meant by it. It could mean the thing that I have mentioned above, the no pve on cysts rule, is very much included in this rule. This is the whole point of this thread, to get some input from admins what is meant about this.

Also, further, MY personal concern with this (imo very dumb) rule is THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ENFORCE. If you're gonna make a rule like this and force refs to make very subjective rulings for situations they'd have to have an eye on CONSTANTLY, then why not ban much more impactful thigns too? Like infestation hitting buildings through walls (intentionally or unintentionally? :thinking:) or crags sitting on top of cysts effectively making it impossible to shoot the cyst (hindering abilities XDDD) and much more.

My whole point is to get rid of a dumb rule about a dumb mechanic that has NEXT TO NO impact on the game, whereas other things actually make pushes for marines impossible. Think about it.

What kind of enfoceable rule would you make then? Like give an example.

I don't think any of it is enforceable 100% of the time but it's better to have a rule in place than to have nothing. Your arguing that a rule about moving structures through other structures is pointless because it's difficult to enforce and there are other more prevelant abuses, but you don't offer any tangible solutions. In my opinion by simply having a rule for any single abuse, it will deter those commanders that are intentionally abusing it from doing it so deliberately.

I get your complaint about crags being laid on top of cysts can create unfair advantages and there's definitely commanders that intentionally place crags on top of cysts because of this, but is there any one rule that can be realistically enforced across the league preventing it? Same goes for infestation across rooms.

I think the whole point of a referee is to look for these types of things during a match or else what's the point of even labeling them as 'referees.' If they just alt tab or afk during matches they shouldn't be refs.

I don't get your argument, you say my argument is bad and then say it's not possible to enforce the other things I mentioned, while at the same time you say it should be possible to enforce the thing that FORCES A REF TO watch every pve movement throughout the game anyways. If you're already doing that, why not the other? It's literally the same thing and the rule in discussion mentions hindering abilities as breaking rules. Making it impossible to shoot a cyst would fall under that, don't you think?

Do you even read? I'm saying none of the rules can or will be enforceable 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean you don't have them. Refs aren't going to be able to catch every infraction, but it's their job to at least try. Having a rule in place for any single abuse is better than having nothing. You seem to argue that it's pointless to have a rule that can't be enforced all the time. If a rule is in place it will help deter people from deliberately abusing the rule.

loMe says

...but is there any one rule that can be realistically enforced across the league preventing it?

My point here is your not going to be able to create a perfect rule that prevents all these related abuses (moving structures through structures, crags on cysts, infestation through walls). These are only fixable through changing the game in my opinion. So what rule or rules could we add to prevent them?

I think we had a good example on discord in regards to moving structures through other structures. Something like : "A team cannot move a structure through another structure more than once a map or match." With refs issuing a warning the first time it occurs.

If you need individual rules for individual abuses that's fine in my opinion. They won't be 100% enforceable, and will rely on active refereeing, but it's better than having nothing in place.

I think you shouldn't ask too much of refs if you aren't one yourself lul
I dunno I just don't think it's worth it to have those small rules that every player will have to keep in mind throughout the season, while at this time right now we have literally 0 rules that have to be actively considered while you play a match (the ones we've had before were for REALLY OBVIOUS GLITCHES). Glitching pve can always happen in this game, whether or not you do it intentional - it's random and unreliable. Getting warned for arbitrary things like this would piss me off a shitton.
Afterall this whole thing is not that impactful.

If however we decide to add more of those small rules to have everyone actively consider those things that'd be fine, afterall it'd be more of a public topic and those things would actually actively change things in the game. As long as it's not demanded of refs to spot every single bug abuse that commanders will unintentionally do. And as long as we can all agree that it's not only up to the refs to keep an eye on those things. And as long as there are always warnings before punishments. Because all this stuff can happen unintentionally.

But if we stick to only one arbitrary rule then I don't see the point of it. Personally i'm all for not having any rule in place at all because I'm lazy and against change, but I'd rather have many to cover all the bugs instead of just one to cover a random one. AND I'D LOVE to have someone write the rules we eventually decide to stick with down in a clear and comprehensive and definite way, to prevent misunderstandings. I'll try to help if admin team needs help. (altho probably a bad idea since i've desperately been trying to get my point across over here for a week now and apparently im bad at doing it ecks dee)



Something else though, can we have a rule to prevent people from using unstuck during a pause? Don't think this is covered at this time and it's definitely something that SHOULD BE.

BauerJankins says

altho probably a bad idea since i've desperately been trying to get my point across over here for a week now and apparently im bad at doing it ecks dee)

Well honestly sounds retarded when you say having one 'arbitrary' rule is pointless unless you have rules for each bug/exploit. It's only arbitrary because you haven't suggested a rule for the other two (or three) exploits you've mentioned yet -- you've just complained about them.

Also again, why bother having refs if you don't have any expectations of them? At the same time I think in game players should be able to point out exploits when they happen. It shouldn't be contingent on refs only to catch everything but they should at least be actively monitoring. Same dumb shit about technically having to ask a ref for a pause makes no sense. Players should be able to pause and then explain their predictament.

I always just assumed the unstuck while paused was illegal, I just do it be trolly in gathers and scrims, not something I would ever do in a match, but if there's no rule about it then there should probably be one.