WCS Rules

[maynard]

not sure why any 1 would assume the rule is diff for that map, it's literally the exact same thing, only thing that has changed is the objective... and given the T's need 2 exit the house, you could easily just lay fire on the house for 20 seconds, wait for the 20 seconds 2 be over and just go ward the shit out of the house lol and pwwn the T's.......

so in short, do not ward the house on crackhouse, as the rule has always stated.

[Blackmage]

I will formally state that I disagree with your assessment, as if they can keep all 4 direction, and 12 exits covered, while dealing with any combination of spiders, vagas, striders, humans, beasts that come out AND any covering fire from the inside, since they can get in position first, AND get a decent number of kills WITHOUT blocking all exits, the Ts are having issues in the first place, but will respect your ruling.

[maynard]

same shit diff pile just reversed... other version CT's want in, this version T's want out... any way you cut it, it's a incredibly small map, and every 1 warding would just cause fucking mayhem.

the rule stays the way it is as it will best help regulate the map so every 1 is able 2 enjoy it. allowing wards would just make it a ward fest and nothing more and that's why we made that rule 2 begin with... this rule makes the map actually enjoyable and playable... not just a who can plant wards the quickest and in the best spots as soon as 20 seconds hits.

[Blackmage]

Actually, there are a few glaring problems with that post.

First, it's FAR from the "same shit". Wanting to enter a fortified location is a far cry from trying to exit a fortified location. With hosties they are supposed to stay inside to protect them, so wards would be in tight corridors. With bomb, they are supposed to be OUT of the house, not CAMPING inside, which IS against the rules, no matter how you cut it. In this case, you hit the stragglers and campers, IF you can even ward effectively, more on that later.

Second, any non-huge map would be as likely to "cause fucking mayhem." if everyone was warding. Luckily, we don't see everyone warding, and even if we did, that could be solved by restricting the race, not adding oppressive rules.

Third, while we were playing with wards allowed, we had maybe one warder on each time at a time, no such "wardfest" happened. A possible outcome that can be dealt with using good tactics anyway.

Fourth, the reason oft perpetuated in game, and the only one I ever heard from ANY sources, for the other no warding was that it was too easy to hit the objective when warding those things, or block off completely access. What you say makes little to no sense. How does warding the kitchen or front half of nipperhouse cause the game to become a wardfest in any fashion? There are MUCH better places to ward. However, the front half can easily block the basement access, and the kitchen can easily hit the tree site. For Italy and crackhouse, if you're not careful, you easily hit hosties, or block all access to one or both sets. Italy's house is just too small, crackhouse, almost everywhere would block off all access to one or both set of hosties.

Fifth, Ts have no such time limit, no objective in there, they can ward it whenever. There's no race, Ts win every time.

That "so every 1 is able 2 enjoy it" is just bullshit, and you know it. If THAT line was true, something would have been done about spidey and vaga a LONG time ago. Heck, they need more regulation on open maps like nipperhouse and crackhouse than shadow hunters should in the first place. Vaga really shines on this map(crackhouse), and causes MANY people not to have fun.

On a related note, why have you never added anything about estate? Or at the very least, why have you ignored it every time I've brought it up. Could we get some criteria on what makes an area "unwardable", since there is nothing consistent in how it's been dealt with.

[maynard]

warding and maps are dealt with on a map by map basis, and when a map has many problems relating 2 wards and there's many complaints, a rule is implemented... which is why the rule was made int he first place. the issue was NEVER the objective... the issue was always that those in the house would get destroyed by wards.. which is why the rule was made.

and no, my comment was quite true, the rule is so every 1 can enjoy it... I play shadowhunter a lot, if I only had some self interest in mind id want it so I could ward every 1 easily...

as for your other off-topic rants and vague insults, I will not acknowledge them.

The rule has always been no warding the house on crackhouse, that is still in full effect, and just cause the objective changed, doesn't mean the rule has.

Could we get some criteria on what makes an area "unwardable", since there is nothing consistent in how it's been dealt with.

sure thing bud! ...when there's a rule saying don't ward on a certain map, or there's guidelines/limitations on how wards are 2 be used on a certain map, you then know it's not allowed 2 be warded. pretty simple eh?

[Blackmage]

The following is a definition of a clarification:

clar·i·fy (klr-f)
v. clar·i·fied, clar·i·fy·ing, clar·i·fies
v.tr.
1. To make clear or easier to understand; elucidate: clarified her intentions.
2. To clear of confusion or uncertainty: clarify the mind.
3. To make clear by removing impurities or solid matter, as by heating gently or filtering: clarify butter.
v.intr.
To become clear.

Explaining WHY we have a rule is NOT a clarification on what the criteria is.

However, based upon the theory that this rule came about "so every 1 can enjoy it", a fact that I've already disagreed with, and "there's many complaints", I will again ask why nothing has been done to spiderman and vagabond.

[maynard]

I spent 30 minutes in steam chat explaining it 2 you. if you still don't get it... not sure what 2 tell ya. you asked for a ruling, and you have received one.