Vegas Upper window

[CYBER]

Hiding there is fine, even is completely invisible. The ONLY thing that matters is that you cannot SHOOT an enemy through wall or floor since they cant see u or shoot back. U hAve to PEEK out to kill someone. And that's where the other guy has a chance to wait for that peek and retaliate. If u are too dumb not to check that spot likee u would for skywlkers above bombsites on dust2, then u suck. its the same euling as hell hunter, perfectly fine as long as theyr have to be visible when they SHOOT u. Also, u can plant elsewhere or change race to human and tele to them wvery round when not expecting... Force them out... Even better, go shadow hunter and go to the bombsite feom the bottom elevetator-window thing with the zipline across and ward the living fuck under that upper window without touching bombsite obviously. U can either kill them with wards, or hear their damage and know to expect someone there... Thats what i do, works for me.

[Chikun]

Hiding there is fine, even is completely invisible. The ONLY thing that matters is that you cannot SHOOT an enemy through wall or floor since they cant see u or shoot back. U hAve to PEEK out to kill someone. And that's where the other guy has a chance to wait for that peek and retaliate. If u are too dumb not to check that spot likee u would for skywlkers above bombsites on dust2, then u suck. its the same euling as hell hunter, perfectly fine as long as theyr have to be visible when they SHOOT u. Also, u can plant elsewhere or change race to human and tele to them wvery round when not expecting... Force them out... Even better, go shadow hunter and go to the bombsite feom the bottom elevetator-window thing with the zipline across and ward the living fuck under that upper window without touching bombsite obviously. U can either kill them with wards, or hear their damage and know to expect someone there... Thats what i do, works for me.

If the rule only applies to shooting I think it should be worded better to reflect that. Give me some credit that the way it's currently worded gives my argument some validation.

[CYBER]

If the rule only applies to shooting I think it should be worded better to reflect that. Give me some credit that the way it's currently worded gives my argument some validation.

Its annoying me that we have had those rules for the longest time, and every single one of those rulesIs being recently questionned. It's like u guys are intentionnally looming for exploits... But wtvr, the rule says that skywalking is allowed as long as you are visible, u can only be fully hidden if ONLYgoing through that part to a visible location (hence the "u can be fully invisible section as long as u have toGo to a visible spot for shooting "part)

[Chikun]

It's annoying me that we have had those rules for the longest time and every single one of those rules are being recently questionned. It's like you guys are intentionally looming for exploits... But whatever, the rule says that skywalking is allowed as long as you are visible. You can only be fully hidden if ONLY going through that part to a visible location (hence the "you can be fully invisible section as long as you go to a visible spot for shooting" part.)

Question everything, despise gray areas, and people who look for and abuse exploits tend to not point them out. The issue being brought up is that people aren't going through that room to get anywhere else, they're going to it instead which the rule does not specify as to the legallity of such behavior. If there were different pathways to go to and from that hidden area like a hell hunter in dust2 using the skywalking technique to traverse the bombsites quickly, that would be different. However, in the current way the rule is written it clearly states that the act of seeing an enemy with them being unable to see you (race abilities excluded) is illegal unless you are passing through; and in the case of this instance, there is no "passing through" with the second balcony as it's a destination and not a path.

[Blackmage]

Its annoying me that we have had those rules for the longest time, and every single one of those rulesIs being recently questionned. It's like u guys are intentionnally looming for exploits... But wtvr, the rule says that skywalking is allowed as long as you are visible, u can only be fully hidden if ONLYgoing through that part to a visible location (hence the "u can be fully invisible section as long as u have toGo to a visible spot for shooting "part)

I for one, have been asking for them to be more clear and consistent since a few months after they were released, and I'm not the only one. The questioning of these rules is nothing new.

It's like people are trying to follow the rules as written. It's like we have admins and players who, at best, only read what is written on the rules and don't know the full discussion or secondary rulings. It's like people want to know what the rules actually mean, and have them written in an easily located area to stop the above two issues. It's like we have things that are ruled upon and never actually even made official. We also have issues of related, but not mentioned issues, such as someone spawning weapons to keep a door shut. Yes, people are trying to find loopholes, but things like this are trying specifically to show and then close those loopholes.

[CYBER]

I for one, have been asking for them to be more clear and consistent since a few months after they were released, and I'm not the only one. The questioning of these rules is nothing new.It's like people are trying to follow the rules as written. It's like we have admins and players who, at best, only read what is written on the rules and don't know the full discussion or secondary rulings. It's like people want to know what the rules actually mean, and have them written in an easily located area to stop the above two issues. It's like we have things that are ruled upon and never actually even made official. We also have issues of related, but not mentioned issues, such as someone spawning weapons to keep a door shut. Yes, people are trying to find loopholes, but things like this are trying specifically to show and then close those loopholes.

i sense some sarcasm in there?

well, ive never had trouble with that spot being camped out personally. The same for skyboxes, i wouldnt mind if the hell huter or wtvr was just sitting there.
If they want to shoot me, they'd have to peak out and i would know, and if they just sit there not wanting to shoot or anything, then u can question them for excessive camping and delaying round if not helping doing or protectig the objective.

And again, im not tryin to defend that spot, i have personally never used it. Unlike most of u, i almost never play human or any teleport-fly races (except vaga but why the fuck would a vaga go there...), specially on that map (go ahead and try to show me playing this way, i challenge u).

So what i say is not me biased to thAT location because Im almost usually a victim of people in tha spot. Sometime we get embushed, sure. But it is usually our own lack of diligence of stubborness to play a race that is bein raped and not wanting to change.

I dnt rly care about that spot per say, but this will open up a can of worms with all skywalkig races on all maps too... Heck next thing u gonna tell me that crackhouse rooftops arent meant to be walked on bcos the original map wasnt intended for ppl flyin or teleporting there... Cant use the 'map intentions' logic because there is none in wcs.
Only the wcs races and rules matter, and they accomodate some maps already regarding wards, just to balance shit, not to fix an 'exploited high ground location...'...

Wtvr, lets see what maynard has to say about this, but personally i dnt mind ppl hiding in skyboxes or that spot , as long as they dare showing their face when they wanna shoot.
And we have admins around to see if they wall-shoot.

[Blackmage]

Well, the first part was dead serious :P The second was more of annoyance at humanity. That, and more saying "we're witnessing people doing X", and "we want to know more", rather than "we're doing X".

Also, possibly pertinent Maynard post from the past! A year 3 months ago, similar location in Italy. Also pertinent, this is me questioning this rule in a similar manner :P

[acolyte_to_jippity]

Hiding there is fine, even is completely invisible. The ONLY thing that matters is that you cannot SHOOT an enemy through wall or floor since they cant see u or shoot back. U hAve to PEEK out to kill someone. And that's where the other guy has a chance to wait for that peek and retaliate. If u are too dumb not to check that spot likee u would for skywlkers above bombsites on dust2, then u suck. its the same euling as hell hunter, perfectly fine as long as theyr have to be visible when they SHOOT u. Also, u can plant elsewhere or change race to human and tele to them wvery round when not expecting... Force them out... Even better, go shadow hunter and go to the bombsite feom the bottom elevetator-window thing with the zipline across and ward the living fuck under that upper window without touching bombsite obviously. U can either kill them with wards, or hear their damage and know to expect someone there... Thats what i do, works for me.

you can see out of the apartment though, without being seen. you can't sit there watching for people 100% out of sight. that's explicitly not allowed.