Playing on Aloha Babel, at 11:30 AM CST. Admin at current time is Pepe. Map being played is Bridges. Anyone who’s played this map has seen the bridges go down each round. This is both strategy, keep the other team far away from us. And fun, destroying large world objects.
Pepe however decided to label this griefing, and promptly banned my building. I messaged him to resolve the issue but he is maintaining the fact that destroying the bridges in that map is griefing. Yet others were still doing it, and not getting banned. What is next banning over, destroying the bridges in the other map? Snowman in Ice map? Tree in Jungle map?
Someone needs to check Pepe please. He seems to be rather off the cuff with his admining. Thank you for listening to my rant.
Imo it someone on your team is using the bridge and you take it down then I would have considered it griefing, especially if they asked you to stop. For example, if I was using it as a snaiper station and you destoryed it then that can be considered griefing. However, if no one was using it to attack the enemy for example and everyone was doing it to prevent the enemy from capming spawn then I would not count that as griefing.
It depends on how the admin in question defines griefing but if you were the only one that was tbed when others were clearly also taking part then that is worrisome.
Hi Gin
Im trying to keep this thing as simple as possible to you. So I ask you to watch this video and think about why people are giving me reasons to tb them on the bridgeyard map. This video was recorded months ago but things haven’t changed recently…
Imagine yourself to the member of the red team and try to figure out how you can make an effective and secure attack against the enemy tower.
Imagine the ability to use blocks to build another bridge. Or imagine the blue team, not wanting red on their side. You’re wrong. If it impedes both teams movements you can’t consider it griefing. Or this can be blanketed to all sorts of dumb situations.
And that video shows perfect tactics. Red side can’t get to destroy blue tower. I wasn’t destroying a bridge to stop my team from getting across, however that is a side effect of stopping the enemy from getting to ours. I wasn’t griefing and digging out our side, my initial run and dig was to the enemy side. The middle bridge. Gone. Don’t need snipers sitting blocked by my stairs. I don’t know how many different way to explain all the tactics behind impeding enemy movement and camping.
It’s why we have blocks, so we can build something in place if we want to. You’re restricting half the players strategy, because, you don’t like it. Admin should only enforce the rules, not interpret them for personal use.
Thanks Shy I agree. I’ve seen it done as griefing. However this was being used as a tactic. Pepe went on a build ban spree, but only on about half of the people doing it. And seeing as how he had to build ban so many, I’m pretty sure this isn’t just my tactic. But a simple and common practice on that map because of it’s effectiveness.
Oh and there was no warning or complaints. Just dulling out of build bans.
hello there was already a fix for this: http://aloha.pk/index.php?topic=9719.msg87868#msg87868
but i know you guys just love the unnecessary drama ;;;;;;;;
I concider it as a griefing when red team member is destroying bridges on the red side. When there’s no room to move without getting damage by the water or enemies in your own side of the map, then yes. It is griefing. Enemy team will get a huge advantage If bridges on the blue side are ok. They can push close enough to shoot builders on the tower and those who are trying to make a new bridge. You can clearly see the situation in my video.
Try to understand this thing: don’t try to ruin somebody else’s game. That Is the thing what griefers are doing on brigeyard.
Red destroying red side, unless to finish bridge destruction, would be griefing. But as I stated my initial run was to the other side of the map, and to the middle bridge to keep enemy campers from camping. I didn’t destroy my teams side of the bridge to stop them from getting across. I was trying to disable enemy movement. In no way affecting my team from moving by taking down the middle bridge. Especially when the two side bridges were still up. That doesn’t stop them from getting where they want to go. It makes them go a different route. Such as a wall, tunnel, or any other obstruction. If it wasn’t meant to be destroyed then change the map. So again, strategy not griefing, especially the middle bridge, which if destroyed prevents literally no one from going around it.
Thanks for the link above, but it’s apparently not resolved! Glad they mentioned it though.
Judging by the video pepe posted I would consider that griefing. Not only is your teams movement blocked but it also gives free reign for the enemy to rain hell on your spawn and make building frustrating to say the least. I don’t know what’s so hard about going to the enemy’s side of the bridge to cut stuff down. Maybe because you die a lot and that’s frustrating? Yeah, well causing your entire team to be spawn camped without hope of retaliation until the map ends is more frustrating. I would only consider cutting down your side of the bridge as a strategy if your team already had a full tower and was finishing off the map. Red teams tower was less than finished in that video while blue teams was already up. “imagine the ability to use blocks to build another bridge.” Imagine not being forced to die 15 times to rebuild your teams bridge so you can assault the enemy’s tower, which is really weak in that video, or push back the spawn campers. I already don’t like that map. If I see someone cutting down our side of the bridge to make things impossible for our team then yeah I’ll consider it griefing and I won’t care if you don’t. I don’t care if you cut down the middle of the bridge or the enemy’s side just leave your teams side up until you have a full tower and can cap the intel. Simply put, if you cut down your teams side of the bridge then you turn both bridges in to bunkers only accessible to the enemy and they have a full view of your spawn and tower to kill as they want. Please don’t do that until you have a full tower and only need the cap to win. The video looks like someone on red cut down their teams side of the bridge to let blue team cap imo.
Thank you Israel. The video is not of the game in question. That would be a mess. I was knocking out the connecting middle bridge. Many others were working on the side bridges. You have to start early in order to have it down by tower up. And if you’ve got 8 players working on it, you may consider it griefing, but apparently your player base does not.
Yeah I don’t consider the middle bridge to have any real strategic value. If you go about cutting down both side bridges, then start at the enemy side. That’s all I ask from the player base. Half the time I’ll just leave if that map comes up on the rotation. It’s probably my least favorite map on babel because the only real options are to run to the enemy’s spawn or camp their spawn from the bridge. That map is a big shit.
Haha for sure, most people I think feel the same about it. But yes, as I stated above, my first move was to sprint to their side of the bridge and start cutting, not ours. Then I was getting shot from middle bridge, so I went to cut that shit out, lol. Then Pepe disabled me. Grumpy Pepe. I think the funnest part of that map is cutting down the bridges. It is a lot of work and back and forth fire fights, but only one team can come out with the strategic advantage. It’s my favorite spot to clash, with a goal. I’ll be sad if I’m not allowed to try and fight to strand the stupid reds on their side.
One option in this situation would be to destroy the side wall, not the bridge itself. Leaving the enemy side wall as a cover would give one way to snipe down the enemies and will give a one possible way to move between the bridges.
Some maps need to be added and others would need to be removed.
Bridges plays out badly in the babel mode, but CTF would be alright and the water damage is way too high.
Probably requesting the removal and addition of some maps might help with the griefing issues.
-Zehra
Kind of defeats the purpose of destroying it ?
This was followed today by another random build ban. 4 PM CST in Babel, playing the map where you start in cave behind mountain. Tower halfway done. Decide to send tent up to the top of mountain and start bridge. Received build ban from admin who was on, because he though halfway done was too early to send it up.
Since when do admins build ban based on personal conceptions of how each map should be played?
Meanwhile while the tower was till only half complete, there were other members of the team trying to send it up as well. Stairs already built to ensure everyone could still reach the tent. Admins need to have a chat about what the bans are for and when and how to use them appropriately. Using them to stop players from playing a different way then they like is abusive and ridiculous.
Yes I see all these options now. So many different ideas on how maps can be played. Almost like one person shouldn’t decide for everyone how it should or shouldn’t be played. If players don’t like what I’m doing they can A. Tell me B. Figure out a way to work around it. Have you seen anyone take down one of those bridges by themselves. I haven’t. So now we are doing build bans based on what players might be thinking about doing. Awesome.
Both these incidents have in common that I wasn’t the only one trying to complete these actions. Bridge destruction and Tent lifting. If half the team is doing it, and half the team is offended, we start dulling out bans now? You can’t say most the players don’t like an action, when half the players are doing the same action…
The only action what “half of the people” are doing is to make gameplay even more difficult. There has been several nice maps what are removed from map rotation for this reason. I see no difference with bridgeyard, this map should be removed too. Maps like this are taking too much time from admins to keep gameplay under control IMO.