You are not logged in.

A few questions regarding siege tactics.

Applications: [GameMaster: OPEN] | [Volunteer Testers: OPEN]


This forum will be permanently shut down on Friday 13.07.2018
Please copy or save all important information from old forum before they will be deactivated
We have moved to new board. https://forum.runesofmagic.gameforge.com/Come join us.

Rukifellth2792

Intermediate

  • "Rukifellth2792" started this thread

Posts: 447

  • Send private message

1

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 5:42am

A few questions regarding siege tactics.

We faced a guild tonight that used some... questionable tactics. I'm just asking the community for their opinion as well as the opinion of any CM or GM that reads this. I'm not calling hacks/exploiter, nor did I call anything out to our opponents in this war. I'm just asking for a few answers/opinions.

Tactic 1: Our opponents threw the herald tornado through our side wall just to kill a processing factory. They did not throw it through a gate, but targeted our processing factory, got up against the wall and casted tonado. Exploit or no? Bannable offense or no?

Tactic 2: Once they finally broke inside, their herald went on the wall behind our throne and had his centaur kill not only our throne, but also attacked our guild crytstal w/o breaking the inner gate. Exploit or no? Bannable offense or no?

Another thing I'm adding in for my guildies is that whenever a gate is taken down, it goes through a "destruction aka burning down" animation. During this animation you cannot walk through it until the gate is gone completely. Well they seemed to completely ignore that and as soon as the gate's hp hit 0, they walked right in before the animation finished. Don't really think this is a exploit, but I would defintely love to know how it's done.

The reason i'm asking if these tactics are bannable or not is becasue if they are, then our opponents are in a lil bit-o-trouble becasue I do record every siege and i'm positive a GM would love to see it if these tactics are indeed bannable offenses.

I'm not one to QQ that much about siege, but when I see some sketchy tactics.... I'm gonna ask about em. Even if we're going to lose, I still have a good time. I know Kefkai from Bloodlegion can vouch for me on that one. I have no problem with fighting a losing battle. Only thing i care about is killing as much as I can and wiping the blood off my staff when the fight's over. I'm just urked when the blood i'm cleaning off is dirtier than usual from sketchy tactics. Just to add, we were pretty much outnumbered 5 to 1. Literally, 5 people vs 25 and we lasted the whole hour.

Well thats my rant, I'm off to go clean the 147 kills worth of blood off my staff. I look foward to your responses, and I look foward to seeing the people who post "QQ" and nothing else. ~Cheers
New Sig Eventually

I Solo'd Horatio Tia 7-28-2012

CharlieBananas

AGGROPIT

Posts: 779

Location: USA

Occupation: Student

  • Send private message

2

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 5:46am

I know of the guild you're talking about, just double checked the guild you faced and confirmed who I thought it was. I've seen them run through the gate (was actually their gate that they did it with) and they tornado'd through the wall and hit the processing factory (which I don't have a problem with). I had a problem with them using Centaur to kill the person healing it and then kill it with the centaur itself.

I'd think using Tornado through walls would be accepted. Same concept with placing towers on the inside to attack enemies on the outside or vice versa. No physical entity is entering the castle.

The centaur through the wall is questionable though. A physical being (NPC or player) shouldn't enter a zone without the proper gates being taken down.

Kefkai

Professional

Posts: 907

Location: Pulling my own puppet strings

Occupation: Jerk

  • Send private message

3

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 6:00am

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;574372"


I'd think using Tornado through walls would be accepted. Same concept with placing towers on the inside to attack enemies on the outside or vice versa. No physical entity is entering the castle.

The centaur through the wall is questionable though. A physical being (NPC or player) shouldn't enter a zone without the proper gates being taken down.


I pretty much agree with what Mattyb says here, Tornado through the walls is sort of a waste of tornado.

Anyways, maybe though this whole thing is a reminder though @ the centaur thing to put up visual illusions everywhere.

Rukifellth2792

Intermediate

  • "Rukifellth2792" started this thread

Posts: 447

  • Send private message

4

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 6:08am

Quoted from "CharlieBananas;574372"

I'd think using Tornado through walls would be accepted. Same concept with placing towers on the inside to attack enemies on the outside or vice versa. No physical entity is entering the castle.

The centaur through the wall is questionable though. A physical being (NPC or player) shouldn't enter a zone without the proper gates being taken down.


I understand that no physical being entered the castle, but I'm pretty sure I've heard that taking down a building without taking down the gates first is not fair play. I know the use of flame towers is not looked down upon becasue it's not controlled by the player and would be a bad waste of merits seeing as a mage can easliy wipe them out. Tornado on the other hand can be aimed and controled by the player and it did kill our factory. I'm fully capable of killing a proc through a gate with t-storm(if the proc is near the gate), but I don't do it becasue I can make the decision not to do so. But i see your point about no physical entity and i can understand your point of view.

Quoted from "Kefkai;574373"

I pretty much agree with what Mattyb says here, Tornado through the walls is sort of a waste of tornado.

Anyways, maybe though this whole thing is a reminder though @ the centaur thing to put up visual illusions everywhere.


Everything besides the throne was invis'd
New Sig Eventually

I Solo'd Horatio Tia 7-28-2012

Ravesden

Master

Posts: 1,810

Location: Reni

  • Send private message

5

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 6:25am

Tornado through wall and destroy/dmg prob factory before any gates are taken down - foul play in my opinion. I've been sieging for 2 years now, only seen 1 individual use that tactic. They longer play (not banned though, quit. He's now GL of our gw2 guild >.> )

Centaur killing throne before inner gate down - foul play since 1) the throne does not attack in any way/shape/form provoke. If there was a flame attacking through the wall, then it'd be fair *to kill the flame through the wall*

Bypassing gate animation - bannable. They violated TOS. No ifs/ands/buts here.

Put the vid up on your channel ;)

Ravesden, D/S/Wd 80/75/62
Retired. Click siggy for old RoM vids, among other things.

flyingltj

Intermediate

Posts: 355

Occupation: I bust exploiters & shameless players.

  • Send private message

6

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 8:55am

I dont think anyone will disagree that casting the heard tornado through the castle walls to destroy buildings is a dirty tactic, but is it a bannable offense? Prolly not, especially with the current administration of TOS enforcement.

Really it falls into the same category as mages using thunderstorm to destroy buildings in castles before gates are down. Though most people also agree this is a dirty tactic, it seems to be quite the norm in today's siege... and we get zero official help when it comes to destroying buildings in castles prior to gates being downed, even when we have video proof of people doing it.
--- Phoneface

CharlieBananas

AGGROPIT

Posts: 779

Location: USA

Occupation: Student

  • Send private message

7

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 9:19am

Quoted from "Kefkai;574373"



Anyways, maybe though this whole thing is a reminder though @ the centaur thing to put up visual illusions everywhere.


Tornado would of killed the invis, I'm sure. Or it would of brought it out of invis to target the it with the centaur. After the target goes back into invis, the centaur still attacks, does it not? I believe it does, but am unsure.



And yeah, I think everyone agrees it is a dirty tactic. I'd say no to bannable in the same way they can't ban for flame/electric towers shooting through walls.

effervescent

Professional

Posts: 969

  • Send private message

8

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 11:08am

I'd certainly hope using warden pets to kill things through walls is a bannable offense. Tornado is iffy, but you have to manually send a pet through a wall to get it to attack something non-hostile like a throne. Dirty tactic, and it shouldn't be allowed.

Formerly Catorii, D/S/M of Faction.

gigilomann

XxXGigilomannXxX

Posts: 2,213

Location: The one and only, Ohio.

Occupation: I Do Work

Mood: Love

  • Send private message

9

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 12:34pm

Quoted from "effervescent;574393"

I'd certainly hope using warden pets to kill things through walls is a bannable offense. Tornado is iffy, but you have to manually send a pet through a wall to get it to attack something non-hostile like a throne. Dirty tactic, and it shouldn't be allowed.


So, If you using centuar to kill things through walls, putting flames on top of your castle should be abnnable too, no? b/c both go thru walls, and the only way to take those flames down, would be a centaur. Seems kinda one sided if you ask me.
For you to live or die is in my hands, In Gigi we trust.

-"Retired as one of the best, Will always be remembered for KT, RT->RT Dia, and GCH"- -Palenque- -XxXGigilomannXxX- -P/K/S-

Dkjester

Professional

Posts: 1,717

  • Send private message

10

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 4:21pm

Quoted from "gigilomann;574405"

So, If you using centuar to kill things through walls, putting flames on top of your castle should be abnnable too, no? b/c both go thru walls, and the only way to take those flames down, would be a centaur. Seems kinda one sided if you ask me.


/\ Exactly. Siege is "in beta" as they have stated and i have seen many posts where they say it isnt a priority. That being said... Once you start saying things are bannable it would have to be enforced for everything like it. Flames on top of the castle, Flames at the front of the castle in that cubby, Flames hidden around corners or even at gates to shoot through walls etc then becomes bannable too. And pretty much if you have used flame towers in siege you probably have done one of these.

Dirty tactics doesnt= bannable. Only thing you can do is follow supports process for reporting these things. Video, edit, upload privately, then contact support with the link to the PRIVATE video. They will look at it when they can and determine if it is Bannable or not.

How about everyone start doing this instead of coming to the forums. If you feel it is foul play... report it. If they get banned you were right. if you are wrong they will probably tell you not to continue to submitting reports like that. No need to troll forums.

Dkjester

Professional

Posts: 1,717

  • Send private message

11

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 4:36pm

i just want to add, on this comment:

Just to add, we were pretty much outnumbered 5 to 1. Literally, 5 people vs 25 and we lasted the whole hour.

I have never understood the pride of this.... Did you have towers on top of the castle? if so not a big accomplishment. Did lasting the whole hour give you any better rewards? Did it make you less frustrated about the things they were doing? SO you got to spend a whole hour to still lose..... I always saw that as a waste of time.

Also i havent sieged in about 7 months. I didnt like the tactics, the point droppers, the unbalance etc. So we just stopped doing it.

ruisen2000

not a wallet warrior

Posts: 4,052

Location: here

Mood: Blink

  • Send private message

12

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 5:30pm

Quoted from "Dkjester;574417"

SO you got to spend a whole hour to still lose..... I always saw that as a waste of time.


If everyone quitted as soon as they started losing, then we wouldn't have siege...
And there are people who siege just for fun, because you can't expect to win every single round. As long as its a good fight, its fun even to be on the losing side. Siege again SoV was one of the most enjoyable siege that I've ever had, despite being outnumbered 6 to 26 and losing 7-3 from the beginning.
Noblewarrior
lv 98/98/89/60 M/W/P/K
Kikosi 98/50/60 Wl/Ch/M
the fail clothie tank~

Inactive

ipeacefrog

Intermediate

Posts: 371

Occupation: Business Owner

  • Send private message

13

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 6:04pm

.

It would seem to me that a Tornado through the wall will be treated the same as using Flames and the like to attack through the walls. It's not nice, but it is not an exploit.


http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthr…ll=1#post573511

Kalvan 10/10/12: (Thread closed, so no quote box)

"Placing so-called defensive devices (Flame/Electric Towers) behind an opponent's guild castle is not an exploit. It may be crude, rude, socially unacceptable, and unethical, but it is not an exploit. That ruling has been made countless times by the GMs and CMs."


A year ago GM Sock implied that that using Flames and the like in this way is an exploit but that it is not policable. This post was made under Frogster Pacific/RoM not GameForge/RoM.

http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthr…ll=1#post556802

Quoted from "Sock;556802"

If there is a flame tower attacking you through the wall, you can absolutely attack it back through the wall. Unfortunately, we cannot police who places which flametower where so we cannot penalize those who place flametowers in locations that walls are bypassed.

I do know however, that Zane is very passionate about hopefully making walls solid objects and is working with the developers on that. Which would then make flametowers shooting through walls AND targeting through walls moot. :)



On Socks's comments, they are on the ROM (AU) forum though it's a US link. Also his title says "Game Master" and he speaks as if he is with the Game Publisher (Frogster Pacific at the time), however he does not have the avatar one would expect of a GM nor are his words in color.

Perhaps someone of authority from GameForge/RoM can clarify Sock's status, as well as a GM back up Kalvan's remarks. (No disrespect intended Kalvan, we have been told in the past that Mentors don't speak with absolute authority on game dynamics and content.)

.
Elldarian, Leadership Council Dovahkiin on Palenque Lvl 12 Guild

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"

Nytefall

Unregistered

14

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 6:22pm

Quoted from "ipeacefrog;574432"

.

It would seem to me that a Tornado through the wall will be treated the same as using Flames and the like to attack through the walls. It's not nice, but it is not an exploit.


http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthr…ll=1#post573511

Kalvan 10/10/12: (Thread closed, so no quote box)

"Placing so-called defensive devices (Flame/Electric Towers) behind an opponent's guild castle is not an exploit. It may be crude, rude, socially unacceptable, and unethical, but it is not an exploit. That ruling has been made countless times by the GMs and CMs."


A year ago GM Sock implied that that using Flames and the like in this way is an exploit but that it is not policable. This post was made under Frogster Pacific/RoM not GameForge/RoM.

http://forum.us.runesofmagic.com/showthr…ll=1#post556802




On Socks's comments, they are on the ROM (AU) forum though it's a US link. Also his title says "Game Master" and he speaks as if he is with the Game Publisher (Frogster Pacific at the time), however he does not have the avatar one would expect of a GM nor are his words in color.

Perhaps someone of authority from GameForge/RoM can clarify Sock's status, as well as a GM back up Kalvan's remarks. (No disrespect intended Kalvan, we have been told in the past that Mentors don't speak with absolute authority on game dynamics and content.)

.


GM Sock is no longer with Frogster, to my knowledge, and Frogster Pacific was run a bit differently than here.

I'll back up Kalvan's comments on this matter - While these tactics may get you a dishonorable reputation, they will not get you banned. (Now that I've said that, I'd expect you'll see them a lot more. Sorry :( )

Regarding what was described in the original post:

1. Tornado through the wall - Not an exploit. Tornado travels in a straight line - it just so happens to also travel through the wall.

2. Chiron through the wall - Chiron does not obey line of sight or obstacles, and he's been known to run through walls before. Something that should and will eventually get fixed, yes, but not an exploit.

3. Running through the gate animation - I'm going to lay this one down as lag on your part, or lag on the part of your opponents.

Dkjester

Professional

Posts: 1,717

  • Send private message

15

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 6:42pm

Quoted from "ruisen2000;574425"

If everyone quitted as soon as they started losing, then we wouldn't have siege...
And there are people who siege just for fun, because you can't expect to win every single round. As long as its a good fight, its fun even to be on the losing side. Siege again SoV was one of the most enjoyable siege that I've ever had, despite being outnumbered 6 to 26 and losing 7-3 from the beginning.


There is a difference between starting to lose and quit, and delaying the inevitable. Also there is another difference in then stating it as a type of justification in any extent. When i was still sieging and lost 40 on 4 or such, holding the last tower was little to no point. If you are losing and it is fun... you dont generally then come to the forum to ask if the people were cheating. Yes it if is 25 vs 5 where the 25 is worse geared it could be a close fight. However from the comments of the original poster is sounded like they were completely pushed back into their castle, so i doubt it was a fight where gear normalized it.

Yelling at the end "YOU DIDNT TAKE OUR LAST CRYSTAL!" like it is a big deal to me looks like... "we spent the whole hour getting steamrolled just so we could say we didnt lose the last crystal" which is where my "waste of time" part comes in. Again difference between good fight and steam rolled.

Kefkai

Professional

Posts: 907

Location: Pulling my own puppet strings

Occupation: Jerk

  • Send private message

16

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 7:01pm

Quoted from "Nytefall;574433"


3. Running through the gate animation - I'm going to lay this one down as lag on your part, or lag on the part of your opponents.


Doesn't sound like lag to me, sounds like they -snip- against the ToS last I remember but very hard to enforce/prove that that's what happened.

Also @ Mattyb, Tornado does % damage to everything, each hit is a 10% damage hit, it's actually impossible to kill something with one hit of the tornado I think you'd hit around ~60% to the processing or so same with the visual illusion.

But yeah Chiron would continue to attack the invisible object if you used it that way.

Ravesden

Master

Posts: 1,810

Location: Reni

  • Send private message

17

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 8:35pm

Quoted from "Nytefall;574433"

GM Sock is no longer with Frogster, to my knowledge, and Frogster Pacific was run a bit differently than here.

I'll back up Kalvan's comments on this matter - While these tactics may get you a dishonorable reputation, they will not get you banned. (Now that I've said that, I'd expect you'll see them a lot more. Sorry :( )

Regarding what was described in the original post:

1. Tornado through the wall - Not an exploit. Tornado travels in a straight line - it just so happens to also travel through the wall.

2. Chiron through the wall - Chiron does not obey line of sight or obstacles, and he's been known to run through walls before. Something that should and will eventually get fixed, yes, but not an exploit.

3. Running through the gate animation - I'm going to lay this one down as lag on your part, or lag on the part of your opponents.

I hope you do realize what you've just done here. To siege. Itll be more than "youll start seeing more."

You just told every guild out there, that its ok to take down an opponent's proc factory, without ever having to touch an enemy's gate.

You just told those that use the flyhack - potentially rogues - that they now have the "we didnt cheat, it was a tornado that took down your proc!" fallback/excuse.

You just made siege a free for all, giving the upper hand to the guild with the least dignity.

I really do hope you know what you've done. The coming burden is on you. And I do hope you have the tenacity to get this changed. Because if this is what siege has become..after 2 years of sieging on RoM, 2 years of witnessing almost every bug/glitch/borked siege possible. Ill be done.

Do something about this. Because you're making siege an hour of who can play the dirtiest tactics.

Ravesden, D/S/Wd 80/75/62
Retired. Click siggy for old RoM vids, among other things.

Stickingit

Intermediate

  • "Stickingit" has been banned

Posts: 251

  • Send private message

18

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 8:43pm

Quoted from "Nytefall;574433"

GM Sock is no longer with Frogster, to my knowledge, and Frogster Pacific was run a bit differently than here.

2. Chiron through the wall - Chiron does not obey line of sight or obstacles, and he's been known to run through walls before. Something that should and will eventually get fixed, yes, but not an exploit.




Wow, amazing.

Something that is eventually going to be fixed, implies that it is not currently working as intended, taking advantage of such a scenario seems to me, nothing but the exact definition of exploiting in a mmorpg.

Regardless if GMsock is with the company or not, at one point he same level as you and was employed to do a task which is to inform the players of what not to do and what to do.

From your response all I see is a "hey players this is what you can do and get away with". There is only a little bit of discouragement in your post for players to not do the right thing. Then again I doubt you've spent more than a few days consistently in siege if that, because you would understand the how ridiculous you sound when you tell us that lag is causing players to by pass an animation which is supposed to block all movement through it for about 2-4 seconds. GG on that.

Kefkai

Professional

Posts: 907

Location: Pulling my own puppet strings

Occupation: Jerk

  • Send private message

19

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 9:03pm

Quoted from "Stickingit;574447"


Regardless if GMsock is with the company or not, at one point he same level as you and was employed to do a task which is to inform the players of what not to do and what to do.


Why would a statement on AU matter about US/EU? That's like if GMs on the Russian Server said something like attacking the gates with FoTs is now an exploit, doesn't stop anyone here from using them, we play by a different set of rules.

US/EU has no reason to stand behind the ruling of another GM on another server, it's the only point of Nytefall's post that I actually can stand behind.

Dkjester

Professional

Posts: 1,717

  • Send private message

20

Thursday, October 18th 2012, 9:19pm

Quoted from "Kefkai;574449"

Why would a statement on AU matter about US/EU? That's like if GMs on the Russian Server said something like attacking the gates with FoTs is now an exploit, doesn't stop anyone here from using them, we play by a different set of rules.

US/EU has no reason to stand behind the ruling of another GM on another server, it's the only point of Nytefall's post that I actually can stand behind.


Not only this but look at:

Diamonds in AH- once was said wont be coming back and now are

Diamond npc- was said would never be active on US, but now is.


times change and decisions can be changed. Prices even when said were "permanent" is no longer. This is the basic idea of Gameforge/Frogster. Shouldnt be a shock that things change. Times evolve

As for people saying this opens up more cheating. I am SURE Nytefall will agree with what i am about to say. If you see other acts that are cheats, to record them and report them. Reports before of "our processing factory is dead but our gates never went down!" didnt get people banned anyway. Therefore i dont see a change due to Nytefall's post. If you couldnt catch them before with a video, you wont be able to now... so nothing has changed.