Flak 40MM climbing through roof of spawn

[Ogg]

By using the Joystick and attempting to deploy and retract and moving you can "climb" through the roof of a spawn point.

First deploy the gun once it is set retract and push forward then pull back.

the nose will rise to the roof panel and embed itself.

Then redeploy the platform and pull back.

once deployed fully undeploy and push forward and as it "climbs" pull back again.

You may have to do it a couple of times but as you can see in the video it just pops up there.

Once on top of the tent you can once again deploy and start shooting.

I'm not sure what kind of exploit it could be used for as I have only tested this at a FB.

NHcFRR0NEdk

[romzburg]

DOC commented on guns on top of FB tents quite a while back, essentially saying, "Ok. So?"

The logic was that once on the roof, you are more vulnerable than you were on the ground.

If you haven't removed the ability of enemy to kill you (as with clipping inside something), and you haven't entered an area the game design has made clear is off limits, (places with stairs that don't go to the ground, for example), then you aren't doing anything to get worked up about.

So it's no biggie.

found this:

DOC 05-17-2007 3:38 PM Thread 164859

(Thread was about placing 40mm AA guns on top of FB Veh SPawn Tents)

It's really clear why and if you want to argue with us, fine, but we make the rules and we make them with logic. Logic is something you need to try sometime, it works well.

Here goes.

Why is "some clipping" ok and some not ?

What is the logic behind what could be considered cheating ?

EASY !

If the thing you are doing is an exploit that disables the opposing player from having ANY ability to counter you (kill you back) while you can kill him, that is clearly unfair and cheating.

Like being inside a polygonal object that affords you perfect non collision killing ability (see and shoot) without the enemy being able to see or shoot you back.

CLEARLY A CHEATING EXPLOIT AND BANNABLE IF CAUGHT

Entering a designed "safe zone" for spawning so you can kill the enemy before they can retaliate, heck, before they can even move off the spawn.

CLEARLY INTENDED BY THE DESIGN OF THESE SPAWN PLACES (infantry only) THAT YOU NOT DO THIS, A CHEATING EXPLOIT AND BANNABLE IF CAUGHT

Putting a gun, that can be shot and killed by ANYBODY on the opposing side that wants to shoot it, in a position that is arguably MORE exposed and vulnerable than on the ground where you usually find them ... is not disabling your opponents ability to fight back or counter you by killing you in return, or even before you kill them.

Logically this is not an exploit that could be considered completely unfair or granting the user of it some invulnerable or almost invulnerable advantage. Thus it is considered "ok" even though, as KFS1 noted, it could be considered as employing a bug to pull it off.

If you employ logic instead of emotions, this is really easy to figure out. Or you could just accept that if we say it's ok, then it's ok. You may not agree but you don't make the rules. We aren't employing opinion in our decision, logic and design intent dictates our decision for us.

____________________

motormouth:

Much as Romzy's posting style can give me headaches (and the fact that he's "NEVAR WRONG!!"), that post pretty much nails it on the head.

sgtchief:

romz you['re] my damn hero

sydney:

Ya know, at first Romsburg, you rubbed me the wrong way and I wasn't a fan. But over the past 12 months, you have really grown on me. You're precise, well spoken and although you are sometimes a little harsh, you are most often correct and in proper context with your responses.

irelandeb:

indeed he's one of the few voices of common sense on these forums

jw:

If you're going to argue with Romz, do your homework before you post. He gets it, and you can't teach common sense, you have to be born with it.

pete, linc & julie:

I can't say [any]thing else [than] that the ban was justified considering that you have an 'impressive' TOS history....

owilde:

The only thing worse than being talked about is *not* being talked about.

Edited January 7, 2011 by romzburg