Battlezone Forums

Sly's "popularity" probably also comes from running around with other people's names, like mine.

Okay, I do not know Sly, barely even play BZ2 much except for when I can't find anything I'd like to play. That being said, I'm do not believe in using and providing locally editable text files to ban someone for their misdeeds, and I do not believe in the effectiveness of IP-banning. If you're going to ban them from life for multi-player misdeeds, don't make it user-editable at all, whether that be hard-coding it into the multiplayer DLLs or whatnot.

That would be a very bad idea. Unlike games like Quake, bz2 has no product key. As a result, there is no unique identifier for players to use for banning. This leaves us with IP addresses and MAC addresses. Both of which can either be changed or spoofed. Hard-Coding them would be stupid as users will be unable to update the lists if a player finds a way to circumvent the ban. I proposed some suggestions, but they were shot down.

Nielk1 wrote:Sly's "popularity" probably also comes from running around with other people's names, like mine.

And targeting people, like myself, but in the process only wrecking other people's games, usually those of the youngest/least skilled in this community.
If he would have the guts to actually stand for something it might be slightly different, but in reality Sly is probably a huge coward.

I have never actually played Sly enough to actually know what he is like, probably because he returned shortly before I left. I have nothing against him, but I hear he fits in well with the mindless "Vets" that stay at their forums. I say you should keep him banned, because if it works with unaware players, GSH can take the liberty of bannning the rest of them. And by the rest of them, I am talking about Sly's peeps at bz2maps, the ones who have their education so low they only know how to cuss. Some were struck dumb, some are born dumb, and the rest are so dumb they live in denial of it.

I say you keep him banned, unless you are desperate for him.

Well, there you make a big mistake BB. Most of the griefers (not the arrogant types, but specifically the griefers) are pretty smart individuals, which just makes it sadder, but also explaines why it is so easy (and lame) for them to pick on the unorganised young unes in this community.

FYI, I have just been informed Sly already changed his IP .. pretty quickly done I'd say. But it just shows how easilly these types can get around things, they are not dumb and thats also why I gave the warning in the other topic to simply not argue with them if you want to play ST with them.

ps: some of the 'less educated' are actually some of the most entertaining people in this community, and dont grief others, so please dont go littering the phrase 'dumb' when you group the entire ST-community as you leave an impression you're targetting the wrong individuals.

agreed - the purpose of testing is to see if things are stable by trying to break things. it takes intelligence and 'thinking outside the box/norm' to do that. the ones who griefed the games actually performed a valuable service by exposing vulnerabilities.

That's only if they report said vulnerabilities. If they merely exploit said vulnerabilities, they are not helpful. At that point, they are a detriment.

agreed, but the victims (rec demolished by ally, etc.) have reported those events.

agreed, but the victims (rec demolished by ally, etc.) have reported those events.

Or they are new and leave the game forever.

Do the FR-localize.odf i had do for the 1.3.6.3PB is still compatible with 1.3.6.4y?

good point.

you tell us.

This might have been brought up in the other topic, but whatever. In Strategy games, sniping is often a valuable tool for players to turn the tide of the game. For example, if an ISDF team is falling behind a Scion team, and a blink Warrior gets sniped and stolen, there could be terrible repercussions for the Scion team depending on who has the Warrior on the ISDF team.

In previous versions, the Scion team could always blink in and try to prevent the ISDF team from stealing the Warrior by destroying the empty ship. Unfortunately, because of anti-griefer additions, the empty Warrior is now invincible and ripe for stealing. The only method to get it back or to prevent the enemy team from taking it would be to bail it, but in that time, your own Warrior could be stolen, and your team is out two Warriors.

I was always under the impression that friendly fire off/on was the setting that modified that behavior, but it seems like even while you can damage your allies and even your base, the second a ship becomes empty, it's impossible to destroy it.

It doesn't make sense to me.

Feared_1 wrote:It doesn't make sense to me.

I don't see a way that issue can be fixed other than for the need for the FF off system evaporating.

Hint hint.

I think either way (on or off) you can't harm an ally-owned empty vehicle. That's what I observed, at least. Or am I wrong?

Feared_1 wrote:This might have been brought up in the other topic, but whatever. In Strategy games, sniping is often a valuable tool for players to turn the tide of the game. For example, if an ISDF team is falling behind a Scion team, and a blink Warrior gets sniped and stolen, there could be terrible repercussions for the Scion team depending on who has the Warrior on the ISDF team.

Yep, but as mentioned before and completelly ignored, some find a need to set their 'preferences' in such way that even a simple feature as sniping works game-unbalancing. But ofcourse that is not true, is it?