[Rejected] Change to E2 rules.

[Haze_of_dream]

I thought about this and visited some other servers, I think this would be a neat opportunity to encourage some E2 creativity and might spice up combat a little.

What I'm intending to propose is that we allow the use of Expression2 in combat under the circumstance that it is balanced and has counters. Eg: a user could have an e2 vehicle, but can be destroyed if it takes to much damage. Of course admins could easily determine if it fits the line off fair or not. We'll only have to see the potential outcomes.

What we could to: is change:
*Do not use PAC3 or E2 to gain an advantage in combat in any way possible.
to:
*Do not use pac3 to gain an advantage in combat (E2 Exempt)
- Expression2 used in combat must be deemed fair by administration or have obvious counters.

[UHC]

yea... is there ANYTHING in e2 that gives you an advantage in combat that can be considered fair?

[SaintLuther]

This is asking for E2 abuse

[Haze_of_dream]

yea... is there ANYTHING in e2 that gives you an advantage in combat that can be considered fair?

For example you could have a riot shield, but it's weakness is obviously only being covered from the front, and would disable you from firing in exchange for not taking shots.

---

This is asking for E2 abuse

hence 'must be approved by administration' You can only see the result once you see what people do with it.

[UHC]

I don't think we can create a system in which only an approved e2 can only be activated. and trying to keep track of every "creation" that is allowed and not allowed is not something we want to keep track of.

[Haze_of_dream]

I don't think we can create a system in which only an approved e2 can only be activated. and trying to keep track of every "creation" that is allowed and not allowed is not something we want to keep track of.

Then you can do the other option of allowing any E2, and if it receives complaints or you view something inherently wrong with it, you can evaluate it and make a verdict to see if it adheres to the rules.

[Lt.Pwnzer123]

Yes, but what you're stating is this comes down to personal opinion, meaning that an admin (Probably @bartholemue could OK a wallhack e2 but it only lets you see through 200 walls, and another (sane, not @bartholemue) admin decides it's not.

Who would be the judge? The jury is of 5 and can form seperate consensises, so @SaintLuther would have to deal with literally ANY disagreements as there's no advisors no consultants as of now. So basically, let me boil this down for you

"Let's let @SaintLuther decide what E2s are allowed to kill people unless all 5 admins agree upon a verdict"

Not in ANY way a waste of @SaintLuther's time that he could use improving the server (Let's be honest, adding more ads and making them more frequent) or for his own personal time.

Besides, people use combat e2s anyways if they know how to code. The thing is, they're usually in build mode. You know that E2 made by that one autist that allows you to respawn right where you died? That's literally god mode that just removes your weapons when you take too much damage.

Tl;dr : Retard thinks we should allow hacks if they're custom coded in E2

[TrueCrimson]

No there is no way to balance e2 fairness since all it will do is be admins choice on what is fair. This is just going to lead cheating and more exploits. This is obviously stupid. There is no way to go about this. This won't lead to creativity only cheating.

[Haze_of_dream]

Yes, but what you're stating is this comes down to personal opinion, meaning that an admin (Probably @bartholemue could OK a wallhack e2 but it only lets you see through 200 walls, and another (sane, not @bartholemue) admin decides it's not.

Who would be the judge? The jury is of 5 and can form seperate consensises, so @SaintLuther would have to deal with literally ANY disagreements as there's no advisors no consultants as of now. So basically, let me boil this down for you

"Let's let @SaintLuther decide what E2s are allowed to kill people unless all 5 admins agree upon a verdict"

Not in ANY way a waste of @SaintLuther's time that he could use improving the server (Let's be honest, adding more ads and making them more frequent) or for his own personal time.

Besides, people use combat e2s anyways if they know how to code. The thing is, they're usually in build mode. You know that E2 made  by that one autist that allows you to respawn right where you died? That's literally god mode that just removes your weapons when you take too much damage.

Tl;dr : Retard thinks we should allow hacks if they're custom coded in E2

Someone took the drastic side of wallhack e2s instead of looking at the positives, Aren't you a friendly person?

[Lt.Pwnzer123]

Someone took the drastic side of wallhack e2s instead of looking at the positives, Aren't you a friendly person?

Some people took the drastic side of the Holocaust instead of looking at the positives, aren't they friendly people?