Out of Bounds / Exploiting

[Leftenent]

Some admins have asked me about our rules regarding out of bounds, and receiving different replies from advisors. I brought it up, and this is Duality's reply, and our policy on BC2 servers:

Same as it's always been, If the only way to a particular location involves running out of bounds to get there, then its not allowed. Obviously it wasn't intended to be a playable section of the map, otherwise the developer would have made it accessible without going out of bounds.

If you use a chopper to get to a specific place thats fine as long as its not atop trees, inaccessible cliffs, ect. Places that are ok are things like the lighthouse on Valp, the windmills on Heavy Metal ect.

In Vietnam theres "out of bounds" around spawns but if you run in only to steal a chopper or something thats fine as it falls under vehicle stealing or sabotaging.

 

[FateSabre]

Thanks for the post. It really will help in admining the servers in regards to being outta bounds/exploiting. =)

 

[liquidrider]

*read

and got it thanks.

 

[KentuckyGhost]

Some admins have asked me about our rules regarding out of bounds, and receiving different replies from advisors. I brought it up, and this is Duality's reply, and our policy on BC2 servers:

Simple enough:thumbup1: Thank you sir.

"And there you have it folks that's all Duality wrote" :biggrin::biggrin:jk we love you Duality

 

[Austin]

Thank you for the post Left. Hopefully this clears up any confusion about out of bounds locations.

 

[Mayhem Death]

Thank you for the clarification Left. Answers many questions that I had. :thumbup1:

 

[LilShortstuf]

Thanks for the post Left!

 

[Pensive]

Thank you Leftenent, though I most say that is what I have always believed to be the rule and whenever I ask someone to get out or off of a place that is not allowed, I also say. "You are not allowed to be in any place that can not be reached by foot without going out of bounds"

 

[TheAngryPanda]

So, in regards to this... there's a few grey areas aren't there?

What I mean is in maps such as laguna presa and cold war where say... you technically do go out of bounds to reach an area, but at the same time, you can get to that same area without going out of bounds even though it may be a bit slower or less simplistic. What do we do about these?

Another question would be going out of bounds to flank an enemy. Say on oasis, sniper rocks on the right, snipers there. I run out of bounds around a rock to flank them and kill them, roughly 3 seconds are spent out of bounds. Is this legal or no?

Other than those two types of situations, the rule is very clear and understood. Thanks for this.

 

[Miiikey]

Thanks for the post

 

[Pensive]

I know I don't get to make the decisions but personally if you can get there without going out of bounds then I see no problem with it. The main reason for the ruling is likely to promote fair gameplay. If you can get to the enemy and they can get to you then it's not so bad. I do have a question though, on rush the map where you attack an island for the first set of objectives there is a spot where u can jump on a car then from there get on that low ledge though you do have to go out of bounds. But, on the next part after the first objectives are taken, that point no longer requires you to have to go out of bounds. It is not hard to kill the people that do go up there so while it may provide a good vantage point you are still easily killable. So I want an official ruling on it. It's really grey in the fact that its only out of bounds for the first part and even then it is barely out of bounds.

 

[Kerak]

good enough we me

 

[Leftenent]

Pensive, I know the spot you're speaking of. In spirit of easy adminning and fairness, I would rule that since it's "barely out of bounds", it would still be out of bounds.

This makes admining easy. We can just say, "If you have to go out of bounds at all, it's considered an exploit."

 

[Zinthius]

Roger that.