Uk v A.S.O (cata exploit)

[H3027]

This should be sufficient:

[Esa_Squirrel]

This should be sufficient:

Great camera angles you'll get gold for the paralympics

[drk]

Dont see anything bad in those 2 shots. 

[WinterFresh]

Man, we finally managed to win a match after so many lost games and this is how our hardship and teamwork is repaid. Pointless. Drama. Good job.  

[Zackorrigan]

finally you keeped valli comments <3

[Daemon]

Actually what Feathers failed to mention is what exactly is it that he's "disputing" here. Is it the round? The match? If he's not claiming either of these 2 shots exerted influence on the game, changing its outcome, then it's not a dispute. At most, a report of a player breaking a rule.

[Zackorrigan]

because that was influcencing the game? http://www.newerth.com/smf/index.php/topic,14769.0.html
this disput didn't change the round but the first disput wasn't better. So let's just wait DB for look if it's exploit or not and what will be the sanction if we have one.

[Groentjuh]

Taking the freedom to add a few more screenshots
First shoot, like feathers posted...

Top-down angle from the catapult shot; Not completely top-down, angled towards south and not straight down:



Landing area(better seen in the video):

Angle showing a behind view from the catapult shot:






Darkbread: Contact me to see the serverdemo if you feel the screenshots, video and demo do not provide enough proof/not a clear view of the situation.

this disput didn't change the round but the first disput wasn't better.

There was more going on with that dispute. That was just a counter-dispute. Azura claimed to want to make a dispute one against Valli before Valli decided to make that dispute. Azura never did file that dispute, so that is something not everybody is aware off.

[Daemon]

because that was influcencing the game? http://www.newerth.com/smf/index.php/topic,14769.0.html
this disput didn't change the round but the first disput wasn't better. So let's just wait DB for look if it's exploit or not and what will be the sanction if we have one.

You don't think that a player that hasn't got the right to play, but it's taking part in a round from start to finish, is influencing a game? Not to mention the report was only submitted after Azura started disrespecting and insulting the server owners for haxing PL ping.

Even so, the result was never disputed and his own team kicked him for refusing to comply to competition rules, so what's your point?

[CarniWhore]

Is darkbread still alive? not heard from him in ages, Hai!

[KQ]

Sow this is the first thread about me xD maybe i should say what. dude i hite between the tree and the mountain not over the mountain. i was climbing abit the mountain just to get a better range. and thats no exploiting.

[0zon]

we WON you LOST it's as simple as that. 
If it hurts u that much to lose u shouldn't play competitive  games.

[darkbread]

After reviewing Tirza's video and Groentjuh's Screenshots (thanks for those things!) and having a look at the map itself, I have come to the following conclusion:
The player KingQuiBiT/KQ has been found guilty, because he did infringe rule #17, which clearly states that firing over "impassable" rigid terrain is illegal.
To make you feel happier look at this screenshot, where you can clearly see that he shoots over the mountain. Even though he did not hit anything with his shot, the attempt is still there!

The judgment reads as follows: The player KingQuiBiT/KQ receives a yellow card.
One more infraction and he is going to be suspended or will be disqualified from the tournament.
Furthermore, Team A.S.O receives 1 penalty point.
The match result is not affected.

To clear up questions:
KQ is allowed to play the next match unlike in Azura's case, because playing with a not registered player is weighting 3 and Buguse 2-4. It was lucky for KQ that he did not hit that sublair or anything else, else he would be suspended for the next match.
Team A.S.O receives a penalty point, because the Team's captain is responsible for the actions his players make. In addition this is a team game.
If i missed anything in my explanation or you still got a question, feel free to contact me.

Best regards,
darkbread, SWC Disputes Admin

[darkbread]

To prevent some drama I'd like to explain my decision.
The SWC Rules clearly say it is not allowed to shoot over a mountain, regardless the map situation. The player KQ broke this rule as you can see on this image:

Firing over "passable" smaller props such as medium walls, small buildings, and bridges. (It only takes a couple of seconds to walk around them) - Legal

As you can see this is only for smaller props, so no mountains. Though this might apply for a mountain's side edge.

In the NSL or on public servers the situation of KQ might have been evaluated in a different way, because it was easy for the enemies to sneak around that mountain's corner and kill him, but still he shot over a mountain which is agaist the rules in THIS tournament. It is a thing players have naturalised, but it does not apply for the SWC.
Though this does not mean it is allowed to shot over mountains in general in the NSL/publics. They just handle it with another intention.
I might be that this should be written more clear in the rules, but that is not my task. I am just the executive.
It was never my intention to say that ballistic curve weapons should be used like coil or tempest, in a straight line. I just followed the rules that say "Dont shoot over a mountain!" There are several other points from where the cata could have shot without directly revealing itself.
In addition this is a teamgame, so your team should be able to defend you when you are a catapult, but that is another story.
I just gave the lowest punishment and noted it for myself as 1/2-infraction if something happens to him again, because of this naturalised ruling and I had a feeling that there would be a few "complaints".
Still, I am just enforcing the rules that were made before the tournament started and I am trying to keep everything as calm as possible.

I feel like I have missed something to say here, but I hope you are able to understand my point of view now.

Best regards,
darkbread, SWC Disputes Admin