[Yet] F50 Mai Trin Fractal 7:35 [Restricted]
This is pretty clean. I can see some room for improvement because it took 3 electric cannon shots to get Mai Trin’s stacks down to 2 in one of the phases, but otherwise very smooth.
Approved.
I don’t want to spoil the record, but Laxa broke Rule 9 of the restricted ruleset, didn’t he?
9.) Compression of AOE hitboxes on by moving, blinking and/or dodging is disallowed.
At 3:40-3:45 it’s rather clear visible, that he uses the dodgetrick for icb4
(edited by Artemi.1437)
I don’t want to spoil the record, but Laxa broke Rule 9 of the restricted ruleset, didn’t he?
9.) Compression of AOE hitboxes on by moving, blinking and/or dodging is disallowed.
At 3:40-3:45 it’s rather clear visible, that he uses the dodgetrick for icb4
I don’t know if stealing towards the target affects the AOE hitbox, but it looks like he just dodged normally, and activating his skill after the dodge, not affecting the AOE itself.
Might be wrong, but it doesn’t look compressed either.
He noted it in the description as well!
If you look at both POVs it appears, upon closer inspection, that he doesn’t actually do it. He seems to try to do it, but doesn’t succeed, so it doesn’t break the rule. You can see it more clearly in the Warrior POV. In the Thief POV it’s hard to see.
I welcome other approvers to look at it closely to determine. This is a few seconds before it happens in both videos:
http://youtu.be/-KPkkioxTXo?t=3m35s
http://youtu.be/tvl5OrQlbo0?t=3m35s
Yeah its fine. It didnt work so no need to take action. Cant even be sure if he was attempting to do it on purpose either. It almost looked like he was dodging back ready to steal to dodge the killshot. Or just dodging backwards mistaking the killshot tell for the pistol spin.
Dont really get why that rule was implemented. But it was voted for. People seem to enjoy having so many pointless rules i guess.
(edited by spoj.9672)
Dont really get why that rule was implemented. But it was voted for. People seem to enjoy having so many pointless rules i guess.
It is probably considered an exploit, and I dont think it is a good idea to allow exploits on restricted records.
Even using the Air Gun for anything other than the turrets in CM is an exploit in Anets eyes.
Yeah its fine. It didnt work so no need to take action. Cant even be sure if he was attempting to do it on purpose either. It almost looked like he was dodging back ready to steal to dodge the killshot. Or just dodging backwards mistaking the killshot tell for the pistol spin.
Dont really get why that rule was implemented. But it was voted for. People seem to enjoy having so many pointless rules i guess.
Allowing it would’ve led to people practically being forced to glitch aoes in the ceiling in records or other competetive events, which I at least find very lame. A rule was created, among others to prevent a "gentleman rule" and making it more clear what’s allowed and what’s not.
Yeah. Dont really think its worth getting into this discussion again. I just dont understand this whole idea of not using something just because it can be manipulated to achieve its maximum effect. Its like choosing to not use fgs rush against a wall when it worked or not using icebow on a max sized hitbox.
I accept people want it that way. I dont agree with it and i dont fully understand the logic behind it because its based on inconsistancy.
Look at some old records, its stupid to be forced to use icebow trick on every boss and if 1 person failed restart. I voted too for banning ib trick from restricted runs.
Yeah. Dont really think its worth getting into this discussion again.
Then why did you say, “Don’t really get why that rule was implemented. But it was voted for. People seem to enjoy having so many pointless rules i guess.” and continue to discuss it? I think at this point everyone knows your opinion on the matter, so why bring it up? The rule was made, you disagree with it but the rules aren’t just based on what you want. We’ve accepted the restricted ruleset comes with some logical inconsistencies for pragmatic purposes. As was discussed in the belka-bugging thread, at the end of the day if the people who are actually doing speed runs don’t like using the rules, they just won’t use them. That’s why there was a vote about it.
I’m not saying your wrong for having a differing opinion. I’m saying bringing up your opinion in a way that is dismissive of the people who disagree with you, and on a record thread, is not the way to go about voicing it.
I brought it up originally because it seems like this sort of thing is really questionable and people are going to almost do it out of habit in some records. Just like this one (maybe?). I was just venting and trying to understand why people voted for it. Its a difficult subject for me to drop simply because i cant stand inconsistancy. I am sorry about voicing it here but theres not really anywhere else and im pretty sure noone really wants to have the endless debate again. :P
I said i dont think its worth discussing in the next post because i realised my mistake of bringing it up in the first place.
(edited by spoj.9672)
Yeah. Dont really think its worth getting into this discussion again.
Then why did you say, “Don’t really get why that rule was implemented. But it was voted for. People seem to enjoy having so many pointless rules i guess.” and continue to discuss it? I think at this point everyone knows your opinion on the matter, so why bring it up? The rule was made, you disagree with it but the rules aren’t just based on what you want. We’ve accepted the restricted ruleset comes with some logical inconsistencies for pragmatic purposes. As was discussed in the belka-bugging thread, at the end of the day if the people who are actually doing speed runs don’t like using the rules, they just won’t use them. That’s why there was a vote about it.
I’m not saying your wrong for having a differing opinion. I’m saying bringing up your opinion in a way that is dismissive of the people who disagree with you, and on a record thread, is not the way to go about voicing it.
Ehhh, what, he can’t speak his mind on the forum? It’s not like he was placing a bait or anything. Some of us sometimes vent about stuff we don’t like. But then again, you gotta be careful about bringing certain subjects up because there’s always someone getting kittened and you risk stirring up drama.
I figured there was a risk it would be taken that way. we’ve just seen record posts derailed into argument before, and this topic has been discussed a bunch already and was voted on. I get he’s saying “this is an example of how the rule can get kind of fuzzy, and makes me scratch my head as to why people wanted it banned first place.” It came to mind because of the situation. I do understand that. But a record post is not necessarily the place to “vent” about a topic that’s done and dusted at least for the present. As he said, no one wants the debate again.