Jump to content

Player Report BadAim


Jack S

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Jack (utility one) said:

-support
I have never heard of this glitch/bug. Since this is unknown, meaning I doubt anyone has heard of this, I don't think badaim used this glitch to intentionally exploit. He tranqed him, I'm guessing, to slow down CI by him being unable to move, but not with the intent to uncuff 682. If he didn't mean to uncuff 682 but found a glitch that does so, is that still exploiting if the intent was pure? Exploiting I feel is abusing a glitch that is already known and has been noted throughout the community, but to find a glitch and to not have intentionally do it, would that still be the same as intentionally abusing a glitch? I don't think it is so that's why I believe badaim shouldn't be punished and someone should make a bug report and hopefully this can be fixed.

he did admit he did the exploit, basically saying  "Yes i tranqed 682 because i knew it would uncuff him"

 

13 hours ago, BadAim said:

U sure about that? This isn't an uncommon tactic. I'd only say it's being noticed now because the time it takes for a tranq to take effect has been lowered substantially. I've been playing here for a while, I wouldn't have done this if I had thought it was against the rules (I will admit it was quite cheap of me to do tho and I only did it because I realized it was my only option).

 

  • Like 3
  • Dislike 1

                                                      192412312_screenshot_2020-02-26_at_9-24-(1).png.43e614bc17bbf87004d3acba288c52df.png
                                                                             Chad of many names       Professional Shit talker

                                                                                       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ight

Here is what the MOTD says about tranqing:

9MRJcwf.png

I'm also gonna talk about this rule as lots of people are discussing it.

uKC6hxP.png

So, the 1st section, one that is dedicated to guidelines regarding tranqs, says absolutely nothing in regards to tranqing cuffed SCPs. This tactic has been used a few times throughout my year experience on the server, and if SMT did not want players to do this, it would have been added to the section of the rules that is dedicated to guidelines for tranqs.

And while this might also seem as if I'm exploiting a glitch to free 682 from his cuffs, I'm not. In fact, anyone who has done this, or has been present for someone else doing it would know that SCPs that are tranqed while cuffed, remain cuffed when they wake up. I would not have done this if it had released them, as that would be exploiting.

Like I said before, I only think this is being brought up now and not back then is because of the changes of the time it takes for a tranq to take effect, as the party holding the SCP has 0 time to react to this now and is forced to dig in and guard wherever the tranqed SCP went down at until they wake up.

This whole situation is pretty ridiculous in my opinion and should've been brought up in suggestions, not here. 

Edited by BadAim
  • Dislike 1

Retired Imperial RP Super Admin and Grand General

nlr.gif.c10c8915894d33d93a43f1f20d667ae4.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-support

This is kinda weird

Also badaim could have just been doing it out of impulse like If I see 682 and hes tranquable I will shoot his ass just by habit

Also not sure if it is known the way you make it sound cause I had no idea that's what it did

 

SCP-RP - Former: Moderator/ETSecurity SFTO SM, Research Researcher, MTF Alpha-1 Sgt, MTF Alpha-1 "Alpha-6", Noob-7 CplD5 RCT, R&D SIN, T-2 Blackjack, HFR, DHBI and E-11 DoFTO HCE SM | Current: CI Military DHLS SFTO SM 

Imperial-RP - Former - ModeratorRoyal Guard Senior Guard, Shadow Guard Lead, Stormtrooper 2LT, 501st MSG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-Support, I don't really see this as an exploit and never actually new that this happened when you tranquilized a cuffed SCP maybe i'm in the minority on that subject but that's not something i've ever really thought about doing or seen done. Again even if I did know this is what happened I probably still wouldn't think of it as an exploit so I don't think this should warrant a warn especially considering it was handled in game already.

 

|| Retired GenSec || STARS || J04 "Crest" || Foul Tarnished || 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, [GL] Zeus said:

I have never heard of the tranq glitch, so I’m not very sure and it’s not in the MOTD so +/- Support

-Even if this situation was handled by a staff member in game, if the player does not agree with the outcome of the sit they are allowed to make a report and have a second opinion on the situation. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jack (utility one) said:

-support
I have never heard of this glitch/bug. Since this is unknown, meaning I doubt anyone has heard of this, I don't think badaim used this glitch to intentionally exploit. He tranqed him, I'm guessing, to slow down CI by him being unable to move, but not with the intent to uncuff 682. If he didn't mean to uncuff 682 but found a glitch that does so, is that still exploiting if the intent was pure? Exploiting I feel is abusing a glitch that is already known and has been noted throughout the community, but to find a glitch and to not have intentionally do it, would that still be the same as intentionally abusing a glitch? I don't think it is so that's why I believe badaim shouldn't be punished and someone should make a bug report and hopefully this can be fixed.

Ok, he knew about this, he even specifically said its not in the motd so he can do it, but it was an exploit.

 

4 hours ago, Comrade Boekhom said:

he did admit he did the exploit, basically saying  "Yes i tranqed 682 because i knew it would uncuff him"

 

 

 

Thank you Comrade.

Retired DHOS || Former Wardens Comissioner Caligula || Former SRIC in R&D || Former OH8 Funni [Redacted] Man | | Retired OPSV in Maintenance || Former MMF Duck || Former HLPR Bot AC3 || Retired 2LT in E-11 || Former Head Field Scout || Former Ranger Pax || former ET || Former Omicron-9 CPT  || Former OM9 EXP Delta PoliceRP: PD LCPL | SCU LT

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " -John F Kennedy, Rice University, Sept. 12, 1962

921397099_FloppaGif.gif.0ca3f427de08905a1e4630bb46685aef.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Orange 🍊 said:

It is somewhat of a known glitch that tranqing something will uncuff them , hence that is why Badaim resulted to tranqing the SCP when he knew that he could no longer capture the scp by killing the capturer.

c2fda95908d24f9b115d3cf356e7c113.png.d50899cf3c572bc1ac28dae04150f187.png

In the scenario it seems that Badaim knowingly exploited the semi-glitched mechanic of the tranq.

+/-support  its kinda is a exploit we are in uncharted waters here 

I want to know if he did this on propose to let 682 go. 

+support I see it as a exploit. (In my view) 

-support its not stated if we can tanq 682 if he is cuffed.  

The old E11 CMDR Jay 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Jack II said:

Literally 0 Use to tranq 682 when hes in cuffs, seems like exploit and failrp to me

 

 

Retired DHOS || Former Wardens Comissioner Caligula || Former SRIC in R&D || Former OH8 Funni [Redacted] Man | | Retired OPSV in Maintenance || Former MMF Duck || Former HLPR Bot AC3 || Retired 2LT in E-11 || Former Head Field Scout || Former Ranger Pax || former ET || Former Omicron-9 CPT  || Former OM9 EXP Delta PoliceRP: PD LCPL | SCU LT

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. " -John F Kennedy, Rice University, Sept. 12, 1962

921397099_FloppaGif.gif.0ca3f427de08905a1e4630bb46685aef.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is particularly helpful, but I did just test it, if you tranq someone who is cuffed while dragging them, the restraints glitch out and switch to a different kind of restraints, one that is extremely easy to break with just a few clicks. Unsure if BadAim was aware of this glitch, but if he was, then I believe it would be classified as bug exploiting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Friendly reminder to everyone that the MOTD doesnt have rules for every little thing that can happen.

I had some staff test it out for me so i had a better idea of what this exploit does. When the tranqed player wakes up it gives them a different set of cuffs that you cannot drag and can easily break out of. This is clearly a exploit of the tranqs to easily uncuff 682, there doesnt need to be a rule against this when that is obviously a exploit.

Pending until I get home (cant check the evidence till then)  

  • Like 2

"A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SMT aren't Idiots..... there is a reason why you don't mention each and every exploit on your server in the rules and its because you don't want new/old players coming onto the server and finding ways to break the game/get an unfair advantage.... I personnel never even knew this excised before now so this is new to me. You should never advertise exploits! In rules, in TS/Discord etc.

I've asked around and heard that when you tranq an scp while its cuffed it will mess with the mechanics of cuffs within the server and bugs them out. In the video from what i can see personally (I was not there for this event) It looks like MTF set up a fake trade with CI to ambush them (Which is allowed), and while doing the trade CI realised this and tried to get the scp back to CI base. Now in the clip Badaim attempts to kill the player with 682 but as he begins to take damage from multiple CI he purposely tranqs the SCP with the intention of stopping CI by breaking a feature on the server. My guess is that he tranqed the scp as to keep CI from getting into their base as they can defend better there. 

I would see this as exploiting, ive never seen this situation or this type of exploit used before and it will be interesting see what SMT have to say on it. The real issue i have with this whole situation is the fact that BadAim had no other reason to tranq the scp while it was cuffed but besides to cause this exploit to happen which means there was intent to "exploit" or whatever SMT decide to call this. 

+Support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Accepted

Thank you for the report. Appropriate action against the player and or staff member will be taken to ensure that they receive the correct punishment.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2
  • Dislike 1

"A good soldier obeys without question. A good officer commands without doubt."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...