Reflect changes of character flaws and non meta plans on the rules and CO COC

[Cabal]

@Axyinious

Post all round IDs of rounds you deem that a CO’s or Command’s actions directly led to a marine wipe. Or are you going off the top of your head on one or two rounds that you deem were identical to several others?

Every single one of yours. Hehe. Investigate yourself and find not a single flaw.

On more serious note, every single split drop deployment (that includes paratroopers).

Obviously OBing FoB supply coords by accident. Do you need round IDs for that too?

I don’t keep a record of rounds, I’m showing my perspective. But I do remember when I complained about one on furscord: “21726”
Split drop into marine wipe.

@Axyinious

If you are claiming that someone bend the rules just to grief, prove it. Or are you also supposing things?

It is impossible to prove what is in somebody’s mind. You need continious rounds to spot a pattern, I don’t have time for that, neither it is my job, we have staff for that.

@Axyinious

When Command sends a squad or two to flank, it is because they completely trust in the SLs and the squad marines performing this action.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahahahah.

@Axyinious

If a flank goes wrong, would you blame it entirely on Command because they ordered it or would you consider the several other factors that directly influence the battle groundside?

I blame it on command if it fails, or not, because if it doesn’t fail, xenos suck balls that round.

@Axyinious

If a strategy works before and it fails after, would you consider it inoperable or circunstancial?

We aren’t fighting AI xenos, every round is different. Hydro hold might work one round, might not work another.
Just because stupid split drop worked once, or twice, doesn’t mean it is a valid strategy, because the only way it “worked” is that robust xenos were sleeping and robust marines were playing.

@Axyinious

You are supposing what other people are not thinking at all by claiming they do strategies just to grief marines. If you think such way, I’d suggest you to back that up with evidence beforehand.

Every single Bob Cross copycat.

Man, I get that it is personal for you, it is not personal for me.

There is no need to prove that people grieff. Even whitelisted players. They grief, they cheat, they are toxic etc. Not all of them, not a jab at them, they are people, they do bad stuff and it was proven times and times again that people are people.
No, CO’s players aren’t saints, they have the same will and capability to grief as any PFC.
People losing CO’s whitelist is a proof enough, isn’t it? Breaking the rules is a form of grieffing, is it not?

[Axyinious]

@Cabal

It is impossible to prove what is in somebody’s mind. You need continious rounds to spot a pattern, I don’t have time for that, neither it is my job, we have staff for that.

Then I’d suggest you don’t claim some COs are griefers if you can’t prove what is in somebody’s mind unless you have evidence of that it is hearsay.

This is far from personal for me but if you want to make a bold claim, you should at least make an attempt to support it otherwise you will only be perceived as a troll.
Whitelisted players are not saints, that is true, but claiming they grief through different strategies is something that will require substantial evidence from both OOC and IC means which you don’t seem to have.

[vitoras]

Honestly, after reading this whole conversation - I have gotten a desire to intervene and respond with my own opinion to this whole matter.

I, of course - agree with your statement, at least partially. You surely can’t just say that some CO is griefing the whole OP on purpose without concrete evidence, but… isn’t the evidence actually present in the cases that everyone Kle…khe-khe-khe knows?

Off-meta strats are fine and sometimes fun, alright. Once, twice - yeah, they might be up during the game for the sake of experimentation. But, once the same CO begins to consecutively run the SAME fucking strats that had/has an absolute zero success rate over, lets say - 10 operations… Would you still believe that it isn’t deliberate griefing?

[Cabal]

Refer to the CO Councillor’s response. Right under your first post.

@Harrysno

The issue you’re describing isn’t one inherent to non-meta plans and antagonistic character flaws, but rather when someone’s actions are consistently and demonstrably detrimental to other players’ enjoyment of the game. You can very easily use Bob Cross as an example, someone who was incredibly controversial among the playerbase for his overtly antagonistic manner of roleplaying and consistent use of off-meta plans that resulted in rounds that often ended as soon as deployment did. Because of the way server rules are, the only action that could or would ever be taken against Cross as a player would be surrounding rulebreaks or actions so egregious that it’d warrant the attention of management.

The CO Whitelist is different. It is a role that has incredibly high expectations and a massive impact on the flow of a round and the entire server’s enjoyment of a round. Commanding Officers are expected to act in a way that creates fun, exciting, and interesting opportunities for other players.

Off-meta plans are not inherently unfun and can create very interesting and enjoyable rounds… in moderation. When a CO’s player or their character becomes known for spamming paradrops and similar such plans that usually result in 40 minute rounds that are fun for nobody, it grabs the attention of the Council. Antagonistic personalities aren’t inherently unfun, it can be interesting to roleplay as an aloof Commander whose marines would jump at the chance to frag… in moderation. When a CO’s player or their character is seen as absent from the operation and known to consistently run away and hide in the face of adversity, it grabs the attention of the Council.

To roleplay as an egotist and to order multi-FOB split drops is not the issue and it will never be. What is an issue is when a behavior becomes so consistent, egregious, and demonstrably detrimental to the round that it becomes indistinguishable from griefing.

“Remember: as the Commanding Officer you should ideally put your Marines before yourself. While deviations from this are permissible in character (i.e. if your CO character is a coward, egotistical, or other form of character trait or flaw), decisions should not positively affect yourself at the cost of the operation, the ship, or its people being harmed or negatively affected.”

One CO was proven (by staff) to break the rules. Bob Cross to be precise. Should I check every single CO whitelist player and every single of their rounds, then compile them? Fuck no, I’m not going to do that, nobody will even for a large sum of cash.

The funny thing is, I don’t think I said something much different from what Councilor said, but I used my personal style of shizoposting, so I’m easy to attack.

In short:
Command (CO especially) should be more mindfull of what they do via something akin to Predator’s “Spirit of a Whitelist” where whacky plans have to be trimmed down.

[edit] I stand corrected, Bob Cross was XO, so where I say “CO” read “COmmand”.

[Blue-Lou]

@Cabal

One CO…
Bob Cross to be precise.

Bob cross was an XO not CO.

[Lyons]

I’m not great at forums else I’d post the clip but there is the classic Juro grass tactic where all the marines would hide in the grass and in the clip I’ve seen an acid runner turns up and kills everyone. While griefing its hillarious as a one off, same with the funny hide in the morgue strat they’d do.

When the same CO does the same plan every time and it doesn’t work over and over again to the point where is seems that no one is learning what does and doesn’t work thats when folks get a little tired of it which then causes a bit of backlash. As much as Bob Cross was a villian XO he had a bit of charm, we all knew he was a meme so when he did meme things it was expected and some folks looked forward to that.

Lots of COs seem to be trying to fill the gap for better or worse, just wish the plans were a little more fleshed out and not on the back of the poor scout to not get capped within 5 minutes. Should have the creative freedom to try stuff but gotta learn where things fall flat is all.

[Axyinious]

@vitoras

But, once the same CO begins to consecutively run the SAME fucking strats that had/has an absolute zero success rate over, lets say - 10 operations… Would you still believe that it isn’t deliberate griefing?

I agree with you that doing the same strats over and over that don’t work might apply as messing with marines OOCly. I can’t speak for other COs and Command players but at least when I was in a round, that was not the case at all.

Small Record

Round ID 23818 - Mostly paradrop op (Marine Major)
Round ID 23745 - Echo IFF squad (Marine Major)
Round ID 23659 - Two squads paradrop that failed because Charlie squad got captured. (Xeno Major)
Round ID 23636 - Not a paradrop op. (Marine Major)
Round ID 23342 - 3 hours round slop with a necromancy chem that revived marines so xenos got absymal captures, not paradrop. (Xeno Major)
Round ID 24039 - Paradrop operation, marines got flanked in Solaris’s Bar after securing it. (Xeno Major)
Round ID 24027 - Not a paradrop op (Marine Major)
Round ID 24005 - Split drop that resulted in massive casualties to xenos but marines eventually got mad because of the plan, evacuated before FOB was breached and mutinied. (Xeno Major)
Round ID 23967 - Paradrop that failed because it was not done quickly so xenos knew where marines were going to land. (Xeno Major)
Round ID 21093 - Mega FOB Trijent (Marine Major)

Spirit of the whitelist is something that can be used to great effect and to overestimate something. I don’t really remember doing paradrops twice in a row because doing the same strategies every time can be boring but I was punished regardless for doing them. Not every round I have been in was a 40 minute round, but sometimes even 1 to 3 hours rounds which require a massive amount of energy.

[Cabal]

@Axyinious

I don’t really remember doing paradrops twice in a row

I like how this shows that you don’t understand the inherent problem.
“Oh, I don’t do this strat two times in a row, technically means I am not doing it over and over *wink *wink”

And in this small record we see one marine win during paradrop op and four xeno major during paradrop/split drops.
Always an excuse why it failed, oh Charlie got captured, they shouldn’t and paradrop would be a marine major, oh marines got flanked in bar, if they didn’t, then it would be a marine major, oh paradrop failed because marines were too slow and xenos knew where they will land, oh split drop failed, but it actually killed a lot of xenos, but marines got mad because of the plan, so in their madness they evacuated and mutined.

How many paradrop does command player need to learn weaknesses and strenghts of paradropping? How many mutinies need to happen before they learn that marines don’t enjoy that?
Can’t even came up with proper unique off-meta strats, split drop, paradrop, big FOB. Split drop, paradrop, big FoB. Split drop big FoB paradrop. Split FoB, paradrop, big drop. Split para, dropFoB, big drop.

[Axyinious]

You are putting words on my mouth and assuming things once again which is expected from a troll!

Paradrops are not inherently the problem, it is what comes after them. That is the main reason why they are harder to pull off and require a significantly complex organization from both Command and marines.
I’ve posted this small record to illustrate that I’ve done new strategies with a considerable restraint. Most of these rounds are several weeks, even months apart from each other.

I don’t blame marines or anyone for some of these paradrops failing. If anything I’m the one that is aware the most why they failed and I’ve made attempts to modify them or even conduct them in a different manner after some failed attempts.
It’s not paradrops or split drops that are the problem inherently, it’s what comes after them. Sometimes you can control it and sometimes you can not. Blaming anyone for them failing is not something that I do or ever will do. Like you’ve said yourself, every round is different. There are several in character reasons why a plan would or not work. Are they inherently bad because they failed before, no. Are they perfect because they worked before, also no. They are circunstancial per round.

What you seem to convey from your posts is like you’ve said yourself schizoposting so it is hard to take them seriously!

[BasilHerb]

Tbh most paradrops don’t actually affect the round at all because 90% of CO/XOs order paradrops to locations within literal walking distance anyways (medical on LV-624, medical/botany on Kutjevo, Fucking electrical on NV Dunes???). Paradrops are basically normal drops delayed by a few minutes. Quite rare anything happens unless you have balls of steel and literally paradrop near cave entrances (in which case yes, automatic xeno major).

Imo split drops are the real killer.

I suppose since we’re talking about Anx’s CO, we may as well.
I don’t actually play with CO Kleiner a whole lot (COs and lowpop are mutually exclusive), but from I’ve seen and heard, while he doesn’t do off-meta strats over and over, he has earned a notorious reputation as a CO with gigabased plans nonetheless. I’m guessing that once you start consistently doing off-meta plans even without doing them back to back, you’ll get that kind of rep. I’ve played in rounds where the reputation makes everyone blame him for marine wipes even though the orders were actually normal and marines kind of just shot themselves in the foot (though blaming CIC for everything is normal).

Now, everyone knows that split drops & based paradrops have a terrible success rate. But the OOC job of a CO isn’t necessarily to win the round- It’s to make the round more unique, memorable & enjoyable for everyone else. Near-guaranteed wins by deploying with M46C to solo the hive Joe Dafoe style is one way to do it. RPing out actual short novels in briefing and announcements is another. Kleiner’s off-meta plans are also another, albeit controversial. Kleiner also tries to RP different quirks at random intervals to spice it up, though it’s kind of hard to see since you usually expect a static to act the same way.

I don’t think Cabal’s insinuation of griefing really holds up, the intent isn’t there. He’s not a guy who does it to deliberately fuck people, it comes off as someone who tries to make rounds cooler by becoming the pseudo-villain, similarly to Darkshot (though Darkshot doesn’t do off-meta tactics, he just RPs as an insufferable chuunibyo who makes people want to make him disappear via. strangulation).

I remember a recent round with Kleiner about a week ago, where he did a normal op, but everyone died anyways. Upon hijack, he immediately wished us all goodluck before abandoning us to the xeno horde. Obviously, mutinying and dragging his beheaded body around was on people’s minds, but given no one knew where his evacuated ass was, there wasn’t much we could do but listen to his occasional remarks, like how he was enjoying the W-Y station. Since we were deprived of officer leadership, we decided to just hole up in briefing, where a 15-minute slop siege ensued and we killed 70% of the hive. JUL, the queen got tired of the FOB siege 2.0 (which they were losing badly on anyways), and xevacuated by hijacking our own lifeboats. We could’ve just evacuated- But I wanted to win that hold, to survive, to win- Because I wanted to spite that bastard for hiding and leaving us to fend for ourselves, and then beat the SHIT out him.

Personally, I think rallying our broken, abandoned troops to fight harder so we could survive and hang the CO was 100% more memorable than having the M46C protagonist save the day (again).

Not saying that being an intentionally flawed CO means you get a A+, just search up “Kleiner” in discord and count how many posters are people expressing frustration that they don’t win rounds- the classic M46C main character is still the most popular by far. But I also think there’s a very sizeable bunch of people who like the mix-up in generic COs. Are the rounds more enjoyable? Depends. Some hate it, some love it. Are they more memorable? For sure.

Regardless, I’m not actually sure why we’re arguing about all this when it seems to be no policy change is required. Harry’s already given the Council’s stance on it, and OP agreed with it. If this thread was made because of Bob Cross, then it’s a non issue regardless because Bob Cross wasn’t jbanned for his terrible XOing, he was jbanned because he broke actual rules, like ordering the executions of civilian protest leaders.

[Axyinious]

I think I should probably clarify that the whole reason I made this thread was because I suffered whitelist sanctions, not related to Bob Cross as a whole. (Two week suspension and a final warning that if I do not change my character, I would be dewhitelisted.)
I wanted to address the issue with community input because I believe it can be productive to the whole server and it also allows players to voice up additional concerns and opinions on related matters.

[ondrej008]

I have played under Bill Carson, though only as a rifleman as I was a total noob back then.

His plans were mixed, with mixed results, but he always did different plans that were either brand new or done a single digit number of times in CM history.

Compare this to say, Bob Cross, he does the same split drop into two LZs or paradrop very often, I’ve even seen him do it two rounds back to back, he doesn’t use the split marines to do anything, he just has them push the same area from a worse direction (a direction where they can be flanked, cut off, surrounded or have no retreat from) (and xenos can just retreat if the split drop is too much for them, he doesn’t even use the split drop marines to cut the xenos off or something which would actually have a chance of being helpful).

I went and did a Bob Cross round and there is a certain feeling about knowing you’re pretty much dooming >50% of the marine force to die if the xenos are competent.

Split drops and paradrops are not always bad, it’s just that if a certain player does them exactly the same almost every round with the same horrendous outcome, it’s ridiculous.

[sg2002]

@Cabal

What we are arguing here is CO’s which repeated actions directly and obviously lead to unfun marine wipe.

What I’m trying to point out is that you don’t have any definition of command griefing other than “actions directly and obviously lead to an unfun marine wipe”.

If we return to the toy example of 3 marines going into the West Caves and getting killed\capped, while command orders the East Caves push. Those 3 marines weren’t doing anything wrong, because they’re not bound to follow the command’s orders, but the command is bound to try and keep them alive and I think it’s fair to say that command’s actions here have “directly and obviously” led to those 3 marines suffering an “unfun wipe”.

There’s a famous quote by a French WW1 general Charles Mangin that goes:

Whatever you do, you lose a lot of men

This is just as true in CM and it’s typical for all the options command has to be inherently risky. If we’re punishing COs for doing paradrops, why not punish them for doing cave pushes too, because those are just as risky as paradrops and almost as non-meta at this point. And then maybe going out of the FOB should be punishable too? Because just sitting in the FOB for 3 hours is still the most foolproof strategy.

One a more general note, I think that the real real cause of this whole situation is the unfortunate reality that if you play too much XO\CO, you start accumulating negative rep. In every round there are going to be at least a few people dissatisfied with your leadership. Those people are going to be louder than the people who are satisfied with it. Since it’s always going to be more or less different people every round, with enough leadership rounds you can eventually have just about every marine player on the server be dissatisfied with you at least once. Then there’s a point where it starts snowballing. I think this is what’s happened to Victor here. And I’ve played enough under Bob Cross to know that this is pretty much what happened to him too. In actuality he was not actively throwing that often, he was just mid in terms of organizational skills and pretty unlucky to boot, but also charismatic enough that he was enjoyable to hate as a scapegoat.

[Cabal]

Right, fuck it. Let command do everything, no moderation, because why?

[birb]

@ondrej008

I went and did a Bob Cross round and there is a certain feeling about knowing you’re pretty much dooming >50% of the marine force to die if the xenos are competent.

marine competence and morale is a factor just as important as xeno competence.

[sg2002]

No, but that’s the reason why the standards have traditionally been pretty lax. And if we now want to make the standards stricter and we want to apply those stricter standards in an impartial manner, it’s gonna be almost inevitable that COs would have to be punished for just about every decision. PFC McShitface ungaed into a boiler-queen hellchoke and died, even though he was explicitly ordered not to? Well, time to report the CO for incompetence because he didn’t order the entire company to rush that hellchoke, because maybe that would have worked. He ordered entire company to rush that hellchoke and that failed? Time to report CO for incompetence…

[Cabal]

@sg2002

PFC McShitface ungaed into a boiler-queen hellchoke and died

Even in this strawman it would require multiple reported PFCs McShitface ungaing into CBTQ+ (ChokepointandBoilerTortureandQueen+).

How is spirit of the whitelist kind of thing fine for Predators, but for COs and command it would suddently spiral into COs being reported for everything?

You can invent bullshit scenarios all day long and wait for me to respond to each and every. I can do the same with preds.

@sg2002

No, but that’s the reason why the standards have traditionally been pretty lax.

Just like it was with preds (yeah I will bring up preds all time, but it is another whitelisted role with potential big impact on the round).
Why then CO’s can’t ban a standard issue marine weapon? Because in the past they did, it turned out horrible and is no longer allowed. Are we fine with this blatant restriction of off-meta command micromanaging PFC’s equipment? If yes then what if command orders req to not buy M39 AP ammo, or some another slippery slope argument, won’t we have a flood of CO reports?

We don’t need a wave of strawmans on slippery slopes to use common sense when certain individuals are found problematic over a course of multiple rounds.

And slippery slope is just what is shown here:

@sg2002

And if we now want to make the standards stricter and we want to apply those stricter standards in an impartial manner, it’s gonna be almost inevitable that COs would have to be punished for just about every decision.

Make something minorly stricter and suddently it will spiral into notsee regime of Counlfurrers removing whitelists of poor COs who happened to play a round when marines lost.

@sg2002

He ordered entire company to rush that hellchoke and that failed? Time to report CO for incompetence…

Anyone can make a shitty report with shitty reason at any point, it is councillor’s job to deny such.
Are we supposed to be afraid that Jack McBaldo will make a CO report that boils down to: “CO ordered us to push, but burrower made a tunnel in LZ, so Queen hijacked DS, ban CO”?

He ordered each squad to drop separately, one after another and then construct megabase in the middle of a map thus neglecting FoB, Queen just waltz into LZ via breaking one line of cades and hijacks at 0:40, who could have predicted this would happen? But it is fine, it is “off-meta” strategy, time to do it again in three rounds, maybe this time something will change.
Nothing to report, peak CO, everyone likes to spend more time in prep than on the planet.

[sg2002]

@Cabal

Anyone can make a shitty report with shitty reason at any point, it is councillor’s job to deny such.

But that’s the point. Councilors under your new regime shouldn’t be denying such reports. If a report fits the explicit criteria, the council is negligent in denying it.

@Cabal

He ordered each squad to drop separately, one after another and then construct megabase in the middle of a map thus neglecting FoB, Queen just waltz into LZ via breaking one line of cades and hijacks at 0:40, who could have predicted this would happen? But it is fine, it is “off-meta” strategy, time to do it again in three rounds, maybe this time something will change.

In the last 2 LV rounds I’ve COed I had this exact thing happen even though I had a very conventional Bravo FOB setup. But in the first, the queen tunneled in and hijacked while the guards were not looking, while in the second she tried to do sneaky a breach in and died after breaching the FOB and some xenos getting on the Alamo. Since my conventional plan demonstrably resulted in the same outcome as a punishable non-conventional one, should I be punished for it? Should I now always order 2 full squads to do FOB? Or we’re not punishing people for the outcomes, we’re only punishing them for the creativity?

[Cabal]

@sg2002

But that’s the point. Councilors under your new regime shouldn’t be denying such reports. If a report fits the explicit criteria, the council is negligent in denying it.

My regime of taking notice when CO/command does the same “off-meta” stuff over and over that doesn’t work.

There aren’t much explicit criteria in “spirit of a whitelist/command” that I propose besides "doing some “off-meta” strategy over and over that only achieves short rounds.

You know what we had before fog on LV and during xeno maturity system? Certain “meta” strategy that was banned, which was metarushing. Why limits CO/command creativity to order rushing the hive as soon as possible? Why devs (and staff) made a mechanical (rule beforehand) restriction on such a strategy?

@sg2002

In the last 2 LV rounds I’ve COed I had this exact thing happen even though I had a very conventional Bravo FOB setup.

So in the last 2 LV rounds you COed you ordered each squad to drop separately, one after another and then constructed a megabase in the middle of a map (beach, or hydro) thus neglecting FoB, even though you had a pretty conventional bravo setup?

I guess you mean you had standard “meta” plan of LZ2 to Hydro/Medbay to beach and then Queen tried to hijack via tunnel.
Such strategy was played over a thousand times, clearly it is not a fault of the strategy, but marines protecting LZ, it is not RTS, marines skill, or boredom is not a fault of CO/command.
The intent is not to slap command/CO for marines losing, or just for making a bad tactical decision, or two.
The intent is to slap command/CO for making the same bad decisions over and over.
It is not punishing “creativity” when there actually is none in those fabled “off-meta” plans anyway. Split drop, paradrop, megafob. Any famous “off-meta” strategy not included in those three?

How much creativity it requires to copy the idea of split drops from other COs and doing them over and over? How much creativity does it require to copy the idea of megafob? How much creativity does it require to copy the idea of a paradrop?

You have people here saying that doing one-off thing is fine, something new and exciting, this is okay, but the whole point is on repeating the same shit that doesn’t work. Because if it worked, it would become the new meta. But they won’t.

There is an argument to make how much power over around should CO have. Should they be allowed to experiment that much at all? This I don’t know, but I can imagine some poor shmuck that has time only for a round a day of CM and he hits CO Zapp Brannigan testing his new “off-meta” strategy against xenos, specifically about their kill limit.
Synth can kill few xenos, Pred can kill a ton of marines and xenos, CO can make a hijack happen 40 minutes into the round.

Should CO/command be allowed to put entire plan on the shoulders of a scout spec, who is supposed to drop a flare behind xeno lines? Another question related to all of that.

@sg2002

Since my conventional plan demonstrably resulted in the same outcome as a punishable non-conventional one, should I be punished for it? Should I now always order 2 full squads to do FOB?

Your conventional plan clearly wasn’t at fault here. And even if it was, once, or twice a mistake can happen. But we got a problem when there is a pattern of such “mistakes”.
I thought I am a guy of either 0%, or 100%, but going full on with everything seems to be much more of your domain.

An example of a CO/command failure:
“Split drop where one squad lands in different LZ and is ordered to hivedive, xenos notice that and send half of their force to deal with single squad, while the other occupy the rest”.
Do I need to point out why? It was CO/command direct decision, they are directly responsible that this squad had no support, that they were ordered into a suicide mission proven to almost always end up in a wipe over a countless examples.

An example of not a CO/Command failure.
“Marines get bored and abandoned a flank to LZ, xenos breached it quick and easy”
“Marines didn’t guard every square inch of FoB, so burrower made a tunnel in a dark corner, so whole hive went into DS and hijacked with rest of the marines still on the ground”
“Few marines banded together and tried to pull an epic flank on their own, but got wiped out”

[sg2002]

@Cabal

There aren’t much explicit criteria in “spirit of a whitelist/command” that I propose besides "doing some “off-meta” strategy over and over that only achieves short rounds.

I understand what you’re trying to do, but trying to slave the COs to meta is going to be absolutely ripe for abuse. Lets say there’s X people in Delta who are ignoring whatever the orders are and just rushing the hive. If the CO won’t drop whatever the plan they had and force everyone to reinforce that Delta hive rush, those X people are going to die and it’s probably gonna be a short round. Since those people haven’t broken any rules themselves, they can do it again and again. Thus after doing that for a few rounds you can make any non-hive rush strategy an “off-meta that only achieves short rounds” and thus have full grounds to report any CO who does anything else but that instant rush and COs are now limited to that one single strat.

But, say Charlie can now argue that going full hive rush without securing the backline to some extent is not a winning meta either and since probably a few of those hive rushes would fail due to the lurker gang cutting the rines off, they would have a legitimate case too.

So if a CO does not do one single quick rush the ungas in Delta want, they can keep throwing the rounds and set the CO up for a report, but doing that rush would set him for being reported by Charlie.