News

Statement regarding Ballistix Masters CS:GO

Thu 22nd Mar 2018 - 4:42pm General Gaming

Exdee Statement regarding Ballistix Masters

Ballistix Masters - South Africa have given us a forfeit vs Aperture Gaming for using an unknown boosting spot. Citing it as a pixel walk.

Had we been given the opportunity to provide a technical explanation of the term pixel walk, we are certain they would have decided differently. We trust the admins will give our case a second look considering the numerous rational insights we will provide below.
They have historically always attempted to be objective and fair in matters such as this.

We understand how easily such an error can be made, as the rules and definitions that govern this kind of incident are often vague, and rely on very well defined principals which are not readily avaiable in the public domain.

A forfeit like this, effects our brand, our sponsors, and the perceptions of our players. We do not see this as a cheat, but as us utilizing a previously unknown boosting spot. Which in this case seems to be a disagreement of the term "Pixel Walking"
So here is our point of view regarding this. 

According to their rules
Ballistix CS:GO Rules

  • It is up to the admins discretion whether or not the use of said bugs, glitches or errors had an effect on the match, and whether or not the admin will reward/deduct rounds, or to force a rematch.
  • In extreme cases the penalty for using a bug/glitch/error could results in higher penalties
  • “Pixel walking” is forbidden. (Sitting or standing on invisible edges on the map).

We do not feel that this was an extreme case as this had no impact to the round or the game, as we lost that round.

We used an Arch boost on Cobblestone that we have seen used before.
Similar to https://youtu.be/tBUGydUgjGM?t=145 , and used it twice during the match.

This is an actual collision box, as per the images we will show below. 

We lost the round used as an example by APG, and thus this had 0 impact on the win vs APG.
This could also be achieved by a simple player boost as well, and gives no further advantage.

We feel that getting a forfeit for this, when this did not have an effect on the match goes against Ballistix rules.
We won the match 16 – 13

We honestly feel that either a round should be awarded to APG (Even though we lost that round), and even with an extra round given to APG. It would still be a win.
We would also be open to a rematch with APG regarding this. As per the rules.


Thanks to everyone on twitter for supporting us so far regarding this issue.

For transparency sake.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P3-h-ACVNM&feature=youtu.be
This was the video submitted by Kaspar0v.
It shows the player hovering in the air yes.


However even in a standard demo, if you walk to an edge it will show the same. (Thanks for Twitter user snakeleleTV for providing this image)

 

As you can clearly see. This is the way that hitboxes of objects work in CS:GO



 

The below is an actual example of a pixel walk. No ledge, no object, just an invisible pixel that should not be there. 



The below image is a player that has moved to the maximum corner of an objet. Which looks like the player is floating in the air. However the player is not pixel walking. The model collision box and object colliusion box is actually that big though. 



We did not use an invisible ledge, as you can walk up the entire wall before hitting character height. This means it is an actual object. Programmed with an edge.
You should be able to sit and boost to any “EDGE” that gives enough space to do so. This is not an invisible edge or just a “PIXEL” as stated by Kaspar0v and APG.
As seen by the attached images.

 

 
Here you can clearly see that you can stand on the ledge. 

 

 

We did not go into this game thinking that this was illegal, as a normal boost gives the same vision.
We used it thinking it was something new and clever, even though it gives no advantage over a normal boost. We lost the round as well. But are now receiving a forfeit for this, which goes against the rules from what we can read.  "will reward/deduct rounds, or to force a rematch”

 

There are multiple other similar spots used throughout CS:GO globally, that are similar to the spot used here. Boosts above doors and entrances which are smaller or same size to the one we used
Examples:
Mirage: The catwalk pole has same size as the gap on the door "object" in cobble

 

Mirage Window : You can step and jump on the edge of the window. This has been used by nearly all players in Ballistix. 
Notice the size of the usable object corner that extends over the window gap. This is used constantly. 

 

We can even see "Edges" being used on all maps.
Example

 

 

Also one of the most common "entrance" boosts


Looking at other international posts regarding PixelWalking

HLTV

We feel the above HLTV post also covers what our player did here.
"Pixel walking is standing or walking on something which clearly SHOULDN'T BE STOOD OR WALKED ON IN OUR PHYSICAL WORLD (i.e a vertical wall)"
Ledges, entraces, arches are protrusions that stand out. And should be allowed to be stood on. 

Even if the above is deemed to be not acceptable by Ballistix, we trust that they will uphold their own rules and allow a rematch.

We fully stand behind our players, as well as them using a new boosting spot that was not known by the Aperture Gaming team.

The rules state that rounds should be awarded or deducted if a glitch etc had an effect on the match. We lost both the rounds we used this boost, we also did not kill anyone. This means no effect was had on this round or this match by this.
Otherwise a rematch should be given. 

 

RidditZ

RidditZ

DeWet Lombard-Bovéy