SerEvergreen

This whole escalation reeks of a smoke screen scheme to mask the herald of a worse shitstorm over the horizon... I'd like to sign up for the following: BMP-1 Gunner on Sharqi Peninsula T-62 Gunner on Highway Tampa

(Seconding TEDF, it might be a better idea to just pin-lock the Coop Server Rules post and move all actual discussion posts afterward into its own space to not clog up the rules thread itself) Maybe its not so much that this is about hassles and problems, but it is still a good idea to actually express what we think and want within the context of both COOP and our server. After all, if we don't at least maintain a baseline communication between ourselves, misunderstandings or unnecessary frustrations might build up because no one bothers to speak up about it or forgot that it has already been addressed. For example, as TEDF's sentiment has pointed out, it would be more optimal and healthy for admins to treat the server rules as a guideline and cast judgements accordingly based on common senses and experiences of tangible nuiances going on in the server instead of following them by the letter. However, if we don't actually discuss such sentiment in the first place, especially if it does not come out from the higher ups that can project a more tangible application to it through their power, it can be confusing for the others to figure out and realize which approach is encouraged/discouraged, especially when they start making mistakes and understadably become afraid of potential negative connotations of certain judgements. Another thing that is not as significant but can still affect us is that, as the game is continuously developed and evolved, the meta aspects and mechanics of the game will change accordingly, and we might need to revisit these things once in a while when that happens, especially if we start to forget whether they have been addressed previously. With 1.4.5.0's implementation of bot-checking all assets, we can no longer use the one-man land assets, reducing the amount of total assets available to BLUFOR and make the situation of having "way more assets on maps than you can fit into one squad" less relevant as time goes on if this change stays in future updates. While admittedly COOP's meta itself is not subjected to frequent changes, I think it is still something to pay attention to, if for no other reason than because it would affect how we handle related nuances as admins. Hopefully we can move forward in discussion with this in mind to make things easier.

If we wish to give more priority to Mechanized Infantry, I think we can take a look at how PRTA implemented it, as from what I can see on their rules, they revolve around putting emphasis on infantry as the core element of the team and ensuring other assets and elements supplement this role, not supplant it. With this approach, they implemented Mech Inf ruleset on the same basis and elevated Mech Inf's priority above APC squad, hence its possible there are useful things we can learn from their implementation and adapt them to ours.

@Risiko94, firstly it is possible that I might have worded it wrong in parts or in its entirety which might have led to misunderstandings, and if it did occur that way then I sincerely apologize. While it is completely understandable and fair to insist that the rules should be a sensible and reasonable guideline to base judgement on instead of following it to the letter without flexibility, the fact of the matter is there will still be nuances and exploits to consider whether it is changed one way or another, and what can be determined to "make sense" also has to be based on a particular context that is suitable to what is being enforced in the first place (in this case, reliable coop in order to contribute to the team's effort a la Project Reality's spirit for the most part), otherwise it can easily fall down the slippery slope of determining benefits instead of privileges and responsibilities. Furthermore, between our duty to use experience and understanding of nuances when passing out judgements while enforcing the rules at the same, and the players' responsibility to conduct themselves within this limit, it is a two-way relationship that needs a common working ground: not just admins "admin-ing" and players "playing", but us interacting with each other in this play space with full understanding that a limit has been set and will be enforced/respected (this is why I made a point about needing a context for the rules and its enforcement to base on above). To address your current points: When addressing your proposal, I was looking at the entire thing, which did in fact make a point about the minimum inf squad size rule inconveniencing the ability to have a 2-man locked squad in order to dedicate their only squad space to manning a single ATV asset and becoming a frontline anti-armor force. This is not exclusive to Muttrah (as you can run into similar circumstances on maps with similar asset setup), nor is it a fringe enough situation to warrant its own case (as Double_13's point has already alluded to). Combining that with your suggestion of merging the ATV into APC squad, which is its own claimable category with their own nuances, led to my thought process in addressing the whole situation as a rule implementation case regarding ATV assets. Additionally, I believe me and Double posted our piece at the same time, preventing me from looking at his point beforehand and potentially made redundant arguments. I will group points together to address them simultaneously when I believe they are related. As I have repeatedly mentioned in my previous post, the emphasis on your responsibility as a squad leader is vital, as you are the one who both have situational awareness of your squad and the power to regulate such situation to your need (in line with the goal of contributing to the team's effort, of course). By actually putting effort into this, you will be able to identify the "people in squads where they can actually be useful" as well as the "newbs" and make proper decision in whether you should retain them to benefit your squad (and the team by extension), or expel them from your squad to "prevent wasting important and hard to use assets". Furthermore, it is through these actions that you yourself are contributing half of a lifeline into the effort of ensuring the game is being played cooperatively and properly, as it is unreasonable and impossible even for admins to either constantly going around and dictate what squads are useful to be around and what their compositions are, or constantly checking to ensure that every single player in every squad is playing properly and no incident is happening out of their sight/mind (and god forbids situations where we also have to address incompetent players that are in squad lead position...). To this end, it applies equally regardless if the server is full or not, and it is entirely up to you find out whether or not the 2 extra guys (that might or might not join your squad to begin with) are useful to keep, or "serve no real purpose" and should be expelled. Furthermore, I am not sure why you would want to kick literally everyone from the squad unless you want to make sure that only you and another player that you absolutely trust to operate with you should stay segregated in this one squad space, implying at an unwillingness to either cooperate or put in the effort to play cooperatively. Not only is it hard to not see this as "self-centered benefits" when conducted in such a manner, it also makes the notion of this scenario being "ironic" confusing to me. You will always need to return to base to reload, but whether or not in between such period is you loitering on the field for as long as possible and dispensing as much fire support as possible while staying alive, or you having to constantly retreat due to being peppered by enemy fire or getting into multiple fights/getting the assets destroyed due to lack of support/etc., is what I am talking about. After all, your purpose is to provide mobile anti-tank capabilities to the infantry at a moment notice, and if you are not willing to ensure that you can survive and be available as long/much as possible, either through neglecting to bring support with you, or neglecting to cooperate with the infantry/other squads, recklessly lone-wolfing and putting yourself at greater risk of being destroyed, it can be constituted as wasting, especially if we notice that you get destroyed too frequently in too short periods of time (barring unfortunate circumstances like ambushes, team-killing, etc., of course). The same can be said for almost any type of asset in the game that can provide offensive/defensive fire support. In fact, "help here, enemy there, need logi/repair/ammo/support" might be the very baseline group of action that you need to take to both provide the basics of your asset functions and to stay alive yourself. Unless we are discussing some specific fringe situation (which would warrant its own discussion anyway), or you are not willing to even provide the very minimum of what you are supposed to do, replacing APC for Tank/ATV/AAV/CAS is not going to change how it works, nor contributing to the point at hand. Because your proposal is that we treat ATVs as APCs, it means you will also need to claim an ATV asset like an APC, which dictates that either you operate an APC squad, or operate a Mech Inf squad and manage to gain permission from the existing APC squad to use the ATV. This is only one of the nuances that would occur if we implement your proposal, among the others that I have already expressed above, and ignoring them is not going to change how things are going to work, nor is it "easier", as you are trading one approach with its own pros and cons for another also with its own pros and cons, and we need to determine whether the pros are more than the cons, or the cons are acceptable enough to be tolerated. Firstly, I am not sure if its a misunderstanding or a fabrication, but I have never stated nor even implied anything similar to or in spirit of "Don't change the rule about squadsize, because it is against the rules", so I am not sure what you are trying to say here. Furthermore, I share pretty much the same experience and sentiment as Double_13 stated above, hence I also fully acknowledge the inconvenience that the current 4 players minimum for locked inf squad rule can cause, and would even advocate for alteration to it where possible. However, that does not mean we can just change it to whatever, as it has to be sensible and reasonable so that admins and players can agree on to enforce it, keeping with the spirit with what you said about the rules making sense. And in order to do this, we need to address the nuances related to it, like whether or not it should even be in place, at how many players minimum, and why it has to be enforced at this amount and not any other amount, taking into account the enforcement of no locked one-man squad, the previously enforced 2 players limit, and the responsibilities and privileges of both players and admins participating in this community's server. To this end, I will also have to pose the question to you about whether or not you are ready and willing to work with us in tackling the above. Because if you cannot be arsed to do this, not only would it not work, but the agenda behind calling for the proposal itself is highly questionable. At this point, I believe the proper way to go about this at the moment is to honestly and transparently state what we really want out of this. By knowing what everyone involved wants, its easier to navigate the discussion and reach a proper compromise where the benefits and trade-offs are as balanced as possible.

@Risiko94, there are several flaws with your proposal that need to be addressed. Firstly, your entire proposal only mentioned and dealt with HMMWV TOW which is not sufficient, as there are other assets within the Anti-Tank Vehicle category to deal with, including SPG-9 Technical (which works similarly to the HMMWV TOW), Spandrel, Shturm-S (which work more like light armors), etc. In order to have a proper implementation, the entire category of ATV and all of their involved nuances need to be addressed as well. In the case of the HMMWV TOW (and by extension, the SPG-9 Technical as well), having more than just the driver and the gunner will provide long-term benefits to your squad. Most basic kits can work like this, but the typical scenario for this case, assuming a locked 4-men squad, is to have the Officer driving, a Rifleman manning the ATGM, a Medic to heal up the squad, and a Combat Engineer to fix the vehicle. By composing your squad of these roles and using them effectively, it can help prolong your engagement and loiter time by increasing your chance to survive and reduce the need to retreat all the way back to base, for example. Furthermore, the most important point of this aspect is to manage and lead your squad properly as a squad leader. If you cannot coordinate between yourselves properly, instead resorting to lone-wolfing the asset recklessly and neglect to increase your survivability and versatility, it can result in excessive and unnecessary wasting, becoming a detriment to the team as a whole considering your role in context is to be the only dedicated anti-armor platform on the ground and help carrying the infantry forward. Since our locked infantry squad rule only demands a minimum of 4 players, I am not sure about the relevance of citing an actual full squad of 8 players into this context. Regardless however, server population should not be relevant to your point here, as during a low-population period, the likelihood of players unable or unwilling to form/join squads properly should already render the need to lock your squad unnecessary. Unless you are deliberately trying to violate this rule for some lone-wolfing reason(s), if there's a chance of someone joining your squad that you don't want, it is your responsibility to manage your own squad and expel those you don't need, per the point above (which would also extend to a full server scenario anyhow). This proposal neglects to address the following flaws: 1/ Enforcing ATVs as part of APC squad means that unless the only light armor asset on the map is an ATV (which to my memory, there is no coop map so far with such a setup), you will still have to keep your APC squad opened and regulate the usage of the other assets, which already goes against your desire to have a dedicated 2-men squad. 2/ Assuming a scenario which allows you to create a Mech Inf squad to claim the ATV, your Mech Inf squad will still be subjected to the same locked infantry squad rule of 4 players minimum, preventing you from making that dedicated 2-men squad. 3/ It would have made more sense for you to suggest that ATVs become a claimable category, which would have addressed the two flaws above. Instead, you made this proposal and sabotaged your own agenda regarding this matter. 4/ By extension of the flaws above, you are still in violation of locking rules, which means your desire to make a dedicated 2-men anti-tank squad is not feasible, unless you are willing to risk administrative actions for it. While I take no pleasure in addressing any issue in this manner, I will still say it as I see it if it has to be done: Please avoid purely "self-centered benefits" lines of thought and take into consideration the nuances involving how the game works, how it would affect other players and the team's effort as a whole, and how the process would work in relation to the server and its rules, before you make any proposal plan.

Confirm fixed.

I can confirm the same thing happening on my end as well, running Mozilla Firefox 51.0.1. Considering how this just popped up around the same time we implemented role-based forum access permission, I wonder if its related. (maybe permission check was accidentally implemented for the chatbox itself?)

As our troubleshooting has revealed previously when you were playing in my squad just a moment ago, while we did also hear a bit of metallic feedback in the background (hence your impression of sounding like Megatron), it did not negatively affect our ability to hear you loud and clear so your audio setup at the moment works fine technically. Since you mentioned using the default webcam mic that came with your laptop, I would suggest that you first check your sound card's settings and turn on/off effects and enhancements that could potentially eliminate this feedback. My suggestion is to turn on any and all noise cancelling/reduction effect(s), and turn off the rest, but you can also play around and find out which does what that might suit your liking. If this does not provide any tangible result then you can look into better audio gear like a good headset (Sennheiser PC 151, for example) as Jersans has advised above.

I would like to register for the following: Ramiel: Stryker Gunner Operation Barracuda: Pilot - NH90 if possible.

problematic_tishbane, You have been observed repeatedly spamming all-chat for two consecutive games with pointless chatters, and were warned multiple times by different admins before being kicked as a definite warning. Please keep all-chat to a minimum and behave yourself unless you want to be permanently removed from the server.

Yeah, its best to just join the torrent wagon so that everyone can share bandwidth evenly and help each other download faster. Just make sure you seed back in kind after downloading.

It looks like you might have misunderstood what he said entirely, as he is indeed stating a very real issue about players that do not support OPFOR voicing their displease in the realm of "I don't like X" instead of providing objective points about why it is the case. To be honest, regardless of players' opinion about the mode, this really should be reserved only for proper contributions or constructive criticisms aiming at improving it just like you said, and anything irrelevant or has an agenda other than helping should be considered noise/disruptive to the purpose at hands. Going back to actually discussing this mode, I do have 2 small things (that are hopefully correct) to add: - For maps where BLUFOR starts from the water (Muttrah City, Operation Barracuda, Vadso City, etc.), maybe a spawn point should be allowed for bots near the first capable flag, and set as primary priority just below the main/carrier point so that they can spawn into the fight properly while not forgetting to use assets in main from time to time. - In Silent Eagle Std, it has been observed that when BLUFOR bots attempt to use CAS assets, they will keep trying to swerve sideways instead of going straight while taking off, causing them to ram into the airfield's walls and wasting them. Is there a way to correct this?

The server is indeed completely offline at the moment. Looks like something blew up again...

Oh oops. Didn't notice this post was in the Falcon BMS 4 forum. My sincere apology... ^^;

@Minrah: Our Project Reality COOP server is actually online, but due to an unknown issue, it has been de-listed from the central server list and thus cannot be queried. You can still join the server by direct IP (5.9.23.136:16567), or your Favorites list if you happened to have added us. Do come and play if possible, since it has been quite deserted and lonely lately due to this. D: Edit: Its re-listed again.

I would like to join as Blue T-62 if available.

I really have to say, each time I see TEDF announces events, you can see the amount of time, effort and care he puts into them, and this simply cannot be emphasized nor appreciated enough, as it is what makes a high quality and enjoyable event. So far, I only have a few minor questions regarding these event ideas: 1/ Is there a plan to increase/reduce the maximum number of players on the server for each of these game modes, whether for technical or meta-balancing purposes? 2/ For "PR Survival Edition", will we only play on maps with 1 and 2 km in scale, or do we play 4 km as well? (This question is mainly to gauge out length of play and whether it might tire people out) Once again, thank you so much for organizing these!

Hopefully this does not constitute thread hijacking to you guys, but if I did, my sincere apology. I thought I would just be able to let it slide and forget about it entirely, but after having seen this thread, I am now reminded of a similar incident that happened to me previously, and thus felt the need to at least bring it up and see if this should be looked into. Back in 4th Jan, when I was still relatively new to =VG=, I received a forum system PM informing me that I was demoted, which made me curious as how user rank works on the forum. I decided to join TS to see if someone knowledgeable could tell me about it, and found Nvram online then. Realizing I could ask a =VG= member about it, I text PM'd him to ask, and suddenly found myself banned from the server shortly after by Nvram. Semler had to try and unban me twice because I was somehow user and IP banned. The related exchange between Semler and me could be seen in the forum chatbox's history (somewhere on page 36/37 at this moment), detailing it happening from 4th Jan to 5th Jan. I have no idea what happened then to me, and what happened now to sirisma, but I just hope both were all a mistake or a glitch, somehow...

No doubt, one step at a time would be best for us, and we need to get more acquainted with the change in pacing and gaming nature during the events anyway.

All additional rules intended to make the game both more interesting and less frustrating (dealing with unnecessary nuances from trolls for the most part) are always welcomed! Though, I have a small inquiry in mind: since in Insurgency Mode, shotgun can be used to simulate bean bag round and subdue civilians non-lethally, and the stated goal is to help preparing us for Deployment, is it possible and sensible to apply a rule for something similar?

I am willing to provide support for you, but first we need to establish proper communication. Arrange a good time when we can talk on our TS server and then we can go from there.

I wish to apply for the following: Dragon Fly - Scimitar Gunner Bijar Canyons - Mech Infantry Automatic Rifleman Operation Barracuda - AAVP Driver Much appreciated for the time and effort the organizers spent for this event! !mental

T.E.D.F =VG= LAN_WROTE ... That's why I brought the journalist kit up. It removes everything from the player - Map, HUD and the weapon. Only way to survive against bots is luck, friendlies and moving your little legs !crazy Oh my, that's even worse than I thought. !crazy

Maybe in order to make this campaign as realistic as possible like intended, the correspondent Recon will play should be squad-less. This way, it can simulate him being only a reporter with no military tie, prompting him to follow whichever squad, event or location he wants, and can only use local chat to talk to the people close to him due to having no mean to communicate effectively with conventional forces. The two combined together will also invoke the possible chance of him getting lost or into sticky situations. On the other hand, this will also hamper his ability to "record the war" going on, so the video of the matches afterward might not be ideal as a result. Just a small thought for fun.