Minipily

@PiranhA has a valid point, let's keep this civil and on track please. It's not common for the community to ACTUALLY start discussing stuff and I'd rather not have people just constantly slate on @Stanhope for doing his job. Yes he may be too strict on the little things sometimes but god forbid he does his job. Slating people, arguing publically and jumping on a hate bandwagon is NOT HELPING this community. People complain that the community is "dying" but to be frank, they themselves are just trying to push it in the wrong direction. If people cannot settle their differences and would rather just stay on the hate train, then please let that hate train take you to a different community and may you have a nice time there. It's sad to see people leave, but not as sad as seeing them stick around just to argue and be rude.

To follow up on this and make my thoughts from the meeting a little more public to all as some were not there. My thoughts on the issues within Ahoyworld are mainly down to the community themselves, it is your duty as a player within the community to talk openly about what you would like and what your issues are. As Ryko said, the staff simply cannot work on any issues if they do not hear about it. If you are having trouble getting your point to staff, try and take it up the ladder of authority (Player you trust >Moderator > Admin > Core Staff). The issues people are facing with @Stanhope. I can understand that people may get frustrated with him on EU3, perhaps utilizing the player report tool (which I may remind people that everyone has the right to use) a little too much, including possibly minor infractions. To this, why not talk to Stan yourself? There is no reason why one cannot talk to another and try and talk about issues or settle their differences. I can understand that it may be ones duty to report players for mucking around or breaking rules, just remember, minor infractions that do not really affect the game play on the server but one or two people DO ADD UP. And if someone is banned after a lengthy amount of minor infractions, it can seem unfair to that person. For this I say, please please please, talk to each other and discuss the issues you are seeing. Perhaps talk to players more and explain what they have done wrong before reporting them. I'm not saying that Stan or others do not do this, but I am simply reminding people that this is an option. We are a community and though we have great amounts of communication now compared to previous years, that communication is not as a community but more targeted at a PVP battle between the players. Let us settle differences, learn to be a little more forgiving for the little things and just have fun. It is a Gaming Community at the end of the day. There has also been the discussions between "Group A" and "Group B" and how we can come together as a community to make both sides work. For those that do not know: Group A - "The rules should absolutely be followed all the time, and that fun is had when everyone is following the rules" Group B - "The rules should be followed when it makes sense to follow them, otherwise they can be ignored / bent when it's reasonable or fun to do so." I myself as a player are in Group B, but I fully understand and respect Group A and I ask politely that those in Group A understand and respect Group B. It is important that we make sure both groups can work together and get as close to molded the two as one as possible. Again, this is not a server or staff issue but is an issue about players in the community if we were to actually call these groups "not getting along" an issue. Probably made no sense seeing as I don't see an issue here but just an example, you get the point. To conclude, at the end of the day I think a lot of issues we face are ones we should aim to work on as a community together rather than pin it on the staff. They are not here to purely baby sit us but more rather make sure we do not get out of control. If one wanted a community meeting to talk about a subject, the forums do exist to set up just that or perhaps plan it with a staff member. I'm not trying to sound high and mighty, like I know exactly what is going on and that I know the way to fix it and that is to just get along all the time. I'm just saying it from the heart and trying to read it out to you as I've heard it. We are all humans and it is in our nature to disagree with certain points we all make, to the point where we may never agree. But it is important we talk as a community to find that balancing point, a place where all can get across the gap separating us.

Squad Leader Intel Operative Fire Support Specialist Fire Support Assistant Alpha 1 Teamleader Alpha 1 Autorifleman Alpha 1 Engineer Alpha 1 Rifleman LAT Alpha 1 Medic Alpha 2 Teamleader Alpha 2 Autorifleman Alpha 2 Engineer Alpha 2 Rifleman LAT Alpha 2 Medic We've tested this before and it worked pretty amazingly. There's also a bit of room for improvements.

We do not need to move. If we get more players on the server, which hopefully people should happen unless some players dont want to play on certain missions because the base is too far, then we can utilize the use of Logi more often. This allows us to set up new bases in a more immersive way while also playing the mission in progress. When Johnson was Squadleading on Stratis and we had a full alpha, a logistics team setting up camp and Vortex teams assisting both elements, that was great. It gives the mission a LARGER feeling while still retaining a small player base, really makes you feel like your doing something. Plus you should feel good when you utilize logi and alpha, it's something that is rarely done nowadays and something that isn't always easy to work with and one should give themselves a pat on the back when it's done well. To reiterate, moving the base is non-essential and pretty irrelevant to making the gameplay better, we as the players working together can make the gameplay better rather than relying on it to be layed out neatly for us. Additionally, if you take time to read Johnson's post, his many points do make the idea to move pretty irrelevant.

G3 AOR1 pajama's, MMAC vest and a OPSCORE or perhaps a baseball cap as is the norm. But on the bright side im sure completely flat green overalls will work better than MARPAT.

Indeed, worked a charm I thought.

Yeah I'm kinda with Ben on that, I mean sure ArmA can be a bitch to work with and it's difficult to trust errors to not mess with other stuff. However, if we stop allowing a mod because of errors, then that is surely going to restrict a lot of mods, now and future. Most likely, most mods that experience config errors will never receive fixes. Hell, they may not receive fixes because said error is too minor to be receive work. If this is the case, why not give it the benefit of the doubt? I assume if it breaks then one can just scrap the mod and be done with it there. Sure things like these may get annoying from time to time but I would have thought putting work into this sort of stuff would be a little important like other works on the server. Just my thoughts, not telling you how to do your job, just implying that perhaps benefit of the doubt on small errors (what I assume at least) would not be straying too far down the rough road.

So many faces we see no more. I miss those times, miss the community. Also here's a free AWE meme:

Also to follow up on Johnson's friendly reminders from a first person perspective as he was in the tank at the time and could understand the playing field as he saw it. I am happy to talk about anything in Teamspeak if folk wanted an after action report from me, I feel that me following up in this message would just create a lengthy post that would possibly steer off topic from what Ryko is trying to say.

Bah dunno what you lot are talking about, Hammer and Torch never died in that well thought out mission. Sending tanks into a town against a conventional military that was now using guerrilla tactics was actually really smart. Oh well, irrelevant arguments will always prevail over friendship in a community these days. To conclude that sarcasm though, having Alpha use armor AND heavy weapons does kind of make all other support roles irrelevant, so it would be nice if we could open up other roles a little more and actually get some proper teamwork and coordination. Blaming the roles over the players is as idiotic as some of the players that take the roles from time to time and ruin it for the rest. probably just called myself an idiot there because fuck my rep

Overall I'm sad and yet relieved FSG was moved to Alpha. Sad because the reasoning behind this was pretty rational, taken from a few snippets of gameplay and most points made about it was about the fucking playerbase rather than the actual role. But I'm happy it's in Alpha because at least they can't be cry babies, I suppose communication will be easier too if such a role was within Alpha itself as I imagine the person is going to be within 2 footsteps of alpha which will negate someone having to use CTAB to find someone that was over that 2 step mark. Thanks for keeping the role at least, I did agree with Leo's idea of doing that seeing as I knew something was going to happen.

I can clearly see that this is no doubt going to backfire at me because god forbid I can allow myself to have fun from time to time rather than donate it to others. 1. Sometimes a loose interpretation is required for the safety of the team designated with supporting the other. It's never wrong to "twist the rules" so the speak and employ a tactic other to the one ordered if it allows the supporting element to get the upper hand in combat and complete their task. The same would go if I was Platoon Commanding and told Alpha to do something and they did it differently to what I said, as long as the mission objective has been completed, there should be a congratulations in order, not an argument. Better yet if these tactic changes save men. Not saying that I do this all the time and that I disrespect a leading element, I'll do what I'm told, but just expect others to do stuff like this to do their job. If maneuvering at their own discretion becomes so much of an issue that it prevents the other from doing their duties or if it puts someone in immediate danger, these actions should be reviewed. 2. I will say that I do from time to time have a little tantrum, I only do so because I want to try something new, whether this be Recon within the FSG team or try out a heavy weapon I haven't used in a while. Going Alpha is something I can always do, going FSG is not. But I will do what I'm told even if it requires a kick up the backside. I won't threaten to leave though, I do know some people that do but that's not who I am. Going Alpha rather than FSG does not kill all the fun, sometimes in fact it's quite the opposite, having limited to NO supporting elements can make an engagement very difficult and I for one enjoy the challenge. But by contrast, I would like to try new things on the server and I do get upset when I get shouted at for trying to change things up. However I will listen at the end of the day, sometimes it just takes that nudge, it's who I am. 3. Depends on the soldier, depends on the team. 2-3 men in FSG can wreck havoc and cause more damage than a full alpha squad and other times it's completely the opposite. It boils down to this: You employ your troops correctly, everyone gets a slice of the pie. However, just because everyone gets a slice doesn't mean that the mission will be completely successful. Sometimes it requires the sacrifice of gameplay to a few to save the many and I respect this, henceforth I would like to Recon in FSG as I would not be required to fire my gun but better yet, give Alpha the intel to get the most out of their op. awww what a nice guy Mini is. 4. I understand this, and I understand that 5 men in FSG shouldn't be allowed until we get something along the lines of a a full Alpha Squad. I never asked people to join FSG when I do go FSG though, it appears some people just join my team and fill it up. It's not my fault, some people just don't understand the difference between a leader, a specialist and an assistant and I'm not naming names. The server does indeed not get a high population these days, it's not the glory days of 25-30+ daily anymore but we help survive the server and build it's population by pulling together, not apart. Debates and arguments are good to help build new rules and what not from time to time, but too much enforcement causes the server to fall into a very niche gameplay style with little room for expansion, the opposite of what the server was originally famed for. I can see how your solution may be better, but thought before rational judgement is required. The FSG team should not suffer just because of a few bad eggs and a few bad stories, these things do not even get CLOSE to scraping the surface of what this team has done good in the past. We all have amazing stories, most of mine are from specialist support roles. Seeing a team such as this get strangled and cut off to further employ the same old day to day alpha gameplay would be sad considering these small circumstances. My solution, give reasoning behind everything, no "I want this" or "this is bad because I say so." Be polite and explain logically why something isn't going to work, also, get the majority vote and not just the vote of the man in charge. After all, the man in charge should care about all of his men and take their interests to heart. My response isn't a rant nor a look for trouble, just explaining what I believe should be done after my extensive service in the server. P.S You're not a bad ASL, someone who is playing ASL and going to lengths such as these to limit support roles in an attempt to give more gameplay to Alpha is obviously passionate about his/her team. However, I believe these points to be mostly irrelevant given they are taken from a small time frame and judged too rationally. Just my 2 cents, do with it as you want.

If this is an IRL meet which I imagine it is, I believe last year there was an Ahoy World meet. Folk gathered in the Netherlands I believe and spent a week or a weekend, not quite sure, doing various stuff. There might be another IRL meet planned one day, I imagine it's a bit of a pain in the ass to plan out though.

You're the last person that should apologise. I think I speak for everyone when I say that we commend you for your efforts and that you made a damn good staff member. EU3 is a touchy subject at heart and I could not agree more, honestly, in what you've said about it. As someone with ties back to EU3's very first development thought process and essentially day one play (came second day it came out because lol modpack), I can clearly see how things have changed, for better and indeed for worse. At the end of the day, EU3 is what it is now, I don't think it's got much a chance of changing, hell, with the amount of work you've managed to sink your heart into I think nothing more could be done. But there is still enjoyment to be had out there. Myself, Jochem and others in hind sight have seen this coming since Gauntlet 33 at least, when EU3 was starting to have its downfall but I cannot stress enough that though EU3 will never be as good as the glory days of Patrol Ops and further on after, there's still good times to be had. A community is what makes a community run. If I may speak freely, the choice of scrapping the democracy votes is what killed EU3 or at least it's glory days. Now I find that the community has no camaraderie and folks are willing to be spiteful and stab people in the backs to try and climb on the higher ups backs so that they may get what they want when after all, a community is about the want of the many. Myself and others have tried to do what we could to help but we fear that past reputation leaves us barren from trust. All in all, EU3 is in no shape or form as fun as it was and it is a damn damn damn shame that players who have joined in the recent year or two could not see the light of what we all had. But, the server still lives on and I'm contempt with that for now. I think I speak for everyone when I'd get on my knees and beg you to stay but it is indeed your decision and you've done enough Copey, Thank you, best wishes to what you choose to do now and hopefully we'll talk again soon. Yours sincerely, Mini (ugh... that guy)

1. Last of Us Part II (I could honestly die happy once I've played this) 2. Red Dead Redemption 2 (the obvious choice) 3. Mount and Blade Bannerlords (because who doesn't like the appeal of being a barbarian with huge amounts of chest hair) 4. Hell Let Loose (I much prefer the hardened realism of Post Scriptum but I do not believe this will be coming out before Hell Let Loose) 5. A Way Out (me and Johnson would do a great RP for this which would probably just turn to memes) (also EA could learn a lot from Naughty Dog so hopefully a game such as this doesn't suffer the usual downgrades)

I believe he meant that if FHQ goes, people can still resort to BAF for use of an ACOG scope. In the end, a nice thing about the RHS scopes is that they can be altered in the options for use of 2D, PIP and 3D. 2D is much like you're BAF ACOG's, useful for magnification but prevents NVG use in night time operations. PIP is, well, to be honest not brilliant but if you want a mix between 2D and 3D (I believe NVG works with PIP) then go for it. 3D is great because the magnification still works yet the ACOG works much like the Vanilla RCO, so without using ArmA 3's super human squinting while looking through the scope, you can use it as an impromptu reflex sight. The NVG capability also works with this version and the inbuilt zeroing lines of the scope will work just fine as you see with the 2D, though they are more difficult to see.

RHS ACOG's work fine with NVGs, turn on 3D in the RHS options. 1. It makes the scope more realistic to look through. 2. Unlike most 2D scopes, this will allow NVG operation. 3. The ACOG in RHS imo is the best looking ACOG there is. I believe the FHQ and BAF ones to be too flat and dull in texture and look like they were rushed or ported directly from ArmA 2 like a CUP knockoff. 4. RHS ACOG shouldn't use ace zeroing, I've never had that issue before and it doesn't take a mastermind to know that an ACOG doesn't need zeroing. We had ACOG zeroing in the Gamenight yesterday however I just left the zeroing at 0 and was capable of hitting targets upwards of 700-800m with the M4 which can be proved in my footage from that Gamenight should I be able to actually compress and upload it any time soon. To each their own though, people have different opinions and preferences on weapon attachments and I do know that FHQ has some stuff we do not have anywhere else, but I believe there's always better alternatives in Vanilla or RHS but that is just my opinion.

Well with the addition of the MAAWs from the second coming of Christ group that is RHS, I could say that we have no use for TF47 anymore. She had a good run but we must lay the old girl to rest. *sad music* fhq_accessories could probably go as well, I don't really use them anyway but I know others do so it might take a little persuading but with RHS and Vanilla alone I'd say we're plentiful on weapon accessories such as scopes, PEQ boxes and grips.

Seconding this, the arsenal could use a good clean up and I'm all for variety if it is correct variety. (AKA: More Pilot Helmet variants rather than more random civilian hat variants etc etc)

That's mine and Johnson's joke ya little sh*t

I'd be happy to give some insight about the weapons if you'd need a hand, myself and @J0hnson are experienced in these Eastern Weapons.