razgriz33

ooooh so close can't go on the public servers i suspect then

Perhaps and LZ marker should be thought of an approximate marker and not a pinpoint landing spot. At the end of the decision making it's the pilot in command that determines where is safe and effective to land. I'm skeptical of landing exactly where infantry plop on the map but with enough due care and attention 80% of the time you can put them within 500m of their desired spot

perhaps a billboard with bob marley on it singing passionately into a microphone with text reading: No Slammer No Sky

No worries But again, colsta makes a fact about the now and no resolution to the OP. I hope none of you take offence I respect you all for discussing this in a civilised way on the forums. Again my resolution (to stress my point) was not to add rules but to change attitudes.

last one holds place dear to me, great tune! Hey i suggested some martha reeves, barra barra is FANTASTIC by teh way, play that one in my chopper if the passengers don't mind it that is...

kinda pointless? towing broken vehicles? manoeuvring broken shit from spawn? removing a helicopter from a tree? I think it's a fine idea, i was looking at this the other day in the steam workshop

(again from battlefield vietnam)

my two cents, quickly and cheerfully. (echoing Colsta's post) If you give pilots their wings you have to give riflemen, medics, machine gunners, leaders their badges and this would simply look ugly. Cheers

Awesome find and well put!

what you've done there is instead of responding to his opinion, you've just stated what is actually happening at this moment. I guess what he was suggesting was rigid structure to ensure one transport and one cas (If i may elaborate on what i think you were saying kirk) My opinion as stated above would be not to add rules but instead change the attitude and look at WHO is being an asshole in specific and then question their motive as to WHY he or she isn't being effective in the slot. This is something members can even do themselves. 1. Notice the foul attitude or poor gameplay of the pilot 2. Record outbursts of attitude or poor examples of gameplay (we all have our off days don't forget) 3. Approach the chap and ask with regards to the attitude or perhaps suggest some time in the editor 4. If no change, report to eu3 moderator with any recordings as a last resort

This is in response to the OP I'll say firstly I find it's more of an attitude thing. for example earlier today (i won't name any names in specific because that would be unfair on the poor asshat) there was just a horrible "I don't care about you, what you think, or what the plan is" attitude coming from a particular pilot. So no matter how many rules or what specific rule set you want to enforce it will always roll back to the person behind the controls. If you have a pilot who is switched on and has the interests of his team at heart you'll find that he will actively switch into whatever role is required. Should he or she detect that there is a logistical problem then he or she would hopefully react accordingly to keep the team's momentum up and the same goes for if he or she detects that ground assets require hard targets knocking out. You can set as many rules as you like but it won't remedy this stinky attitude. Make a point of leading by example if you are a frequent pilot, if you detect that a pilot isn't so switched on then tell them, simply put they're going to end up ruining your game experience and (as you've done already) make you not want to wait around at base for them. Finally if you still see problems as a last resort, shadowplay them at their worst and report their stinky attitude in confidence to an admin.

Remember the days you could place a marker on the map by pressing "p"?(in the UAV I should add). Anywho Mr Amentes I commend ye for looking out for the best application of air units. And for using the forums to have a civil conversation.

It's just not so graceful in ArmA though.

Accurate fixed wing is something you won't find in arma full stop. Go for something that just works. I wouldn't appreciate something that's buggy but I would appreciate something a little unrealistic but works. Dual cockpit in fixed wing isn't something that's a good idea as generally (in DCS anyway) you can aquire targets as an observer from over 20 miles away. In ARMA you'd be lucky to get objects to draw 3km away. In closing, I would recommend a single seat fighter that would be nice to have bells and whistles but is more important that it's comfortable to play with

my view put as simply as possible to avoid walls of text: in the same sense that many casual things are against the law, such as speeding, soliciting, overtaking, illegal turns. You don't choose to turn a blind eye but you might not decide to impose a harsh punishment. for example, in the above cases a slap on the wrist applies. so perhaps there may have been a lull in transport helicopters for example, you can either remove the sub par pilot or allow another one. you just have to remember what was the rule trying to achieve? in this case i just described the rule was trying to avoid needlessly filling pilot slots before any other slot but as my case describes, there is a requirement for another (for whatever reason) another case would be filling in plat co before filling up alpha. it's not such a huge problem that you should CONSTANTLY bug the player in the platco slot to GET OUT RIGHT NOW!!!!1!one because if the server is filling up, chances are you'll want somebody in that slot eventually and a slot change from alpha squad leader to platco would disrupt alpha squad as a whole. use your heads and think why the rule was made and what it's trying to achieve. Again that's my view, what a member of staff will do is up to them and my good friend who regulates them

thanks for the salute especially to shorts

Here's How, this document will be kept up to date

heyy no panic, i just want you guys not to fight it out on the forums, at least not yet anyway

ah super, so the pbo is sorted. Our very own kamaradski has a server restarter including the use of battlEye http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=26407 for the more simplistic server the best place to find knowledge would be on the arma wiki https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Dedicated_Server I hope this helps good luck

I would rather you post your points to a friend that could be there, putting it out for public display here fuels a bit of a fire to be honest. a bit like smack talk before a wrestling event

Think about your concerns and then think about how you would address them and tackle them. That's what I'll be looking for from you the end user at this meeting. I hope this helps you to build your point of view in due time. perhaps google keep would be a good way to keep track of points you wish to make and scribble down anything interesting you hear.

Welcome to the forums, I'd be happy to review some admin suggestions if you have any? Unfortunately I can't promise an admin shift roster as we don't pay them it would be unfair for me to force them to do that. Also if you have any names of frequent trouble makers that would help us catch these guys. Thanks for your patience

Start with the L39 for actually learning how to fly a fighter jet Start with the KA50 for a rotary challenge of advanced systems and a forgiving, sturdy helicopter Start with the flaming cliffs package if you intend to be a more casual pilot. short and simple edit: just observed that i am late for the party, oops!

With the servers empty they're no hog on resources but i recognise that right now, squad isn't a popular service. It did provoke us to look at hosting solutions for the future though so it's not all bad news.

hear ye, hear ye! 27th February at 1600UTC A meeting is to be held on teamspeak to hear ye concerns and questions. This is just for eu3 and I have nothing prepared, this one is all for you guys.