Jump to content

Stanhope

Donator
  • Content Count

    1,706
  • Donations

    20.00 GBP 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stanhope

  • Rank
    Former Staff Member
  • Birthday 10/20/1998

Contact Methods

  • Steam Name
    Stanhope

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Belgium

ArmA 3

  • ArmA 3 Player Name
    Stanhope

TeamSpeak

  • TeamSpeak Name
    Stanhope

Recent Profile Visitors

4,082 profile views
  1. A player that was unassigned was able to fly a heli Teleporting back to molos airfield from the carrier puts you on top of a camonet.
  2. I've already said this in person to a few zeuses that were present Sunday but I want to stress again that I have no problem with the actions of any one particular zeus. My problem lies with the compounding effect of all of those actions which, to me, felt heavy handed due to a lack of coordination.
  3. I guess this is the best place to give feedback about Sundays zeus mission. I want to start of by saying that on Sunday I did a piss poor job at squad leading. Going in I was prepared to do some team-leading but found myself as a squad leader for basically the entire OP. Because I was initially a team leader I missed some key aspects of the briefing, specifically that armour squad gold was basically under alpha's command. In addition I found myself task saturated most of the time. From rewatching the stream I noticed that often people tried to reach me and I did not respond. In the majority of cases my mind hadn't even realized that someone was trying to talk to me. On the one or 2 occasions I did register that someone was trying to talk to me but did not respond I was simply too preoccupied to respond. That's entirely on me. When I got squad lead I should've taken a moment to sit back, think about what I've now got to do and then systematically do it. I didn't, I just started to do shit leading to a very unorganized squad. Now for some feedback of the mission. The fog levels and wind levels were insane. Nobody in their right mind would start an attack in those circumstances. AI could see you from 800 meters away while you yourself could hardly see 200m in the valleys. On the hills visibility was a bit better, about 400 meters. Combine that with multiple static .50s and you're basically doomed. I could see an insane amount of stuff on my map but when I actually took my laser designator out and looked I couldn't see anything. On top of that the wind was so strong that smoking any approach to anywhere was impossible. Leading us to have to run across an open ridge-line, with enemies on both sides that we cannot see nor engage that can see and engage us, to an objective from which we're being engaged but can again not engage ourselves. The actions of Zeuses needs to be better coordinated. From rewatching the stream I noticed that multiple zeuses were suppressing the same squad while others were seeing where they could put down mortars to get people to move up. Suppressing is done to keep people in place, so how can a squad simultaneously be expected to move up? Also, while the intention of mortars might be to get people to move that's not always how it's perceived. Getting mortared while only moments before being suppressed, by enemies that cannot be seen or engaged, has no real benefit on gameplay in my personal opinion. Also, 3-4 rounds will do, no need to put a barrage of 10-15 mortar rounds down, at least not the first time a squad is being mortared at the same position. There has to be a rule that at the very least 2 people should be in an armour squad before it's allowed to leave. A single crew armour piece is useless in missions like these because you can't set up on a hill far away and kill everything from a safe distance. Zeuses should be required to partake as players in these missions from time to time. I feel that it's important that a zeus is put on the receiving end of what they do. As for a conclusion I feel that Sundays mission would have been more enjoyable if the fog wasn't there and if zeuses were just a bit less heavy handed.
  4. Locking vehicles to certain people is possible. But it's the "who were in that side mission" part that's the problem. A heli flies over filled with guys, does that count? What about a guy that just drove through the side mission without killing anyone? Or a guy that only killed 1 person? Or a guy that sat back waiting for everyone else to clear the sidemission and then just swooped in to secure the objective? Or a sidemission that's up for 2 hours and a guy shot a few enemies in the first 10 minutes of it being up and then just went to do something else? Or a guy that really wanted to help and was there for the entire duration of the side mission but couldn't find a single guy to shoot? The problem isn't really making a system, it's making a system that's fair and takes all of the above mentioned things into account. Making such a system is next to impossible.
  5. Stealing vehicles is undoubtedly against the rules, rule 4.7.7 to be exact. Camping spawn is also against the rules, rule 4.4 because if you're sitting around in base you're not playing your role. If someone gets into your tank and drives of with it first tell them it's yours and ask it back, if that doesn't work either contact a moderator or file a player report. As for single crewing vehicles: lone-wolfing is allowed, so why shouldn't single crewing vehicles? EU1 is not a tactics or team-play oriented server. It's for the very very casual player. And not having a platoon commander, or in the future case of I&A4 the platoon commander not really having any meaningful impact on the gameplay, is a logical result of the very deliberate decision for very casual gameplay. As for the new rule, why make an unenforceable rule? What is the point of making a rule that cannot be enforced? The only thing it achieves is getting people's hopes up and, inevitably, crush that hope when they realize that there are either 1 no admins around to enforce that rule or 2 the admins were playing meaning that they can't possibly have seen who was at the side mission. In addition, say a side mission is up for 2 hours when the server population is limited. Person A completes it and it spawns an MBT person A really wanted. Person B respawns and hops in before person A. A complains that B stole his vehicle. B says that he killed half the vehicles at that side mission before A even connected to the server. What do you do? A is still annoyed, B might get kicked even though he might've been telling the truth. But B might also be lying and we have no way of knowing whether or not he is. Unless this is a scripted thing there is no way to make this an enforceable rule. As for the stuff from the past, well, it's the past. The only remnant of that is this: But seeing how server restart is now automated that's pretty much useless. One of the many reasons I&A4 is being made is to solve the issue of stealing vehicles. There are many that don't like the system used to prevent this but I have yet to read any post that presented a way to prevent this from happening. All I've read so far in the past few years is people complaining and time and time again just saying "make it a rule". That's not really helpful, make a suggestion on a system that you think could solve the issue. It might not get implemented either due to technical limitations or because of other issues with it but at least you tried to help instead of complain.
  6. Tell me scar, how do I automate this? How do I make a script that knows who to lock the reward for and who to allow in the reward? Because as you well know having admins enforce this is impossible. Not though to enforce, impossible. Admins cannot be expected to keep an eye on who's playing the side mission at all times just so they can see who to give the reward to. Not to talk about when there's no admins online.
  7. Nope it's been disabled. And in the newest versions the call to it has also been removed.
  8. Just an FYI we already have 2 places to post screenshots, either in the gallery or a special screenshot and videos tread we have.
  9. A donator has donated money, a member meets the following requirements and has applied to become a member: And you can apply for membership here
  10. Right, I've figured it out. This is the config for FOB martian: class AAC_Airfield { name = "AAC Airfield"; nearlocations[]={ "Melanera_Bay", //"Therisa", "Katalaki", "Katalaki_Penninsula", "Faronaki" }; type = "Base"; respawnPos = "aac_pl_res"; visMrkr = "FOB_Martian"; vehicles[] = { {"B_Heli_Light_01_armed_F", "aac_heli1",60}, {"B_Heli_Light_01_F", "aac_heli2",60}, {"I_Heli_Transport_02_F", "aac_heli3",60}, {"I_Heli_light_03_unarmed_F", "aac_heli4",60}, {"B_APC_Tracked_01_AA_F", "aac_veh1",60}, {"B_APC_Wheeled_01_cannon_F", "aac_veh2",60}, {"B_MRAP_01_F", "aac_veh3",60}, {"B_MRAP_01_hmg_F", "aac_veh4",60}, {"B_LSV_01_armed_F", "aac_veh5",60}, {"B_LSV_01_unarmed_F", "aac_veh6",60}, {"B_Truck_01_fuel_F", "aac_veh7",60}, {"B_Plane_CAS_01_dynamicLoadout_F", "aac_jet3",60}, {"B_MBT_01_TUSK_F", "aac_veh10",60} }; }; We know this from looking at the visMrkr atribute of this class. This is the config for FOB guardian: class Terminal { name = "Terminal"; nearlocations[]={ "Lakka", //"Telos", "Athira_Factory", "Anthrakia", "Kalithea", "Rodopoli" }; type = "Base"; respawnPos = "term_pl_res"; visMrkr = "FOB_Guardian"; vehicles[] = { {"Random_AA_Jet", "term_jet1",1800}, {"O_Heli_Light_02_F", "term_heli1",900}, {"B_Heli_Light_01_F", "term_heli2",120}, {"O_Heli_Transport_04_covered_black_F", "term_heli3",120}, {"I_APC_Wheeled_03_cannon_F", "term_veh1",900}, {"B_MRAP_01_hmg_F", "term_veh2",120}, {"B_MRAP_01_hmg_F", "term_veh3",120}, {"B_MRAP_01_F", "term_veh4",60}, {"B_MRAP_01_F", "term_veh5",60}, {"B_Truck_01_fuel_F", "term_veh6",120} }; }; And again we know this from looking at the visMrkr attribute. What I cannot show is where markers aac_jet3 and aac_veh10 are located. But I can tell you that they're located at FOB guardian. So when FOB guardian spawns that wipeout and slammer won't spawn at guardian. But when FOB martian spawn they will. To fix this: move {"B_Plane_CAS_01_dynamicLoadout_F", "aac_jet3",60}, {"B_MBT_01_TUSK_F", "aac_veh10",60} From the FOB martian config to the FOB guardian config. Which is located at line 1350 of the mainAOs.hpp file.
  11. Stanhope

    UGV's

    It's been too long since I last tried fixing that, I'll write it down to have another look at it. For the UGV stuff I'll let someone who's staff answer.
  12. Stanhope

    UGV's

    Which glitch?
  13. My opinion is that a tractor is nice gimmick but shouldn't be a reward. But I don't get to do what I want. In one of the next versions there will be some changes to the tractor reward but as I've not made them yet and am thus not sure yet what they'll be I'm not going to share what exactly just yet.
  14. Should MBTs that require the tanks DLC also be removed? Should jets that require the jets DLC also be removed?
  15. Oh yea, I said I'd test your version. Well euh, I didn't yet, I've been a tad busy, got exams coming up next week so I've been studying a lot. And most of my remaining free time has been put into doing stuff for AW. I'll see if I can fit it in tomorrow.
×
×
  • Create New...