Grezvany13

A simple structure which I usually followed while building missions (back in ArmA 2) was the "rule of two's", which in short means; no leading position should ever leading more than 2 people/groups under him/her. And every person works in a pair (buddy system). Following this rule (or guideline) it's relatively easy to create squads: - Squad Leader (Alpha SL) -- Squad Medic (Alpha Med) - Fire Team Leader (Alpha 1 FTL) -- Rifleman (Alpha 1 Rfl) - optional Grenadier/Marksman/etc. -- Autorifleman (Alpha 1 AR) -- Assistent Autorifleman (Alpha 1 AAR) - Fire Team Leader (Alpha 2 FTL) -- Rifleman (Alpha 2 Rfl) - optional Grenadier/Marksman/etc. -- Rifleman AT (Alpha 2 AT) -- Rifleman Assistent AT (Alpha 2 AAT) For the Platoon Command the structure is a bit different, however still follows the same rule: - Platoon Commander (PltCo) -- Platoon Medic (PltMed) -- Platoon Sergeant (PltSgt) -- Rifleman / FAC (PltRfl / PltFAC) Here the PltCo and PltSgt share the leading role towards the squads (infantry and cavalry), and if air assets are used, the FAC will manage all air squads/teams. Although it looks like it adds even more leading roles, it actually makes it easier to lead. Since it will never happen that a single person has to lead more than 2 people/groups, even unexperienced players will be able take a leading role. It also allows to split the leading role with your buddy (eg. ASL and AM, or A2FTL and A2R), or to simply give room for own initiative for the roles below you. The order of filling the roles based on this structure should be: 1. Alpha 1 FTL 2. Alpha 1 Rfl 3. Alpha 1 AR 4. Alpha 1 AAR 5. Alpha SL 6. Alpha Med 7. Alpha 1 FTL 8. Alpha 1 Rfl 9. Alpha 1 AR 10. Alpha 1 AAR 11-20 ... same order for Bravo Squad 21. PltCo 22. PltMed 23. PltSgt 24. PltRfl Instead of filling Bravo Squad directly, specialized squads could be filled first (cavalry and/or air) depending on the mission. Again; this structure is based on 1) the buddy system, where every person has a buddy to work with, and 2) no leading role will have to give orders to more than 2 people/groups under him (with exception of Platoon Command, although here the tasks can be shared more easily).

I also learned about TitanIM today and did research about it. 1) It's a military simulation engine build for the military and governments (just like VBS) 2) At this moment there is no news about a consumer version (aka game) 3) To get access to the "alpha" you'll need to able to prove it's for military and/or government usage, and costs $35,000 (which includes training to use it) All and all, it's far from usable for "us" and as far as I can see in the demo's, far from usable for gaming in any way.

Doing Zeus ops for 4 years still doesn't make you an expert, and co-zeusing with Leutin is something completely different. EU1 is a public server with arcade players, not a server where teamplay is enforced up to a semi-realistic level. And I certainly don't blame you for the AI and server scripts; I do blame you for letting people rage-quit because you as a Zeus destroyed their game. In the end it's the job of Zeus to make it a more challanging game for the players, not to have fun killing as much people as possible. As a Zeus you have the all-seeing-eye and can see where everyone/everything is, but the last thing you should do is abuse that "power" for your own entertainment. Watching back large parts of your stream, the only thing I noticed was you having fun killing players (and sometimes where the AI didn't or even couldn't see). I completely understand that, and I even said in-game that Zeus can't be blamed for everything since the AI is unpredictable sometimes. But if the difference between AI on it's own and AI directed by Zeus is too obvious (like dying every 5 minutes instead of 30 minutes), then there's a big problem in my eyes. Like I said, I want my post to be used as feedback towards the Zeuses so that the players can have a better time on the servers. And my experience with Liru this evening was in my opinion a case of how it shouldn't be done.

Just played for several hours on EU1 with a Zeus (@Liru the Lcpl.) and got killed over and over again while trying to be a mortar team. Although I gave him the benefit of the doubt of not messing with us, watching his Twitch stream afterward made me believe that he activily was messing with us (and basically every player on the server). After pointing this out he simply said that he didn't do anything and it was all AI, however his stream proves otherwise. As I said before; I believe the Zeus should enhance the gameplay of the players on the server, which may include directing AI to the right direction. However, actively sending overpower AI (BTR or Tigris to a small squad) is NOT enhancing gameplay. Link to stream: https://www.twitch.tv/lcpl_liru/v/102094651 Pointers: 1:58:10 Sending BTR to mortar position 2:15:00 Stealing vehicle and gear of mortar crew 2:20:00 Telling "us" (follow chat by "Fierce PC") he didn't do anything And these are just 3 things which I could quickly find (more happened before and after). I'm not saying that Liru should be revoked directly from his Zeus permissions, although I think this is the classic example of how it should not be done. Hopefully we all learn something from this, and I hope the AW staff can use this to set up better guidelines on how it should be done.

Let's see what happens if I combine my top 3 roles: Me: Einzelganger who dosnt express himself when it comes to emotions, medium educated. Would be a IT employee or accountant in civilian life. Over emotional and politicly correct person. Mostly only educated in biology and somethimes chemistry. Most loved weapon: Saw with extended barrel. Favourite movie: the A-team. Close enough

I agree that currently teamplay is not promoted in any way, although I think this is more due the fact that people are not bound to a squad right after joining the server, and the squad system which is available isn't working that well (because in general casual players don't care about it). My suggestion would be to remove the squad system and simply use the default squads. Of course people will still be able to lonewolf or group with friends, but at least they're attached to something. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I do think that the current system in actually working the against itself. As a medic player myself, I always play alone (unless I found a group of more serious players to play with). However this doesn't mean I don't care about other players/teams, in contrary, I'm more effective when I don't have priorities within my team in comparison to players outside my team. On EU3 this is something else, because people play their role and are more aware that sometimes a medic has other priorities then helping them. On EU1/2 I usually get angry messages because I was unable to revive them, and that while there was tank on their body or they were in an impossible position for me to even get close to them. The current type of gameplay in I&A is again something that doesn't really promote teamplay, especially when I look back to the A2 Insurgency missions (haven't played them on A3 yet). These missions were more ongoing, and were easier to complete with a team compared to lonewolving (still possible but took way longer). The same applied (somewhat) to CTI and Domination, although those were already less complicated and started to demote teamplay more and more. In addition to this, Insurgency is way more suitable to have a Zeus "help" the AI without breaking the game for the players. So perhaps an idea to test this out All and all, I think that the most important thing for promoting teamwork is to actually do it. Especially people who are regular players (which I'm not, but still try to do), all they have to do is create a 2-3 man squad and ask others, non regular players, to join you and fight together. I do usually see some people group up (or at least try to) for the side missions (like @TheScar) and this usually results in a quick and clean execution of the mission.

@SkullCollector (and the rest) good to see those sessions happening, because I know how important it is to have some training for both new and old players. Although I have 2 (minor) issues / feedback point: 1) As @Colsta mentions, it's important to participate, even when you're already a veteran. Not only to get a refreshment for yourself, but also to help the newer players with some tips&tricks which aren't pointed out during the training. However, to use myself as an example, I already know all the basics (and more) with exception of TFAR (I'm used to ACRE, so shouldn't be too hard to adept) and cTab (never used it, but my map also works). So spending 3 evenings of training for something I can probably learn in 10-15 minutes myself is a bit of an overkill. And in the end it's more important to keep doing it while playing (repetition) than only doing it once a year. 2) The time issue brings me to my second point, time I know it's impossible to find a perfect date/time for everyone and even when you do plan it twice or three times a week, people will still complain that they can't join. Besides that, it's rather hard for people to be forced to stay online for a fixed amount of time. For me for example it's the reason why I barely play ArmA3 anymore, simply because I don't have the time to play for at least 1-2 hours straight (family and stuff). Of course in the evening hours it's easier, so times like 1630 GMT (which for me is 1730 GMT+1) is just around dinner and thus impossible to go online. Again, I know it's impossible to keep everyone happy, but perhaps it's "best" to have 2 sessions on one day, so people from different timezones can join easier. Please note that this is feedback and just issues which I have/see, and in no way to attack this great idea!

I know that there are pilots who do this, but most of the time they only care about crashing the heli's into the AO (eg. last friday; 5 heli's down in 15 minutes, 2 in base, 3 in AO).

If it's this code, than it's possible to use a FAK while a MedKit is required for a revive (and will use the FAK of the wounded if the medic doesn't have one). All it needs are the following settings in the mission: derp_revive_everyoneCanRevive = 0; // 0 = medics only, 1 = everyone derp_revive_reviveItem = 1; // 0 = first aid kit, 1 = medikit derp_revive_removeFAKOnUse = 1; // 0 = don't remove on use, 1 = remove on use PS. I know it's not the same as @Gamerbug requested, but IMHO a more realistic (and less prone to abuse) version. PPS. I still think that vehicles should contain (more) medical supplies, so medics can resupply themselves more easily.

I just wrote a lengthly post, which got lost since my Internet connection broke while sending... So here's a shorter version This is understandable, although a bit strange that a script is limiting the way to heal/revive compared to vanilla ArmA3. IMHO a medic should only be able to revive when he/she has a MedKit, while using a FAK to heal the person. And since the MedKit is relatively heavy, this will reduce the chance of carrying too much other (unrelated) stuff even more. Of course this is still very "arcade" compared to ACE and not even close to real life, but could be a good addition. And to make it work, it simply requires a single extra check in the BCT Revive script, which checks if the medic has a MedKit before he/she can revive. Besides that I fully support the idea of @Eagle-Eye to first use the FAK of the wounded/downed person, although this might be a bit harder to code. Additionally I would like to see a way for medics to resupply more easily, instead of returning to base, since (especially on EU1&2) a lot of people die and a decent medic will be out of supplies within 10-15 minutes after landing near the AO. My suggestion would be to have all vehicles filled with FAK's and MedKits, and these should be resupplied when the driver/pilot uses the re-arm/refuel points at base. A good rule-of-thumb for the amounts is to have 2-3 FAK's per seat and 1 MedKit per 10 seats. So for example the Ghost Hawk (2 pilots, 2 crew, 8 passengers) would have 24-36 FAK's and 1-2 MedKits on board. This then can be used to refill the supplies of the units who fly from one AO to another, or for the medics to refill their supplies while in/near the AO.

So what's the problem then? The Zeus(es) managed to kill you while trying, so objective complete But instead of making this a "Yes-No" topic where we attack each other, we should use this as a moment to give feedback to how things can be improved. And we all know that a single solution won't fit everyone, although that's why AW isn't the only one with A3 servers, let's make this a possible topic where people are willing to give their opinions and ideas.

In ACE the values are defined through a combination of weapon, magazine and round (and with Advanced Ballistics enabled it also includes wind, temperature, height and several barrel variables). The difference between normal rounds and subsonic rounds is huge though (eg. initial velocity is 60% slower!), which should lower the given damage as well by a fair amount. At least in ACE. Both in ArmA3 core and ACE there are no references found to modifications of the silencer itself (except for sound). So unless there's some hidden code in ArmA3 which handles the suppressors, I don't think the item itself modifies any values.

Reading all the posts in this topic (and reading the first post a second time), I only see a single thing: The player base on #EU1 and #EU2 is not used to ZEUS gameplay, while the (new) Spartans are still learning how to enhance the gameplay for these users. And with "not used to ZEUS gameplay" I mean: They expect (stupid) AI, instead a real player. Something which I always do while playing ArmA, is expecting the AI to be real people and being able to think and act like a person. This means that I'm always cautious while moving around and approaching an AO, for possible attacks/ambushes/IEDs/etc. I can image that some people don't like this, and it's always important for the active Zeus to keep this in mind, but I also think that a lot of people do like it when there's an extra challenge (instead of "spawn, kill, win, repeat"). Eg. for me, I don't play on #EU1&2 simply because there's no challenge at all with all the rocket snipers who just sit safely at a rock at 2km from the AO worrying about their K/D ratio... So don't just rant at the active Zeus for destroying your evening, but think about how you could have done it better (always expect the worst) AND give feedback to the active Zeus about how he/she can improve your gameplay (in a nice way, not bitching around). @Spartans: Please keep doing what you're doing! But keep in mind the players who don't like it. Some ideas which you can do to both make it fun for you, and for the players on the server: - Within/around an AO, simply send AI groups towards groups of players who are just camping and taking shots from a safe distance. Try not to spawn too much new units, and try to prevent spawning (armoured) vehicles and static weapons. - If you see a huge group of players camping at a hill, create a secondary objective at the AO, where they have to destroy a mortar pit (which you can create within the AO, with a marker). Then send out a message in sidechat, telling that you did this (equals warning to campers), and wait 3-5 minutes. When nobody reacts, use the mortar crew to scare away the campers (eg. send single mortar round 50-100 meters from group) and repeat this every 2-3 minutes when they don't react while closing the distance. - When there are a lot of players present, simply ask if there are players who want to do a simple Zeus mission. If 5-10 people are willing to do this, tell them to prepare while you setup a simple mission far away from any other action. This shouldn't take longer than 15-30 minutes to finish and can be as simple as "Kill the HVT" or "Clear out village X". Most importantly is to communicate with the players, so that everyone knows what to expect, and who to go to to give feedback. And to the "Don't kill players as Zeus" discussion; if Zeus gave 3-4 warning shots and nobody reacts, then please aim for the head... ArmA is a military simulation game, it's meant to kill and to be killed (and not have a nice K/D ratio).

Especially for this occasion I made a little ArmA ABC: A is for Ammo, make sure you have enough B is for BMP, which still is not a tank C is for Cookie, what else did you think D is for Down, it's either you or him E is for Enemy, just shoot them if you can F is for FAK, which people seem forgot G is for Medic, oh crap...

Question: Is it possible to get a more detailed statement about what happened? What happened? Exploit in software (and could it be prevented by an official update) Hack into the server (and could it be prevented by server admin / hosting company) Abuse of admin account (and was the admin called "admin" with password "admin") Could it have been prevented? By the team who maintains the website (update, server config, admin credentials) Or was it a day-one attack without any known fixes What is done to fix it? What is done to prevent it in the future? What will be done in the future to prevent it from happening again? Who was/were responsible? At AW side (simply "we as AW" is an acceptable answer) the thrid party who "got in" (if known) These are some questions which I always answer in case something happened, even without asking, so I'm surprised that we don't have these yet. I'm aware that not all questions can be answered directly, a a bit more information than "shit happened but we're back" is too little. Background: I've been working in web development for over 10 years now, and unfortunatally had issues like this as well. And I've learned that the most important thing is to stay transparent to clients/users/etc. and take your losses, even when it's not visible to them (which in this case did happen).