[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

@Murph For your information, corestaff reached me and they informed me that this suggestion is denied. So you do not have to reply this post.

 

Now I do not understand why you are so hostile against a suggestion here but remember you are a spartan, please behave like one.

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

"Claiming all targets" so you mean kill stealing? One of the big realisations for me in Arma was, the score board really means nothing. Pilots don't get points for transporting people in I&A3, their impact on the server is still hugely important. Their importance is not diminished at all by the lack of points, more over people will start recognizing good pilots over time.

No it was just another way for me to say "Killing everything, leaving nothing to others" I do not care about the scoreboard either, if I did I wouldnt play in support roles at all, but there is a fact that scoreboard is a reason for some people to abuse these tools. 

 

By the way, it may seem like I am targeting TheScar here but it is the opposite. His behavior of not shooting enemy infantry which don't have AT equipments at main objectives is the source of my first suggestion's inspiration. So the most active player, known as playing only with AT launchers and Tanks, can do it without getting bored. Everyone should be able to do it, right?

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

21 minutes ago, Murph said:

“And also, with Heavy ATs, people just fill up vehicles, drive up to hills and destroy armors.” You know that is literally the job of LATs and RATs (Light and Rifleman Anti-Tank) right?  In this case you are suggesting penalising a player for playing their role in such a way to maximise their own safety.

 

You can’t use a titan up close, and we don’t have a light disposable AT tube like a AT4 or M72 for point blank work.  Forcing LATs and RATs to get up close when engaging vehicles is a nonstarter because the vehicle has all the advantages.

 

Now if RATs are carrying AA, they need to be in standoff positions (usually hills) to maximise their sight lines to track a fast mover.

 

As for filling up vehicles with missiles/rockets, I can only comment for myself here, I don’t want to be reduced to walking pace, and I don’t want to be unable to perform my role after 3/4 shots.

 

Imagine if a pilot did 1 insert run to an AO and that was it? Or a Medic who only carried first aid kits or only revived people in their little squad? Refusing to play your role comes to mind.

 

Full disclosure I play RAT most of the time so I may be biased on this particular point.

 

Again with all respect, there is a confirmation bias here, I literally wrote " Everything is fine for me until this part but: I see the exact same abuse that is being done with armors. They use their HE or AP missiles to kill Every EI they can see or destroy every building in objective area." just after that sentence. Please carefully read.

 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Murph said:

“getting a powerful armored vehicle, then proceeding with using this armor to kill everything in main objectives”.  That is the point.  You get a reward that is a force multiplier and then use that asset to be more efficient in killing the enemy in the AO and progressing the mission gaining more assets.  Snowballing is a common game feature.

 

This is where my question refers to. Should players use their overpowered tools until the last drop where it begins to steal fun from their "Co-Op" Team members?

 

 

 

33 minutes ago, Murph said:

You state an issue is “Leaving nothing but just 10 – 20 EI stuck in buildings”.  This is exactly what you are advocating for with this rule, certain vehicles and classes being relegated to engagement of specific targets only.

 

“Furthermore, mentioned units should not be allowed to destroy any buildings”.  Seriously think about that for a moment.  You’re in a Marshall, under your rules we are not allowed to take up an overwatch position, so you move into town without an infantry screen (It’s EU 1), and take an rpg 42 hit from a garrisoned building, but are not allowed to return fire with GP-T or you’ll be kicked.

 

Let me tell you now as someone who has specialised in IHL (Laws of War) real world, any gunner would be well within their rights to plant a half dozen 30mm shells into that building due to the immediacy of threat (and therefore unable to switch to 7.62 co-ax), the necessity to engage the target because of the threat it poses, and the proportionality because if you don’t make sure he’s dead you lose the vehicle crew and figure 11s (mounted infantry, if present and the requirement to provide transport is enforced). 

 

I appreciate what you are saying, it just does not make sense.  If you are not familiar with the role please ask someone who is before submitting a request that will impacting that person’s enjoyment.  I believe this would count as an “unacceptable flaw”.

 

Please, Please pretty Please. Read it again clearly. I have literally stated they should be allowed to engage infantry who are carrying AT. I respect the fact that you served in military, But again that is not the case I am referring to.

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, Murph said:

I appreciate what you are saying, it just does not make sense.  If you are not familiar with the role please ask someone who is before submitting a request that will impacting that person’s enjoyment.  I believe this would count as an “unacceptable flaw”.

 

I felt the need of clarifying this part particularly. I believe I do not have enough reputation within old members of AW. It has been around ONE whole year that I am one of the most active players of 2020, in EU1. I do know every system, every script, every slot, every bugs that a player played in 2020 can ever know. I can even memorize how much and what types of enemies will spawn in which side mission or any kind of mission. Call me a nerd, lifeless etc. I don't care, but you can't deny the fact that I had a very long time to observe current state of game.

 

 

 

49 minutes ago, Murph said:

How many rewards are kept alive for more than a few hours, Scars MBTs and Xians in the hands of certain pilots are the only one’s that come to mind.  Everyone knows that most reward vehicles are dead within 3 hours of spawning tops.

 

The server also restarts everyday so it’s not like there is a clutter of rewards from one day to the next.

 

As for “'nuking' AOs”  Norris doesn’t do that many regular Zeus Ops... but in all serious when was the last time we blasted through AO after AO completing each one in succession in less than 20 mins.  I have never seen that occur more than once.

 

 

I have seen it more than enough. There is nothing that can kill those MBTs once they reach the number of two or three. Also I don't know if you are satire here but I meant "Shooting everything" by "Nuking AOs" I dont talk about the nuclear bomb animation in game. And duration of AO is irrelevant here, that 20 mins is usually wasted on searching the last 2 teams of enemies that was out of abusers' visual...

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Murph said:

What Stan said, you want a rule, you need a way to enforce it, I would add that it should be one that doesn’t impact on another player’s (in this case Spartan and above) enjoyment.

 

“claim all targets for themself, just because they have knowledge of game and they are showing effort”.  Simply yes, if you are that competent in your role (AT/AA or Vehicle Crew) that you can rack a high body count, more power to you.  Also claiming kills isn’t a thing, most players work off the police dog report approach “Saw bad man, bit [shot] bad man, end of report”.

 

Yes I didn't realize he was talking about spartans at first, but if you seek for my second respond, you will see I have suggestions for that too.

 

If I am allowed to annoy others by showing off my skills, I am capable of annoying them so bad that server population will decrease to 3 - 4. Should I really be allowed to do that?

 

 

I respect if you don't have time or will to respond to my suggestions. But please do not make any irrelevant allegations about this post.

 

 

 

 

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

48 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

I am going to be quite frank here. As Spartan, I really don't want to sit and watch out for more things that could be seen as "disruption" or "breaking the rules". There is already plenty to keep busy with.

I see your concerns and incase you missed my response to Stanhope, I am even happy to see a rule that is only enforced when someone really really abuses the heavy armaments. 

 

50 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

I also feel that the handful of players who do engage in this sort of thing as, Lindi has already commented, have gained the knowledge and experience to do so. It is impressive to keep a tank alive for so long. Plus, if a player has hit side missions until the dice has rolled for the tank he prefers, kudos to him. He deserves that tank and this usually results in a lot of other rewards sitting in the reward pool for general use. The same applies to Zeus Ops. If people get a reward and take care of it, props to them.

As I answered Lindi, does being experienced, dedicated, skilled and etc excuses people from ruining fun for others? Shouldn't there be a limit to that?

55 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

At the end of the day, you cannot police everything and it will create a rigid environment where players will stop having fun being able to do what they do

Again as I answered Lindi, Im not asking to ban MBTs from Main Objectives. Im just asking to have a rule that makes them leave some targets (which are not a danger for them) for us.

 

33 minutes ago, Art3misZA said:

I also have to ask a question here, Piccle.  Do you not think that perhaps these things are bothering you more because you have been enjoying the more structured gameplay that EU3 offers lately and now get frustrated at the casual nature of EU1? Once you step across that line, it does become apparent how different the two environments are. 

Unfortunately I would want it to be just a shitty suggestion because of an instant anger but no, as you can see from the structure of my suggestion. This is something I was thinking for a really long time.

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

How would you enforce a tank shooting HE at the enemy with an AT launcher taking out several enemies in a go?

It is obvious they dont have to be warned for killing more enemies while only engaging AT inf.

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

I'm going to guess the counter argument here is that they are playing their role by going out to the AO and completing the mission. Armour makes it quite easy, loading the Hunter a bit less so, mostly due to limitations of the AI. Both these strategies still require some effort and knowledge of the game, neither is really breaking CAS rules nor the rule to play ones role as I see it.

Yes, I respect the effort and dedication too. But should people be allowed to claim all targets for themself, just because they have knowledge of game and they are showing effort? Im not asking to ban all heavy armaments from main objectives, I am asking to make them atleast share the enemy infantry with players who are playing with light arms.

 

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

These strategies are available to everyone, if they so choose to play. I won't but if I wanted to I could, this is all in line with the openness that is EU1. EU1 is to me an open sandbox where you are allowed to quite freely do what you like with a low bar of entry, I would not want EU1 to move to a more milsimmy experience, we got AWE and MSO for that.

With all respect, there is a discrepancy here. If server tries to give people open sandbox experience, Why support roles can't benefit from it? What is the difference between an UAV operator with 6 GBUs and a MBT with 40+ shells? If support roles are limited with milsim rules that are literally saying "you are not allowed to kill the entire AO" why can't other roles be limited?

 

1 hour ago, Lindi said:

If you feel that it is impeding your fun in the main AO, you can always move to a side or primary mission, perhaps select a support role that does not require you to run around the AO?

It is not only impending my fun in the main AO, I am having same problem at side and priority missions aswell. If only we could have a rule that will prevent such abuses in atleast main objectives, I could have stick to there and not get annoyed by endless HE fires destroying everything.

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

Well yeah I do see your point, it may require a high traffic of tracking people. So there are two things I can suggest over this:

 

1. Not strictly enforcing the rule. Zeus does not interfere with any players unless they are not dragging up the power abuses.

 

2. Keeping the common heavy armaments (like armed MRAPs, Heavy ATs) out of this rule. which will lower the potential number of people breaking the rule and will decrease amount of tracking.

 

 

Apart from that Im happy to hear the second suggestion is possible to implement. But I hate seeing systems being nerfed as much as everyone. As I said in the post, if there is anything making my first suggestion unacceptable, I am suggesting this script.

50 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

For your second suggestion, this can be implemented in such a way that it has a negligible impact on performance. 

 

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

17 minutes ago, Stanhope said:

I'm not making any comment about whether the points you raise are actual problems or if the proposed solutions are good or bad, I just have a few technical remarks:

For your first suggestion: how can it be enforced?  Making new rules is great but they need to be enforceable.  The only way I see it being enforced is by moderators and spartans basically not playing anymore and just spending their time observing the usual suspects. 

Why would Spartan has to spend their whole time observing "the suspects"? This rule is almost identical to UAV CAS call rules, are Spartan spending their time focusing on UAV operators or CAS jet pilots whole time? I think they only interfere when they encounter with the act or someone reports it.

 

Thus I do not want to drag people in this post but there are definitly spartan members who are also disturbed about it, since most of the zeus operations has a "INFANTRY ONLY" written in briefing section.

[Heavy Armament Abuses -Denied-]

Hello, I will be pointing out a problem that I'm disturbed with in I&A and I will suggest two different solutions in this post. PLEASE read everything and respond to the two suggestions separately.

 

In my opinion there is a big gap in server rules which is leading players to abuse overpowered weapons unwittingly or on purpose. Those "overpowered weapons" are Heavy AT launchers and armored vehicles with long range heavy arms. There are/was/will be players spending their morning on side missions and getting a powerful armored vehicle, then proceeding with using this armor to kill everything in main objectives until end of the day. Leaving nothing but just 10 – 20 EI stuck in buildings to rest of the server. I don’t even want to talk about the days where there are several players with armors. They just leave others no choice but jogging between objectives.  Please do not give me “I&A is infantry focused” as an answer. Just because it is focused on infantry does not mean that someone can abuse OP weapons and ruin the fun for others including other “focused” infantry. And also, with Heavy ATs, people just fill up vehicles, drive up to hills and destroy armors. Everything is fine for me until this part but: I see the exact same abuse that is being done with armors. They use their HE or AP missiles to kill Every EI they can see or destroy every building in objective area.

 

1. GROUND RULES

I am suggesting to have a new rule that forbids armors (including APC and SPAA), HMG GMG MRAPs, Static weapons and heavy ATs from engaging enemy infantries that does not have AT/AA weapons. Furthermore, mentioned units should not be allowed to destroy any buildings.

 

This rule should be only valid for main objectives (AOs), and players should be free to use these weapons on anything that are outside of main objectives. Also, the rule should only be enforced strictly when there are enough players to form a solid infantry force that can eliminate enemy.

 

An example statement added to in-game rules list:

Spoiler

 

-Play your mission as intended.

-If you are operating a heavy armament like armored vehicles, armed MRAPs or static weapons at main objectives, you are not allowed to destroy civilian buildings and you are not allowed to kill enemy infantry that is NOT carrying AT or AA launchers. This is a Co-Op server, leave other players something to fight with.

-Heavy armaments can be used without any restriction at side and priority missions.

 

 

An example statement added to rules on forum:

Spoiler

 

4.2       Play the mission as intended.

Notes:

4.2.X. If you are operating a heavy armament like armored vehicles, armed MRAPs, Heavy ATs or static weapons at main objective, you are not allowed to destroy civilian buildings and you are not allowed to kill enemy infantry that is NOT carrying AT or AA launchers. This is a Co-Op server, leave other players something to fight with.

4.2.X. Heavy armaments can be used without any restriction at side and priority missions.

 

 

 

2. TIMED REWARDS SCRIPT

First of all, I support first suggestion over this one. I don’t agree with the idea of nerfing systems because of potential undesired situations. Additionally, adding new scripts affecting server and client-side FPS. I am suggesting this in case the first idea has an unacceptable flaw.

 

Rewards with a time limit will at least prevent people from sitting on hills and destroying everything for a day. They will have to regularly visit side missions and keep earning new rewards. In my opinion, A limit like 3 – 4 hours should be enough or maybe variated time limits for different rewards. Although this won’t stop players from abusing their heavy ATs or FOB reward vehicles.

 

Now, I can’t even name myself as “entry level programmer” and I don’t know anything about ArmA’s programming language but I do know countdown scripts are affecting performance significantly. So, if it is possible to have a script that updates each reward’s remaining time as (remaining hours - 1hour) hourly. Maybe It could be possible to have almost no effect on game performance. Or I could be just wrong about it.

 

 

Note: I do not target nor blame any specific player for abusing stated game tools. Furthermore, I don't have any right to blame anyone since I was the one that ruined game for others (sometimes even on purpose) when I was a newbie in server. I believe most of the players that are 'nuking' AOs did not even realize they are disrupting gameplay for others so they can't be blamed for anything at all.

[AI drivers for vehicles.]

Sounds like a wonderful idea but there are two big problems that would make this a big no no.

 

First, as Sho stated, it will be overpowered and can be abused so badly. In warlords, all the trolls using AI in their command as untrackable teamkilling devices. I don't know why but BI studios implemented that team-kill command in game.

 

Second, optimization will be a problem. If you want to get rid of the first problem and add a recruitment system, that will take pages of scripts. Which means server FPS will significantly drop.

 

[Invade & Annex 3 Version History And Feedback Thread]

Hello I have three bugs to report:

 

First one is aircraft servicing. While in service, pilots can refuel the vehicle if they have toolkits. It sometimes cancels the service and sometimes does not. It gives jet junkies ability to fly around while jet is getting rearmed.

 

The friendly CSATs in new CBRN side mission. So basically the particular CSAT units inside the half sphere construction are not engaging players. Those are the ones with black CSAT assasin helmets. All the units outside of the building are engaging, also white CBRN suitted EI's are engaging too but not the black helmets. Also there are too many of them inside the sphere, I would have no chance if they were shooting me.

 

Last one is unnecessary UAV equipment warnings. when I played as UAV op, game kept giving me warnings in chat something like "You can not use AR-6 Darter in other classes rather than UAV operator" but yeah I was already the UAV operator. Also do we really need this warning script? I mean people can be carrying these specialist equipments for their friends, and they should predict they can NOT use medikit as autorifleman or they can not use a drone without AV terminal right? Probably not in EU1... But yeah still unnecessary though.

 

Also I don't know if it is fixed in I&A 3.3.66 but same "you cant use this" warning pops up for pilots who are carrying toolkits since I&A 3.3.65. Im just suggesting getting rid of this script. 'Less script lines = more performance' Am I right?

[Adding missing Spetsnaz equipments to EU1 Arsenal]

Hello, I would like to suggest adding the last two missing spetsnaz equipments to arsenal.

 

First one is Compact NVG (Green). Everyone thinking Compact NVGs are exclusive to CSAT but actually the green one (not the "Green Hex") was added to game with Contact DLC. It is only being used by Spetsnaz and would be great to have an alternative to standard night visions which are looking like two telescopes fixed to the face.

O_NVGoggles_grn_F

 

The second one is the shiny avenger helmet without camoflage cover. Im asking for this one because unlike the other avenger helmets and CSAT helmets, this one has a mono-colored, shiny metallic texture which makes me believe, it will make it easier for newbies to identify the helmet wearer by making them think "What the hell is this shiny thing?"

H_HelmetAggressor_F

[Campaign Eight [Al-Rayak] - Operation Unrelenting Resolve]

here is the post that includes modsets. I struggled to find it, just incase you can't find it too.

[Op. Kaamos 26\12\20 @ 19:00 UTC]

I can already hear the screams of joy.

[Knock People Unconscious]

Mod name is 'Knock People Unconscious', It allows players to knock out other players and AI by using a binded key or ACE interaction menu, knocking people doesn't deal any damage.

 

Links:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=906758817&searchtext=knock+people

https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/190414-knock-people-unconscious/

 

Actually handcuffing AI is giving us more than this mod can give. However, If handcuffed AI is not surrendering (Handcuffed when unconscious or someone ran to them and managed to cuff) it gives away player positions constantly and all the AI in AOs start marching towards players. Additionally, It gives players a chance to taste melee combat in ArmA. Also sometimes civillians keep running in middle of firefights and end up dying.

 

With this mod we can make ArmA feel like an actual game, level up stealth gameplay by keeping POWs unaware and we can keep civillians down. 

 

By the way, the mod was allowing players to knock out anyone including friendlies but I talked to modder and they updated the mod with some CBA settings.

[Removing any kinds of explosives from "Free IDAP" side mission's tent guards.]

As explained in title, this mission fails pretty common because those AI in tent just toss grenades at you, and blow themself up. Or they try to shoot your vehicle with RPG and shoot the tent. Now I know we don't wanna add or remove scripts to not play with server's stability. So, if it is possible to fix this with just editing EI loadout, it would be great. If we need to play with scripts to do that. Forget what I suggested.

 

[Midweek Mission Discussion]

On 10/14/2020 at 5:42 PM, Karate Pyjamas said:

Zombies would be cool sometime. But all the other sci-fi stuff doesn't interest me, I would have a hard time understanding the lore.

I tried a few of the HALO ops, but just didn't enjoy it that much.

thats not because of genre but because of how its presented...

Halo disgusts me.

[Ahoyworld End of the Year Awards 2020 [Closed}]

AW MVP 2020: @chicken_no6 

AW Most Friendly Admin/Moderator/Spartan 2020: @Lindi

AW Most Helpful Admin/Moderator/Spartan 2020: @LH5 and @MidnightRunner for their patience in liberation, @Stanhope for helping me with some ArmA3 editor codes.

AW Most Active Staff Member 2020:  @Admiralbumfluff was 

AW Best Team Player 2020: @Bomer

AW Most Helpful Member *Non Staff* 2020: @Gambit

AW Most Friendly Member 2020: @Art3misZA

AW Tacti-cool member 2020: @Stryker990 rumor says he spent half of this year in arsenal.

AW Underrated Member 2020: @TrollSlothy, new player yet one of the best pilots I have ever seen.

AW Most Incoherent Member 2020: TBA

AW Best Pilot 2020: @Gustis40g @TrollSlothy

AW Worst Pilot 2020: Ed and Ted Rollins...

AW Best Voice 2020: @chicken_no6 

AW Worst Joke 2020: "Hi Back" @LH5

AW Best Moment 2020: All the Piccle Island zeus ops and This

AW Worst Driver 2020: TBA

AW Best Fail 2020: @TheScar tried to catch me in the act of uncalled CAS, for a whole year. He never did...

AW Best Ban of 2020: Can't recall the name but yesterday a guy banned for continuous uncalled CAS and then joined in TS and literally ordered admin to remove ban...

AW Team Speak Channel 2020: EU1

AW Best Screen Shot 2020: I wasn't there but its better than my screenshots.

AW Best/Worst Call-out 2020: TBA

AW Candidate for the Hague 2020: TBA

AW Role Model 2020: Senor Octopus 

[Clean-up script trigger warning for I&A 3]

 

Spoiler

On 11/5/2020 at 11:24 PM, GhostDragon said:

We moved away from feature releases and rewrites of I&A 3 A while ago, This was a combination of 2 factors. At the time I&A and arma were in a happy place, Development on I&A4 was going well and features that needed improvement from 3 made more sense to be bundled into a the complete rewrite rather than trying to tidy up all the old code. As well this we also noticed that the more we were tweaking and editing I&A 3 we would often find that this caused performance issues on the server side. Granted hard to notice now, since the servers have been updated but the impact was noticeable, especially around the first and second releases of features while we ironed out bugs. We took the decision that having a reliable, stable mission took precedence.

This has meant that some things are still not ideal but it does mean that I&A 4, written from the ground up has more of these quality of life improvements built in. In our opinion this is a better way to manage this as we can easily change back to a I&A 3 version that we know is working if there is an issue with the I&A 4s stability that effects the game-play in a major way.

 

We agree that Beta is still very much in development but we are getting closer and in this past beta run a lot of information was gathered on AI spawning and clean up mechanics that should make the experience better for everyone. However updating 3 with such changes is likely to increase instability and effect the downtime of the server rather than providing a reliable experience to players.

 

However we agree that I&A3 being our main mission for the current time means we do need to continue support with quality of life fixes and ensuring that the mission is running well for all to experience. As such we think that adding a chat notification before the script runs could be a good idea at this time as it does seem like a feature that would benefit the player base. 

 

REQUEST APPROVED

 

Thank you for your detailed answer! I did not consider server stability when I wrote that. As a regular in EU1, I am excited and hopeful about I&A4 but also happy to see you guys don't let go the I&A3. 

[I&A 4 Beta Test Feedback]

I was playing alone this morning as AT infantry, using Hunter HMG and enemy CAS jets spawned on me 3 times. Yeah it is interesting when one jet come up to kill you but I don't enjoy much when same neo keeps spawning again and again untill I leave hunter and never hop in back. Also same goes for the CAS and CAP jets. It doesn't always happen but, the moment they take off, a stealth Shrika spawns already flying at center of map. Also it directly attacks CAP and CAS without even using its active radar. I understand that it is because of the ambient but how fast an enemy jet could be when NATO jet starts engine, they notice that with their radars, UAVs or satellites and take off before the NATO jet that is already in process of taking off? how it can live track NATO jet without even using radar?. What Im saying is, it should take some time for enemy to take off their CAP jets, also their CAS jets shouldn't spawn over only 1 hunter with 1 infantry inside.

 

Another problems are about newbies. As I was also a newbie, I can understand their mindset, they just want biggest and coolest guns in game. So the first thing they do is occupying CAS slot and trying to control a jet that they never tried before and blowing up the jet while taking off. And then CAP jet follows the same fate. just because a newbie (there are alot of newbies btw) wanted to play with cool guns we won't have access to jets for another 1 hour. Just only this morning 4 different newbies hopped in CAS jet blew it up in average of 2 minutes and then disconnected. So basicly life time of CAS jet was shorter than 10 mins in last 4 hours. What Im suggesting as solution is, either make jet respawn times much more shorter or find a way to discourage random people from using those assets, like paying X amount of points to occupy the slot.

 

Also each player should be allowed to lock the reward vehicle they bought. It is so unpleasant how other players occupy other crewman slots and hopping in the vehicle you bought and giving you orders, or begging you to come back to base and pick them up. Not even mentioning people who threw tantrum in side chat because the other crew members didn't want to share their vehicle.

 

Apart from that IA4 has an interesting style and making me enjoy the game.

[Clean-up script trigger warning for I&A 3]

I understand you, but I can not say I do understand core staff's decision on this. I don't feel like beta will be ready to play atleast in next two months. And there are still a lot of people enjoying I&A3.

[Clean-up script trigger warning for I&A 3]

I would like to suggest adding a warning that will show up in chat or anywhere else that warns all players about clean-up script going to remove items & ragdolls from ground in XX seconds. We already get a lot of advertisements, announcements and log-in/out notifications in chatbox. having a notification for clean-up script shouldn't do much harm.

[Improving the chopper dropable supplycrates]

On 5/8/2020 at 9:49 AM, Stanhope said:

Shouldn't be possible, most of the code already exists anyways, just need to apply it to that crate and it should be good. 

How about an arsenal that deletes itself after 1 or 2 minutes? Should be fair and much easier for everyone.

[Removal of "Firing inside safezone" warning (I&A-3 and I&A-4)]

Hey there! I would like to suggest removing the warning. Script already makes you shoot blanks when you are in base so I believe we do not need the warning. People would probably ear-rape with spraying their guns but as we already have constantly flying helicopters in base, I dont believe noise in base is actually a problem to players. Furthermore we already have earbuds to prevent annoying noises.

 

Im asking for this because I saw a lot of CAP pilots crashing over base because they are trying to shoot enemy jets in warning trigger zone and because of warning they have to move their mouse in middle of screen and click "ok". Which takes time and pilots end up dying.

 

Also this one is a silly reason but sometimes I just want to compensate recoil rates of weapons and I can't do it in trigger zone.

[How did you guys find out about AhoyWorld?]

I was bored of playing warlords and wanted to find an unofficial server and this was the first one without mods and with active players.

[7.62 NATO Assault rifles]

I think the biggest difference between a rifleman using a MX with RCO and a marksman using SPAR-17 with AMS is scopes. Just like in the armies that I stated, most of their riflemans and marksman using the same rifle with just a different scope. Additionally when you think about ingame, Viper unit marksmans using Type 115 with DMS instead of ARCO.

 

As Im speaking for myself, I cant shoot anything further than 400m without a marksman scope, even if I was holding a M320 LRR. But with help of AMS I can be accurate at 600 - 700m range with a TRG-20.

 

Also I disagree with idea of, bigger caliber would allow someone to be one man army. Meanwhile 7.62x51 would only make a rifleman more effective against infantry, a LAT launcher in the hands of team leaders or engineers just allowing them to defend theirself against armors, even though thats the job of LAT and AT riflemen.