the amount of people camping/stealing rewards is astonishing increasing

[TheScar]

... and its regular players doing it and if you tell em about it you get shamed.

I opend a topic on exactly this issue 1,5years ago (and its been locked due to reasons no one understands) raising a discussion about a addition to the ruleset adding a guideline for this issue.

Yea,i do know it  can be tough to enforce or overlook but at the current situation i m quite unhappy about it and the only reason stopping me is a 3rd (forever) ban of my account.

Also,in b4 I+A4 will solve this bullshit.

As currently I+A3 is the actual mission imo i expect a solution to this issue.

 

And dont come at me when  im bitching about doing a endless amount of side missions to get 1 MBT that then gets taken by the first respawning player.

And its called legit currently,thats the  best part of it.

They not even asking,a few days ago this 1 guy comes ,walks to rewards,jumps in Rhino while im finishing side > a MBT gets rewarded and he instanly dumps the Rhino,jumps in the MBT and is off.

Like,really?

 

Here s just 1 example of what i m talking about:

 

And those two are just the tip of the iceberg.

DO SOMETHING !

[Admiralbumfluff]

If I am online I tend to take a dim view of that, but if I am not there there isn't much i can do really...

[Stanhope]

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. 

[Mark T]

I'm sure we discussed having rewards spawn at the completed side mission (land veh) but not sure where that discussion ended, I'll have a browse around to see if it was doable.

[PiranhA]

@TheScar tell me, did you contact a admin regarding this issue, seems quite easy if you report it to a admin something can be done. Just tell them the guy/girl whos stealing and keep your cool.

[TheScar]

2 hours ago, Stanhope said:

How do I make a script that knows who to lock the reward for and who to allow in the reward?

there s no solution via script for this,at least it ll take to much workload for very little effort to be done

so no,you cant script a solution

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Stanhope said:

Because as you well know having admins enforce this is impossible.

 

42 minutes ago, PiranhA said:

tell me, did you contact a admin regarding this issue,

currently,the valid ruleset does treat this not as a violation.

Its still a "come first,get served first"  policy.

I suggested this before and to me its the only option possible that doesnt take to much effort :

• add a rule : "rewards are priorized to people participating in the mission 10min after mission end / camping rewards will get you kicked"
• once such a issue happens,admins shall listen to the story,investigate if they got time for,if not delete the reward in question unless people settle the issue

I expect it easy to judge if a admin was/is online.

If not,flag players in question to be watched over a certain amount of time if they repeat that behaviour,then judge or rejudge.

Does make sense to me.

[PiranhA]

At first Scar, stop quoting sections of my text instead of commenting on the whole part. Disecting part by part is what trolls, autists and kids do. Just respond on the whole text instead of (possibly) scrapping the nuance by looking at what i said word by word.

There is a rule that probably covers this situation in your favour as i see it:

 

"We expect everyone to maintain this environment and will take action against those who jeopardise that community spirit. Admins reserve the right to warn/kick/ban users whose behaviour is deemed disruptive or aggressive and not conducive to a place of tolerance/friendship/comradery. Whether the behaviour is disruptive or not will be determined on a case-by-case basis on the judgment of the admin/admins present."

[TheScar]

... but quoting arguments is 23% of being german

And from my past years on AW servers i can assure some admin will get involved,but the bigger part decided to make it a non issue and give it to the guy that was first in it.

Ever since the Teddy incidents and my past topic i m left with no options other than suck it up and keep playing.

That turns out better or worse,depending on audience.

 

Like said,i appreciate a certain addition to the ruleset,that at least gives a foundation to move on from.

As i dont see the quoted rule of yours will fit this issue.

[Xwatt]

The issue is scar, even if we made it a rule, because of how stupidly frequent it happens, half the cases won't even get resolved because an admin won't be around to enforce it. You said it yourself that a script won't fix the issue, then what good is a rule for it when it'll require an admin around 24/7 to enforce it. we ALWAYS deal with it when we are on the server, but when we aren't as @Admiralbumfluffsaid, there really isn't much we can do. when we aren't. Maybe more admins and Spartans may fix this issue, but to me it doesn't seem like it would make a huge difference,

 

1 hour ago, TheScar said:

Ever since the Teddy incidents and my past topic i m left with no options other than suck it up and keep playing.

That turns out better or worse,depending on audience.

 

well i'd hope this isn't the case anymore, as the public moderator team has drastically changed since then, but if that's how you see it then there's an issue on my end.

 

but ultimately, I don't see anything else we can do that we already aren't, as BOTH side rewards and stealing vehicles involve admin and spartan presence, unless you feel implementing a locking script into I&A3 might fix the first issue, if so let us know and we will look into that. 

[Minipily]

You used to be able to reserve vehicles and/or ask a moderator, who were generally on all the time with at least one of them, to reserve a vehicle for you. The same also went for reserving roles, I myself used to ask moderators to reserve a vortex role when one opened up as it was one of my most played roles back when I played EU1 nearly 24/7 on the old server. That worked fine, may still be possible but it's been an awful long time since I used to do that, so long that people have actually forgot you could do it, it seems.

 

It seems nowadays we've turned to a "first come, first serve" so it seems there is actually no rule against camping the spawn and stealing vehicles from others, as no one can truly claim over a vehicle. Hell, I've had people take my tank the moment I get out of it for a moment at base, I've told staff and they've said "first come, first serve" on the vehicles which was funny, and I could never seem to prove I had it in the first place.

 

And I know what you're on about with dumping vehicles, I was going to take an IFV reward but it got taken, I thought fair enough and waited for the other reward and before I could take that, the same person had dumped their IFV in the field and respawned to take it. Magically enough also, he was single manning the vehicle, which I still don't understand why that is allowed.

 

I agree with you, some rules to stop it would be nice. As for staff problems, I believe fixing them and employing players with good standing and good activity on the servers would help with fixing it. Sure you can't fix every problem, but trying never hurts.

 

I know some servers utilize a commander, who maintains the mission and make sure things go smooth. They sort out squads and handle the issuing of vehicles and other assets. Naturally, these servers have an incredibly good standing and playerbase, something like that here could be good. Though, perhaps I&A4 has something like a Platoon Commander that will act as that, I'm not sure, I don't really pay that much attention to it given the time.

 

Mind you, the all-mighty I&A4 mission may fix the problem, as we have dedicated crew slots.

 

Also, thank you @PiranhA, it annoys me also.

 

Honestly, if EU2 takes off and becomes a regular mission, perhaps light modded with a sense of cameraderie, communication and general cohesion on what is going on, then I'll feel like my prefered EU1 style will have returned. And, if you like to utilize vehicles on a regular basis, it may be worth trying  that out as you will actually get one reserved. But, do as you want, I'm not here to tell anyone what to do.

[Adshield]

 

[Stanhope]

27 minutes ago, Minipily said:

t seems nowadays we've turned to a "first come, first serve" so it seems there is actually no rule against camping the spawn and stealing vehicles from others, as no one can truly claim over a vehicle. Hell, I've had people take my tank the moment I get out of it for a moment at base, I've told staff and they've said "first come, first serve" on the vehicles which was funny, and I could never seem to prove I had it in the first place.

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:

Quote

We reserve the following rights:
[...]
-At the start of missions, to reserve slots in favour of: Known players on TeamSpeak, other TeamSpeak users, known players that are not on TeamSpeak, anyone else.  In case of a tie or in case there is no admin present, slots are obtainable on a first-come, first-served basis.

 

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.   

[Minipily]

Issue resolved.

[TheScar]

judging by the resonses in this topic ima just rely on killing the next offender and receive my final ban.

Have a nice day.

[GhostDragon]

The issue is, as Stan said, what can we really do? What do you propose? It's impossible for admins to monitor all the time and nearly impossible to stop via code, we would love to help and look at ways we can prevent it and are actively doing so all suggestions are appreciated

[Lindi]

I move that we remove all reward vehicles. That way nobody steals them.

(I'm only half serious btw!)

[Zzeroz]

just throwing this out here 

but what about encoding the side missions with an alphanumeric sequence and binding that sequence to the players who where in that

side mission and when you unlock a reward only the people who have the sequence bind to them can go and retrieve the reward from a terminal  
just an impossible idea
But we all know stan can do anything XD  

[Stanhope]

32 minutes ago, Zzeroz said:

just throwing this out here 

but what about encoding the side missions with an alphanumeric sequence and binding that sequence to the players who where in that

side mission and when you unlock a reward only the people who have the sequence bind to them can go and retrieve the reward from a terminal  
just an impossible idea
But we all know stan can do anything XD  

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. 

[Zzeroz]

Yeah that dose make sense 

I did think that a matchmaking system could be implemented but then that would take away from what ahoyworld is the new system in I&A4 is definitely better. The point system should work and make things fair 

[ansin11]

I really like the idea to spawn ground vehicle rewards at the side mission first and then, after ten minutes or so, move them to base if nobody took them. Sounds like a simple yet effective improvement to me.

Sure, it doesn't cover every eventuality, but as this thread shows it's safe to say that it's practically impossible to cover every eventuality.

[Mark T]

Should see some changes coming soon, hopefully this will solve some issues.

[Xwatt]

- [Added] All Ground Side Rewards Will Now Be Spawned At The Side Mission. If Nobody Claims It Within 10 Minutes, It Will Be Moved Back To Side Reward Spawn By The Server (This Does Not Include Air Side Rewards, They Will Spawn At Side Reward Spawn, Or The Carrier Respectively)

 

Taken From The I&A 3.3.34 Changelog  

[TheScar]

we,the no_life hard workin rude addicted to drugs and hookers 18/5playing sexxy role models,welcome the effort taken and are looking forward to give this a go and see how it turns out.

 

I,personally also want to highlight the most contributing post in this topic done by @ansin11 as he s given this one a actual thougt and a proper read and pointed a solution.

 

[ansin11]

That credit belongs to @Mark T:

On 8/10/2019 at 12:08 PM, Mark T said:

I'm sure we discussed having rewards spawn at the completed side mission (land veh) but not sure where that discussion ended, I'll have a browse around to see if it was doable.

 

[Jenkins]

Thanks a lot @Xwatt! How will I steal @TheScar's reward Kuma now?