Lex_

Opted for more basic post processing effects (colour, contrast, and slight motion blur) since I couldn't figure out how to do a DoF effect. I did some rebalancing and changed some of the default values as well. You lose 8 oxygen per second, giving you 12 seconds before you start taking damage. Sounds start after you hit 50 oxygen and stay in the water (about 6 seconds in). You lose 15 health per second when you run out of oxygen. After you resurface, it takes around 25 seconds to fully regenerate your oxygen (you gain 4 per second). Times may need modified to work with a lower tickrate. Note that this was tested on a 60 tick dev server and worked as expected, so it could work differently when implemented. The only issue I had was getting sounds to play locally but from the server - sometimes it wasn't consistent and the sound wouldn't play, but there was no easy way to do it from the clientside. This also makes use of SetNWInt and GetNWInt, which may not be functional on GG. Here's an uploaded version in case people want to mess around with it in singleplayer or local servers: Google Drive - just place the oxygen_sys folder into your addons folder EDIT: Forgot to add this, but the HUD is located at the bottom of your screen. It looks like this: EDIT 2: Forgot the convars too, even though you can read them in the script. gg_oxygen_hud - default is 1; whether or not to show the HUD gg_oxygen_hud_inwater - default is 0; whether or not to only show the HUD if the player is standing in any bit of water gg_oxygen_post_processing - default is 1; whether or not to render low oxygen effects (colour, contrast, motion blur) gg_oxygen_sounds - default is 1; whether or not to play (local) sounds when you're close to drowning And just in case, here's the entire script - both server and client sides (it is almost 200 lines long):

Easily done. Could be model related (so that you could have players be given temporary wetsuits and such through in-game credits or vending machine), or related to their actual team/class. I've gotten most of the server portion completed - still need to do some testing to make sure that it works before I move onto the clientside stuff. The settings are easy to change, but by default they work like this: - Maximum oxygen: default is 100. - Drowning tickrate, in ms: default is 1000 (so every second). - Oxygen loss per tick under water: default is 10. - Damage per tick under water with zero oxygen: default is 20. - Oxygen gain per tick above water: default is 3. So it takes 10 seconds to drown (before you take damage) and you have 5 seconds to resurface before you actually drown (take damage), for a total of 14 under water (leaving you at low hp). Takes around 35 seconds to regain all of your oxygen from 0 to 100. All of the clientside stuff will be toggleable (through the use of convars), as people would prefer some sort of customization. - HUD (plus whether or not to only draw if in water) - Post processing (DoF, some color correction) - Sounds

The script you included doesn't have a system to recharge oxygen. All it takes is one second outside of water and your oxygen is reset. It wouldn't take too long to implement, but that means more data manipulation. If Solution A is what the community would like (and Garnet would like to implement), I can look into writing something more flexible and easier to read that should help speed up it being added.

Double standard, but aight.

Openly attacking members of the community whilst hiding behind anonymity is not calling for positivity. Zero respect for the people involved in this writing. No criticism necessary, I personally believe the attitudes of some of the members who have worked on this document should not be included as members of the community. None of you offer any sort of solution and have resulted in incoherent rambling with toxicity. Not the way to go at all.

You seem to say you don't want to start stuff a lot. Starting to get to the point where you just seem to like calling people out and starting arguments on forums. Entirely unwarranted calling somebody out on an MRP update that has nothing to do with SWRP, not to mention the fact that complaining about a lack of updates (whether that's true or not) is not the same as complaining about an update the community had wanted and voted for. On to the update: Personally dislike Delta. Too open of a map, especially having come from cscdesert to Delta on its first release. I know people preferred Echo (at least Echo v1) but some people also had random crashes on Echo. Delta was glorified cscdesert and while it looked beautiful it reinforced the sniper meta - flat, open map with very little fog, the map seemed much smaller than it actually is because of how much you can see in your view. The objectives were a bit smaller and tight to combat that style of play but it had no effect until you got into the objective. Russia generally swamped US (keep in mind both sides have some major basecamp spots) because the outside of Embassy allows them to cover the entire outside of US base with lots more cover than US basecamping RU. I'm not sure what you did for this experimental hit-reg, my only potential solutions involve hardware as I'm not sure what else you could possibly do. Interested in seeing what the potential fix was and how it affected performance and gameplay, assuming it does what you expect it to do. I still think the quiz isn't implemented in a beneficial way. Of course it's also difficult to balance having a quiz and having a player train somebody, but I've seen more people just use the quiz so they can get playing and leave before they get fully trained because they don't know what they're doing. Honestly, although I'm not active at the moment, when the quiz was originally added people who did the quiz to get trained wouldn't return - likely due to lack of understanding of how the community works because they didn't get trained. They read a set of rules (assuming they don't just guess on the quiz), something (not someone) tells them to do /quiz, they fail a few times and eventually pass, change their names and they're done. Except they don't know anything about where they line up at debrief, what the layout of the map is, what war is and how it works, what the different forms of communication are and how they work, and so on, so they just leave. EDIT: The bottom part of my post has already been addressed by and with Aidan. Removed it.

Leaders should have the freedom to decide cooldowns for their own faction. We found that as a base, 31 days total (minimum) for all enlisted ranks (which combats the total rank difference between Army and 2GA, meaning that even if they have a different number of ranks their progression through ALL of those ranks will still have the same minimum, and can still differ both per faction and per player) and keep the current WO/Junior Officer and Officer minimum cooldowns. With that in mind, Gythem and I sat down to calculate a relatively fair guideline that leaders would be able to use rather than trying to add up to 31 themselves so they can get started right away if this were to be implemented. Cooldowns are not set promotion dates. If a leader is promoting people for the sole reason of being off of their last cooldown, they might not be the best choice. I was unaware that Gythem was going to include standard 4 in this suggestion and I'd like to voice that while I agree and believe that this is a good choice, the community won't do this. It's a sad reality that that should have had that structure in the beginning, but now leaders feel entitled to do whatever the fuck they want by themselves over their inflated ego of being a "leader". SEALs will use their naval ranks. The same goes for PDSS and, if implemented, OMRP. If you as a leader are deciding whether somebody is capable of leading based upon a time period rather than actual merit, you are not fit to be a leader. Simple. For the longest time, most RU Spetsnaz had a single junior officer rank. Although before it became a problem people were actually competent in figuring out if somebody is ready to be an officer or not. As for the actual suggestion, we could have easily revised this before Gythem posted it (we were working on it at like 4-5am) - like taking out unnecessary ranks (like US having 3 E-9s and 2 E-4s) that could have helped lower the difference between rank counts. And if we were to do that, it would've meant removing SLT from RU Spetsnaz factions and giving them their proper OF-6 (GenMay for ground, KADM for naval) Like Gythem says here, the whole point of standardizing the ranks on the server is to create a more accurate and consistent environment in terms of ranks. The current ranks on RU swap back and forth between full English translation and the Cyrillic to Latin transliteration. For my last sentence, take RU JSG for example. JSG would be Junior Sergeant, if you convert the characters from Cyrillic to Latin instead of completely translating it, JSG turns into Mladishy serzhant (missing certain characters, but that'll do) - a few ranks later we use the transliterated rank rather than the translation which makes for inconsistency. The biggest thing about this suggestion is matching the same rate of progression so that one side doesn't reach a certain rank far before the other (by implementing a total minimum for enlisted ranks of 31 days).

Literally from the screenshot that Garnet shared himself. There are pockets of activity that aren't related to the map. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some obvious cases but two days of data doesn't show anything. The drop in player count could entirely be unrelated to the map, or it could, but there just isn't enough data to say otherwise. Do note that there are places that are currently opening up from their Coronavirus quarantines which will very likely have an affect on the average player count, as there are plenty of people who returned specifically because they were stuck at home. If you'd like a better analysis, here ya go: This is the original image posted by Garnet. (You can compare both by copying the image address if you really want to check) Chaharikar released a little less than two months ago (57d ago, March 9th). So, did something else happen 30d ago that could've sparked higher average player count? Yes. The event server had its first event with the return of shrimps after a health emergency. Now, we lack data from before 30 days ago so this could've been the average beforehand, or it couldn't have. It's best not to assume the data that we had beforehand so I'm only going to be looking at data from at most 30d ago using the graph that Garnet has posted. The average between 30d and 28d is (estimated) 112 to 118 players. At around (again, estimated) 27d, however, the average drops to 100. Stays stable at 100 until 26d where it drops down to 96, and by 24d it had gone from 112 to roughly 85. 24d would be April 9th, a Thursday. Average player count drops further to 70-72 on 23d, a Friday. Server looks to have been offline for a period of time the following night, average player count is upped back to the 100 range - Saturday, April 11th. The Sunday after it drops back to the 70 range. So, for the 27 days before Siberia, we can estimate the average. Why is it all of that important? "You proved my point." This is data analysis - we're able to do this with (only a portion of) the time we recently spent on Chaharikar, we're not able to do this with Siberia. 3 days worth of data is not enough to claim that the map has caused a lower average player count. Give it at least 7 days so that you (Garnet) can further collect averages before deciding to swap the map. EDIT: Although we don't know what is currently going on in their community, Redactedfuse also experienced in a drop in their average player count 6d ago to today. It wouldn't be safe to assume that it is or isn't related, so it is definitely something to keep in mind.

After doing some more research (do understand that my source is Wikipedia, which is honestly most of what we've used already), I have discovered that the 21st (Guards) Motor Rifle Brigade falls under the 2nd Guards Tank Army, which is an active field army for the Russian Ground Forces. They're stationed in Central Russia which follows my suggestion of the 41KKA. At that point it isn't necessary to change it to 2GTA or whatever, and even then 2GA still looks much, much better.

No offense, but I don't think this decision should be based on 2 days of data. The player count fluctuated before the reintroduction of Siberia (30d to 24d ago, although likely due to SWRP's opening) and had randomly jumped up 12d ago to start falling 6d ago (also before Siberia). I ask sincerely that you let the map stay for a bit longer so that you could collect that data further before making a final decision; at the very least another week (its only 7 days). And we have two sides of the community who prefer one map to the other (Siberia v Delta), so it seems we have an unvocal portion of the community in two counts. Personally, Delta wasn't the map I was looking for. It reinforced this heavy sniper meta that the community complains about often.

I'd say that this sort of thing should be up to faction leaders but it has proved troublesome and messy prior. While community feedback is nice, the final decision is up to Aidan, Jim, and D Rose. If this is something that you'd like (although you don't seem to be in agreement or disagreement), I'd suggest personally bringing it up to the managers to see if they'd clear such a minor change. I mean, after all it is just changing the in-game "MOS" that Ground Forces will use but also has the unintended effect of your current documents. I've got a somewhat related suggestion in the works that may be controversial but also addresses accuracy in the community and guidelines for future leaders concerning "MOS" and ranks.

How so? I can't read.

Was in the GB channel with you a few times and you were pretty chill. Unfortunate that you were cheating at some point but it is respectable that you didn't deny your punishment (even if you likely only admitted to it because of the ban). Best of luck with your deployment.

The part of this that is a game is the fact that it's being done on a video game. Arma is as much a game as Gmod, so I don't see your point. The server is a semi-serious roleplay. As expected, the content in the game must have some sort of real-world accuracy. Thankfully this suggestion was created considering the community (at least in this moment) seems to want that accurate roleplay. The 21st Guards Motor Rifle Division was disbanded in 2009. Ignore the last comment, you're talking about the brigade and not the former division. 21MRB, although long, would be a good choice too. +1. Do keep in mind that I'm not as active on the server as I used to be but when I am that I do play on 2GA. Personally, I'd vote for 41st (41KVA) since it is in Russia's central military district and would most accurately match "lore-wise" on the server (until we go back to maps that are based more south-west to Russia, like Delta and Chaharikar); but since it's more work than necessary to keep changing it I'd say using one closer to the center would work best). If none of these can be used then I'd say for sure go for SVR, just something other than 2GA. (my response to the suggestion ends above) Extra note for those interested:

@Garnet can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he is paying for GMC's "bare metal server machines" as all of the Gmod servers share the same IP - getting rid of the event server wouldn't have any effect on monetization. And it wouldn't affect the performance of the other servers assuming it sits empty: by default empty Gmod servers hibernate (slow/dumb down server simulation to save power and cpu usage), will still have an affect on overall memory usage (do keep in mind these machines generally have upwards of 32GB RAM, "server grade", and if this was to effect performance we'd already be seeing it). Aside from that, I do believe this suggestion is a bit unnessecary. It's obvious that something needs to be done with AFSOC and the event server, which levels down to the points that you do make about the players who should be involved with both of them (and are in some cases unfortunately not involved, their fault or not). Personally I'd like to hope that somebody who is both willing and competent steps up to continue and redefine AFSOC and the event server, separately. Shrimps offered plenty of ideas, some of which I agree with and others I disagree with, but the execution of them (and some not so friendly ideas, sorry not sorry) definitely killed the hype behind "bringing roleplay back to the community".

-1. VCMod has better server and client performance compared to Simfphys. Some of the features you mention are also included in VCMod, but I believe have been disabled to a) fit the use case of the server and b) for optimization. The current config for VCMod and the vehicles we do have work for the two maps that we use vehicles on (Delta and Chaharikar)

For real though, best of luck. Don't think I ever really had a conversation with you but I know you put in work as GA.

He makes a valid argument, just like a few other people on this thread who oppose it. The main point of bringing it up though is his generalization that the people who are opposed are only thinking of themselves so they can keep a powerless rank on a fictional roleplay server that they don't seem to play, and how they'll leave eventually because they are "short term" (the connotation of his statement didn't sit right, and although it is an assumption it read as though players are just disposable and meaningless). Some of the people who oppose the removal of reserves are active leaders. Everybody's discussion in this is important as it affects everyone who plays or has played MRP - even people who aren't active on MRP anymore (@Bishopil included since he's a SWRP main).

Saying you resigned permanently implies that you don't intend to return to the server. If you have no intention to return to the server, then there is no reason for you to have reserves. I originally disagreed with the decision to remove reserves. I've thought about it more and I agree. I think that this could have been dealt with better by giving the community a heads up and hearing out those who are opposed, rather than jumping to the toxic response of "wah wah" like @Bishopil essentially did (although he really isn't wrong) and doing it without full community discussion.

People aren't arguing against why the team felt it was necessary to remove reserves as a whole. Most, if not all, of the responses to this thread that are against the removal of reserves address the issues surrounding how reserves previously worked. So the argument is that removing reserves is not the right call and would be an extreme solution to the problem (and to be plain honest: this community has a repeating theme of going in directions that may be harmful down the line when faced with a serious problem). The guidelines were definitely something that needed to be put into place. The community has proven untrustworthy in handling reserves and that makes it entirely fair that some sort of staff intervention needs to be taken (ie. creating a set of rules and requirements that need to be met to be given/give reserves). The real problem isn't even the idea of reserves. It's the individual community members who abused such a thing, be it by handing out reserves or by abusing their reserves in some way. Punishing the people who aren't abusing their reserves or who have legitimately earned it (I know, throwing this around like we have a clear definition of what "earning" your title on a Gmod server actually looks like) just isn't the way to go. Prior to reserves being removed, this was the case. The only issue was the language used for that specific rule. In some interpretations people would become active duty and had the required 2 weeks to their existing rank cooldown. In others they would wait the required 2 weeks before becoming active duty. Neither one was specifically enforced over the other and there are plenty of cases where both were allowed. At minimum, officer reserves would have to wait 3 weeks to be promoted to O-2. In the end I feel that the guidelines that were being used before this final decision were enough to combat the issues with reserves. Staff need to be more involved with the factions on the server - the freedom that leaders get provides pros and cons, but at some point it needs to be balanced properly.

It wasn't done "all at once" and was definitely phased out a bit prior to making the final decision. Aidan, Jim, and Garnet had felt that it was best to actually define and utilize a guideline when it came to reserves: reserves were only for officers (O-1, of course) and players who were considered "on reserves" had no officer powers (with few exceptions in activities requiring permission from the leader of their faction). More of a confirmed (there were rumors that this was likely gonna happen) heads-up would've been nice so that people who had potentially wanted to return using their reserves could've been given the chance to do so. Understand too that leaders down the line often revert any and all changes from their predecessors as they simply disagreed with how the faction was being run at that time. And I'm sure you do but I'm pointing it out specifically before people form more toxic, negative ideas about previous leaders who were indeed some form of successful (simple examples being Ethan and Conway). This is how reserves should be handled. From what I heard about the community before I started playing, it worked a bit like that but wasn't widely enforced as it was per faction rather than server-wide; leaders were smart in how they handled themselves, much more than they are now. People just seemed to lose touch with that, started handing reserves to people who were previously removed or that were their friends. Sad result.

Small spiel as I'm not active in the community much (if at all?) anymore. The way you've shared how this "case-by-case" will work is unfortunately likely the best you'll get with a system that won't be abused, so long as it doesn't extend past legitimate reasons for an extended absence - meaning absolutely nobody should be given a special case as a previous leader for any reason. (yeah, the rest of my post is rather useless, do note I don't agree with it and I'm upset that it had to come to this but I understand that it was well required). Entirely understand how reserves in the state that they were in were being abused, however I disagree with the removal of reserves near entirely (aside from your "case-by-case" special scenarios). I know that there are people who put tons of work into the faction(s) that they play over the course of their overall playtime. I've done so myself. It's already bad enough that people have these inherent bias' against eachother over rumors of what they did or didn't do in a faction, and having a title that you may have earned stripped from you is in some sorts disrespectful. Speaking for myself here: I'm not in the same scenario as PrisonNightmare. Nor am I in the exact scenario as Buddha. I've put my work into Green Beret and SSO, even disregarding my past leadership of both of them I spent countless hours creating documents (rosters, tryouts, guidelines - all of which have not been properly cared for and destroyed by leaders down the line; but that's another rant for another time) for various faction leaders and working with them (and entry factions) to (at least the intent was to) create a better experience for everybody involved. The result of that and whether it was "good" or "bad" is highly subjective, more so when the community has such fierce and varying opinions on leadership and officer work.

As stated by other people, the simplest thing to do is to avoid intentionally massing and actually following the rules, however in my opinion permanent bans like these should have much more depth than simply being: "X intentionally RDMed 6-7 people because he was bored; since they've been here awhile and are well aware of the rule, they're banned permanently." I think this sort of thing needs to be revised to fit some better form of a case-by-case but also following a broader definition. Considering the staff who had banned MurphPup hasn't responded to this thread (nor has an executive) explaining what has led to the decision of a permanent ban, we're left to assume (or, rather, wonder) about what criteria specifically need to be met, if anything extra. +1. MurphPup fucked up, surely. And it seems based on both his reputation and his word that he hasn't done anything else to be considered wrong. A two week ban is not a minor punishment whatsoever. You may argue that repeatedly breaking the same rule should lead to a harsher punishment and I would entirely agree. What I disagree with, however, is this idea that a standing member of the community should be punished differently from a random player who had broken the same rule (player with X hours who intentionally masses gets a permanent ban, while a random under Y hours gets the ol' 2 week ban), both being a "first offense" and both being clearly and undeniably intentional.

Just gonna leave this link here as part of this suggestion is something that I've explored previously. I would suggest utilizing the information that I had gathered as to be both accurate and consistent (you swap between translated and transcribed ranks for Russia). I'd also like to note the big emphasis on US in some of the more major parts of your suggestion, with the obvious exception of OMRP. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Lky9X0PIcVR8enYMLfec83p0FGcP_2ezGqNal6iTLMM/ Each "faction" has the same number of ranks depending on whether or not they are an entry or some sort of Special Forces. The US ranks use the proper US DoD paygrades, while the RU ranks use the proper NATO equivalents. All of the Russian ranks are abbreviated based on their English transcription (not translation). The Russian ranks listed are under assumption as there isn't much public information about how Russian Special Forces operate (my two sources for Russian ranks being here (Wikipedia) and here (also Wikipedia). Before somebody comments, "But Fier, why does Vega use the same ranks as SSO?" That would be because I don't believe in this flawed idea that this server should have tiered factions - only with how the server is currently operating, which means that could easily change given time. So I opted for giving military ranks rather than coming up with this "agent" bullshit.

I can't answer as to whether or not you actually had gotten a written warning in a PM or OOC as of how long ago it was. What I do know is that you were infact muted both in chat and voice because you were a) starting problems in OOC and b) I had asked staff to mute you in-game (with @) because you would not stop following me. I'm not gonna continue to argue about your innocence because it is becoming clear that you have not changed - and that the ban was valid in the first place, especially having been the victim of what was the last straw before your ban - not gonna respond past this point.