shax999
-
Posts
126 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by shax999
-
-
+1 Would like to see a F2P accessible class with explosives for newer players but if anyone minges with the class make a black list for the class itself to keep track
-
1 hour ago, Bowl22 said:
Let’s get something clear. Yes high skill players should make ways in clearing out base campers. But if they is 1-5 delta force on. AFG usually has the same or more in Badri numbers and then add 2-6 more vets sitting with sv-98. As time has shown US is new players and AFG/RU holds vets. US will always be out numbered with that number of people with the skill to deal with pixel picking head glitching base camping. I understand base camping means the world to you. But your defense being US is not training new players is just plain stupid. You will never have enough time to try a US player to beat someone with 1000 plus hours. That is unreasonable to even think.
In all honesty, who are the players you speak of being on Merc that are vets? br0ken? realistically you guys have to account for what? 4 people in badri and 4 outside of it being spencer, bishop, me, and kmp who’s as of now is rarely on as if. Sorry to say but your faction does everything to avoid what your faction is supposed to do in the first place which is to kill these “big threats”. I see your guys end up flanking more than anything and by all means that’s great to get behind but what good does it do when they still don’t kill us? Don’t cope by saying we have loads of vets on our side when realistically we don’t. You guys have your fair share of base campers it’s just unfortunate they can’t get more than a one and done. That’s why you don’t see Afghan crying because we actually get rid of these “big threats”.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Description: [description of what you are suggesting, one paragraph minimum]
This suggestion details the staff control over faction leadership. After discussing with various members on the Afghan side, we believe that it would be good to relinquish the executive restraints over leader-based decisions. For some changes, the Marshals/Generals would take over in place of executives, bestowing more power to entry leadership, whereas in other areas, the leaders of each respective faction will be able to have greater freedom of operations. It should be noted that much of what was suggested was already the case on server throughout 2016-2018(/19?) according to the players I have consulted. Essentially, we want to restore decision making to each respective side instead of relying on staff and executive decisions, which typically involve the opposing population making choices.
Reasoning: [how would this benefit our server?]
Our server previously was very chaotic at times without fully hands-on leadership from higher ups but the memories that people vividly remember or stick by are the tragic cases of terrible leadership at times. Instead, we should look past that and realize the immense amount of value that letting faction leaders have full control over the entire aspect of their factions can bring to the table. As always, factions belong to the server, and not to the leaders. While keeping this in mind, a certain level of autonomy is still required to provide greater room for success. With bestowing trust in each leader, there are heightened capabilities within each faction, as well as the partial elimination of a long known blatant double standard. Below are some changes that would come from this general idea:
Changes -
Reserves: Reserves are a very touchy case to discuss, however, as of now the current system is very flawed and a majority of the high ranking individuals and staff community tend to hold grudges and presume subjective opinions on people’s character instead of actually valuing what's supposed to be the true intentions of what this was made for in the first place. This system also gives huge benefits to friend groups because they can easily sway an opinion on newer members on the staff team and this has always been an issue with this system. The benefit of giving back the control to the faction leaders will immediately remove these issues and people will get an even more fair opportunity through this change. With this change, staff votes would be removed from reserves. This entails maintaining the current standard, in which a player must have been in a faction and attained an officer rank in order to hold a reserves position. The elimination of a staff vote as previously discussed may help reduce grudge holding behavior from opposing sides, such as through instances of war rage, witch hunting, and friend groups.Handpicking: While the expectations for T1 players and leadership has always included being in the top skill bracket of the server, these players are far and few between. Evidently, the standards of skill and faction readiness has changed over the past few years. Handpicking helps with this scarcity by allowing faction leaders to bring in potential prospects and training them up without forcing them to attend a few dozen tryouts. While it is true that players should be attending T1 tryouts many times before joining the faction, the current state of the server has proven that filtering players into SOC factions is far more important. The skill group of these players is something that will naturally be developed over time as they play. Additionally, leaders/officers who want someone in are likely to throw or "ease" tryouts for them to begin with. This has led to many instances of infighting, rule wars, executives complaining about throwing incidents, and server-wide double standards. Myself and many others believe that it is better to just allow handpicking as a whole, while still monitoring friend group factions.
Faction Leader Selection: Executives should only be selecting the next leader for a faction when absolutely necessary. While it could be argued that this is partially the case already, in reality, executives have consistently passed users up for either personal grudges, or general doubts. We believe that each faction leader should be able to select their next leader without any constraints upon resigning. This entails not having to consult executives on who the next leader should be. While some have previously argued that this could lead to poor leadership terms, the simple solution is for executives to not be lazy, and to wipe where necessary. Factions fluctuate, as do population and skill. It is important to give players a chance to have a healthy natural leadership ecosystem where players can feel like they are genuinely working towards something without having to worry about an executive's opinion on their character. Again, when necessary, if a leader is severely underperforming, leading an entirely friend-centric faction, or not playing, they are able to be removed. This is solely about placing the power of selecting who leads next back in the hands of faction leaders. Additionally, we believe that the GA/Marshal of each side should be able to maintain having a say in SOC leadership as they supposedly do at the moment. While this is the case currently, it is severely underutilized, likely due to the fact that the decision is ultimately up to the management team at the moment.
-
1
-
2
-
19
-
Spencer is very mature and can bring in a lot of value to the server with his ideas. I have high regard for spencer and i know that he will succeed as staff.
Confirming my Referral-
1
-
1
-
-
-
+1 Would love to see all of this implemented, all of these ideas go hard and how can anyone be opposed for roleplay aspects during war. This will make everything more interesting and endless possibilities of outcomes can now occur and having turning points occur because of channel interceptions would be so fun.
-
1
-
-
+1 got the manager referral
-
+1 Haven't really interacted with you but you're a very active player in a current declining faction. Which would greatly benefit from having a player with permissions to help get back on track. I've seen you go out of your way to help either side when needed during war time for balancing. The paragraphs do lack so I would ideally fix that up as soon as possible.
-
24 minutes ago, Reynolds said:
+1
TSFU was the second faction i joined on the server, and it was when i was relatively new and had ~100 hours. I remember the map was chahrikar, and holy shit. I didnt have a mosin or an orsis at the time, and the only way i was able to “counter snipe” US on chahrikar desert was to sit on town center apartments with the g3a3 bippoded with a short dot attached.
Although tali is centered around explosives and we have more boom than US, TSFU still needs a long range option for F2P players who dont have mosin or orsis. Obviously on this map it is not that prevalent as most combat is CQC, but overall a TSFU change is greatly needed.
Which is why i said to move the SVT-40 to the combatant class.
-
+1 Love the changes but taking away the hkmp5 gives ISI less variety to use compared to their counterpart as hkmp5 combats the UMP as for them the ScarH combats the sksd
Wouldnt mind seeing the hkmp5 being moved elsewhere but definitely gotta find something else to slot in outside of the vss imo.
-
+1 i feel like no T3 should have any type of dmr/sniper plus heals so it would be a great idea to give them the g3 and hkmp5 on the T3 and move the svt40 to combatant
Overall great changes and since we got the explosives and they got the range it would be unfair for TSFU to get the SV-98 in one of their classes to equal out the ranged fire power between both sides. We’re fine as is and even better off if ISI get those phone bombs
-
thank god i wasnt apart of the xm abusing shit was cringe couldn’t be me
-
1
-
1
-
-
+1 You’ve done a whole 180 for the best and with your approach being entirely different towards others and the game. It’s been overdue for myself to reevaluate my opinion on you. You used to be easily one of the most annoying people on the server but i believe in second chances and you are well deserving of one. Best of luck
-
Goodluck with whatever you do going forward man.
Take care-
1
-
-
Description: [description of what you are suggesting, one paragraph minimum]
This suggestion details the possible implementation of three new donation store items:
“[CW 2.0] AKM” by lobster (6.715 MB)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=889559637
“[CW 2.0] ACR” by fars (4.713 MB)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1589205037
“[CW 2.0] AUG A3” by George Maalouf (9.996 MB)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=374790957
Reasoning: [how would this benefit our server?]
Our server has had access to the same pool of guns in the donation store for around 3 years. Understandably, gun packs tend to take up space, and may also interfere with balancing during the process of implementation. I believe that there has been enough time between the implementation of previous donation items to allow much of the player base to buy nearly every meta item. Below are some benefits and cons of implementing these guns:
Benefits:
Increased profitability: as previously mentioned, many veteran players which tend to make up a large portion of the player base have access to a large majority of the guns available. This means that garnet is losing out on a significant portion of possible revenue from the server. The initial addition would likely help temporarily solve this problem, though not permanently.
Refreshening gameplay: while we typically shy away from attempting to feed those who cry about using the same guns for years, this may be a way to help suppress the issue. The last introduction of a new gun into the donation store was around 2019-2020 with the introduction of the PP Bizon. Through implementing these guns, even if just a single one is put into the game, players may reinvigorate their interest in the game’s combat.
Increased variety: while certain categories (SMGs) have a bloated variety within the donation store, other areas lack. For example, there is only one AR available at this time, which is the AEK-971.
Cons:
Additional download space: assuming all of the listed guns were to be added, a total of 21.424 MB of space would be added to the server. This has the potential to increase initial loading times ever so slightly.
Gun balancing: as previously mentioned, Garnet and the management team already have a large pool of guns which they need to work on balancing from time to time. This suggestion would only add to that, and thus may not be favorable for the team.
Additional Information: [Photos/Videos][/CODE]
Possible idea: while it is unlikely that all or any of these guns will be added, there is room to build off of this suggestion. Myself and others find that it could be beneficial if certain class guns that may be widely available, or on entry classes, are implemented as donator items with various nerfs. This would emphasize playing the classes containing these guns, as they would be undoubtedly better in combat, but would allow for a balanced and profitable item in the meantime. An example of this would be adding the Army AR-15 as a donatable weapon, while ensuring the store-bought version is watered down.
-
1
-
6
-
-
Description: [description of what you are suggesting, one paragraph minimum]
This suggestion proposes the implementation of a fortification SWEP system through the utilization of the certification system:
“Alydus's Fortification Builder Tablet” (10.921 MB)
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1461735659
Reasoning: [how would this benefit our server?]
Through adding the fortification tablet system, players with a newly added “Engineer Certification” would be able to place a single fortification with a reasonable HP pool. These fortifications would be destructible, allowing enemies to break through barricaded doors.
As the certification would only be given to trusted players through trusted management members (Ozzy, Smity), abuse of the system would not be tolerated, and would result in the removal of a player’s certification. Additionally, the addon is highly compatible with multiplayer, and is unlikely to cause any lag as long as each player is limited to one fortification at a time.
Additional Information: [Photos/Videos][/CODE]
N/A
-
2
-
1
-
2
-
-
+1 He’s active, determined, and getting himself familiar with many of us in the teamspeak. Has done a great job staying out of trouble from what i know and doesn’t cause any type of problems on the server.
-
1
-
-
-1 You’re a really active player but that’s the only positive to the many cons on the table and that is the reasoning to my -1. Would be great to see you in the Teamspeak to get yourself familiarized with the many unusual personalities within this community. Your playtime to me is meaningless as long as you hit the requirement so don’t worry about forcing yourself to AFK. Just show commitment to the server by helping others out with the little tools available to you. Just by showing effort is enough for you to get noticed. Good luck with your application.
-
1
-
-
-
-1 Minimal to little to no effort went into your application. You just made a return recently as well and haven't even tried to acquaint yourself with the newer players around both the main factions yet. Build a name for yourself because I barely know about you and thats just because I joined around a similar time with you during June/July.
-
1
-
-
+1 Can confirm that I have given my referral to Draco. He has been on his grind lately and even decided to leave badri to go help out rangers due to the lack of players. This guy has been apart of this community for a while and hasn't been in any trouble as of late so would be a great addition to the roster.
-
1
-
-
-
+1 Reynolds was a minge very early on but he has easily become one of the most reliable people to help keep around the newer players and by giving him this opportunity of being able to use commands that help alleviate the pain of making players run across the map each time for a tryout sim or just a training sim is in fact too annoying to deal with at most times. I truly believe that he deserves a chance at being staff just because I always see him put in 100%.
-
1
-
Changes are required for a more stable community.
in Denied
Posted
I find my self often switching sides to help you guys kill the basecampers and there is times where we win and lose but should win only if the US side had little to any communication within the radio. When i switch i’m not constantly getting basecamped but at times i will die on my way to the OBJ but many of you confuse that with basecamping just because you can’t arrive to the objective means you can cry and cope about it being basecamping it’s unfortunate but learn the common areas that people sit in to avoid dying on the way there