Ethan

I think if you look into the "No Man's Land" idea further on my suggestion, you might understand it better, but my suggestion involves making terrain form cliffs like the opposite of trenches to make it obvious whether or not you're in the base zone or not as the inside slopes up to the cliff, but on the other side it's a drop off and can't be climbed making it a either you're in or out thing. There would, of course, be two entrances to the other side of the cliff to allow raids and re-entering to happen, but only those two places. I totally agree that timed wars shouldn't go away, that way EVERYONE on the server joins in on those, but in peace time (with my base layout suggestion, there would be no need to leave base to do sims/tryouts, only a want to do that), which would allow "No Man's Land" to not interfere with that too much.

1. I think that if my suggestion for the base layouts doesn't go through (which allows for easy implementation of a "No Man's Land", which means you can constantly fight, but not over objectives, just to add RP to the between wars for things like raids and kidnaps, which I further explain in the post), then this would be an alright substitute. I just don't like the idea of only doing an all out war every 2-3 hours, instead it should be every hour and thirty minutes. The objectives existing could be nice, and I feel a nice incentive to have those in place would be for money, maybe capping an objective gives all players who were on when it capped $500, and for every certain amount of time they spend on that point, they get another $50 or something. Just something I thought would be nice to add onto the objectives if this were to happen, but I hope my base layout suggestion is accepted on top of this as well, as the base layout I have suggested makes it much easier for staff and players to know what is and what isn't allowed. You can see my suggestion here, but sadly it's locked right now: 2. Yes, I like the idea of giving the commander/officer classes of each faction the ability to spawn a vehicle, maybe one per officer on the class? 3. At first I thought this was very strange to consider, but I feel if this were to happen, the mosin would have to have the same thing happen to it. The only one shot snipers should be on ghillie classes and the faction classes dedicated to sniping. Overall, I think the ideas are pretty interesting.

+1 for warn removal. That's seconds, not miliseconds Bendak, but the part he warned you for was the two under that, that happened in the same second. The thing about that is, it was 115 and 29, which fits the criteria for the ricochet glitch, and wouldn't be grounds for a warning and jail time.

SteamID: STEAM_0:0:146463742 Playtime: 3347:16:52 hours:minutes:seconds Level: 36 Main Faction/prefered nation: SSO, Russia Still play on a shit laptop, but I got GeForce NOW so I now have good/decent FPS

He fucked up, but received the wrong punishment. There isn't enough proof for a mass ban. An RDM + Att RDM warn and a 10 minute jail would do, but a ban for mass isn't backed up by evidence here. +1 for unban, but make sure he gets a warn for RDM + Att RDM and a jail for 10 minutes (maybe not the jail since he was banned, and kept off the server for more than 10 minutes now, but whatever the staff that takes this decides).

Same for Head Admin, I can't use /reportsadmin, the sits don't appear, thus I can't take sits. Everything else seems to work fine though.

I think clarification for who is able to enforce a claim would be nice, as verbally giving someone perms to enforce a claim just doesn't work. I would say the official default would be if it is just a normal claim, a faction claims something, only those who are able to claim that are in that faction should be able to enforce the claim's KOS by default, and that's it. No one else should be able to enforce the claim. It just isn't needed. Just like staff are the only ones that should stop Mass RDMers by banning them, the Officers should be the only ones to stop people from interrupting their claim. It keeps things simpler, and easier to manage when you have one person accountable for what happens, and anyone else's kills outside of a simulation would be RDM. If someone tries to loophole this and fuck around on a claim while the Officer is busy, then that would be discussed in the sit if that person tries to report, and thus both parties would be given verbal warnings on how to avoid that in the future. Conflicts like this rarely happen, and I don't think a new rule is needed, but maybe a small bit of clarification I guess about it being only those that are able to claim are able to enforce their faction's KOS. -1

+1 I think Ting could do fine as a staff member with what I have known from him so far. Before he joined SSO, he joked around a lot, but from what I saw, he wasn't overly mingey and toxic, although he did slip up a small bit in some situations, but none that stood out that I can remember. The paragraph's length honestly doesn't matter that much, as long as it has good content, and it is two paragraphs, just the second paragraph isn't as lengthy as the first. If length really matters to you, back when I applied 2 paragraphs weren't required, but it was accepted, I still wrote two paragraphs, both shorter than Ting's to keep it minimal and meet quality over quantity. I would rather you argue that what he said wasn't as informative instead of him just not writing up to the limit. Explaining why you would benefit properly is more concerning over him filling it with garbage to meet the limit. Good luck on getting accepted, Ting!

Your first point of it being a major adjustment, it really isn't a large adjustment. The main differences would be tryouts/sims in the now larger bases (not even that much larger, just doors that TP you to areas for those tryouts/sims to take place, simulation rooms), and not being able to walk out around the map and annoy/hang out with people randomly OOC. If you want to talk more about it, I would love to speak with ya on TS. Remember, the no man's land idea could be on its own, not needed for the rest of the suggestion to work, just something I had in mind, that I think would benefit the server. The bases being laid out as I stated would lessen the need for vehicles to counter snipers because there are more exits, and less entrances to the bases making snipers picking a spot to camp and wait less effective as the enemy can just go around. Of course, as CJ pointed out, my suggestion thread for the base layouts is already up, so if you want to see that suggestion, Garnet, please take a look at it, and I will be willing to answer questions you have if you have any.

Yeah, when Garnet has time, I think it would be good for him to make a post where he asks "What do you think about this suggestion?". If the yes vote is 75% or more, Garnet could contact the person that suggested it to ask any questions he has and try to work on it. I think that would be a good way to organize it since Intelligence division in the staff team is non-existent now, and I think since Garnet is the only one that can actually put most suggestions into play, he should be the final verdict. Of course, if it is a rule change suggestion or something like that, then the SAs or Managers could accept/deny that, then get a poll up if they accept it. +1.

+1 for a change, but -1 for the change you suggested. The weapon is fine in terms of its possibilities, the CW 2.0 mod has a lot more attachments for the VSS, and some should be added back in, like as Pencil mentioned to give more functionality or better stats. Just add some more attachments to the VSS, or reduce the recoil. I say this because the AK-103 that SSO and PDSS have is a copy/paste of the AK-47 stat-wise, but the AK-103 has a foregrip attachment that decreases recoil making it fundamentally better than the AK-47, a straight upgrade. Sometimes instead of a straight upgrade, a different function for the weapon could be good. For example, a slower firing, but more damaging gun would work more effectively at medium ranges, but would struggle at closer ranges, giving it a new function. There are a few different things you could do, but as Garnet has said in the past, the gun you have is only unique for its model and sometimes its available attachments (which there are plenty of on the VSS, just not the Garnet version, which he can edit), everything else can be edited by Garnet, meaning the stats of the weapon. No need for a different weapon, just a change in the stats of said weapon. PDSS has the AK-103 as well, the same gun. Three Special Forces factions on both sides have AR classes (MARSOC has a SCAR-L, which with the available attachments, can function as an AR just fine, and GRU has the VSS, which with its current stats fits as an AR more than anything else, and stats for it can be further updated to make it a more balanced AR). The VSS realistically is a sniper/DMR, but in-game, it can be whatever we want it to be. Functionality over form, as long as it works, y'know? Right now it doesn't work as it should, and should be updated, but we don't need to worry about how the gun looks as its looks are just fine.

That isn't the case for Mass RDM, you learn that in staff training. The proper procedure for Mass RDM you didn't see is to freeze the one you think is Massing, and bring them to a sit to ask about the kills, then ban if they clearly Massed. -1 and kinda +1, Ban is fair, if anything I think if the Officer did influence the Enlisted, I would say to give the Enlisted a 1 day ban, and the Officer the full 2 week. Simply because the Enlisted followed the Officers orders, and may not have been aware of the rule. This report was made yesterday, so if this suggestion is considered, unban the Enlisted since they have already been banned for a day now.

Ethan | GarnetGaming.net Appreciate the giveaway m8!

It wasn't clear simply because you said there is a new system, and then later said sadly existing accounts will need to create a new one. But glad you clarified, thanks m8.

I haven't had to create a new account, so kind of confused, but as long as I can do my forum things, I guess it's alright? Edit: as in my account is alright

I would say a good solution is to use PTL for what it is supposed to be as I have done my best to in SSO, to inform the new PVTs that don't know all of the rules about the ROE and its application outside of base (because almost everyone low ranking enlisted that gets PTL from a bind-happy Officer not actually policing the PTL who gets shot on a claim attempts to shoot back thinking the ROE applies at all times). Removing it would just cause more issues with Enlisted not knowing what they're doing leaving the base and getting into trouble. Now this wouldn't be an issue if the bases were more interesting giving less reason to need to leave, like I have in my map suggestion. As long as the PVTs know what to do when shot at outside of base (which if you want to be quick, tell them to /report it, or you can try to explain claims and such to them), then the reason they want to leave to explore or patrol around should be fine. But why have PTL at all if you just grant it as soon as it pops up in chat saying "PTL to explore"? TL;DR: So I agree with the two choices being remove PTL or educate the Officers more on PTL, but that second option should have why PTL exists to it also (which is to inform PVTs about claimed locations to avoid RDM mainly as that is easily confused). I think keeping PTL and using it properly is the better choice. Of course those PVTs that are aware of the rules because they have held ranks higher than E-5 before can just say that, and be granted.

Oh, it was updated and revised 2/18/19, that's why. My bad, didn't notice the update till now. Thanks for pointing that out! I just assumed it was the same instead of checking.

-1 I personally haven't seen you online that much in my time playing. This just means I can't vouch for you, but if activity on the server is an issue (which you stated it's not, but it could be at different time zone from me), you should try to be online more often or for a lengthier amount of time (not sure how long you have been back, but assuming that since you have plenty of hours and used to be staff, that you recently came back to the community) to get to know the current community better before applying. Wish you the best of luck in improving on these things if they're true to you and getting staff, but I don't think you're ready yet.

I am glad you made these, but the reasons the current recruiting guidelines are as they are is because we want recruiting to be to the point. It should be done quick (20 minutes average, 30 at most), and it should cover all of the basics that a new player needs to know about the server during their time as a PVT, PFC, JSG. The other ranks, they ask questions and learn as they go. Your doc goes into too much detail, and explains too much. Making a version of the recruiting guideline (once updated to the new map) to be used on docs would be nice for those that want to use docs, but I don't see an issue at all with the spreadsheet. If we wanted to use docs instead for the recruiting though, I would say having a link on the spreadsheet page that took you to the recruiting guideline doc would be the best way to merge the two ideas.

I just want to mention that bullet's in GG MRP sometimes ricochet off hills directly back at the shooter, which can somehow go through a target, hit a hill and go back through the same target. I have seen this happen more than once with the 300 HP classes where a head shot does about 250 damage and the ricochet does 100 damage, this happened to me last night while I was playing on RPG. No gun is able to do 300 damage even with a head shot, but this bug happens sometimes and causes that 300 HP to drop quick. I have tested it in-game for shooting directly at a hill, but haven't tested if this can happen if the bullet hits someone and would still hit a hill and ricochet back. Just always thought of it as true as it explains why every time a double log/shot shows up in logs, the damages are different (the first doing more damage than the second because the first was direct, the second was ricochet). The main part that leads me to believe this could be a fire rate exploit is the log at 06:22:07 where the first shot does 29, and the second does 58. The verdict on this rule though from Chris Branch was it would be a verbal warning then a permanent ban for exploiting. I do believe something should be said here about the logs at 06:22:07, so +1 for some action to be taken there. But it shouldn't be a permanent ban unless it continues after this.

Update After running tryouts fully, we added COMMS to Stage 2 as well. During this sim at COMMS, you won't be able to enter the COMMS building as the combat at this objective in the tryout will test the fighting around the objective. Good luck to those trying out!

Just because I said I was able to take the position (remind you as a last resort, I made that very clear with Phantom), doesn't mean it was the best possibility, or the one I wanted. I would've much rather left it for someone else to lead and take care of than try to lead both, but Phantom couldn't find anyone to lead GRU, and so I told him I would give it a shot if he really couldn't get someone to lead it. He put Fupert as my second-in-command, and I wondered why he didn't just put Fupert in charge. He said something about Fupert not being as trustworthy at that time because he thought he would just bring his friend group in instead of lead the faction well. Then later he figured that out with Fupert and gave him Frogmen, which confused me further, but Phantom said he didn't want to halt the progress I was making. I kept on with leading both, and was trying to find a quick but stable successor in GRU, but that failed when Draggy left due to IRL issues arrising with his family (then some other shit he had come up). Sadly me trying to revive GRU left some of my SSO members to start losing interest. SSO did slowly decline due to me trying to put attention to both. I did sit in the spot till forced out, but I didn't sit and do nothing. I clung onto the position while giving many attempts to get people interested in the faction, which succeeded, but those people didn't meet the decent skill requirement for the faction in time that satisfied Jackal or the other higher ups. I am glad they found someone else to take the position. The only concern I have is that GRU was given to someone who just started coming back to MRP, and if that is fine, why wasn't that done before? I didn't want to have to lead GRU. I suggested it only as a last resort, and Phantom saw it as needed. I would have to agree. I don't think in terms of quantity, I keep my faction's tryouts open till the skill shows up in players through practice. Worked for SSO, and tried the same in GRU. GRU came from a past of being easy to enter, being like GB. Simply didn't want that again. If you're trying to get attention of all the "kids" that support me, then do so in a separate thread where you will get more attention from them like you did in the past. This shit you're throwing at me works wonders. The only similarity between SSO' and Blackguard's deathmatch is that they both tallied who won, lost, and that they were fights. I just gave credit where the idea came from, but I heavily adapted it. I asked Crin about it since he was in SSO and used to be in Blackguard, and he told me about how it worked and it was nothing of what I was making it besides that it's sims that we record. Simple enough, continue this on your own thread, in a message to me, or talk to me in TS. If you actually want some change, push for it. Throwing toxic shade and insults around won't accomplish much. Any more posts and this will need to be locked. I am open to the discussion, just not on this thread.

Do you even know what the fuck you're saying? I just saw a situation of GRU being stagnant like they were in Taiga, and gave a possibility for me to assist by leading both until someone was able to take over GRU instead. I would rather you leave this thread to its intended purpose, if you want to continue this, message me. Keep your toxic and useless comments off this thread. We already discussed this in your rant thread a few months ago.

Update With Vibe being put in leadership of Spetsnaz GRU, this thread is no longer in use, and the document associated with it deleted. Those of you who passed qualifiers, but couldn't make tryouts, good luck joining Vibe's GRU, or going elsewhere. Glad someone was able to take the lead of GRU so I can focus on SSO. Good luck in leading GRU, Vibe!

Update With Vibe being put in leadership of Spetsnaz GRU, this thread is no longer in use, and the document associated with it deleted. Those of you who passed qualifiers, but couldn't make tryouts, good luck joining Vibe's GRU, or going elsewhere. Glad someone was able to take the lead of GRU so I can focus on SSO. Good luck in leading GRU, Vibe!