shrimp

Bringing back third-person would, in fact, do the opposite. Players wouldn't need to peek in order to see what's happening, and could sit in cover until they have a completely clear shot on their target. Third-person as it used to be was a key driver in sniper-focused combat. Again, this would actually result in people sitting behind cover waiting for the other to push, and ultimately slow down combat to a near standstill depending on what's at stake. I've seen it before. @Viper can attest to this. If you take a look at the history of updates over time, the server has gradually been pushing towards slowing down the pace of combat, allowing more room for micromanaging and strategy. This can be seen with the removal of vehicles, slowing deployments, the modifications to player movement speed, further reducing mobility, and the changes to most weapons, controlling the rate of combat itself. Adding third-person back into this mix would slow it down further, not speed it up. There are changes I'd like to make to speed it up slightly, or at least make it more interesting, but this isn't the path I'd take to such ends. All in all, this seems like a pretty self-serving suggestion. I understand the sentiment of wanting 3rd-person back, but you don't want it for the right reasons, nor is your reasoning backed by logic with evidence. I've seen the effects 3rd-person can have in the extreme circumstances, and it's not desirable. Making a suggestion to alter a major gameplay mechanic in order for it to benefit your own playstyle isn't good. There's a bigger picture here. 3rd person camping has been a problem since CS-desert. Honestly, the fixed settings right now are perfect for allowing slight corner peeking while clearing hallways and shit, which is what it's intended for. Keep it how it is, learn to use it. Unless I'm totally wrong, and you do genuinely think 3rd person will enhance the server quality, in which case I'll leave you with this: Some things that were removed were removed for a reason, and bringing old things back is harder than bringing new things in. Big -1

I don't see why not.

Well, in the long term, what difference is 5-10 guys going to make in a war? The point of hiring them is for specific purposes, not vague things like 'go war now'. Having a single life can make a war scenario play out like this. G4S have a head start on a war and are hired by one side. G4S set up between the enemy and objectives prior to the start of the war. G4S use the element of surprise to catch the first wave of enemy troops off guard and keep them off the capture points long enough for the employing side to get a solid hold before G4S backs off. It's simple, can be done in a single life, and can make a huge difference.

Yeah, which is why G4S members will have to take a lot of consideration into how they carry out their jobs. Letting people respawn and return in the middle of an RP event is a little... obnoxious. I'd prefer to force them to figure out how to not die. If it's infiltration, recon, assassination, or sabotage, there shouldn't be that much of a problem. The only thing that would be a problem is armed conflict.

Agreed. I can get behind the use of armor in order to gain a slight advantage in direct conflict. Since operations would be single life endeavors, it can get risky given every other person on the server would be packing a .338. I'm not opposed to adding options to stack armor for agents in the field on operations with a high chance of or guaranteed direct combat. I would make the options available simple be between light and heavy armor, with values at 25/75 respectively. Also, including some medical gear in the vendor, as this would play into specializations for certain operations as the group designates roles. The M249 would likely be the only thing light enough to seem reasonable in my opinion. This isn't really a group that specializes in or prioritizes heavy weapons. I can justify it as a squad support weapon, but that's about it. The general purpose AR-15 can have a drum, that alone might be enough.

I've been asked probably 6 or so times about how the budget will be balanced and other things along those lines, so I'll go into detail here and give a better idea of what the budget will look like in terms of numbers: Upon integration, US and RU will be given budgets of approximately 10,000,000 USD as a scale reference. The main question I get is individual players buffing the budget out like crazy by adding their own accumulated sums to the budget. First of all, player currency cannot be added to defense budget, and secondly, no player has enough money to make a significant impact on the budget. G4S will also have a budget, but will start at 0, as they will complete contracts to increase their budget and open up more options over time if they manage their financials properly. At the end of every war, US and RU will both be granted a sum of money calculated with placeholder variables as follows: Player-Count Modifier pcm = (playercount/128) + 1; ((The player count modifier, or pcm, is an initially calculated percentage that will be applied to the sums.)) Budget Sums RUbudget = RUbudget + (50000*pcm); USbudget = USbudget + (50000*pcm); (($50,000 is the default value for every war. If no players are on, this value is zero. If server is full, this value is doubled.)) Loser Bonus RUbudget = RUbudget + (10000*pcm)*warresult USbudget = USbudget + (10000*pcm)*warresult ((With $10,000 being the starting bonus value, the warresult variable will either be one or zero, with 1 indicating a loss. If a side loses, they will gain $10,000 times the pcm.)) While these are fairly simple calculation strings, they should indicate a few things. For one, this will provide an incentive to stay on the server around the clock, as more players on will lead to greater budget increases. This will also push a consistently losing side to acquire more help from certain outside sources as they have more expendable funding. As far as pricing goes for G4S services, it's all done on a case by case basis. G4S's success will rely on a intelligent use of their budget to acquire equipment for their operations, which will also come at a hefty price, therefore they will not simply be able to issue discounts or favors on a basis of friendship. They too will have a faction to maintain, limiting their usage to being funded. Contracts that require greater manpower and equipment will reflect that in their pricing, making hiring G4S for things like war itself to be a taxing endeavor. Being able to negotiate in character to make deals with G4S is part of the whole process, and will allow the prices to fluctuate, however it will always balance itself out if set up properly.

Regardless of how often recruits bother to read, it's still another element to give new players something to stare at while they wait to be trained.

Actually let me make a list real quick. Order will be from lowest tier equipment to highest and attached will be each piece of equipment's primary utilization and when purchased equipment will only be available for a single life. These are purely examples: Firearms: -FN-SCAR, Assault-Escort Contracts. -FMG-9, Private Security on a budget -KRISS Vector, Private Security Detail. -L115, Economical Recon and Scouting. -SR-338, Long-range Recon and Scouting. -SV-98, Assassination and Precision Shooting. -UTS-15, Close Quarters Assault. -G3A3, Point Defense. -AR-15 SOPMOD, General Purpose Rifle. Explosives: -Frag grenade, just in case. -S.L.A.M Trip-mines, Breaching and Sabotage on a budget. -IED Detonator, Assassination and Sabotage. -Timed C4, Breaching and Mass Destruction. -Nerve Gas, War crimes. Misc: -Harpoon, Very specific contracts. -Fists, Interrogation. -Crowbar, Motivation. -Stun Baton, Encouragement. -M9K Knife, Infiltration

In the hunt for probable base locations, the one I came across that was out of the way of the objectives, equally accessibly by both countries, and a secure compound for conducting business was this building (Not including the underground tunnel): Again, I'm not too familiar with things right now, so if there's any reason this would conflict, please let me know. Thanks.

The interesting factor would be the special equipment purchased for deployments.

Yeah I'm exploring the options right now. When it comes to overhaul posts like this with big faction changes, I usually don't point towards specific things for weapons because Garnet usually has his own idea, but I do agree with some variation, in fact I hate reusing the same guns.

Going to add this here as well as the original post for convenience's sake: Class Recommendations: For the standard secondary, I went with the currently unused SR-1M. It's a reliable shooter with a large magazine size and does very well in the covert environment, fun to RP with in my experience. For standard primaries issued to each class, the notion behind each choice is being a all-around useful, compact firearm that can be a tool in nearly any operation alongside specialized gear. The selections are as follows: G4S : Director Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90) Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m) Additional Gear: weapon_crowbar G4S : Commander Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90) Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m) Additional Gear: cw_flash_grenade, cw_smoke_grenade G4S : Operative Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90) Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m) Additional Gear: cw_smoke_grenade G4S : Mercenary Primary: FN P90 (khr_p90) Secondary: SR-1M (khr_sr1m) Any additional gear on the classes themselves is there for the sake of convenience due to how often added gear might be in use. The crowbar is for RP purposes, I swear. This setup allows for all classes to share a common load out and express uniformity in RP situations, which I can fully get behind. Classes are set up to compliment the rank structure. Lower enlisted will have mercenary, higher enlisted will have operative. Commander and Chairmen will have Commander, and the Directors will have director. I really don't know where to start with playermodels. I'll take suggestions on it for sure, but the easy way out is always CS professional models.

Yeah this is fair, the shipping yard just happened to be the most apparent non-objective building that stood out to me from an overhead view of the map. I'll get a better idea of what I'm working with today.

Garnet hates a half-assed suggestion, I can tell you that much.

This is good, however I'd like the base to be away from any objectives if possible. I'll be getting on later to take a look at the options.

To answer this concern, I'd like to briefly talk about a few things. First is the nature of the faction leader in GG history, as it's been a pretty similar one over the course of my time and onward. The rules and regulations that surround and bind faction leaders to their assigned duty are not specific enough to limit people, including myself, taking advantage them in order to improve their own faction at the cost of unbalancing the server. It's reasonable to be concerned that this will be the outcome eventually, if not at first, with a new faction of this much perceived desirability and importance to the potential future of the server. I get that, but it's my personal belief that this is the perfect opportunity to test new restrictions and guidelines for leaders to then enforce on other factions and greatly improve the server. This is an opportunity to try new things across the board, take chances, and learn from past mistakes. Also, I'd like to nominate Conway.

I'll leave the decision on how recruitment will work to whoever is placed in charge or staff. Ideally, it's a highly exclusive invite-only tryout that focuses mostly on RP. I've got a few ideas in the backlog for that, and I think it would really help the success of the faction if an outside element made the tryout, and leadership wasn't able to change it to let people in, and that might ease other people's concerns. It's not up to me though. As for helping with suggestions, the best way you can help me come up with ideas is to just ask questions here. It'll force me to consider more factors and further develop the idea. If you yourself have something to suggest, feel free to post here or PM me.

For anyone curious: This is location I'm looking at for a potential base: I'll be on the server later to take a look at what assets we got to work with. I'll post some class suggestions after that.

To answer this: If an Officer of a faction wants to have a meeting with G4S, they must roleplay. G4S will always be in character, and it's not much to ask an officer to be in character for a few moments. Even the officers who are the worst about roleplay will slowly develop their own sense of character and become better influences in their factions over time through brief interactions backed by the incentive to employ G4S.

So, while Officers will be the ones negotiating contracts directly with G4S representatives, troops accompanying their officers as protection to these meetings will be granted brief exposure to these completely in character interactions. Other than that, G4S can be hired to do other things like assist in trainings using their superior experience, or be hired to work directly with squads of enlisted, giving them direct interactions at a high RP level.

So one of the specialties of G4S in the real world is private security. Lower ranked troops would get both positive and negative exposure to G4S by both fighting with them and being assisted by them. The goal for now is get primarily officers exposed, as they are the role models of the server. Whether the enlisted are exposed directly or not to G4S is irrelevant, as they will develop RP experience just by interacting with their own officers. As far as explaining what G4S is to new players, it's pretty inconsequential. If players are curious, they will ask their superiors. The important thing is officers, as their time on the server will be longer than the average user and it's important they constantly be in the know. An update thread should be enough.

So the reasoning behind this is that Officers should and will have a better idea about foreign affairs, and they will also be the ones with the authority to utilize the budget. This is my way of a gradual RP integration. The server couldn't handle a bombshell of flipping the state of RP.

I think he means just for G4S. In any case, making applications for G4S is a wasted effort. I think the last time we had leader applications at all was for SWRP on first launch, and at that point it's necessary when you're introducing 8-9 factions at once and need to gauge how experienced that many people are. I think it'll boil down staff making some nominations and bringing it to a vote, or Garnet will choose himself.

Yeah. While Garnet would be adding jobs and whatever else needs to be done on that end, management would be putting together the IC side of it, so by the time everything is ready to be updated, it's all ready to go.

The same way we'd add any other faction. Reach out to some people to become members, select a leader, get them trained on proper RP, establish the rules, make the update thread.