PraetorDon

This was brought up in the community meeting, but I do not see it on the Trello, so I'm not sure what the status is. Going to keep this pretty simple. Remove the Prone Mod. It's fine when it works, but the problem is the "prone glitch" that occurs seemingly at random which makes combat incredibly frustrating for both veterans and new players alike. This glitch is when a user is not prone, but appears to be on an individuals screen, making them difficult to identify and kill. I honestly see it at least several times per war. I've combed through logs, done research, but haven't been able to find anything useful on this. I would rather have smooth gameplay than the ability to go prone, and I'm willing to bet a good number of players agree with me. Thanks for reading. Prone has been removed as of 2:30~ pm so this thread can be locked.

Crouch jumping as I understand it is allowed to get over obstacles. Any other instance of it being used in Combat/RP Scenarios is FailRP. This is stated in the clarification. Crouch-Jumping during war or a RP scenario is FailRP unless it is to get over an obstacle. Recording needed before warn. Up to staff discretion. I agree that the below is redundant, vague, and unnecessary. If I read it as written, it seems that doing it repeatedly would be FailRP, but it already is unless used to get over an obstacle, which likely wouldn't be spam anyway. Intentional Crouch-Jump Spam = FailRP Remove the first part, keep the second. I am not staff, this is my opinion.

Last I knew, if there was a good reason, subfactions were allowed as long as there was a good reason, as well as restricting classes being up to the leader. (Rangers) This is also more of a faction suggestion then a server one. If you're talking about squads, again, this is up to the faction leader. The problem with subfactions before were people got incredibly elitist and it became a handpick kind of thing (19D) Alternatively, it became meme tier. (Pink Group) In regards to balancing SOC whitelists, that should be a different thread entirely.

New players would still lose, leading us back into the doomspiral, with a different gun focus this time. I'd rather give tools then take them away, just the way I do things.

Don't care about losing content I paid for, it is what is is. Adjusting sniper damage values would require an adjustment of all gun values, which I don't see happening due to the sheer time/dev work it would take/has historically taken. Just engage with new players, countersnipe for them. Encourage callouts. Spawn cars. The tools are there. There are other threads that handle this better. Yes I have basecamped, but I also make a habit of killing basecampers. It goes both ways.

Your suggestion implies giving base players the tools they need to fight back, which I am for, just not the method of doing so. I don't agree with removing content, while not addressing the main issue MRP has, which is player engagement. Countering basecamping isn't difficult, from my observation few people put in the effort. Taking snipers away would just lead to the use of DMR's/BR's/AR's for sniping. Players will always find a way to get kills while getting killed is a minimal risk.

I made the argument to increase the class limit for base faction snipers. Giving someone with 10 hours a sniper is going to make almost no difference if they don't actually know how to snipe. It would take less time and fix another issue I keep hearing/seeing about and have experienced on MRP. Lack of engagement.

Just increase the number of players allowed to be on the base sniper whitelist. Incentivizes a faction to actually train their people instead of just throwing weapons at the problem. Much easier to implement for Garnet as well.

Just be more selective on who gets reserves. GEN Ranks for Base, top 3 for SOC. 2LT's should NOT be getting reserves unless there is extenuating circumstances (deployment/medical). It doesn't take a particularly long time to climb to O-1, and in reality, you aren't contributing all that much as a 2LT anyway. (Training/Tryouts is something most people can do). Only exception would be for a leader's Reserves, but generally if they didn't completely fuck the faction, then they should be granted. Removing reserves entirely is a shotgun method when in reality the issue could be solved by the above going forward, and removing reserves from individuals who are not using them properly on a case by case basis as of now. Criteria for removing reserves would be a faction leader decision imo, not a staff one. Makes for better leaders. I don't expect the majority of US staff to know what is going on in Tali and vice versa. That being said, prepare to justify your decision for removing someone's reserves. This is just a general idea, there will always be exceptions to all of the above. I am very much for putting power back into the playerbase, and having staff observing, if that helps on what I'm trying to get at here. Strong Leaders = Strong Factions.

So staff members are going to be sitting on staff on duty at base walls now? Or are players going to be responsible for clips? Either way, not a fan, as this doesn't help new players in any capacity, just veterans. (New players don't clip usually) The short dot exists on the Orsis and SV98, it's what I've used. Removing the higher magnification scopes will make a minor impact until people adjust. Instakill lines would just make the walk back longer. Safe zones have never made much impact. Someone basecamping can just move 15 steps back and wait two more seconds. Honestly, I quit playing MRP because I was tired of people arguing over it, among other things. The SOC factions should be preventing this from happening assuming they are active, and have equal numbers. (This is a rough quote from Ozzy, specifically he said the high skilled players should kill the high skilled players basecamping.) If SOC factions are unable to fulfill these requirements, then that should be looked into. My personal observation is the majority of issues with basecamping are coming from the US side. AFG(or RU) simply does not, and historically (on MRP) has not had the numbers to contest US in a head on 1v1. Because of this, over time, the playstyle has evolved into this. Art imitates life. There are counters to basecamping which have been mentioned above in this thread. Personally, I think increasing driver/vehicle hp would be a far easier and more effective way to reduce effectiveness of basecamping then what it outlined here. This has been mentioned several times in this thread, but I always post a solution to a problem. I admit, I was an avid basecamper, but I am firmly of the opinion the players are not fully utilizing the options currently on the server. Enjoy this unmedicated post from me, back into the hole I go.

I have mixed feelings on this. I've seen it work, but more often that not (even as recently as a month ago) it has not. Takes the right kind of Marshal/GA and you need to SOC leaders and Marshal/GA to have some sort of preexisting connection so things don't turn into the Marshal micromanaging a SOC in addition to the main faction, or completely ignoring it. Regarding removing donor factions, yes, please remove them. Everything else looks good and I'm up for changing things up a bit. My main is concern is the time it will take to implement these changes. How long would you expect something like this to take? For the record, this is almost the same argument of swapping RU for Taliban.

Oh, I consider that whole column of states from Texas to North Dakota the Midwest. Grew up in Kansas so that might be why. Central South makes more sense.

Huh, not sure why I thought that. Either way, thanks for the response!

Will the host still be located in the midwest, or are you planning to move to a different data hub, i.e. Chicago? If this is a security concern, feel free to delete my post.

-1 Changes to attitude are needed. Your conduct on Shax's appeal in particular sticks out to me. I've been here long enough that I remember you back in 2019, and while there has been improvement, it's not enough.

-1, has existed before and been removed due to people doing nothing with it as well as poor leadership. In addition, the skybox would need to be extended on any map the AFSOC/Airborne/AAF was not designed for. This is Garnet's opinion on the matter as I see it. This was taken off of another thread that also discussed adding in an airborne faction. He's welcome to chime in himself if his opinion has changed.

-1 , Pretty much the same statements that Watson said, albeit I do not main Army. I don't have much else to add.

A few ideas I had. A multistory tower, think the child of Construction and Silo,.. Could have a basement entrance, several ladders/windows, w/e. The reverse, an underground bunker complex, think tunnels on echo but that's the entire obj.. Toyto beat me to this. A trainyard, big trains/shipping containers/boxes/small buildings, etc. One small building at the top of a very large mountain, tunnels are carved into the mountain/there's a storage area underneath. You would need to be inside to cap. Island in the middle of a lake, hope you can swim. A literal bridge, would be a good middle of the map obj. Obligatory US base.

Strongest back on Tali at the moment. In my conversations with York, he has a good head on his soldiers, and has great ideas for the server and his faction. +1

I'll preface this by saying I don't play US much. However, I 've never had a problem with Wombo, and he seems like a decent dude from when I have interacted with him.. Willing to give my +1 here.