PraetorDon

The shotgun going to 11B has already been denied. Also I believe it's on the US Army Donor class. Here's a comprehensive post on the basecamping issue, made by myself. TL;DR The issue isn't basecamping, it's a player skill/training issue. Also, 2GA rarely pushes up to the base, it's mainly RU SOC. That's how RU have operated in the past, SOC pushes up, 2GA holds the obj. US used to do the exact same thing, and probably still would if the situation was reversed. It's a game, people are going to push every competitive advantage they can. I've already made most of my points on that other thread, so I'll leave it at that. As for the weapon re-balancing, both LMG's and DMR's are fairly weak. Fixing the 2GA marksmen rifle and the US demo LMG are things that definitely need to happen.

So basically, I wanted to prove a point here. At the end of the day, adding a base line, or more terrain would fix the issue on this map, but only this map. Feel free to disagree with me if you want. Basecamping issues, among other things, aren't because of one specific map. What allows RU SOC and 2GA to dominate map after map? It happened on Echo, it happened on Charharikar, and it's happening on Delta. To put it bluntly, It's player skill. I can't speak for current RU, but as I know some of the people in RU SOC, I'm fairly sure they're doing what I and other RU leaders used to do. Tell the base factions about simple telescopics, about third person peeking, do sims with them, give the base factions the tools and leadership they need to succeed. Start scouting promising members, put the effort in. If you're not getting people in your faction, or people are leaving US, then evaluate what the issues are. In the last community meeting, there was a good deal of talking about "getting through the lower playercount and difficulty" with inspirational words. While admirable, that doesn't fix the issues that are currently occurring. Let actions speak louder than words. Management shouldn't have to get involved in this. It should be a player led change.

So, the issue seems to be player skill then? So would you guys like to / like to see skilled players on both sides teaching newer players how to play the game?

People certainly did complain about base-camping on Charharikar. You are correct about there being less counterplay on Delta than the previous map. Having played on both sides on Delta, it is possible to get out of US base during an RU basecamp. It is however, far more difficult than it was on Charharikar. Is increasing fog a map edit? Although I think this will also be unpopular. The simple fact of the matter is, there isn't much difference to dying right outside of base, and dying 40 steps closer to the objective, other than where you died. Dying sucks, if a new player can't get on obj to get kills, then it really doesn't matter where they die. If I had to have my cake and eat it too I would: a) Have faction leaders and SOC come up with guidelines and tips to leaving the base successfully and other gameplay tips b) Add more terrain/fog .

This isn’t going to be a standard suggestion. This was written up before Vizii made his post, but after the community meeting on 5/23. Recently, I’ve noticed the player count decreasing and more than a few people have stated that it’s due to basecamp. Whether this is true or not, I’m going to try to address the basecamp issue, come up with some solutions, and explain my method for identifying and solving problems that has served me well, both in dealing with issues when I was still active on the server, and in a professional environment. With any project, first the scope needs to be identified. In this case, the scope would be eliminating basecamping. It is important that there are minimal changes to the scope once it is decided at the beginning of the project, to prevent scope creep. Here’s where it gets a bit more difficult. When working a project, I, and others like to use something called the Iron Triangle, which I will show below. I will explain more about how this works below as well. To maximize quality vs efficiency, it is usually agreed upon to focus on 2/3 sections for optimal quality. Generally, you pick two from of good, fast and cheap. You can have good and cheap, good and fast, or fast and cheap. In this example, cost (cheap) is the effort of dev time that has to be put into something, time (fast) is the time it takes, and scope (good) is how well the issue is resolved overall pertaining to the original issue outlined in the initial scope. I will be making some suggestions that fall under these sections: Basecamping is now failRP by the opposing base being in render– fast + cheap Pros: Easy to implement, easy to understand Cons: Difficult to enforce, has been proven to not be popular with the community. Overall Thoughts: This idea has been rejected numerous times, and I’m not a fan of it either. I mainly used this as an example. Adding cover and terrain – good Pros: Ultimately, this would probably be the best solution as far as the playerbase is concerned. Comprehensive and a permanent fix. Cons: Notice how I only put one category? That’s because this is neither fast, nor cheap. The amount of testing that would need to go into adding terrain is large (time) and the effort Garnet would need to put into editing the map (cost) is quite extensive. Overall Thoughts: While I like this idea, it only meets one of the criteria for ensuring quality on a project. Because of the large amount of time and cost this suggestion requires, this is not a viable suggestion currently. As an aside, I’ve heard that Garnet doesn’t like to do map edits unless he’s re-releasing the map. Training new players on how to play – good + cheap Pros: Gets the community involved, spreading out the load onto faction leaders/the community instead of management/Garnet. Comprehensive and improves the quality of leadership and factions, and therefore the server itself. Cons: Involving more resources (people) increases the complexity, and if there isn’t key leadership being done, then this is doomed to fail. A long, ongoing process that will need to be consistently refined and improved upon. Overall Thoughts: This is probably the most reasonable, and effective option for following the guidelines previously mentioned. As a bonus, it will show which leaders of factions deserve to lead, and which need to move on. This should be a country wide effort, i.e. US training US players, RU training RU players. While it’s great that RU is switching over to help US in war, that doesn’t really fix the long term problem. I’d personally pick this option. Management would need to work with faction leaders and each country in order to get some standards in place (tips, tricks, movement, loadouts, etc.) Doing nothing – 0/3 Pros: I mean, I guess nothing has to be done, allowing resources to be diverted elsewhere. Cons: Pretty much everything else. This isn’t helping the server. Overall Thoughts: I don’t really have much to touch on here. Something is better than nothing when it comes to the basecamping issue. This is what is currently happening, to my knowledge. I attended the community meeting last weekend and didn’t hear anything otherwise, correct me if I’m wrong. To conclude, I don’t think basecamping is the sole reason playercount is decreasing. Having not played much in the last two months, I can only hazard a guess on what the main issues are. Finals are occurring, college has been done for several weeks now and other school should be wrapping up. However, it seems to me that the same problems that were occurring when I was active, are still occurring from conversations I’ve had, and my own, undercover, observations. That’s not to say people haven’t been trying, I’ve seen some efforts made to improve the server, keep up the good work. Thoughts and comments are appreciated as always.

Not sure if this has been thought of, but why not create the channels in the GG discord? For specific battalion discords, a role could be created for each, that only those with the role could view the channels. For viewing the overall SWRP channel, a bot given role (similar to the rust+gmod roles) could be made. Granted, it might be easier to make a separate discord for just SWRP, as from the way the GG discord looks set up right now, it would be a pain giving out those roles. At the end of the day though, there's better uses of SA+Garnet time.

Teamspeak is free for the player to use, while being under direct control of Garnet (he hosts the ts3 server). Teamspeak also has better audio quality for calls with more than six people in them, as well as better audio quality all together. As for Teamspeak not working on "newer computers", I'm using the Windows Insider build of Windows, which is basically a beta-version of Windows, and TS works fine for me. Personally, I think discord is better for organizing things via text than ts, but that's what we have the forums for. In the use case for SWRP however, ts is the way to go. Overall, this suggestion was poorly thought out and formatted. Try to add some spacing/paragraphs to at least make it readable.

Well done, a man of quality!

I'm guessing because with such a large amount of people, people would talk over each other. That being said, there are fixes to that. This would be a good opportunity to fix ts permissions and allow managers etc. to grant talk power, so these meetings can be moderated.

The issues you posted about were addressed in a meeting prior to the post, as well as having been discussed before. There wasn't anything new in there that I hadn't seen. It took zero effort to not post the document, but you and your group went ahead with it anyway. That's not how you inspire change, that's how you cause drama where none is needed.

As an observing third party in all this, what you, Mediator and anyone else who was involved in that, was completely counterproductive, not to mention toxic and somewhat unwarranted. If you're going to address issues, do it publicly and not anonymously. Identify the issues, plan some solutions, suggest solutions with a way to implement them, gather community feedback throughout each stage of the process, implement solutions or go back to the drawing board and come up with something else. These are the steps that should be taken. You came back to the community saying you turned over a new leaf, only to have your only major contribution being that document, clearly you haven't changed. And before you think I'm happy with the current state of the community, I'm not. I do personally think over the last few days, MRP is taking steps in the right direction, props to the Management Team for that community meeting.

Biased, but I'd prefer Gen May+LT rather than COL LT+SLT. I thought SLT was OF-2 for the longest time until Fier brought it to my attention.

I actually like the different ranks between RU and US, adds uniqueness between the countries and factions. Obviously, as someone who spent two months getting the ranks for GRU (and 2GA?) to be the NATO equivalent correct, I'm somewhat biased here. @Torch has a cool document for this I feel the cooldowns are fine, most new players people play this game to rank up. Ironically, all of those cooldown suggestions are shorter than what GRU used when I led it. I don't disagree with the cooldowns you posted in the document, I just don't think it's a big issue. I don't have much of an opinion on the 31 day enlisted cooldown, good or bad. I don't really understand the point of the number of ranks, but maybe I'll revisit that tommorow. EDIT: I'm fine with all SOC factions having the same number of ranks, or at the very least, if less ranks, increased cooldowns to compensate. Standard Two I disagree with for reasons earlier in my post, obviously, I'm biased on this one. Standard Three I disagree with for reasons earlier in my post and each faction has a specific role and rank, SEALS are not the same as MARSOC, PDSS is not the same as SSO, etc. Standard Four I'm fine with. However, it needs to be someone all the SOC leaders respect. Otherwise, this standard will never happen. I've had a long day, so there's probably mistakes/stuff I left out. I'll look at it again tomorrow and update if needed.

I'm not making any more threads regarding MRP, as I've effectively left the community, and don't have a good grasp of what's going on the server, outside of the viewpoints of others. I'll still offer my opinion occasionally, but that's about it. I did make a post on some improvements, and I got shit on for it, saying that "I copied everything". There's a reason people don't want to post. At the time, being on the staff team, I preferred to work with Jim and other staff members directly, which is honestly how it should be.

Though I would have phrased it a bit differently, the point is the same. This is honestly one of the main reasons I left the staff team, and MRP as a whole. If it was a one time thing, I could understand, but it hasn't been a one time thing. For clarity, you/you're/your/you'll will be referring to Garnet in this thread. I've heard you say that MRP gives you the most trouble, the most work, and the least income. But then you'll go onto a thread, quote people who disagree with you and the thread's ideas and call them "inactive" and "faction hoppers", in this case, the reserves removal thread. On a more personal note, I tried to have a conversation with you and others about the reserves issue in the shout box, you pretty much told me that I was "abusing the reserves system" when the rule on reserves was made long before I played, and not posted anywhere. Respect is a two way street. SWRP numbers have dropped off, this is true, but from the conversations I've had with people who played, and still play, on the server, it seems there was too much downtime with not enough going on. Props to the people who are trying to do mini-events to fill in this downtime, but if you put the community on blast, it's going to dissuade new players from sticking around, and piss off community vets who otherwise would have helped. I don't really have much to lose, so I figured I speak for myself and some of the other people who have left due to this behavior. I had really high hopes for MRP and GG in general, but until people get along/find common ground, and the attitude that starts at the top improves, nothing will change. I will say though, I'm happy you came up with a physical work plan, that's definitely a step in the right direction. You do seem like you care about the community, otherwise you wouldn't pour so much time into it, just felt like I needed to get this off my chest.

Garnet-chan on a shirt

What purpose does AFSOC currently serve that couldn't be done by another faction currently on US? It never really accomplished what it was designed to do. If more RP is desired, then all factions need to participate, not just one.

Eight seconds into clip number 1. -1

Garnet and others tested PDSS and Vega models, and found them to be fine, I believe. Regardless, this thread isn't about models, this thread is about weapon balancing.

PMC Models are far worse, if we're comparing models here.

The M14 is also a lot better than the SKS, if we're talking power creep here. Each side has it's strengths and weaknesses, and overall, seems to be in an ok spot. I wouldn't say remove it, but adjust it so the damage either falls off at long range, or increase the aim spread so it's inaccurate at long range. Overall, there are better things that could done with the dev time.

Going to keep it short. I'm no longer having fun on the server. I will be selecting a new leader for GRU shortly, and will be resigning from staff as well. Good luck.

I disagree, as the last two Officers I have came off reserves to help me out, something I'm very grateful for. I really don't see the need for this, I think it was fine that all reserves requests needed to go through the management team, and all that could be given was O-1 reserves. This seems incredibly short sighted and an overreaction to certain factions being a bit too liberal with handing them out. There's no way for me to politely say how strongly I disagree with this, so I'll leave it at that. As an aside, why not post this at a time that everyone would see it? It's early morning hours for most players. Unless this was done as a deliberate attempt to avoid backlash, it makes no sense to me. People need to know about stuff like this.

As far as I know they're fine, granted no one has played GRU commander other than to set whitelists/use vehicles. I can do some testing in a bit here.

Spetznaz GRU : Bighead