PraetorDon
-
Posts
354 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by PraetorDon
-
-
14 minutes ago, Plus4C_aard said:
What happened? (include any proof): I got banned lmao. i hope yopu fucking end your own life you little kuk - fucking niggers. thats all i said and i got a 2 day ban.... bullshit
Based on this alone, the ban is justified.
7 minutes ago, Plus4C_aard said:4 words for you "Welcome to fucking rust" if your that soft and someone shit talking to you really makes you sad you shouldent even be on this platform in general
Clearly a warn/mute wouldn't have made a difference.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Phantom said:
While discords for battalions/factions are not allowed by Garnet, we have compromised with players to allow battalion discords (under supervision of me or Garnet) with text channels, but no voice channels (they should use TS for that). I think it is a very fair compromise, but some players just refuse to see reason and decide to call it "tyranny."
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.
-
1
-
-
Well done, a man of quality!
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Tayler said:
If it's called a community meeting it should be a community meeting. A meeting between officers and SOC neglects non officer entry players and makes it seem like they dont hold value. Many players could be old, come from other servers with experience, or just players with good ideas who are seemingly shut down.
This should be the meeting that welcomes absolutely anyone to come into the channel and provide feedback or be able to at least hear what others are talking about to possibly add to the subject. Just my take, though. Maybe theres a reason I'm missing to why you would limit it as such.
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.
-
Just now, petal said:
The team at least got something done out of it. That's the change I wanted to see. Again, I wanted to make a document your way, but it would've been taken as a joke because anything I usually say is taken lightly because of my position and status in Garnet though.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, petal said:
The essay shit was an entire group effort, so don't try making it seem like you were there watching it being written. I didn't want to rewrite people's words as toxic as it is. Two, don't you think you're being a hypocrite going low to mention my 1MD blacklist? We're being given chances by the people because we're not doing shit like this. If I would've written the essay myself, I would've said it nicer, but it would've been taken as a joke, because as you said, I'm jailbait. The toxicness in the post was my fault for not going in to remove, but I did find it rude to twist people's words.
Before you start going off, please at least try to get it explained before you make a post trying to tell people not to let us in a faction. We used to be friends and I don't like friends doing that.
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.
-
26 minutes ago, Gythem said:
I believe we both agreed SOC factions shouldn't have any sort of Gen/ADM rank regardless of what the number of enlisted ranks were on the opposite country. Everything else you said is spot on though.
Edit: Just for the record if SLT didn't exist irl, then this would be void as a Gen/ADM ranks would be the sixth rank. The whole thing here is stop worrying about the number that the paygrade holds and worry about the precedence your title holds. Just like a 1SG is higher than a MSG, even though they have the same paygrade.
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.
-
10 hours ago, Gythem said:
Status of Ranks: No General/Admiral ranks should be in use within SOC factions. These ranks are strictly for the base faction. The important thing here is focusing on the status a rank has instead of focusing on its paygrade. COL/PKN and CAPT/KPT are both the sixth rank as an officer and one rank before a general, the paygrade has no effect on that.
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
10 hours ago, Gythem said:Number of Ranks: This is largely dependent on whether you are a base or SOC faction, so I will split this into smaller portions.
US SOC: 6 enlisted; 1 enlisted leader; 6 officers; starts as NCO/SGT.
RU SOC: 6 enlisted; 6 officers; starts as NCO
RU Base: 8 enlisted; 11 officers
US Base: 12 enlisted; 1 enlisted leader; 11 officers
Warrant Officers: Each faction will have two warrant/junior officer ranks.
Reasoning for enlisted leaders on US: To give a more realistic experience and give uniqueness to both sides of the server. Enlisted leaders would have the status of their first WO rank in the faction.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1kafa3p3KXXdsO_PNnpouh4D82Xty5dcegnA3kj6W5hM/edit?usp=sharing
The cooldowns shown for enlisted are just a guideline.
Minimum Cooldown: This is the smallest of the four categories the only change here is adding a minimum cooldown for enlisted. This will not be rank specific, it would only be a certain amount of time you must spend as an enlisted member of your faction. The number I've decided on is 31 days, approximately one month. The warrant officer and officer cooldown rules would stay the same.
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.
10 hours ago, Gythem said:Standards:
#1. All SOC factions will have the same number of enlisted, warrants, and officers on their respective side.
#2. No General/Admiral ranks in SOC factions.
#3. All ground force and naval factions will have the same ranks and abbreviations respectively.
#4. All factions will answer to the GA/Marshal respectively.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Ting said:
IBut on to the serious part, something needs to happen. Whether that really does mean that Don does make another "Garnet's Interests" post. If you have suggestions that you have and need to be put out there (regardless of what its about) suggest it. I was very surprised that I needed to be the one to say something about AFSOC and the event server. If you truly care about this server, you need to point out the mistakes and have someone help fix them. Again, I am surprised that I have to be the one to say this, but there is always the suggestion sub-forum.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Redacted said:
@Garnet I love you man but you expect people to play your servers and when they complain about something you dont blast them on forums. That's not now that shit works. You need to be reaching out to people on how you and the staff team can improve the server instead of trying to start shit over forums.
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, Homast said:
Deadass, Garnet you should open a teespring or something, I'm sure some people would buy GG Merch
Garnet-chan on a shirt
-
1
-
1
-
-
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.
-
5
-
-
Eight seconds into clip number 1.
-1
-
1 minute ago, Romulus said:
2GA, PDSS, and Vega models.
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.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Toyto said:
The thing about that is there are other advantages that 2GA has. For example when they jump they fold like a laptop, while I don't think the hitbox is affected it still gives 2GA an advantage in a gunfight.
PMC Models are far worse, if we're comparing models here.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
-
3
-
28
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Garnet said:
Here you go, a list of people composed mostly of those who abuse the reserves system and don't contribute to any one specific faction, because they're too busy being inactive or hopping between them.
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.
-
3
-
4
-
-
5 minutes ago, Garnet said:
No issues with the head hitbox size, ye?
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.
-
Just now, AwesomeAidan said:
They also are a bunch of midget men but not much we can do about that
Spetznaz GRU : Bighead
-
2 minutes ago, Garnet said:
Just to confirm, the only issues I found with GRU would be that everywhere registers as a body shot?
Yes, that was the main issue.
Aidan reminded me they're very short, there may be some complaints about headglitching, but I wouldn't worry too much about it.
-
GRU MODEL FIXES POGGERS
-
Identifying Issues and Fixing Them: Basecamping
in Denied
Posted · Edited by Praetor_Don
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.