Toyto
-
Posts
73 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Toyto
-
-
I'd like to point what what has not been mentioned, the petty and manipulative behavior exhibited both in the sit, and afterward.
During the sit he is continuously attempting to undermine and trivialize the staff's authority. He first does this by running away despite being very familiar with this process as he likes to point out, he's a veteran. He then proceeds to ignore the staff's simple commands of switching whitelists and instead results to name calling and ego checking. Very simply put, he is trying to downplay staff's authority.
In his appeal comes the manipulative, he paints an entirely different situation than what has been shown in the clips
12 hours ago, Valor said:Staff members in-game name: Reynold, Supra (Idk if he is staff)
Look back to the clips where he ego checks supra. I believe this is another attempt at doing so. Supra was the original staff member handling the sit along with care. It is very clear that supra is staff.
12 hours ago, Valor said:However, I wanted to figure out more as to why but all he was saying was "hop off wl" over and over again.
He never once inquired about why this was happening. He was told multiple times why it was happening.
12 hours ago, Valor said:Then this was my first warning and I wasn't told anything before so that was surprising, considering im sure I get a warning or someone tells me something before it becomes an issue.
He was warned multiple times by supra, Reynolds, and care that all he needed to do was to get off the commander whitelist.
12 hours ago, Valor said:Literally no one cared except these two individuals and I didn't know it would be a ban.
This is an attempt to alienate their actions. It falls flat on it's face because of course staff cares when someone is unknowingly breaking a rule. Their reaction was to inform you of what rule you were breaking and how to correct your behavior and you reacted poorly. Ignoring that, look at the next part: "I didn't know it would be a ban". So you regret doing it only because you were punished? Are we just going to ignore that?
12 hours ago, Valor said:I feel like I deserve a warning for diss in a sit at max, considering I hopped off the wl at the end and Reynold still banned even though I completely had gotten off and stopped talking to the individuals.
You hopping off the WL happened as he was typing in the ban string. Don't act like there was any meaningful amount of time separation between these events.
12 hours ago, Valor said:however the staff individual greatly as he didn't explain anything just told me what to do in a very absurd way.
They very clearly told you multiple times exactly what you needed to do and why.
Finally, in an attempt at revenge, @Valorhas gone to every person who has negatively reacted to his appeal, found one of their posts, and negatively reacted to it. This can all be seen through the profile view and reaction history. For those who don't believe me, here is the paper trail for myself, tage, and squiddy.
TL/DR This pattern of petty and manipulative behavior should not be condoned with an accepted appeal, regardless of veteran status.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, PraetorDon said:
Currently, mosin/orsis does 80 damage body shots. I have not kept track of every change made to guns by the executive team in the last two years, this is my observation from using the guns. 2x shots to the body to kill for 160.
Both donor snipers have a base damage of 100 which allows them to 1 shot to the body. Other snipers are better not only because of the damage (allowing them to kill injured players with arm and leg shots) but also because they have better stats and larger mags; changing the number of shots required to kill wouldn't change the fact that whitelist snipers are generally better.
I don't necessarily disagree with your point about health in general but I thought this should be clarified. -
4 minutes ago, jas0n said:
Not allowing something because of the extremes is ridiculous.
Extremes was the wrong word. It's not an extreme, it's one of the many things that could result from this.
8 minutes ago, jas0n said:People get into car crashes, should we ban cars?
But we do put limits on them to protect the people using them and the people around them. Same thing here, we limit banter by not allowing people to talk over bodies.
6 minutes ago, jas0n said:As COL of DF i would never allow my guys to shit talk brand new players. its uncalled for and wrong. But if they want to shit talk the same guys they see everyday I think they should have every right to.
Which is good but you are one of many. There will be people who will use this to negatively impact other people and my point is that it will be hard to enforce limits against those people, especially when it's actively allowed in other circumstances; opening the door on this is liable to let a lot of other things out. People already get maliciously toxic on MRP, I would hate to see it be intensified by something like this.
-
1
-
-
For friends or regulars of the server I could understand the desire to do this and there wouldn't be much harm in most scenarios. However, you must consider the extremes. Someone could easily abuse this by talking over the dead bodies of new players who will simply quit playing instead of reporting to staff. Could that still happen with the current rule? Yes. But when you no longer make it punishable it will happen more often. We should try to make new players more welcome, not alienate them.
-1
-
1
-
1
-
-
+1 Level headed and sincere. Will do well as staff.
-
1
-
-
Wanted to let you know that my interest in coming back this summer, like I have for the past 3 summers, had been waning. That was until I saw the frequency and quality of updates you had been pushing out. That solely gave me the desire to come back (in about a week). So thank you Garnet.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
1st time around in 2016 it was Slideturtle, Scuffed, and Stone in GB on MRP. Mostly Slideturtle though.
2nd time around (in 2020?) it was Crypt, Romulus, and Jake in rangers on MRP.
Now I no longer need a mentor when I take long breaks.
The good mentors just feel like good friends. Not really much to it.-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, Fetn said:
if i have a biological family i want someone to come to my house and murder me no way im gonna fuck a chick all i gotta say.
Adoption? Surrogacy? Think about the content here.
-
1
-
-
Can't wait till your back in 6 years as the father of the first MRP family.
-
4 hours ago, Ziggy said:
might be boomer posting but you got this backwards
I put a lot of hours in on CS desert and I played the last rotation of Delta (which has comms but it wasn't an obj) for many hours aswell.
-
7 hours ago, Smity said:
Can we get comms from desert? miss that place
I like comms for RP and peacetime stuff but not as an obj during war.
-
1) A large building similar to resort on Tarkov. I.e. Two to three smaller buildings connected by walkways with a courtyard in the center. Inside would a mix of small and large rooms rather than the apartments seen on resort.
2) An underground bunker consisting of a tunnel system and multiple large rooms.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, CChance said:
I would like for people to actually use the ROE more then it is
Totally agree; however, I am confused about how this pertains to any of your points?
2 hours ago, CChance said:when I'm on US, I find it interesting to see if someone is going to try something, and if so I hopefully have my teammates to back me up*which should be a standard thing*
Valid opinion. Would love to see more takes like this.
2 hours ago, CChance said:Typically if a US sees a innocent "civilian" they are already going to be on the fence because they don't know their motive. With this new change it will kinda kill that RP.
I'm unsure of what you mean by "that RP". If you are referring to the process of detaining suspects then I would argue it's actually the opposite. Sure, concealment would remove the variability of them taking a gun out at any point but if that happens then the interaction ends. It literally kills the RP when that happens because one of the parties in the interaction will die. Them doing that also removes the in-character variability of what happens after because it was clear that they were a member of AFG. Instead with concealment they could take a multitude of approaches to get out of the situation alive by arguing it was planted, they had it for self defense, admitting and pretending to become an informant, actually becoming an informant, and many many more. Or they could just pull out a gun and die.
3 hours ago, CChance said:I don't hear much of anyone complaining about it in OOC or in discord.
I'm sure most, if not all, SOC members can attest to the fact that the majority of complaining about stuff happening in the moment takes place within the echochambers that is the Garnet Gaming TeamSpeak (i.e. not ooc or discord). Ignoring that fact though, you said it yourself:
3 hours ago, CChance said:I would like for people to actually use the ROE more then it is
Now for me personally. I've been trying to host more patrols and stuff like that, in fact I did today, however I've noticed a clear lack of RP in these encounters (you know that thing I try to do in peacetime). I can give you a hint as to why that is:
On 7/13/2022 at 12:50 PM, Toyto said:They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
-
Adding numbers to this to make it clear when one rebuttal starts and another ends.
1)
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:First of all, whenever US leaves base, they are ALWAYS at risk of being shot at while they are outside of base doing what they do, or making there way to a claimed area, RP or not (Unless GM/Staff Enforced)
Correct and concealment will not nor should it change this. However, as Fonza stated:
On 7/14/2022 at 9:34 AM, Fonza said:on a different server that worked REALLY well and basically forced players to play in a tactical manner.
instead of:
On 7/13/2022 at 12:42 AM, Toyto said:pulling up on US like it's GTA
2)
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:the quickdraw clause in the rules makes being "gunned downed point-blank" not only unlikely, but also punishable if the scenario you are presenting in the sentence containing the quote were to be if US were talking to Tali face to face and one of them decides to pull out their guns and kill them.
Incorrect, the quickdraw rule does not inhibit the distance, nor should it. If you believe that having a single second is enough time for the US to properly react by killing the AFG then that is a different discussion where I would again disagree. Possibly for some T1 SOC members that situation would be easily won but for the vast majority of players, including myself, this isn't the case.
3)
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:Speaking of such scenario being gunned down like that is highly unlikely due to the fact that US always having their weapons out when outside of base.
I would bet that the majority of AFG would take gunfights even in perceived disadvantages, especially Taliban under the rank of BMI a.k.a the majority of AFG. The reasoning I often am presented for this is:
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:This is a Military Roleplay Server featuring insurgents.
For example: My message was responded with. (Insert image doesn't work with streamable for me.)
4)
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:The only case this would really apply to is if a Tali were to ambush them from an area they were looking in, however I doubt the Concealment clause would reasonably cover that.
I could be understanding this wrong because the wording is confusing but isn't this exactly the type of scenario that concealment encourages? Ambushes are one of many tactical maneuvers that concealment would encourage.
5)
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:We do this anyway. We know the US would immediately kill us if they see us with our weapons out.
So if you're already practicing concealment how would concealment be a bad thing? I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
6)15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:The US are the pray, Taliban are the hunters.
I don't hunt so I will turn to @Jake here for confirmation as I know he does. Isn't being hidden (or some would say concealed) a vital part of most hunting?
7)
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:1. Drug deals gone bad
Some US soldiers wants to sell [Insert Narcotics] to some Taliban soldiers, however they find out the [Insert Narcotics] and this retaliate by starting a shootout.
2. Checkpoint inspection gone base
A US soldier stops a car at a checkpoint, the driver is asked to pop open the trunk however he makes the excuse that he can't open the trunk from the drivers seat and has to unlock it with his key. He opens the trunk, pulls out a sawed off shotgun and kills the guardsman.
3. Kidnaping
3 US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street, they are approached by 7 guys who split up to surround them and draw their weapons. Hopelessly out gunned, out numbered, and out positioned, They surrender and are captured.
These are indeed some very interesting scenarios but I have a few ideas on them that I don't think you considered.
7a) Most of these scenarios seem more like things that would happen in a GM event rather than pure happenstance. Such as wording like this:
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street
In those cases, the GM can change the ROE to better fit these situations which is something they have done and should continue to do.
7b)15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:Some US soldiers wants to sell [Insert Narcotics] to some Taliban soldiers
Oh this is a really cool RP scenario where they could negotiate prices, meeting locations, hiding from the MP, or maybe even...
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:starting a shootout
oh...
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:US soldier stops a car at a checkpoint, the driver is asked to pop open the trunk however he makes the excuse that he can't open the trunk from the drivers seat and has to unlock it with his key. He opens the trunk
Well this is another really cool scenario where they could try bribery or negotiation to convince them that having some contraband is legit and then...
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:He opens the trunk, pulls out a sawed off shotgun and kills the guardsman.
oh...
So you can see how these RP scenarios are derailed by current state of the ROE here. I'm not saying gunfights shouldn't happen. I am saying however that there are a lot of situations being squandered. Which, if you scroll up, is a point I have already discussed.15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street, they are approached by 7 guys who split up to surround them and draw their weapons. Hopelessly out gunned, out numbered, and out positioned
Like this third scenario is really cool where a large gunfight could take place...
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:They surrender and are captured.
oh...
So this confuses me. These other two scenarios the AFG might not be outnumbered but if we are talking in RP you said it yourself:
15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:We know the US would immediately kill us if they see us with our weapons out.
however in this third scenario when the roles are reversed they surrender and are captured.
7c)
The third scenario is an ambush. Which can be done with concealment?
9) Edit: skipping eight because it turns into an emoji and the numbers aren't the point anyway
So what I really think that your discontent is about is the power dynamic changing. Currently AFG has clear advantages that allow them to play in a bombastic GTA style. However, concealment's goal is to go away from that and make peacetime fighting feel more tactical. I am pushing for this because I feel like we get enough of the those types of gunfights during war and with the emphasis on RP during peacetime, so should there be an emphasis on more realistic/tactical gunfights. Again, whenever I say "realistic" people do this:
On 7/13/2022 at 1:42 PM, Shiesty said:Okay say we have concealed weapons and the ROE you would want is put in place if you want realism every gun should be one hit to the head including pistols because a pistol vs your rifle isn’t fair
Please read my response to that post before commenting on that one word and then instead rebuttal my argument.
-
1
-
-
32 minutes ago, Nutter said:
Bugs and Miscellaneous
Attempted to fix error spam when a squad member disconnects from the server
Can't wait to test this on the server
No but seriously this is really great -
1 hour ago, Shiesty said:
Okay say we have concealed weapons and the ROE you would want is put in place if you want realism every gun should be one hit to the head including pistols because a pistol vs your rifle isn’t fair
Adding realism in some areas vs others is a decision called game design. You wouldn't want to go the other way and replace the heli with a magic unicorn with a rainbow trail would you? It's a balance between realism and fun.
-
16 hours ago, Toyto said:
Reasoning
Adding to this ^
The current interactions aren't enjoyable.
Let's say I want to search a guy for weapons. They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
Let's say I want to negotiate a hostage with an AFG. They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
Let's say I want to talk to AFG during a patrol. They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
I could go on but I think you get the point.
All of the RP scenarios can just devolve in gunfights at the flick of a wrist. This promotes less RP during peacetime and ends up with more gunfights. If I wanted to have gunfights instead of RP, I would play war. Could this still happen with concealment? Yes, however Tali would have to orchestrate an ambush, call for reinforcements, or something else that is interesting rather than the scroll wheel. -
19 minutes ago, Towelieee said:
Makes the ROE complicated and I see a lot of issues coming if this were added.
Elaborate? Just saying it's complicated and there are issues without a reason doesn't prove anything.
20 minutes ago, Shiesty said:unless you can persuade me
You aren't interested in using tactics and strategy over pulling up on US like it's GTA? I mean you have 45 minutes in wartime already to do that. Shouldn't peacetime be more RP focused?
-
1 hour ago, SirSmity said:
Tali would have to hide to kill US during peacetime.
Guerilla tactics != hiding
1 hour ago, SirSmity said:Then also the new tali players that are outside of base would get warned because of this cause they should be able to kill whenever.
New players also get warned for breaking quick swapping or for that matter pretty much any rule on the server?
1 hour ago, SirSmity said:Overall this would make tali not want to leave base as cause they lose freedom from what they should have.
As stated by Anthony, and others whom I've spoken to, this has worked well on other servers. For example acer said, in response to my discord poll.
1 hour ago, SirSmity said:Most of the time US already have their guns out when they are interacting with tali and when a tali pulls out a gun they have to wait 1 second, and more than likely with the pull out animation they get killed before hand.
In all my interactions with tali, but one, this was not the case. That one exception was when a full squad of SOCOM was ambushed by 2 AFG soc and a bunch of tali. So while SOC may be able to react (sometimes) you cannot expect your average army to not be at a massive disadvantage. While an ambush should give tali the advantage, the current gap is just too much. With concealment ambushes the advantage would be rightfully earned as they would have to execute a strategy, put themselves in danger for having a weapon out, etc.
-
Description
As it stands, quick swapping, a few specific scenarios (claims, bases, etc.), and the sniper constraints are the only limitations placed upon AFG in regards to the ROE. My suggestion is to impose an additional limitation, concealment.
Afg must be concealed when pulling out a weapon (not applied to bases, claims, etc.). Concealment in this case meaning that no US can see them pull out the weapon. The exception to this would be if the AFG is plausibly unaware of the US.
To clarify, this would be in addition to quick swapping in order to avoid scenarios where AFG just runs around a US to pull out their gun for example.
Reasoning
I believe that this would improve players ability to use the ROE to make interesting scenarios for a few reasons.
For US, it would allow them to interact with AFG without fearing that a firefight is going to break out at any moment which promotes more RP through negotiations and the like. While US could still be scared of a trap, their ability to react would be better than being gunned downed point-blank.
For Afg, players would need to use guerilla tactics in order to attack US which is not only more realistic but also more engaging through the use of strategy. This strategy could something designed to kill US like an ambush or people could experiment with going undercover as civilians.
While these options do already exist, this change would encourage players to make use of them as opposed to the way things are currently going.
As a final note, I already polled on the discord and got a super majority agree.
-
10
-
6
-
-
7 hours ago, SirSmity said:
Before I accept something like this, Would you explain this more too me? Like how would you get the information out of people? like how many rolls would you get?
You would still be trying to get information from your three rolls. The only change is when you wish to use any information for an operation you would need at least 3 instances of that information. This makes it harder to metagame in situations where someone gets a bunch of invalid info then randomly deciding that the 1 piece of valid information they have is the one they wish to act on.
-
10 hours ago, Fonza said:
While I do support this, I hope that interrogations haven’t been consisting of people sitting the other person in a chair and rolling to find their identity, there should be some type of RP happening between both parties that could influence the rolls.
Definitely, this is simply addressing an aspect of the rolls.
10 hours ago, Fonza said:Regardless of that, the only problem I have with this is that if false information is to be given away, it should not be something obviously wrong such as “My name is PVT Balls Itch” since people will try to make the case that it is so outlandish to have a name such as that they wouldn’t need to document it.
I hadn't considered this. I suppose if someone was giving names like this it would warrant a failRP warn.
2 hours ago, Kurtle said:SOC Specialty
Essentially, we should add roll modifiers, based on which faction you are in, and your status in it. These would add on top of each player's roll number, giving them a little bit of buffer. For example, being in Delta Force would grant you +10 to any roll, and if you are an officer, then you get another +5 (example values)This was one of the aforementioned ideas I had that I was saving for later. I was going to make a fleshed out "roll modifier" system with base stuff like that and other actions as well. So I totally support this, not sure if it's tacked onto my suggestion though.
-
Description
The current system allows an interrogator to roll against the interrogatee to force them to give information. If the interrogator wins they get information, if they lose nothing happens. While I have a few ideas on how to improve this system I would like to start with 2 simple additions.
If the interrogatee wins the roll, they have the option of providing false information to the interrogator. This information, just like the information gained upon the interrogator winning, must be taken as valid information in RP. For example, it is common to document information obtained through kidnaps so any information obtained through a kidnap with my change implemented needs to be documented despite it's validity. For those worrying that this wouldn't happen, it would be very easy to enforce. A simple look through the documentation history should yield a roughly 50-50 split between valid and invalid information. While real life often differs from statistics, any discrepancies should be fairly minor and extremely obvious.In order to prevent circumvention of this addition I request that parties must obtain at least 3 pieces of corroborating information, whether they be valid or invalid, to act upon it. For example, to assassinate the COL of TSFU, SOCOM would have to interrogate ~6 people to get 3 pieces of corroborating information in order to host that PK.
Reasoning
Many people are unsatisfied with the current roll system. I believe these two basic additions would add more nuance to information gathering. People would be forced to get information from multiple sources in order to find correct information rather than magically knowing that they acquired valid info. So this not only lengthens the process of assassination but also turns the process into an investigation rather than something that can be done easily within an hour. This change also gives a role to interrogatee who can derail assassination attempts by providing false info. This would mean that faulty information could also be used in these scenarios which could have interesting repercussions in resulting RP.
Finally I would like to add that support for this change as already been garnered in the discord.
https://streamable.com/qtgzqp-
1
-
2
-
-
+1 As someone who has mained US for the entirety of my GG experience, this change would be helpful. While other people who have played on both sides are allowed to have reserves I am forbidden due to the current reserves system.
-
1
-
1
-
[MRP] Modernizing
in Accepted
Posted · Edited by Toyto
Typo
I think the removal of whitelist loadouts is a good idea but I think there needs to be some tweaks to this implementation.
Firstly, taking a page out of battlebit, the different whitelist classes should have different access to the weapon pool and their own utility. For example, the support classes would have a medkit but only have access to smgs and maybe some short range rifles. This gives incentives for unlocking new classes and allows them to have a somewhat unique identity while remaining mostly homogenous.
Secondly, this system reduces incentive to join any particular faction. While models, MOS, and the people in a faction would play a part, I still believe there should be a gameplay related incentive to choosing a faction. To do this, I suggest reducing the amount of classes per faction down to the previous number (4?) and having the utility in a faction focus around its purpose. For example GB/055 could focus on cqc utility like nades, flashes, and riot shields while DF/ISI focus on infiltration with disguise kits, smoke grenades, and lockpicks. The examples I gave could obviously be changed but they represent the idea. To clarify, basic utility such as medkits and cuffs would still be a available to all factions.