Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jackal

  1. I wouldn't stress though if it was like the previous where you can import your own custom ones clientside that would be sick. I would love to post what I had for reference but yk EDIT : Though having the ability to have both HIT and KILL sounds would be nice.
  2. Is this hitmarker system similar to the previous where you can have your own custom hitsound or is this strictly visual?
  3. The amount of times people have heard this exact thing is honestly hilarious. Even still your situation is super unlikely to be true. Especially since the account that was used and got banned initially was a 6 day year old account, fully privated, level 0, etc. https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561199514631791/ ^ Villagerofmc steamaccount ^ I'm not gonna detail each frame or something. But if it isn't obvious he is esping the moment he notices me moving to the window, before I am in view, and starts to LOS with the tree soon after and later killing me. -1 I don't think it's likely given the context and all info that this wasn't just you on an alt messing around with cheats. If not and it genuinely was your brother using his 6 day old account to cheat and play independently you are likely out of luck since it is still your PC and your responsibility in regard to who uses it and what is downloaded onto it. EDIT: At the time of the account being banned, villagerofmc, it had accumulated 5 hours on the server. So this definitely wasn't the first time we saw the account on the server playing unless your timeframe is incorrect. (Him playing from 8:30 onward until he got banned around 11PM EST given this ss I posted in disc https://gyazo.com/d4987461214292f55a330fdac5a86160) This means that half his time was spent on that day cheating and the other half some day(s) before. How do you not notice an injector and dll recently downloaded onto your computer given this most certainly wasn't his first session?
  4. Not true numerous other servers new and old have the same cap zones with similar ROEs as us. Namely, considering "AFG = civilians when they have keys out." That ROE remains in place and our Quickdraw rule keeps any issues from happening in terms of peace time combat. So changing ROEs/rules is largely a non-issue. This is also not true given we already are in 24/7 war with the ROEs. Again, the existing ROEs pertaining to US and AFG shooting each other imply we are already in 24/7 war. Again other servers have/had similar rules and the suggested system with no issues. Anyway +1 given that capable points during peacetime adds an additional thing to do while staying true to what most people enjoy, war, AND can be utilized in conjunction with future updates/systems.
  5. I can't really reply to anything specific given how you replied so bear with this post skipping a bit or addressing points not in order. I reiterated this a few times but smokes and flashes are reasonable to see on a bunch more classes than there are now. However, I think frag grenades and the general amount on classes is pretty fair and not really in a position to get increased outside of maybe a class or two. Like I mentioned I don't think that frag grenades are cheatcodes to war but I definitely wouldn't go as far to say as there is much "thought" to using them especially since it has none of the downsides that other explosives have with the same upsides. I.E. you get to use them with a gun out which other explosives don't have the benefit of, you get 3 of them so a lot of kill potential plus you can fuck up a throw or two, and lastly always have a strong primary to pair with the ability to throw them. I do get the struggle of X class being better than Y, or having the most useful kit, as you mentioned with GB but that is more an issue with class setup than anything and should be addressed properly. If the problem is Demolition, as you mentioned, not being used because breacher is just flat better because of what is on it (G36C and nades) then maybe just swap the guns around. I.E. you either roll with the class with a really good AR or the other class with a good shotgun and some nades. The choice then might not be nearly as 1-dimensional as it is now but would likely be dealt with case by case.
  6. Sure flanking is an inconvenience to your uptime on point but a net positive for the rest of your team/country regardless of time spent. (Not every role/position is favorable) Also, I can't honestly imagine flanks for people taking 3+minutes to pull off especially with vehicles now so even on a larger map than it is now I just don't see how movement speed helps other than trying to make something intentionally inconvenient convenient. The problem with the post initially in that regard wasn't so much base factions getting them just that a total of 23 classes, not including existing donors, would end up having frags one way or another. It's the amount not who is getting them. No matter which side you play you will be on the losing side at some point and feel like you can't get to or clear point it happens. Now if you are saying that this is because of some gameplay issue like map design then go through the proper channels for that as well as tackling the issue directly as opposed to flatly saying "distribute nades" to indirectly solve the issue. (But possibly create problems in the future) As for the last sentiment I don't think anyone, or at the very least myself, mentioned frags as being uber powerful or "instant wins" just that it definitely wouldn't be in everyone's best interest for balance with so many in circulation given their kill potential. Don't get me wrong I myself personally wouldn't be opposed to changes that shake up combat and war though myself personally would want to see weapon changes given how bad it has gotten as opposed to what you are suggesting/initially suggested. (Or something completely new just has to be thought out)
  7. Honestly, nades being distributed to classes isn't horrible and should happen at some point or another at least in reference to flashes and smokes. Frags probably shouldn't be added to a total of 23 classes as the suggestion suggests let alone giving classes that can disguise explosives either. (this includes IED detonator) I don't think anyone can say definitively if increasing movement speed on non-donator classes will encourage flank play, given that a drastic change like this was never done, but I will say that even currently on the small map you see flanks occurring often and this is without movement speed. For example, if we are to have an Playground or Courtyard war you are certainly going to see either US or AFG utilizing cons to flank or cut people off. Granted, it is harder to do atm given the map size but even outside of Foxtrot flanking occurred often. Aside from that we'd also probably see hitregistration issues as well which is annoying as it is and would be a headache post a change like this. Also, how is movement speed even added utility if it is a stat boost to you as an individual. It doesn't provide anything for anyone around you like a flash or smoke can. I would agree that a movementspeed debuff combined with extra tankieness could push people towards holding point but that is assuming they can get there half the time. In the past we have had Nailgunner/RPG and Jug/Bulldozer as classes with movement speed reductions but extra hp. More often than not, and that is being generous, they were just easy targets for snipers to pickoff given they have that lack of movement to get out of their LOS. I imagine it is/would be even worse now given how overtuned many faction weapons are. Also, most of the classes with armor increases don't even have movement speed reductions as mentioned at the start of your thread so atm they just get a flat armor increase with no downside anyway. TL;DR Flashes and Smokes are a +1 everything else a definite -1
  8. From what Garnet has said on my warn appeal. There is a strong possibility of not even needing a rule so this, for the time being, could operate as a backup option if that falls flat. If you want to know what I am referencing it is my warn appeal for crouch-jumping which was also used as a reference in this thread. Feel free to react to his post as well to articulate your interest, or disinterest, in that addition to the server. for the lazy people https://forums.garnetgaming.net/index.php?/topic/23193-crouch-jump-warn-appeal/#comment-186994
  9. I know crouch jumping is abusable since I have been a part of this community for a long time, however, I didn't use it with that intention and if you wanted to punish me for doing so, you would need to have it written. It isn't my fault it was removed, it's your fault for not updating it. I shouldn't receive a special punishment because of my status as a veteran in the same way I shouldn't receive a special exemption for being one.
  10. This I referenced in both the suggestion and warn appeal. Jim trash's post is from 3 years ago and is in the DENIED section of administration. It's mut anyway. If you're adamant about enforcing those rules make an official post instead of expecting players to forage for it. (Crouch-jumping based off of what is on forums and the fact it is unwritten is just like basecamping atm. A gentleman's agreement. Though like I mentioned in my suggestion I do think there should be some rule on it. Just not an unwritten one.) Firstly, you recognize there wasn't intent to break my hitbox, bear in mind this is my first offense for this and again this is an unwritten rule, and historically we typically have different proceedings for accidental transgressions or rule breaks. Especially considering this is again an UNWRITTEN rule. So again just like Towelie you can recognize that it needs more clarification but can't correlate how the lack of explanation could mean wrongful warnings? Thank you though for conceding that there is no direct rule for the rule that was enforced. You said that previously and yet we are more intent on keeping a warning, as though the rule genuinely exists, despite recognizing it needing clarification and being unwritten. So how is this stance in any way rational? (keeping the warning) I listed off numerous examples that while some may see as common sense aren't and that is why they get clarified in the rules. Unwritten rules restricting a super common movement, that is muscle memory for a lot of players, while you think might fall under FailRP do need clarification and this is what you've already admitted to. You quoted the rule I already referenced and mentioned clearly that that entire thread by Jim Trash is in the DENIED section. im hurt you didn't read my appeal and suggestion
  11. Yes and, unless staff protocol has changed, this is historically NOT how rules as specific as crouch-jumping, basecamping, fast fire exploiting, using snipers in peace time, etc are enforced or implemented. They don't just coincidentally fall under a blanket rule. They are clarified and made clear in the MOTD or, like mentioned in our staff sit, through an administration post. (Ideally not one from 3 years ago where half of it isn't relevant or has been since overruled. BUT that requires proactive and attentive staff/management) Your paraphrasing me incorrectly I said that this isn't how rules like this are typically enforced and that it doesn't make sense for an obscure ambiguous rule to be substantial in determining if it is enforceable. You yourself cited a post in that sit from 3 years ago with people even at that time being confused on the rule and having different interpretations. (Which was like the whole point of what I was saying and indirectly gave me a source to reference) This, unless staff protocol has changed, is also false. Precedent isn't set in sits because if it were, a T.Mod could set precedent or really anyone with any staff rank could. There is a reason why rule implementations, precedent, etc go through the proper channels in administration/management, to then be made official through forums, and then they are enforced. (You also mention in your post that "I, myself, have been warned for crouch-jumping in war and I know the what to do and what not to do" which implies that I have to ACCIDENTALLY break the rule to even know that it exists to the extent that it, apparently, does which is not healthy between staff and players. Additionally, I hadn't been warn for this prior verbal or officially so genuinely couldn't have known unless I remembered that obscure 3 year old thread ) You say "certain ways" but based off of your replies and in the sit there is only one "way" (unless you opt to clarify) which is to get over obstacles which leaves anything and everything else open ended. Additionally, I said at like the start of the sit that I knew crouch-jumping in combat wasn't allowed, as in crouch-jumping in the open, but again wanted clarification as to what extent given that you gave one definition of the rule and the Admin, your superior, gave another. You, again, are misremembering or intentionally misrepresenting what was said in the sit. I never contested whether or not the rule existed just to what extent it covered movement and maneuverability in combat. All of the stuff referenced in the sit to back the warn initially fell flat given that even back then it was ambiguous. So you can concede and agree with me, as the person initially handling the sit, that the rule needs to be more in-depth and because of this exact situation it should and would be addressed. But you can't be rational and reasonable enough to recognize that in this case, and likely others, people were warned for this exact thing with no ability to know that it actually is against the rules or to what extent. No offense but that seems like the inverse of staff operations and a lack of accountability. (This just makes the dynamic between player and staff even more unhealthy and honestly undesireable) EDIT: Funnily enough you, coincidentally, forgot to mention that that corner in your screenshot that I strafed around and behind wouldn't have been possible without crouch jumping. (Taking it as wide and as fast as I did would be nowhere near as fluid or possible without it. This is something you can literally reference to in the medal clip used to report me.)
  12. Yeah I am largely in agreement with this just that if we allow strafing/crouchjump strafing in cons it should be tolerable elsewhere especially with how detrimental to movement it is in and outside of cons though cons does see it considerably more. (Either by strafing down levels vertically like on previous iterations or both vertically and horizontally like on the current map) As it is now it's just odd to enforce an unwritten rule with as many contradictions as it has both in writing and in practice ingame. Yeah in my opinion, and this is pretty general, as long as the crouch jump isn't malicious and is actually being used for movement as opposed to breaking your hitbox you should be g2g (while also not crouch jumping more than once.) I.E. you see somebody crouch jumping in the middle of the open as they are getting shot then obviously that isn't allowed so you record and report. Whereas if you are crouch jumping to say get over something, get around a corner fast, go down a level/across buildings in cons or elsewhere, etc etc should be simply accepted as mechanics existing in the game and are ultimately learned and practiced to the point where anyone can do it. This is exactly the case with double and triple jumping through the bug that exists with the antibhop addon we have on the server. Technically, anyone who double or triple jumps should be getting banned for exploiting/warned for failrp given that it is a bug and arguably gives an unfair advantage to those aware. Though we know this is not the case and rather has been encouraged and accepted as an additional mechanic much akin to that of standard movement mechanics existing in source games. (Just like everything mentioned on this thread, with the exception of the obvious crouch jumping in the open, as well as warn appeal) TL;DR I think the rule implementation is a given since well it isn't written anywhere on forums with the exception of a 3year old post(s). However, as for rule implementation/clarification I would think it would need to check a few boxes so as to avoid eliminating components of combat that make it fun. I.E. allowing for crouch-jump strafing, getting over obstacles, maneuvering, and disallowing the MALICIOUS use of it in combat as opposed to punishing people for simply playing the game normally or whatever. (Especially if we allow and accept bug(s) as movement mechanics but disallow this) IMPORTANT - I just noticed the only mention of this officially on the forums is also in the administration "denied section." This is most certainly not supposed to be enforced if it is in the denied section without a follow up post reestablishing the rule. (Which there isn't atm)
  13. To an extent that is what I am saying but way less restrictive on movement. Previously, this rule had been consistently enforced as any additional crouch jump after the first results in a warn. As it is now with obstacles and what you are saying that means, for example, me crouch jumping strafing into and out of cons having been in combat isn't allowed despite it being an almost essential part of cons. (Similarly, on my warn appeal I had crouch jumped to try and strafe around a corner, as fast as possible without dying, didn't shoot back at the dude during that period or even kill him https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/181z9GUwl6WIhN/P7ej4mhtfwaS?invite=cr-MSxoNmosMTI4MDExNzk0LA) Maneuverability is an incredibly important part of source games from my experience and crouch jumping coincidentally makes it more consistent and easier. Removing the ability to do that through an arbitrary rule, especially since it really only restricts a handful of players from what I've seen the past few days of playing, is dumb and evidently enough from the forums results in a hefty amount of reports/appeals that shouldn't exist to begin with. The problem with "keeping it as is" is that it doesn't take into account cssource/gmod and mechanics revolving around maneuverability (movement) like what I had mentioned previously as well as in my warn appeal. (I'll edit and link it in my original post so people can reference that and vice versa) Additionally, like I mentioned in this and the appeal the staff in my sit both had two interpretations of this rule as did I. None of which are necessarily wrong interpretations of the rule given it hasn't been ever posted in the MOTD or elsewhere for 3 years. Though, you could always revert the rule to the tried and true "More than 1 crouch jump in combat = FailRP" since at that point you know for fact what it was done for (to break a hitbox) whereas doing it ONCE in combat could mean accidental, done to get over an obstacle, done to have better movement going around a corner, etc etc.
  14. In-game name: Tali CPL yakal SteamID (https://steamid.io/): STEAM_0:0:69077674 Staff members in-game name: Papamid, Towelie, Smity Staff members SteamID (/id (name): STEAM_0:1:79410912, Date & Time of incident: 5/6/2023 1AM Timezone: EST Warn Reason: Fail RP - Crouch Jump What happened? (include any proof): https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/181z9GUwl6WIhN/xUdhiCM5d3q8?invite=cr-MSxoNmosMTI4MDExNzk0LA I was reported for the clip above in which I was shown crouch jumping and strafing to get around a corner as quickly as possible. I clarified in the sit that this was not malicious and is a pretty natural movement on gmod and source games alike especially in terms of bhopping, surfing, etc. I tried to also clarify that what was shown is incredibly similar to strafing and crouching to go window to window in cons, crouch jumping over barriers, etc all of which have a commonality being non-malicious but opportunistic movement. Why should your warn be removed?: In the very sit I was in the Admin reporting me, Papamid, had referenced the rule as once taking damage you are no longer allowed to crouch jump at all though Towelie, the Smod handling the sit, said that you could crouch jump in combat but only exclusive to getting over barriers. This then prompted the sit to conclude but maybe 10minutes later Smity had made the decision it was crouch jumping. Additionally, the only reference to this rule existing at least from what I was shown in the sit by both staff members was it, apparently, falling loosely under the FRP rule as well as a post from 3 or more years ago. Due to the ambiguity of the rule my warning should be removed and my suggestion heavily considered for acceptance so as to avoid further confusion and wrongful warnings. Below is my suggestion in regard to the rule which has additional information and threads to reference the minimal existence of this “rule.” EDIT: The only tangible thing on the forums pertaining to crouch-jumping is the thread below. (Which I hadn't realized is in the denied section anyway)
  15. Description: I am suggesting for extensive or brief clarification on the crouch-jumping rule. Either through an update of the MOTD or a formal post in addition to the rules. Reasoning: There is nothing written in terms of rules clearly defining what is and isn't allowed in terms of crouch jumping other than posts from 3 years ago that are incredibly outdated and from a long gone administration that wasn't exactly good to begin with. Specifically, in the post that clarified the rule has a contradiction in it. "Intentional Crouch-Jump Spam = FailRP | 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." E (Additionally, the same thread with the rule is in the denied section anyway) Even in that given rule the first sentence clarifies that "crouch-jump SPAM" is failrp but then soon after the bracket contradicts the "spam" portion and says it's failrp in all scenarios with the exclusion of getting over obstacles and then further complicating things by saying it is up to staff discretion. Additionally, even on a handful of threads from this time period are confused and have different interpretations of the rule. (This is generally why rules like this are written down and posted via a formal post under administration or the forums motd for the server is updated. Some rules like basecamp previously had to be written down concretely exactly BECAUSE of different interpretations due to it never formally being written down prior let alone with a good enough baseline.) Additionally, in the sit I had earlier today I had an Admin, Papamid, who said the crouch jump rule was that once taking damage you can't crouch jump AT ALL whereas the one handling, Towelie an SMod, said it was only allowed when getting over obstacles. That should be telling enough coupled with the fact that all of the crouch-jump rule(s)/clarification are convoluted and incredibly dated (3+years old) and should be addressed. New Rule: You are disallowed from crouch jumping in combat outside of the realm of movement/maneuverability. Examples below. (Recording required) Crouch-jumping and strafing to get around a corner Crouch-jumping and strafing to go down a level/floor Crouch-jumping and strafing to get to an adjacent room/area Crouch-jumping over obstacles Crouch-jumping to climb onto obstacles Easy to enforce rule: More than one crouch-jump in combat results in a warning for FailRP regardless of scenario. Additional Information: https://gyazo.com/b9a9ab89b7308ed4f115178cc8fe8a84 ^The only notable posts about crouch jumping aside from a plethora of appeals/reports.
  16. Name: Jackal Current Active Ranks: Tali CPL Officer Experience: Vega DGEN, IJU/HAQN FADM, MARSOC Gen, GB Col, GRU LtGen, SEAL ADM/CAPT, DF 1LT Notable Accomplishments: Led Vega for 2 years or so maintaining a very strong roster of formerly notable players all of which contributed to the factions reputation back then. Additionally, I was manager on MRP for about half the time I was in Vega more or less. Playtime: Tali CPL yakal has played for 8799:51:50 Desired Rank: Agent Current Rank in ISI (If Applicable): N/A What does the term Professionalism mean to you?: Professionalism foundationally relates to how you maintain yourself and represent yourself around peers and others. Ultimately, how you act and the decisions you make relate back to your personal image. Someone who has a poor work ethic, is late, rude, dismissive, etc would be someone who lacks professionalism and thus is representing themselves poorly as well as whoever they are associated with. In the context of ISI, I imagine, that a standard for professionalism would entail being mature, calm, rational, competent, respectful, and welcoming. How do you hope to improve ISI?: I plan to join as an AGT proving myself as an enlisted by maintaining the desired standard(s) set for members of ISI. Additionally, I would hope to eventually become an officer or some sort of authority figure so as to lead by example to a greater extent as well as enforce the standards set for ISI. However, leading by example is especially important which would entail being calm and collected when leading wars, being respectful to other factions and their leaders, being active on the forums, taking accountability, etc. Ultimately, I hope to be a foundational member that assists one way or another in shaping the faction positively long-term. Are you willing to completely commit to the Faction?: Yes What skills do you bring to the table?: I bring an extensive knowledge of PVP, professionalism, server health, etc that some others may fall short on matching. All of this information I can effectively communicate and distribute to whoever would ask or need it. I would additionally be able to apply all of this as an enlisted and eventually be able to reinforce, maintain, and enforce those same standards as an officer and, hopefully, be someone to rely on so as to distribute some of the weight that comes with leading.
  17. I mean reserves after the change from Ozzy are now for people taking extended breaks from the server or have something IRL keeping them from playing for an extended period. What are the chances that the few hours that they can clock in on the server during such LOA would want to be spent only being able to do a tryout/training as opposed to playing the server as normal. Not only that but even aside from this suggestion reserves are already really restrictive in that they are only for people NOT able to play the server for one reason or another and no longer include former leaders/officers like previously and this doesn't make reserves any more appealing. Even aside from this suggestion I don't see a world where anyone uses the reserve system anymore, made worse I would think if you can only do tryouts/trainings, unless the faction leader doesn't allow for extensive LOAs (even though NOW they are the same thing just one has an R in the mos and the other doesn't) Additionally, in the "changes" section the 3 month period in which reserves can be removed is already something existing in the current reserve system posted by Ozzy albeit it doesn't specify who is removing the reserves and in the post doesn't clarify if the leader can remove them prior to the 90day mark. (Though if you as the faction leader are granting reserves for a current officer/enlisted in your faction and then during the 90 day period decide to remove them is telling of you as a leader anyway) No offense this suggestion, even though advertised as being similar to the old one, is more similar to the newer reserve system than anything. The old system offered a permanent spot in a faction for people if they had earned it and was essentially a trophy for a lack of a better word. Obviously, we know that the criteria for "earning" it varied greatly from leader to leader especially in the past few years but that isn't to say some people gave out reserves unjustifiably. The main problem with old reserves was that there was no consistent criteria for getting them and retaining them AND they had officer powers as though they were active duty and not reserves.
  18. Jackal

    Skrt Ban Appeal

    You forgot to mention that yourself, Ghost, I believe Lua, Virtual, and other(s) all actively HvH'd eachother while on chaharikar with no care for others participating in the war. (No one appreciates yourself and others making the server your own personal sandbox/amped up tdm) I think everyone knows my opinion in terms of those cheating but yourself and the friendgroup you were in/are in weren't just individual people cheating in war with no knowledge of eachother. You guys cheated as a collective, granted only about half of you guys were caught, as well as did everything you guys could to prolong/avoid punishment and that to me, when spectating you, made it the more malicious. Even on the report placed on you by shrimps has people highlighting how, at least in reference to you, "Skrt has been on a lot of people's list for at least using walls...." and numerous others all having the same sentiment that you HAD to of cheated for month(s) or longer. (Just for reference to ONE of the other guys in the group caught all with the same sentiment that people had on Skrt's report. Being that it was known for a while at the very least and likely happened for just as long if not longer.)
  19. All you have to do is be involved as staff, assuming existing staff are competent, and vet who is getting reserves and in what faction. Come up with your own criteria that enables X or Y to get reserves instead of the straightforward easy "hit 2ndLt." A couple executives tried pushing for this before but it got shot down and when we tried damage controlling reserves people effected threw a fit. (Green Beret circa 2019-2020) Maybe this time around y'all can get it under control. For the posts having the criteria "ideas" limited to "Up the rank to X or Y from 2ndLt" historically it doesn't work and you regress to having the same problem you have now. (All this is is moving the goalpost further back) People will do the bare minimum to hit that rank, as seen since that change was put in place, and resign soon after. No offense to anybody but majority of officers that have held reserves likely were a name and a face in a faction who did nothing good but also didn't do anything bad which is all but too common but is and has been the norm for a long time. (Fixable but needs proactive behavior from staff which might not be favorable with players)
  20. the cycle continues i guess I hope it's different this time (It's a cycle for a reason) (Don't be a beta rogue) My name is Hm "Himothy" Timothy (Self explanatory) ^ me on garnet
  21. I assume with the sub bats, even though it's not specifically mentioned, that the spawns as well as team chat are setup? Only asking since previously when Green Company and other sub bats were added prior those two issues were persistent for a time.
  22. No batchest? Yeah it's okay it was definitely a good update.....
  24. +1 This guy knows how to rp super well and is one of the nicest people you could probably interact with. Also, I don't doubt that Bob could end up outperforming most of the current applicants, and maybe even the GM team as a whole, just going off of his activity, etiquette, and maturity on the server. Bear in mind, that judgement is before even taking into account the application itself which is creative but also displays a lot of effort and care which others have mentioned indirectly/directly above. THIS IS A EASY DECISION
  25. It's not over till I get my companion.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use | Guidelines