Project Reality Forums

https://i.imgur.com/MK8xNf1.mp4

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/696728693682339870/1060309242957004900/image.png

1. Please, explain how is it fair.

2. List exceptions of 'Section 4: STAGING AREAS/DOD'.

Rusty_42 wrote:https://i.imgur.com/MK8xNf1.mp4

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/696728693682339870/1060309242957004900/image.png

1. Please, explain how is it fair.

2. List exceptions of 'Section 4: STAGING AREAS/DOD'.

I've brought this up before, but the response is usually along the lines of "don't question the rules, just follow them"

It would be very simple to just add an exception to this rule on Carrier assault maps, but there seems to be no interest in this.

PBAsydney wrote: It would be very simple to just add an exception to this rule on Carrier assault maps, but there seems to be no interest in this.

Last time I talked about this the told me get DEVs to change it, talk to DEVs and they just made it "worse" in our case(Vadso & Beirut DODs got bigger).

[concept]

Should i update dod?

nice meme

Removed some posts, no infractions will be handed out yet.

To reiterate the same thing from a similar conversation had in the PR discord. Anymore talk from communities to accuse each other of ddosing will just result in being removed from the server. If people have solid evidence of this happening, they can PM Nate or myself with the evidence and we will investigate it.

FFG wrote:Removed some posts, no infractions will be handed out yet.

To reiterate the same thing from a similar conversation had in the PR discord. Anymore talk from communities to accuse each other of ddosing will just result in being removed from the server. If people have solid evidence of this happening, they can PM Nate or myself with the evidence and we will investigate it.

Well I thought that in the post I had made it clear that it might be a random player that just wanted to play on that "particular place", and not the people running/managing the "particular place", so I did not in that sense directly accuse them, but I see your point regarding proof, so I won't mention the issue again, good enough.

Rusty_42 wrote:https://i.imgur.com/MK8xNf1.mp4

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/696728693682339870/1060309242957004900/image.png

1. Please, explain how is it fair.

2. List exceptions of 'Section 4: STAGING AREAS/DOD'.

You present the problem here.
Yet you have the solution.

Change the DOD if you want.
You have that power, not me.

We already have ground-to-air DOD exceptions for several maps because the DOD boundaries are too close to playable land.

2IC wrote:You present the problem here.
Yet you have the solution.

Change the DOD if you want.
You have that power, not me.

We already have ground-to-air DOD exceptions for several maps because the DOD boundaries are too close to playable land.

Problem is that you guys misunderstand what DoD is. It is not a mainbase, but an area one team has restricted access to in order to better protect actual mainbase. Shooting into it should be totally acceptable, yet existing rules create artificial gameplay boundaries.

VTRaptor wrote:Problem is that you guys misunderstand what DoD is. It is not a mainbase, but an area one team has restricted access to in order to better protect actual mainbase. Shooting into it should be totally acceptable, yet existing rules create artificial gameplay boundaries.

"But an area one team has restricted access to in order to better protect actual mainbase".

That's exactly what we're trying to do.

If you stand next to the DOD edge with an AA kit in maps like Operation Bobcat, Yamalia, Bamyan, Khamisiyah, Operation Falcon, and many other maps, the opposing team's trans helicopter basically stands little chance of surviving once they take off and fly past the main base boundaries.

And don't tell me that this is some fringe scenario.
We see POS main base campers growing by the hour.

We merely try to find a rule whereby fairness can be ensured to the maximum extent possible for both sides, working along with the DOD boundaries set by the DEVs.

Like I said, we also already have exceptions for the other scenario (where DOD boundaries are too close to playable land).

If you stand next to the DOD edge with an AA kit in maps like Operation Bobcat, Yamalia, Bamyan, Khamisiyah, Operation Falcon, and many other maps, the opposing team's trans helicopter basically stands little chance of surviving once they take off and fly past the main base boundaries.

All true, but then again at what point does it stop being camping then? X distance from DOD edge? If so, you're artificially extending DOD. Only if shooting vehicles moving away from DOD? Etc.


Maps like Pavlovsk, Adak and Beirut put entire sea into DOD so you can't camp DOD with boat/amphibious AAVs, equating shooting from sea shore with camping is a bit of a stretch there.

Outlawz7 wrote:All true, but then again at what point does it stop being camping then? X distance from DOD edge? If so, you're artificially extending DOD. Only if shooting vehicles moving away from DOD? Etc.


Maps like Pavlovsk, Adak and Beirut put entire sea into DOD so you can't camp DOD with boat/amphibious AAVs, equating shooting from sea shore camping is a bit of a stretch there.

"at what point does it stop being camping then?"
For us, it's the point where air assets don't get killed within their own DOD from an enemy ground asset/player.
That's our standard.
I don't mean to be rude, but if anyone doesn't like it, it really isn't our problem.

Reminder that our new DOD rules came about because of the lack of clarity on what constitutes main camping.
Our previous rules did allow ground-to-air fire, and that created situations in which obvious main camping was technically not against the rules.

"Only if shooting vehicles moving away from DOD?"
I assume you mean allow ground-to-air fire against assets moving away from main base but within DOD.
This is a solution on a theoretical level, yes.

However, our rule sets are already complex, and we have no desire to make it more complicated.
We can't make a sub-rule for every different scenario that could exist in the game.
It's hard for our admins to enforce, and it's even harder for the average player to fully grasp.

On the other hand, DOD boundaries are clearly marked on Map Gallery, and anyone can visually see the legal/illegal areas of the map.

"Maps like Pavlovsk, Adak and Beirut put entire sea into DOD so you can't camp DOD with boat/amphibious AAVs, equating shooting from sea shore camping is a bit of a stretch there."
You're putting words in my mouth I didn't say.

In my last reply, I specifically differentiated between (1) scenario where campers exploit a small DOD area and (2) scenario where DOD area is too close playable land area.

I never "equated shooting from sea shore camping".

Third time I'm saying this already: We have exceptions for maps where the DOD area is too close to playable land area.
By our standard, we determined Adak shouldn't be one of those exceptions.
We wouldn't create these exceptions if we believed "equating shooting from sea shore camping".

I'm not going to list the exceptions here, but check Map Gallery, and it'll be glaringly obvious which ones.

Ok.
Please, don't set Adak on your server. That's my personal request as a mapper.

Rusty_42 wrote:Ok.
Please, don't set Adak on your server. That's my personal request as a mapper.

Sorry, no.

I'm not trying to be rude, but that request is unreasonable.

We're not going stop setting a map because you have an issue with our DOD rules.

You could remove the map if you want.
I personally wouldn't want that cos I like Adak, but it's a DEV decision.
Or you could adjust the DOD boundaries.

If the request is to consider adding Adak to the exceptions list, I can bring that to the discussions with other head admins.

2IC wrote: If the request is to consider adding Adak to the exceptions list, I can bring that to the discussions with other head admins.

Yes, please.

Outlawz7 wrote:Yes, please.

Will do.

What about when someone shoot AA at cas when it's outside of DOD, but the missile hit it inside DOD?

never wrote:What about when someone shoot AA at cas when it's outside of DOD, but the missile hit it inside DOD?

Our system is capable of distinguishing between kills like that from the rest.

2IC wrote:Our system is capable of distinguishing between kills like that from the rest.

Rusty_42 wrote:

I said our system is capable of distinguishing between different types of kills.

I didn't say the admins will strictly follow what information the system conveys to them.

The system doesn't auto-ban people for G2A DOD kills.

It's ultimately the admin's decision based on assessment of the situation, including based on the information the system conveys to the admin.


If you don't have the intention for constructive dialogue but rather just focus on proving me wrong, I really don't see the point of prolonging this discussion with you.

Outlawz, for example, made the effort for constructive dialogue, and as a result, we have changed our policy.