Project Reality Forums

Risiko94 wrote:Can someone enlighten me on why the head devs ignore all HOG wrongdoing?

Your obsessing about it doesn't make it true.

Is it simply a matter of money?

We don't get money from HOG and HOG doesn't get money from us.

Nate. wrote:Your obsessing about it doesn't make it true.



We don't get money from HOG and HOG doesn't get money from us.

Nate is lying PR developer team just bought two new Villas in Dubai with all the money, The corner Villa Nate bought for himself, and the second Villa they bought for Mineral, Mats and Max which faces 400ft road.

RaNa-Rocxs wrote:Nate is lying PR developer team just bought two new Villas in Dubai with all the money, The corner Villa Nate bought for himself, and the second Villa they bought for Mineral, Mats and Max which faces 400ft road.

Seems legit.

Nate. wrote:Your obsessing about it doesn't make it true.

What actions have the devs or mods taken against servers that do not follow the licensing agreement in the last 12 months?

ShrapGnoll wrote:you dont

You dont see that problematic? Considering how sensitivez incompetent and trigger happy some admins are overshoots and mishaps are waiting to happen

Developers should make game less required for adminning. Just play

Wicca wrote:Developers should make game less required for adminning. Just play

They actually do. Extending DoD and moving airbases off map to prevent baserape is one example. Though server rules weren't adjusted for that.

Or a vehicle claiming script which actually works, so stealing assets is impossible.

They could also add an option to mute all chat if it bothers anyone, to put an end to kicking for all chat spam.

VTRaptor wrote:They actually do. Extending DoD and moving airbases off map to prevent baserape is one example. Though server rules weren't adjusted for that.

Or a vehicle claiming script which actually works, so stealing assets is impossible.

They could also add an option to mute all chat if it bothers anyone, to put an end to kicking for all chat spam.

That's great, because the less adminning the less people feel attacked. If the game features fix players behaviour or what an admin deems as wrong, the less people feel frustrated with the game.

Next level = move allchat/teamchat/localchat functions to a seperate overlay program that some players can mute.

Alon can do it

VTRaptor wrote:They actually do. Extending DoD and moving airbases off map to prevent baserape is one example. Though server rules weren't adjusted for that.

Or a vehicle claiming script which actually works, so stealing assets is impossible.

They could also add an option to mute all chat if it bothers anyone, to put an end to kicking for all chat spam.

Oh my its almost like the dev team and HOG work together occasionally server rules were adjusted in line with the dev discussions on DOD.

ShrapGnoll wrote:Oh my its almost like the dev team and HOG work together occasionally server rules were adjusted in line with the dev discussions on DOD.

No, rules were not adjusted for that at all, you're still banning for something as dumb as shooting incoming helicopters on maps like Adak, Pavlovsk Bay, Beirut, Masirah, Soul Rebel, Ras el Masri. Not to mention all the maps with their airbases moved outside of the map.

About two days ago we had a ridiculous situation on Pavlovsk where USMC CAS could sit safely in DOD and shoot anything without fear. RU gopher just wouldn't move closer to the sea as actually doing something as natural as engaging an enemy that is killing our inf and assets from there would get him banned. Years go by and this retardation still persists.

VTRaptor wrote:No, rules were not adjusted for that at all

They were, and no amount of typing on your part will change that sorry.

I guess you missed all the DOD changes, forgivable. You should read the updated sections of the rules.

ShrapGnoll wrote:They were, and no amount of typing on your part will change that sorry.

I guess you missed all the DOD changes, forgivable. You should read the updated sections of the rules.

I'm talking about engaging aircraft in DOD if you still haven't noticed at this point.

You are PROHIBITED from attacking any AIR vehicle with a surface-to-air, or land-based weapon/vehicle in enemy DOD. If the air vehicle instantly dies in DOD from these specific weapon categories, the attacker will be subject to admin action. Air to Air combat can take place anywhere on the map so long as the unit is in the air and not touching ground.

You have a whole "muttrah specific" section (outdated as hell btw.), so you might as well add a line of map exceptions which would solve that problem. I don't know why haven't you done it already. Just list all maps that are either an amphibious assault or have their airbases outside of the map.

VTRaptor wrote:I'm talking about engaging aircraft in DOD if you still haven't noticed at this point.

You are PROHIBITED from attacking any AIR vehicle with a surface-to-air, or land-based weapon/vehicle in enemy DOD. If the air vehicle instantly dies in DOD from these specific weapon categories, the attacker will be subject to admin action. Air to Air combat can take place anywhere on the map so long as the unit is in the air and not touching ground.

You have a whole "muttrah specific" section (outdated as hell btw.), so you might as well add a line of map exceptions which would solve that problem. I don't know why haven't you done it already. Just list all maps that are either an amphibious assault or have their airbases outside of the map.

There is a difference between the rules not being changed and you being unhappy with the changes. The feedback over the new ruleset has been positive, including the new jet rules. Jets used to not being able to fly into others DOD period. The remaining problems are for the most part player behaviour and mapping issues.

ShrapGnoll wrote:There is a difference between the rules not being changed and you being unhappy with the changes. The feedback over the new ruleset has been positive, including the new jet rules. Jets used to not being able to fly into others DOD period. The remaining problems are for the most part player behaviour and mapping issues.

I am positive about the changes too, but why does it have to take so long? And why are you only fixing it partially? Issues at hand were solved YEARS ago by rulesets of other servers. It looks like these changes were actually forced down your throat by DEVs, rather than a result of "working together".

Tell me now, If I see cobra shooting russians on pavlovsk from DoD, what should I do? What if i kill incoming helicopter with manpads on soul rebel in DoD? What if i see russian helicopter over the sea at beirut and have stinger in my hands? I can only wonder if it crossed that invisible border between me getting banned and not.

This absurd peaked few months ago when some of your admins would hover their helicopters at DoD edge to provoke AA fire just to hand out bans. It's sad what you've been doing to this game and its community.

Lol someone pinged me to this thread. I’ll have you know, that I, the non-dev, created the dod scripts and the original idea of the vehicle stealing script. So no, no dev forced anything down my throat.

Believe it or not, some people actually want people the play the game without some edge lord testing the rules and trying to gain an edge because his pp small. It’s people who argue semantics that are the problem. Both these rules significantly lowered the amount of admin actions and inconsistency in actions; if the application of rules is confusing to you, the rule is written in about 3-4 lines of code. If you think that is complex, I’m sorry. I feel for the people who try to explain. If you do understand it but don’t like it, I’m sure everyone sees you, hears you and is your ally.

Back to my slumber. Hope everyone is well.

lespyd wrote:Lol someone pinged me to this thread. I’ll have you know, that I, the non-dev, created the dod scripts and the original idea of the vehicle stealing script. So no, no dev forced anything down my throat.

Believe it or not, some people actually want people the play the game without some edge lord testing the rules and trying to gain an edge because his pp small. It’s people who argue semantics that are the problem. Both these rules significantly lowered the amount of admin actions and inconsistency in actions; if the application of rules is confusing to you, the rule is written in about 3-4 lines of code. If you think that is complex, I’m sorry. I feel for the people who try to explain. If you do understand it but don’t like it, I’m sure everyone sees you, hears you and is your ally.

Back to my slumber. Hope everyone is well.

Good job on the script then, but other than that what's your point? We're talking about punishment for engaging aircraft in DoD, even though DoD is a no-go zone by design, and not no-combat zone. Clearly you haven't read anything above, so we're operating in different frequencies here.

But the way you call me an edge lord with small pp, who understands nothing just for pointing out an actual issue, without even TRYING to grasp it shows how egoistical you persist to be, why? Does power corrupt that bad?

but other than that what's your point?

It looks like these changes were actually forced down your throat by DEVs, rather than a result of "working together".

I'm directly refuting your assertion, as the primary source. That is my point.

you call me an edge lord with small pp

Did not have an intention to call you an edge lord. I'm referring to the people who test the rules to get a leg up. I don't know if you fall under this or not.

P.S.

DoD is a no-go zone by design, and not no-combat zone.

If you want to talk semantics, I believe DoD is considered a "transit zone" after my conversation with a developer (I'd point out, this is the exact opposite of what you say, where people did "work together" to understand the intentions). After looking at complaints, both from people doing the wronging and people wronged as it relates to DoD fights, it was determined that most issues happen when ground units "camp" air assets, whether intentional or not. This led to the creation to the present ruleset for the HOG server. At the same time this ruleset allows for dog fights to continue to happen and to completion.

To sum up:

We're talking about punishment for engaging aircraft in DoD

The punishments are up to the people running the server, you have every right to argue that but the head admins already said it won't be changing it seems. I have no skin in the game here. I will however, provide context and refute what you think to be true, and say they are not, in the first person. No one else can do that as I was the one having those conversations.

lespyd wrote:I'm directly refuting your assertion, as the primary source. That is my point.

What I was saying was relating to DoD rules, not the claiming script (again, chapeau bas) nor messages given to admins when kill in DoD happens. Rules artificialy limiting gameplay were lifted, which is good (it was really long time comming and i really doubt it could happen without DEV intervention) - but there's still room for improvement.

lespyd wrote: If you want to talk semantics, I believe DoD is considered a "transit zone" after my conversation with a developer (I'd point out, this is the exact opposite of what you say, where people did "work together" to understand the intentions). After looking at complaints, both from people doing the wronging and people wronged as it relates to DoD fights, it was determined that most issues happen when ground units "camp" air assets, whether intentional or not. This led to the creation to the present ruleset for the HOG server. At the same time this ruleset allows for dog fights to continue to happen and to completion.

To sum up:

The punishments are up to the people running the server, you have every right to argue that but the head admins already said it won't be changing it seems. I have no skin in the game here. I will however, provide context and refute what you think to be true, and say they are not, in the first person. No one else can do that as I was the one having those conversations.

And here lies the issue. Some admins will always hand out bans for ground to air kill in DoD within 5-10 seconds without second thought. I presented a case of Pavlovsk bay, where USMC CAS wouldn't touched as long as it engaged from DoD. Nobody got banned, because nobody wanted their evening ruined.

But the other day we played Kafr Halab and russian CAS was flying around, hitting our troops while we were building a FOB, so since we had a crate I asked one of my squad members to grab AA kit to try and kill it. So he did, but he splashed it somewhere around A10, and 5 seconds later got tb'ed for it, to our surprise. Now this map is a good example of new map design, which moves vulnerable airbases outside of the map. Currently you can't even rearm your helicopter in main bases there. That and also extended combat zone outside of the map for aircraft makes current rule an artificial gameplay boundary.

What I am proposing is an intermediate solution of making map exceptions to solve it OR list of maps where ground to air kills cannot happen (whichever list would be shorter) Obviously got to come up with proper wording, though If what you said about about head admins view on this is true, it'd be a wasted effort to even continue this discussion.

Yet I'm still going to hope for an improvement, you did it once, you can do it again.

Yesterday night during a round of Kokan INS I felt an admin, RIM:LA xDoppelganger, had been excessively rude to me and others.

It started after said admin placed mines around the cache area (before the enemy had even arrived) in the doorways of buildings and on top of ladders which blocked off access to defensive positions, this also resulted in 4 of those mines teamkilling 5 of our teammates. After each TK incident, xDoppelganger would re place a mine in the same spot as where it had just been triggered.

When other players including myself tried to call him out for it instead of apologizing all he responded with was "look on the map" and "skill issue" (mostly over voice chat) before placing even more mines.

Now I know there's different rules when it comes to mines but when you teamkill 5 people, I think an apology at least would be more than appropriate and gloating about it should definitely be considered toxic. I can't speak for everyone but I was not rude to him at all throughout the entire exchange and only asked for him to stop placing mines so close to where our teammates were walking.

I feel like this level of toxicity shouldn't be tolerated on any server let alone from a server admin

I checked old post. I see it is an old problem with the admins. Admins don't investigate reports, you get kick o ban. If you try to understand why you or your team mate got kick/ban. Try to talk to admin how took that action and why, you just get kick/ban with insulting words in reasons. Hog admins have a big communication issue.