Jump to content

Quickfirex4

Premium
  • Content Count

    33
  • Donations

    0.00 GBP 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Quickfirex4

  • Rank
    Novice

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In my opinion changing it to this other format will make it even easier than it already is for large groups to raid smaller groups (sometimes off the server). I see the raid symbol popping up quite a lot these days and to my knowledge it tends to be on bases owned by solo/small groups of people. It is already too easy for big groups to raid in the current style, but forcing them to stay at the laptop is a good trade off, especially if it is against solo/small groups as that gives them more of a fighting chance to take their base back. For example the hacker would need to decide "do I keep hacking and hope my team kill him?" "do I stop the hack to defend our hold on this base?". If you remove that thought process it just becomes "stay around the laptop and hack in safety" in simple terms. You might argue that this will encourage solo players/small groups to raid more often. While you would not be wrong and that is a good thing, I think give it enough time and there wouldn't be any solo players or small groups left/any who actually want to raid, because of how easy it is to get screwed by the bigger groups with the new system. I hope we can have a decent discussion on this before anything is decided.
  2. And this is why it would be, to quote the poll option "a terrible idea"
  3. Don't start with the shit talking unless your aim is to get the thread locked. We don't roll around all day every day in armed vehicles, we rarely use them ourselves so don't try to use BEEF LOVE HMGS as a valid point. Maybe try to look at it as people have genuine complaints about issues the server faces. The server is not perfect, it is far from it. Not every complaint is a dig aimed at a person or group or aiming to hamper one group over another. People need to stop looking at it like that, and look at it from a community point of view. There is a suggestion section for a reason, and if suggestions get met with such hostility every time, then suggestions will just stop coming from people. There is a problem, you don't recognise it as a problem, that is fair enough, that is your point of view, my point of view is that there is a problem. And to answer your point of people will come back complaining about the rpg7 next, they won't if the changes suggested for alamuts at cap points and other missions were applied to that aswell, so example 1-3 launchers and 1-3 rockets for them.
  4. - Change all AI to rpg-7 - Cheap launcher for the cheapest way to acquire one. - Have Alamut as a mid tier BM purchase - Have maaws as high tier BM purchase If you want an Alamut/maaws with 10 rockets so bad, go buy on at the BM, otherwise use an AI dropped rpg-7 I would say this sounds like a no brainer!
  5. Lets face it, like ACAB said everyone talking here is more or less from differing groups who have different play styles. So one person from one group will say black and the other will say white. I do think at present regarding the AI at missions 1. Too many AI spawn with launchers (mainly CP missions) 2. The spare rocket in bags which has already been spoke about in previous posts here. - Just as an example, I went to a finished CP after the compound despawned, grabbed an Alamut and 5 rockets, that was all I had space for but there was maybe an extra 1/2 rockets still around. So lets say in that instance there was a total of 7 rockets and 3 or 4 launchers. That is an insane amount to get for 0 effort, a solo player doesn't need upwards of 7 rockets. - Another option is to increase the price of launchers/rockets, probably the rockets, so that if someone wants to load up on 10 rockets in their bag, that is their choice and they will take a bank hit for it, but it might make people value taking that shot more. There is a balance here between too many and too few that Im sure can be found to satisfy all parties. For example 2 or 3 ai with launchers and no spare rocket, that means 2/3 rockets for your launcher, that's still enough for solo players to feel safe, and not too much for rockets to be flying at you like MG42 rounds. I think Unleashed may have mentioned already the idea of your first thought not being to blow anything you see up, but perhaps trying to disable a wheel, or turret, or shoot a guy out (if possible) and try to steal the vehicle for yourself. Even instead of camping beside someones parked car waiting to blow them up, killing them when they unlock it, that sort of thing. To round things off, I trust that in time some sort of solution whether it be temporary or permanent will come around and maybe everyone can agree on something for a change. ?
  6. The event is over, it was fun, I got out with more than enough to satisfy the time put into it so we are satisfied. It was a bumpy start, with the server shitting itself and kicking people out right as it began. But it was a good idea. Perhaps if an event along those lines happens again it can be refined to work better. Although to come back to what Pennywise raised, can someone explain the tower. Last message I noticed during the event was that the base would be gone on the next restart.
  7. Flares are not needed at all. A good pilot like you knows this. Last thing you need is to have your favourite toy upped in price.
  8. Panthers? What Panthers? All I see is a roof ?
  9. There will always be people who want a change and people who don't. It doesn't matter what you do it will never be possible to please everyone. Same discussion was had for Abramia which in the end was changed, in my opinion (even though I didn't play it) it was a good change. I guess in a way the invisible hills/mountains etc takes away a little bit of the immersion. Maybe even a lot of the immersion. The points raised about the issue as close as 200m are accurate, I have experienced it myself and to me it does feel kind of stupid how it happens. Just humour me for a second and think about this: Arma is a mil sim, but you cant take out a little device and essentially turn on "hide mountains" in real life (yes its a game but just think about that) so it seems out of place to be able to do it in a game. Since the change on Abramia, from memory, the server seems to have kept its popularity. I personally don't see what harm it would bring to the Altis server to change it in some way. It sure seems like it needs looked into just like it did on Abramia, I mean I've never seen it as bad as 200m+. You wouldn't think you would need to turn it up to ultra to shoot someone that close, but in some cases now you have to double check that before you shoot. At the end of the day this is more of a discussion about player preference, some people/groups want it easy and others want it to feel a bit more realistic and fair. Like I said you wont be able to please everyone here unless someone can find some sort of compromise where both sides can agree.
  10. I welcome the changes in prices to both the Helis AND the stingers/titans. This might encourage people to switch up their playstyle and bring them out of their usual comfort zones, isn't that part of the fun? I say let this play out until the admins notice any patterns of abuse or real issues with the pricing changes and then let them look into changes if/when they are needed. Not much else to add, Winky and Rosco pretty much covered all relevant points here.
  11. Looks good on Ultra Terrain with modified grass to me at least. While ultra will not 100% negate the invisible mountains it does help very much to minimalize it. Personally I love grass, makes the map look so much better, however I would be 100% happy for little/no grass if it means the mountains are less of an issue.
×