Certain sections of the forum don't apply towards the content count.
Additionally, 'padding' your numbers to try and get into the staff team is easily noticeable And can hinder an application.
My suggestion is involve yourselves in community discussions in a constructive manner. You'll get into back and forths and before you know it the post count rises. Just don't post for the sake of raising the post count.
@JasonBR - Abuse of Game Mechanics & Invalid Kill (On Sight) - Guilty
@TaniksBR - Attempted Invalid Kill - Guilty
@XxGrAipYyxX - Invalid Kill (On Sight) - Guilty
We have a lot of ground to cover here, so I'll try to keep this brief. @Kordruga, @Burak, @burRP & @General Rickets (From now on referred to as the Raiding Party) have found themselves a target to raid. This target is a base that is owned by a dynamic of players working together, the parties involved today being @JasonBR, @TaniksBR, @XxGrAipYyxX, & @8Dust8 (From now on referred to as the Base Owners).
The Raiding Party was well underway into their raid, having destroyed some doors, appropriated a vehicle, and begun to distribute the loot within. At this point the first member of the Base Owners, @8Dust8, logs in and realizes that their base is actively being raided. He conjures assistance into wakefulness, at almost the moment server restarts. @JasonBR logs in, acknowledging that the server had just restarted, and logs in to find @General Rickets unresponsive beside him. He initiates in what has been agreed on to be a number of times before @General Rickets logs in, tabs in, and promptly gets shot and killed.
After the death of @General Rickets, @JasonBR proceeds to continue down the hallway initiating, where he finds and kills @burRP. While abuse of game mechanics has been alleged here, we have no video evidence with which to prove it. @JasonBR is then shot and killed by @Burak.
Approximately 2 minutes after the death of @JasonBR, @TaniksBR & @XxGrAipYyxX log onto the server. This makes for 3/4 members of the Base Owners being on the server, with the only one that had initiated having perished in the firefight. @Burak drops an initiation while @Kordruga moves to assist, and @Kordruga is then killed by @XxGrAipYyxX after being shot at by @TaniksBR. @TaniksBR then walks into the open to initiate and is killed by @Burak. And finally to wrap this whole mess up, @8Dust8 successfully kills the last standing member of the Raiding Party, @Burak.
Abuse of Game Mechanics & Invalid Kill (On Sight)
We'll deal with this first. @JasonBR acknowledges in his opening post that he is aware of server restart. Despite this, which should have been a clue that everyone is restarting, he still chooses to initiate as the server is coming up on someone that he rather obviously should know is going through the same logging in process that he himself is going through. This is an unfortunate situation where we are going to be trusting @JasonBR's own word that he spawned in the same room @General Rickets was in, and didn't move in there first to take advantage and initiate on @General Rickets. Because @JasonBR took advantage of the logging in helplessness of @General Rickets, regardless of whether he initiated or not, the rulebreak voids the initiation and renders the kill invalid. The fact that @General Rickets was tabbed out of DayZ for 1.25 seconds on logging in does not make this situation any less invalid.
Even if @General Rickets had been logged in, not tabbed, and complied completely, it would still be abuse of game mechanics as you took advantage of the fact @General Rickets was helpless during login to get an easy initiation on him.
Invalid Kills & Defender Rights
This report is going to be a lesson on when Base Owners actually gain defender rights. Not a single member of the Base Owner party at any point would have received defender rights, other then from @Burak when he initiated on them. From the points of view in the report, its obvious the Base Owners believed they had defender rights. We will now try to explain how this works. For reference, we will quote the defender rights rule below.
The most clear thing to note in the above; Your base is not you. When you are not on the server, your base is not a player. It can not truly be subjected to Hostile Actions. As a dynamic party, none of you can receive defender rights while you are offline. Even if you were an approved group, your base is not on the roster. It can not give you defender rights. We want to be abundantly clear that the rule requires a human victim to be present and known while the base is subjected to a hostile action, in order to grant defender rights.
In order to gain defender rights from your base being raided, you must meet ALL of the below criteria.:
They must know that it is your home.
They must know that you (or anyone else that lives there) is home.
They take a hostile action against the base.
In this situation, quite literally none of the above were achieved.
They did not know whose home it was.
They certainly did not know anyone was home.
At no point were any (visible) hostile actions taken with members of the Base Owners party online; The closest may be @8Dust8 who logged in and saw the aftermath of the raiding, but based on his POV he didn't see any actual hostile actions, only someone standing in the cars inventory.
For this reason, none of the kills or attempted kills by @TaniksBR or @XxGrAipYyxX are valid, and have resulted in a punishment for Invalid Kill (On Sight), and attempted invalid Kill. @8Dust8 validly killed @Burak, as an initiation was thrown by @Burak.
At the point that the Base Owners logged in, you are a dynamic party. None of you share rights with one another unless you've recently roleplayed with one another; this further solidifies that the kills were invalid, as you can not gain defender rights to protect your dynamic friends when you are all just logging into the server together in the midst of a Raid. You must each, individually, cover your asses by initiating separately.
@JasonBR - Do not initiate on people when they are logging in. If you know the server is in the middle of restarting, or has restarted, don't start hostilities or wait a minute to log in. While we understand you and @General Rickets logged in at the exact same time, you need to put yourself in the shoes of @General Rickets. Whether he chose to comply or not, he logged in with a gun pointed at the back of his head and an initiation being dropped. This is textbook taking advantage of server restart mechanics, to gain an advantage over another player, as is conclusively shown in his video. He had no chance.
@TaniksBR & @XxGrAipYyxX- You both either attempted to shoot and kill @Kordruga, or succeeded at it, while you had no defender rights with which to do so, for the reasons described above. In the future when you log on to an active situation you must cover your own ass. You need to initiate on your own, independently, to make absolutely sure you are covered and do not run the risk of invalid kills.
To the entirety of the Base Defending Party: When you log in to protect your base, be cognizant of the rules around base defender rights, as explained above. If you are not online, you have options. You can initiate (barring server restarts to abuse) or you can loudly announce "This is my home, what are you doing here?" This ticks boxes 1 & 2; They now know its your home, and that you are present. Any further hostilities will grant the Base Defenders defender rights. It will also very likely force the Raiding Party into initiating, or withdrawing.
With that said;
@JasonBR - Abuse of Game Mechanics/ Invalid Kill (On Sight) - Guilty - 7 day ban, 10 warning points.
@TaniksBR - Attempted Invalid Kill - Guilty - 2 day ban, 5 warning points.
@XxGrAipYyxX - Invalid Kill (On Sight) - Guilty - 7 day ban, 10 warning points.
Signed.: @Rover & @Jade
Then like I said in the quoted post, you are championing for a complete character/map wipe.
You can't just wipe out weapons, at least not in a fashion I'm aware of. Best you can do is set it so that when they are 'dropped' or ever not in a character model/storage, they get deleted. But fairly sure that means zero will spawn anymore until thats turned off. Thats entering territory I'm not the most familiar with and a dev can chime in, but in terms of wipes its all or nothing.
I'm fairly positive you can't actually just wipe a specific weapon/ammo type.
You either wipe the map (storage/structures) or you wipe players (all gear on models/entities) or you do both.
Traders were adjusted only a week and a bit okay. Give it time for the pewpews to get used up and despawn.
Except the bullets/rockets that are used up. With bullets maybe not as important, but at least its using up rockets that can no longer be bought.
As much as I liked Livonia, stop suggesting we split the population.
Unless we remove Chernarus with a new map, no map will ever succeed for long.
Livonia is a paid DLC map, meaning we can't use that as a primary and remove Chernarus, as then any premium members/item shop members would not be able to use what they paid for without buying the map.
Therefor, this is dead on arrival.
Not possible, see above. Can't have a paid DLC only map.
@TaniksBR I rarely ever involve myself in arguments in a report, but I would appear to be quoted out of context, and I would be remiss to leave it unanswered. Let me try to clear this up.
Please see the attached screenshot above by me; This screenshot is something where I was directly explaining defender rights to a base owner, regarding questions they had about when they can protect their base.
The one you quoted above is where I was explaining the attacking situation from the position of the hostile party, that is doing the raiding.
If this is unclear please DM me directly. Any specifics about the rule in this application will be handled in the verdict.
Calling in the below for their full points of view of the situation, as well as any video unedited evidence they may have.
It would appear a second firefight kicked off around 17:50 in the logs; We did not call in the parties for that report as it was not directly related to this incident. If the Base Party feels that any rules were broken in that second encounter, bring that complaint forth.
@General Rickets - Oleg Rickev - OP
@Kordruga - Kamil Novak - Posted
@burRP - Kenny Kowalski - Posted
@Burak - Sasha Rozak - Posted
@JasonBR - Drew Williams - Posted
@TaniksBR - Jakov Cvek - Posted
@XxGrAipYyxX - Edward McGrath - Posted
@8Dust8 - Leonid Vorobev - Posted
The above is an example of an insufficient point of view. You don't even address that you shot someone. Please take the effort to write an actual detailed point of view that covers your side of the events. Thank you.
@Mak - False Report - Guilty
@Lucky Luke - Invalid Kill - Inconclusive
@KermieSB, @Tactical Tim, and @Mak are in discord communications together. @KermieSB is the first arrival in Pushta, and begins to raid with @Tactical Tim. At the time they start raiding, @Mak is making his way through the map towards their location, bringing extra explosives. @Lucky Luke logs in and hears explosions, and gets on the radio to summon his allies. @Realize and @Ron respond, and an initiation is dropped on @KermieSB & @Tactical Tim. One of which complies, one doesn't. During this process, @Mak arrives and runs into the area, being mistaken for a member of the firefight and getting shot and dropped by @Lucky Luke for his troubles.
Invalid Kill by @Lucky Luke
This is inconclusive as no evidence has been provided to show @Mak was out of earshot or in earshot of any initiation that was dropped. @KermieSB & @Tactical Tim acknowledge an initiation was dropped, and we can not determine if @Mak should have heard it or not.
Even if we had picture perfect evidence showing he was outside of earshot, he likely would have been punished for Ruleplay and potentially NVFL given the reasonings below.
From the very get-go this report was poisoned by the fact that @Mak claimed ignorance throughout the report about anything going on in Pushta. Position logs were fairly clear that @Mak, @KermieSB, & @Tactical Tim had not traveled together prior to the raiding starting, but they were also suspicious enough that we had to question how @KermieSB, @Tactical Tim, and @Mak were meeting up conveniently in the same location, when these same members have a history of playing together. This uncovered that the trio were in communications together, which makes it patently false that @Mak can claim ignorance as to what was going on. This is only further confirmed because he was bringing them more explosives with which to raid. Omitting this information tainted the report and any credibility @Mak might have had, as it shows from the beginning an attempt to deceive the staff team and paint his position in the best possible light. This reeks of ruleplay and NVFL, as @Mak knowingly hurled himself into an area his OOC dynamic was raiding while they were being initiated on, and his arguments in this report make it abundantly clear he understands the rules of how initiations works, and appears to have been arguing to paint the picture that he was ignorant of any hostilities and therefor the kill is invalid. We can't punish on suspicions, which is the only reason @Mak is not receiving an NVFL, Ruleplay, and aggravated punishment.
Lying in a Report / Withholding Evidence
@KermieSB & @Tactical Tim are fortunate not to be punished with lying in a report. Omitting information can be regarded the same as lying, and all of you suspiciously leaving out the fact you were sharing OOC communications with @Mak is severely frowned on. The only reason you are not being punished is that you did not bring forth the reports yourselves, and we are choosing to be lenient.
@Lucky Luke - Video evidence was provided privately to the Gamemaster Team after it was requested in the report. We understand you felt it wasn't relevant due to it having been started after @Mak died, but the request was for all video evidence. We are choosing to be lenient in this situation, but count yourself lucky. The video evidence provided showed the possessions that were on @Mak's body when he died, and was important in determining aspects of this report.
@Mak - False Report - Guilty - 7 day ban, 15 warning points.
Signed.: @Rover & @Duplessis
We apologize for the delay in solving this report.
@Mak, @KermieSB, @Tactical Tim can you three please confirm that you were not in OOC comms together prior to or during the events leading up to the initiation and alleged invalid kill in Pushta?
Courtesy of @Whitename pointing it out to me:
The rockets/rocket launchers were already removed from the trader as of the weekend.
Once ammo stores run out, it'll likely be less of an issue. Give it a bit and see if it feels better or if they are still too prevalent.
This mentality is basically an OOC issue with the community, one that is near impossible to police and 'fix' without arbitrary rules.
People using OOC grudges and dislikes as motivation for their IC actions exists in every community. It is ridiculously easy to justify any IC action with an IC explanation if you OOCly want to make that work. You can have Chernarussian Nationalists working alongside Russian forces if you /really/ want to make it work. (Note, this isn't a shot at CLF or S-GRU, I'm just picking two known common character tropes.)
Ultimately at the end of the day, this is a non-issue for me. Don't like a zerg being after you? Don't be such a bad-guy that you get a zerg coming after you. Or revel in the attention you are receiving.
Feel that the zerg is OOCly motivated? Well, that sucks. Look at the people you associate yourself with and in the mirror first and see if there is any reason why. People are quick to throw shit at others without doing any self-reflection first.
Its not purely OOC motivated. If it was, you wouldn't get a zerg after you, just a certain social circle. The more people pile on, the more reflection and staring in the mirror you should be doing about your IC conduct or even your OOC conduct.
I agree with this tbh. It should be more enforced. People already get prickly about staff being 'hard' on groups, imagine how it'll be if any more enforcement is done.
You need to follow the steps in this guide.:
As Roland said above, until you die you'll remain the same single entity tied to your account. All changing the name does is change the name. To change the model you have to die first, then using the steps in the link you can customize it accordingly.