Jump to content

Quebec

Forum Moderator
  • Content count

    438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Quebec last won the day on October 16

Quebec had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

73 Messiah

4 Followers

About Quebec

  • Rank
    Forum Moderator

Recent Profile Visitors

364 profile views
  1. Neutral Your application isn't bad, but your actions in-game are another matter. You are an alright person, but sometimes I have caught you sneaking away from debrief during events, and then refusing to line up after being asked by myself to. You also sometimes seem to not take the role play seriously, and sometimes disrespect higher ranks.
  2. Neutral I like the current loading screen, and the second picture displayed in your gif is rather mingey, going against the server's "serious" aspect of the roleplay. As we only just added in the new loading screen, I don't think another new one is necessary at this stage.
  3. As I stated, several times, that is very inefficient and third_person toggle is superior. That is fact. My opinion is that it shouldn't be removed, if that is not your opinion, that is fine. If you wish to continue this discussion, PM me, as currently we are straying off the topic of the original thread.
  4. !3p is utilised through the chat system, while thirdperson_toggle is done through console. You will know what I am talking about if you know the difference between saying "!menu" in chat and "ulx menu" through console. This is of course in relation to binds. Typing out the phrases yourself, !3p would be better.
  5. I will certainly help you if I get some free time, but monodevelop is being a cunt and i have math homework + 2 assignments and a test
  6. Sadly, it doesn't seem like monodevelop wants to work, and I dont have enough time right now to get it to work. Gonna have to get someone else to help you 😕
  7. No. !3p is very inefficient and I much prefer thirdperson_toggle. It honestly does not give anyone an advantage in multiplayer, plus most players don't even know it exists. Of course, now you have brought it up, it will be used and players may well find ways to abuse it.
  8. Although I do not know C#, I have done similar things in other languages. Through researching some of the functions and with my slight knowledge of other languages, I will try to come up with a solution and I will add it to the bottom of this reply. Just downloading visual studio monodevelop again now to run it and make sure it works.
  9. Quebec

    Navy SEALs

    and bring in character biographies, I would make one but I don't know what to include.
  10. 1. +1. I think this would allow for players to know which objectives they should target or have been taken recently. It could also allow for some interesting fights to happen, with squads of both teams fighting over points. At this current stage, most of the time points are captured un-contested and are not really fought over, more just taken when the over team isn't looking. 2. Neutral. I like this idea, but as others have said with the US being more base-oriented, and with the little amount of raids I've seen them conduct, I think this would severely decrease US's raid frequency. I am open to ideas though. 3. +1. I agree, the rule itself was a good rule. I do not think the regiment needs to be completely changed, such as nachomario's suggestion or even slightly changed, just that rule brought back. 4. +1. On the last map, the checkpoint was under the view of multiple towers, spread across the base with little ways of actually countering them. On this map, the towers currently are a death sentence. I think that on the last map the rule about shooting US in towers being acceptable would've worked, but this map it doesn't. If the rule is removed, and it turns out I am wrong, I would be fine with the towers being changed back to being able to be shot at.
  11. Please don't. Its the most efficient way of using thirdperson, and in events is serves almost no advantage to players and cannot even be abused. I often use it as a way to see if I am still cloaked in an event, so I don't run into battle with myself cloaked, with an unfair advantage.
  12. Sadly, there is another big issue. Due to the fact that the name/regiment/faction tags exist, players on taliban would find it extremely difficult to roleplay with the undercover US. Taliban already have a hard time role playing at all, and now being forced to pretend that someone (who they can see is US, but cannot act on as it would be metagaming) is a taliban would be very hard. If regiment/faction tags were hidden or didnt exist, this wouldn't be an issue as taliban would think that the undercover US is a taliban, or at least wouldn't be immediately aware that the player in question is a US.
  13. Yes, that is what I am saying. Dragoul is not asking for a way for prestige 15 players to, by choice, go back to 0. He is asking for a single server wipe of levels. That is why I am suggesting that your replies/suggestions instead go on this thread, as it is more closely related to your ideas. Also, as eleventeen said, a server level wipe is a controversial idea, as some players would be completely apposed to such a wipe and others (especially those at like level 3000) would be very eager on the idea. My argument was that, even with the same donator rank and group experience boost, players who have reached prestige 15 would be at an advantage. This would get them back to prestige 15 faster, and would give them some of the better guns in later prestiges sooner than other players only because they were at prestige 15 on the wipe. I feel that if you want a wipe, everyone gets set to 0. No ifs, ands or buts, and players currently at a higher level should get no special rewards. Everyone starts over at an even playing field.
  14. I don't necessarily agree with the pop-up box idea, that was just what was being discussed. However, new players to the server are actually trained in the differences between taliban and US, and are told about the regiments in taliban, ranks in taliban, bowing and more. New players have no more understanding of US than they do of Taliban, and I've taken tickets where I've set 4-5 new trainees to taliban. I honestly don't think that majority of new players stay on US because they are trained by US. If players get bored of US, they can ask to move to taliban (which I've seen a lot of new PVTs do) and a lot of them find they prefer the taliban play style. Also, US are more disciplined at this point and, especially with commanding officers, are trained properly and extensively. I feel that taliban, at this stage, would not put much care into training trainees seriously, and would not give as extensive/proper training that US provides.
  15. I haven't played on it, but looking from the screenshots it looks like you have put a decent amount of effort into it. It's also great that members of the community are wanting to contribute to the server and make maps 🙂 I will definitely check it out at a later date, when I am free, and then I will put my feedback in this reply then.
×