Bread

الموت على التيس

Yes it might be more enjoyable for you, but your enjoyment shouldn't be placed above those who would prefer to take part in these events.

What is wrong with them running these events often if there are people who enjoy taking part it? I could see your point if they were taking down the main servers to run the event, thus disrupting those who don't want to take part, but since they're done on the event server, how does it really impact you?

You'll need to submit a support ticket to get your perks in-game, make sure to include your SteamID64 in your ticket.

Platoons are part of the additional channels you can join, if you hit home, select comm-link and then go radio management you can change what channels you have enabled / disabled.

As long as the additional things don't throw the server performance down the drain this sounds good. I don't see the need for something "official" to be created for a small group, as the tools needed for private groups to operate are already there. Sure maybe a sub channel under the Side Teams like the other two there, but other than that I don't think anything needs to be added. The main groups are generally not organised so having someone be the "commander" between them and air / side teams is kind of pointless. If people want to be organised between some of the main groups and side groups / air then the platoon channels are open to use for such purposes

I'd rather just get rid of the commander slot than do this to it. If you want to remove the random reward part of side missions I'd prefer players who are a certain range from the objective be granted points to their own personal pool. At the base they would access a menu to purchase vehicles for points, rather than having another player in a slot who wouldn't have to take part in side missions yet would still be able to dictate what they get.

I don't see a need for more medics, when all the slots are used there are already enough in the server to carry out the role. Again there are already enough slots for pilots, when they're all full there really isn't a need for additional people to be flying. Airstrikes become less and less required as the player count goes up, as you've got additional people in the roles of AT and such to deal with threats, having a single fighter pilot role and UAV operator is more than enough CAS.

Even if there was 4 though that shouldn't even matter, it's not the number of people performing the zeus role it's going to be their actions. Of course if you have 4 people constantly spawning in things its not going to be great. However you can also have them working with the spawned AI, as we know AI can react stupidly to situations so having people assist in the AI making smarter decisions wouldn't be a bad thing, as long as the the people using zeus keep in mind generally they should only be making calls from what information the AI would have.

Yeah this is definitely something that needs to be fixed. If any air is going to be involved in missions, especially if it's going to be transporting troops, it should really be arranged by staff running the mission before the briefing occurs, allowing us players to move straight to the aircraft instead of stuffing around like what happened on this mission. I'd say it would be better to do everything at side base, doing things such as briefing and sorting vehicles right at the base is kinda a crappy idea as it has a high chance of people not involved running in and being disruptive.

I don't think we should support players in their narcissistic ways! I do think Dslyecxi's video on 1st vs 3rd has always been a good brief explanation to why 1st person is the superior way of life ? Personally I'd like to see hardcore happen at least once a week purely for the reason that everyone would be playing in 1st person.

I'd guess his reasoning would be because how other people play also has an effect on you.

Well... At the start was a bit of a cluster **** when it was being organised at the assembly point, it really needed someone to tell everyone to shut up so staff could direct us to what they wanted us to do. The vulnerability of our armour didn't really feel like it was there as they came back after being destroyed (excluding the first marshall death I assumed they prob came from base, I didn't pay attention to if they got spawned in) - I believe it would be better for these players to not be able to bring another vehicle back thus forcing them to play smarter. These vehicles should be an important asset we need to be careful with, which is completely chucked out the window if their destruction has little impact as another vehicle is just going to take its place. I agree with Phalanx on the issue of people from outside the event, if you're trying to run an organised group for an operation people from outside shouldn't be allowed to be anywhere near it. I do think there was too much heavy armour spawned against us, I believe it would of been more suitable to have vehicles which infantry could reasonably engage against with their AT ( I don't know if we had any AT specialists with heavy AT to deal with the t-140's)

What would be the point of removing jets if you're just going to fill the CAS role with helicopters? Doesn't really seem to fix anything by doing so...

Hmm kill webbie... I expect heavy armour presence to rape us a little bit ?

I don't like the idea of forcing people into a certain squad, I would prefer there just be a limit set on specialist roles and being able to use the current squad system. If recon are going to be given differences to their non-recon counterparts then I believe they'd need to serve a purpose, such as being required to do side missions when they come up.