Serious My experience with WW3 server

[ruben slikk]

hence why you see Special Forces (yes, the ones who are supposed to 'spearhead the passive roleplay initiative' or somethign like that) grapple around and jump around with CSGO player names as their nicknames.

thank u. i love seeing a SF Senior Warrant Officer with a nickname that says 'F0rest'. really makes me :grinning:

I think the easiest solution for the supposed problem right now is to switch the sever 's structure from serious rp to semi-serious rp

are you a @Gr4Ss alt?

perhaps instead of turning the server into semi serious rp admins could grow a backbone and punish people for meem behavior

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

stop wasting time chasing after the long gone golden age of serious rp and embrace dark rp

Haha, this seems to be about the best option right about now

 

[aiaininja]

Do people still push the duty of training recruits down the hierarchy line, all the way until an authorized PFC who has no clue what he is doing trains the recruit.

Because I remember in the earlier days of nebulous admins actually had a training quota and that should be enforced, makes sure new people are actually properly introduced to the gamemode and roleplay, instead of being shuffled in by a clueless retard who literally turns the roleplay sections such a the firing range into nothing more than S2K.

e: If you rate agree instead of neb, you're the reason the community will eventually go to shit

 

[ruben slikk]

F4 for job

press f4 to start vote to join NJSOC

 

[swexs]

The fact that I was banned, and that my rp was not acknowledged just goes to show how ignorant the staff are towards actual roleplay and develpment.

no it just shows how ignorant you are for not reading the rules properly like every normal player, if we didn't have an authorisation system for stuff like that you'd see your average soviet male07 autistic guy RDM'ing the whole FOB just because he was a "NATO spy"
regardless, I agree with some of the points you provided as we are open to mature feedback, so I must thank you on that even though you did pretty stupid shit on the server

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

no it just shows how ignorant you are for not reading the rules properly like every normal player, if we didn't have an authorisation system for stuff like that you'd see your average soviet male07 autistic guy RDM'ing the whole FOB just because he was a "NATO spy"
regardless, I agree with some of the points you provided as we are open to mature feedback, so I must thank you on that even though you did pretty stupid shit on the server

Other than going out with a bang, most of the retarded shit I did was because I was pretending to be a dickminge just to test out if the server actually goes by serious rp doctrine. Sorry for any damage caused because of my mingery.

 

[Goatson]

Because I remember in the earlier days of nebulous admins actually had a training quota and that should be enforced, makes sure new people are actually properly introduced to the gamemode and roleplay, instead of being shuffled in by a clueless retard who literally turns the roleplay sections such a the firing range into nothing more than S2K.

Yeah I remember that, it was staff work only at first, and although it did work sometimes all staff were busy and since we weren't that many at the time sometimes it'd go a long time until people got trained.
Dunno about now but it might work better than whatever system there is now.

 

[Roosebud]

since youre actually taking the time to write structured, serious replies to people who have concerns about the server ill stop my usual cancer attitude for this thread and ask a few questions

Honestly, the 'cancerous' attitude you mentioned applies to a lot of (ex) players who feel like they've been wronged or feel like the server didn't turn out the way they wanted it to be, not realizing that said attitude actually makes me more reluctant to take their concerns into account as it's turned into a common sight to see posts trashtalking the server at every slightest opportunity.

- how do you justify the implementation of stabilization kits (and similar items) rather than talking to staff, and pressuring them to do their jobs more?

I believe I outlined this in every thread that popped up directly after implementation. The kits were implemented to add the element of failure into combat stabilisation, most people mistook it for an attempt to remove the ability to RP, while in reality the RP on the field became optional (MedRP was never removed contrary to some allegations, stabilisation refers to getting you back to your medbay for treatment). Which funnily enough meant that everyone crusading for 'add back RP' suddenly stopped typing /mes.

I found the entire process of stabilisation to be too important to be left in it's previous state, I'm sure we've all seen my posts with the logs of people doing the same lines of text over and over again, often before any attempt was given to players to roleplay their wounds (with players typing being accused of 'stalling', which is a problem naturally). On the other hand, we had the 'victims' often going through great lengths to make situations so complicated, time-consuming (or straight up disputing every action in LOOC) to the point where the medic was likely to be gunned down by said person's squad/QRF.

That in itself is not something I judged as being 'solvable' by mere staff intervention. Why? Because staff simply do not have the time/ability to instantly know where something like that is happening, be able to supervise it all (sometimes 3-4 people at the same time close to eachother) and be able to properly and fairly assess what is 'correct' and what is either too complicated, fitting, too short/weak etc. Aside from the obvious factor of the dramatic increase in disputes/appeals etc if the player disagrees with a staff decisions (that are almost impossible to properly define in the rules due to the large number of factors, there is a profound reason we have the 'no borderline rulebreaking').

- how important do you feel faction leadership is? and how do you feel about your current one's performances?

Faction leaders are/should be those managing the day-to-day actions of the factions and safeguarding activity, shit like promotions, who to put where, generally the things I find myself lacking the time for. They obviously dont have complete autonomy in that sense, and I often sit with both seal and char if some issue presents itself or there's disagreement between both factions.

In terms of current ones, I won't shy away from saying that both have been rough in terms of leadership transfers etc. What was important was that the factions became stable again with more activity in the leadership (not just fac lead, COs etc in general) and we wouldn't have complete chaos and people of the same rank ripping eachother's throat out on a daily basis.

Now, I know that the faction leaders are often seen as rolemodels, people who should dictate what others should be doing. I'd personally say that they should always focus on their IC rank first, as they're supposed to run the company IC, mainly because there's a need to have a senior officer around to act as the highest level of IC authority, though the responsibility of leading by example is not their task alone, the NCOs (and even JCOs like Lieutenants) are those the (new) players will primarily interact with, the Captain or Major not so much, they are expected to be the individual the SNCOs and COs can take their issues though.

Your tone, however, implies you have issues with a certain faction leader. Feel free to spell that out so I (or they) can make a less general post

- have you put those who try to come to the server for RP at a lower level of importance than those who only come to s2k?

No? Does me making some RP elements optional imply that I favor those who S2K? I've always sought to cater to both sides of the coin. IMO what would be the best in the current environment are those who enjoy doing both, in the sense that they do not get annoyed when their fellow players want to go out and S2K or even sit down with eachother while there's clearly enemies to be shot. I adressed this in that last NATO NCO meeting where people who want to roleplay should not be forced to become (unwilling) part of the S2K unless there's special circumstances.

It is a distorted picture that roleplay is a neglected or nonexistent part of the server. Yes, it is mainly done in those groups of friends or on a basic level between the common enlisted and their commanders, but does that not apply to every roleplay setting, the 'sticking to those you know' part?

Now, I reckon a large part of that 'neglect' stuff stems from the NLR being at 10 minutes, which again, is an optional thing rather than forcing S2K down everyone's throat. Did we all forget the LP times where folks like Nukkel weren't ashamed of stating that they literally sat down watching youtube videos for 30 minutes until their NLR expired?
It was set to 10 for an event at first, then it remained after base activity increased. The reasoning behind that was that if people who were on that 'both' spectrum weren't forced to wait for half an hour (often of their limited time to play every day) they'd be inclined to stay active around the base rather than being tempted to go unresponsive and wait (something which still happens, though in lesser amounts). So far I havent had any concrete indication that it negatively affected those who wish to roleplay (aside from an incident where players were forced away from a situation to form a QRF, which has since been dealt with in the meeting mentioned earlier).

and finally, what is you honest opinion on the current state of the server and what would you like to see improved, or what are you trying/aiming to improve

I'm quite sure I eventually started talking about this point in the previous responses, namely the part about catering to both while not facilitating an S2K-only mentality, which is what turning it into 'darkrp' would do. As said, both sides of the coin have their freedom to exist and play on the server.

A far more serious problem than the 'absence' of more roleplay that I've experienced myself is the sheer amounts of toxicity within the playerbase. Something which I personally made an issue to adress, often impacting faction performance (the banning of effectively half the active soviet nco roster for example)

The meme culture, the whole meme thing is out of proportion its absolutely amazing, literally the whole server revolves around memes. I've been on the soviets for 1 day and from the first day i see people crowding around a fucking dog and meme'ing with it, i dont want to see /me checks dogs asshole for a camera. or hear people on the radio say "the dog is a nato spy!". The meme thread was a mistake to begin with.

And while lighthearted jokes are something that keeps the server fun for a lot of people, they shouldn't be dominating the general state of things. It's an issue I know the staff has issues with handling, as most of the time I have to connect and step in myself when it gets out of hand. A recent example would be the outcry about the 'a cold one with the boys' stuff being pulled into a serious RP situation, and while I dont personally mind a passing reference, I did highlight it with the people doing it to not have it happen again.
The meme culture is an uphill battle that is obviously not fixed by engaging in a massive amount of counter-behaviour as that'd have an adverse effect, we already get enough pushback and flame 'just because' we're WW3RP staff and people have a problem with authority.

S2K culture, trust me this still exists, if people come here for s2k, whats the point of it being serious rp.
Its like you said in the combat formation, you're currently juggling 60/40 between s2k and other stuff. if s2k is the 60% of ww3rp, which is way more than its supposed to be considering the server does hold the title of serious roleplay. By the way, here's the quote from, yet again, combat formations

This is where you lose credibility roosebud, you claim that WW3RP would never work as serious rp. but the truth is, nothing actually has been done to do it, it failed from the moment it launched, the reforms it meant to have were abandoned, it returned to it's previous state, and now it's gotten even worse.

I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's easy to write up reforms and 'fixes', the operational stage is where it usually shatters because it meets an environment that does not respond well to it. Even now a majority of those that applaud 'seriousness' engage in the same behaviour they claim to despise.

I did not state that WW3RP would 'never work as seriousRP', I stated that you'll need a mix of S2K and RP to make it work as the Schema was built in the sense of the focus on patrols as the main 'warzone' aspect. In terms of RP it is expected to adhere to rules that are considered serious, meaning that those who engage in roleplay are doing so in a different way than you'd usually find on semi-serious servers.

Instead, you chose to make the server more accessible for s2k'ers by implementing stabilization kits, instead of harsher rules and admin control, you chose to give into what you were meant to prevent.

I honestly do not see how the stabilisation kits are considered a source of S2K mentality. If anything they were put in to force what is clearly impossible for the playerbase to do through roleplay alone. I believe I went into this more in the response to oxy's point.

So what if we lost 40 people due to stricter rules and better quality control, atleast then maybe the server wouldnt be a huge fucking lie.

I'm not going to continue questioning why the mere title of the server is such a major thorn in people's sides as it seems to be pointless to do so. In reality, I can never please everyone. We've been in this pickle before, and no matter what approach we take we'll end up taking flak from a dissatisfied party, be that those who think the roleplay is shit and trashtalk the server for it, or those that trashtalk the server because of things such as low playercount or personal disagreement with management or the concept of the server.

And let me add one more point

NCO's and CO's being unfamiliar with their faction, does not excuse that they have to neglect what their faction is meant to be.

As far as the Soviets are concerned, I initially agreed to have char become lead and hand out some positions to people such as Dazza and Disorder, who have been doing well in the sense of realism. There is, however, a barrier between them and everyone else in terms of having that apply to everyone in the faction. I imagine that'll take time once more activity can be guaranteed from Char etc, as I know he's currently unable to be on daily.

My character was a spy who blew himself up and took many others with him. If you want to be a band-wagoner and take the staff's statement that it was just salty rdming to account.

No, your character was not. You come across as an elitist who joined to minge and push the limits, which you did in a sense, all to prove a certain point or points. And by doing that, you became a problem that is far worse than most of the points you mentioned, namely those that seek to cause harm to the server and the people who enjoy playing it because of it not living up to expectations.

I think the easiest solution for the supposed problem right now is to switch the sever 's structure from serious rp to semi-serious rp

So literally add 'semi-' to the server name and everything is good?
I already replied to something like this back when someone made a suggestion: If people want to focus their entire existence on the server on Roleplay they're welcome to do so, contrary to popular belief I don't intend to 'value' S2Krs over Roleplayers, some come for both, others come for either. To change it to something that will attract a differently oriented crowd isn't going to help, I honestly don't see why the SeriousRP v Semi-SeriousRP debate became such a massive point of attention when it's only done to satisfy those who believe the server is not up to their roleplay standards.

If you like the server, play it, if you do not, don't? There's plenty of players who do their roleplay and dont complain, they're enjoying themselves, I know a group that don't even want to sign up to the forums because of all the shit being flung around here. While there's legit concerns some people have, there's also a massive amount of trash being thrown around for the sake of venting frustration or out of spite, which in turn drags other people down along with them. The so-called bandwagon effect happens often enough.

What I don't get though, is why things such as this are presented as a 'Either change it or shut it down' discussion. If servers were to be judged by their playercount alone WW3RP has been stable for months after people started shouting for shutdown, sure things can change, but why deny those that are clearly interested in playing their right to do so because it doesn't match certain people's standards?

 

[Deleted member 1381]

Little did I know of how blatantly cancerous and hypocritical it would be. It sickens me that a server like this one even dares take the name of 'serious-rp.'

I don't see how you can complain about this when you decided to blow up an entire roleplay-based ceremony.

If you die, you can respawn as if nothing happened.

What else are you suggesting? A character ban every time someone died? The server would get nowhere. If you're going to criticise things like this you can at least suggest some alternative rather than thinking you're the dogs bollocks

Then we went into combat again. Had to sieze and protect a barn full of ammunition. The following scenes of combat were the most cancerous roleplay I had ever participated in. Was it fun and exciting? Yes. Was it a serious rp event? No. It was a cancer rp event. Literal autism in terms of the dogma of roleplay and what serious roleplay is supposed to be. People would die and come back to the field as if nothing had happened to their character. People would get injured and the medics would sit on their asses and do nothing. On the rare occurance that they did, they would simply 'stabilizes injury. her ur good to go.' and people would actually take it. The staff would throw in the most retarded, unrealistic event sequences into it. During the first half of the battle enemy planes and helicopters would fly in and out. During the second half, the previously nonexistant soviet anti air would shoot them down. Where was this anti air during the first half? Did it just magically not exist and now it does? Actually, what about the part where the enemy got completely destroyed but the staff still gave them an a10 to hunt down soviet survivors, despite having been completely routed? As you can probably guess, the damage caused to the soviets by that a10 was then completely mitigated by 'pulls out bandage and heals trooper' rp.

I read the first few lines of this paragraph and I'm not going to read anymore, because not ONCE in that event did I even see you do a single line of roleplay, and I was there for the full duration of it.

When the mission was over, my character was sitting critically injured ona platform. Over 6 troopers passed by me, including two medics, and none of them lifted a finger to help me.

Things like that actually do happen sometimes in real life, just in case you're too deluded to consider it.

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

No, your character was not. You come across as an elitist who joined to minge and push the limits, which you did in a sense, all to prove a certain point or points. And by doing that, you became a problem that is far worse than most of the points you mentioned, namely those that seek to cause harm to the server and the people who enjoy playing it because of it not living up to expectations.

Whenever it comes to the point where staff decide what your character is and is not, the server is no longer a serious roleplay server. You question why there is such a silly debate over serious and semi serious rp yet you literally just instigated another reason on as to why the former. Yes I minged around, and while that may lose me some credibility, it does not give anyone the right to dictate what my character is and is not. That role belongs to the character development aspect of serious roleplay, an aspect which this server has brutally neglected. I'm sorry if I didn't fill in a form or something which allows me to be a spy and whatnot. The grenade rdm was obviously uncalled for; But if you want your server to be a serious rp server, then you /must/ allow players to develop their characters as they see fit. If a soviet wants to be a nato sympathizer, that's their path. Their development. Staff should never ever have the power to decide what a character that does not belong to them is or is not.

And that's what brings me to this:

I honestly don't see why the SeriousRP v Semi-SeriousRP debate became such a massive point of attention when it's only done to satisfy those who believe the server is not up to their roleplay standards.

It became a massive point of attention because the title is a huge lie. You know that manual that trainers link to the recruits every time they join? Read that. Then ask yourself "Does my server follow this structure and format? Or is my server a memepit full of s2k roleplayers?" I think you'll find the answer very easy to pick. Furthermore, nobody wants the server to shut down. Like I said above, it's fun. The events are fun, the community is funny, etc. But it's not serious rp, so don't say it is. And as long as you sympathize with the s2k culture like you said above, it will never be serious rp. So that's why I say, just change the title to semi serious rp, don't use that manual that you contradict every time a cruit joins, and done. Issue resolved.

why deny those that are clearly interested in playing their right to do so because it doesn't match certain people's standards?

Assuming this is directed at me (ignore this if it's not.) It's not that this server isn't up to my roleplay standards. I don't mind what it is. It's a splendid community I roleplay on tons of semi-serious rp servers. However, if you claim your server is a serious rp servers and then you allow it to manifest with the shitpost s2k community, are you really surprised if people complain that it's /not/ a serious rp server?

I don't understand the problem when literally all you have to do is:

1. Add four letters to the title. S-E-M-I
2. Stop using the serious rp manual

 

[Roosebud]

Whenever it comes to the point where staff decide what your character is and is not, the server is no longer a serious roleplay server. You question why there is such a silly debate over serious and semi serious rp yet you literally just instigated another reason on as to why the former. Yes I minged around, and while that may lose me some credibility, it does not give anyone the right to dictate what my character is and is not. That role belongs to the character development aspect of serious roleplay, an aspect which this server has brutally neglected. I'm sorry if I didn't fill in a form or something which allows me to be a spy and whatnot. The grenade rdm was obviously uncalled for; But if you want your server to be a serious rp server, then you /must/ allow players to develop their characters as they see fit. If a soviet wants to be a nato sympathizer, that's their path. Their development. Staff should never ever have the power to decide what a character that does not belong to them is or is not.

And that's what brings me to this:


It became a massive point of attention because the title is a huge lie. You know that manual that trainers link to the recruits every time they join? Read that. Then ask yourself "Does my server follow this structure and format? Or is my server a memepit full of s2k roleplayers?" I think you'll find the answer very easy to pick. Furthermore, nobody wants the server to shut down. Like I said above, it's fun. The events are fun, the community is funny, etc. But it's not serious rp, so don't say it is. And as long as you sympathize with the s2k culture like you said above, it will never be serious rp. So that's why I say, just change the title to semi serious rp, don't use that manual that you contradict every time a cruit joins, and done. Issue resolved.


Assuming this is directed at me (ignore this if it's not.) It's not that this server isn't up to my roleplay standards. I don't mind what it is. It's a splendid community I roleplay on tons of semi-serious rp servers. However, if you claim your server is a serious rp servers and then you allow it to manifest with the shitpost s2k community, are you really surprised if people complain that it's /not/ a serious rp server?

I don't understand the problem when literally all you have to do is:

1. Add four letters to the title. S-E-M-I
2. Stop using the serious rp manual

So, if I get this right you:

A) Had fun playing and enjoyed your time here
B) Was not bothered by it not being what you wanted it to be

But because we link people a guide to explain how their characters should be shaped/behave and there are four letters absent from the server name you felt the need to ruin the experience for everyone else?

But if you want your server to be a serious rp server, then you /must/ allow players to develop their characters as they see fit. If a soviet wants to be a nato sympathizer, that's their path.

No, sorry but that is absurd. You probably know as well as I do that lifting restrictions on uncommon backgrounds and stuff like that will only enhance issues on the server. You showcased it yourself by grenading an award ceremony because your character was supposedly sympathetic to NATO, now imagine everyone is free to do stuff like that because it'd be 'IC'.

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

I don't see how you can complain about this when you decided to blow up an entire roleplay-based ceremony.

What else are you suggesting? A character ban every time someone died? The server would get nowhere. If you're going to criticise things like this you can at least suggest some alternative rather than thinking you're the dogs bollocks

I went out with a bang, deal with it. The explosion was not supposed to be a progressive event but rather my final goodbyes to the server.


I'm suggesting if you die, you be prevented from hopping back

in like it's nothing. Injury rp. Take things seriously. A 10 minute bar from joining back in is an absolute joke.

I read the first few lines of this paragraph and I'm not going to read anymore,

And this, my fellow friends, is why there is a problem. Sure, toxicity and minging around are a big part of it; But when the community refuses to listen to an issue, a resolution will never exist.

because not ONCE in that event did I even see you do a single line of roleplay, and I was there for the full duration of it.

If you're going to turn your head away from a serious issue just because you're blind, be my guest. I'll call it 'pouring radioactive waste onto a malignant tumour'. Feed the problem instead of listening to it. You want proof I was there? Check the console. Ask around. I don't know. I don't care that one person didn't see me there.

Things like that actually do happen sometimes in real life, just in case you're too deluded to consider it.

Perhaps they do. That doesn't excuse a medic from deciding to get the most kills on the team rather than help a wounded comrade. S2k at its finest.

 

[Deleted member 377]

What else are you suggesting? A character ban every time someone died? The server would get nowhere. If you're going to criticise things like this you can at least suggest some alternative rather than thinking you're the dogs bollocks

I don't think he meant a permanent kill, at all. I think he meant that deaths are completely disregarded rather than being used as a basis for injury RP. Think of it - you get shot down to Near Death and you begin MedRP. You die and you're immediately a healthy human being, completely voiding any injury whatsoever.
However, it's always been like this, and I doubt it would change. Even then, not many people MedRP. THye just spam their status and let themselves get treated.

 

[Deleted member 1381]

Perhaps they do. That doesn't excuse a medic from deciding to get the most kills on the team rather than help a wounded comrade. S2k at its finest.

t medics then said 'orders are orders we had to go'

struggling to understand

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

So, if I get this right you:

A) Had fun playing and enjoyed your time here
B) Was not bothered by it not being what you wanted it to be

From what I garner, this description matches about 70 percent of the players in ww3rp. (Ironic, considering the issues are player-born, huh?) I've recieved countless messages already from people who sympathize/agree with me I can even quote them to you if you mistake me for a liar.. It's not that we're bothered by what we /want/ it to be, rather by what it;s /supposed/ to be. It sounds silly and cliche, but it's a big difference. It's absurd how the rules are supposed to shape the community into one thing but the server itself is a whole 'nother thing.

But because we link people a guide to explain how their characters should be shaped/behave and there are four letters absent from the server name you felt the need to ruin the experience for everyone else?

It's because you link them one thing and then subject them to the exact opposite for the rest of their life on the server. I've mentioned it, what, like four times now? The manual is a manual for serious rp. The server is a server for memelords, s2kers, and semi-serious rp'ers.

No, sorry but that is absurd. You probably know as well as I do that lifting restrictions on uncommon backgrounds and stuff like that will only enhance issues on the server. You showcased it yourself by grenading an award ceremony because your character was supposedly sympathetic to NATO, now imagine everyone is free to do stuff like that because it'd be 'IC'.

Isn't that what the supposed authorization form exists for? It's one thing to allow someone to bbe who they want to be. But it's another thing to give them permission to carry out unwanted action. There is a /massive/ difference between character development and character freedom. Obviously, absolute freedom cannot be allowed because of what you just mentioned. But allowing someone to develop their character as they see fit(which doesn't mean you have to allow them to bomb their hq.) is one of the key components of serious rp. in fact, it's the focal point of the manual that you link the recruits. This massive difference, unfortunately, is unnoticed by the directors of this server.
[doublepost=1497653295][/doublepost]

struggling to understand

Ah, so you did continue reading?

I'll explain. Medics don't want to do their duty, they want to get kills. Then, they use an excuse to pardon themselves from not having done their duty. If you were actually at the event, you'd know that I and another person complained about this OOC but we were met with a half-assed response: 'lmao sorry our orders were to rtb reeee' .

 

[Roosebud]

There is a /massive/ difference between character development and character freedom.

And where did I say that I was opposed to that? You were playing it off as the staff blocking 'character development' when you claimed your two day old character was a NATO spy and bombed your own faction, which is why the issue came up.

Naturally people can roleplay being sympathetic to the enemy or whatever the fuck they want, there's restrictions on specific stuff. In the case of spies and such, it means a clearance from the staff to ensure that it was all done through IC action rather than metagaming or for the sole purpose of getting a reason to kill someone for example, that was an issue on LP and was shaped into a rule on here.

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

And where did I say that I was opposed to that? You were playing it off as the staff blocking 'character development' when you claimed your two day old character was a NATO spy and bombed your own faction, which is why the issue came up.

I don't think you're opposed to it, I think you're blind to it.
Pardon my wording, it's not that the staff are blocking character development on purpose, just that their take on serious rp and character development is horridly convoluted. Handing out promotions like pennies is not character development. Allowing medics to simply do 'pulls bandage and heals wound. k ur set go kill nato' is not character development. Leaving the stabilization kit despite noticing that they have taken a serious toll on med rp is not character development. Need I say more? I'm not mad that my character's action was not taken IC. that was just me being a dumbass minge, sorry. But I hope you'll take all my other points into consideration.

Naturally people can roleplay being sympathetic to the enemy or whatever the fuck they want, there's restrictions on specific stuff. In the case of spies and such, it means a clearance from the staff to ensure that it was all done through IC action rather than metagaming or for the sole purpose of getting a reason to kill someone for example, that was an issue on LP and was shaped into a rule on here.

I'm all in favor of that^, as long as the restrictions do not hinder the growth of a character.

 

[Roosebud]

Allowing medics to simply do 'pulls bandage and heals wound. k ur set go kill nato' is not character development. Leaving the stabilization kit despite noticing that they have taken a serious toll on med rp is not character development.

I already adressed that these kits have nothing to do with MedRP

Those two things are directly related to one another, you complained about restrictions on people's roleplay, while enforcement (as impossible as it is at times when there's a lot going on) did not solve the issue of people doing their bland, copied /me's with a 100% succes rate (because as it stands, nobody is ever going to roleplay something that would be negative for their character or would get them shit from their superiors), so we forced in a chance of failure, that is all. RP was not 'forbidden' in the slightest, which is what a lot of people complained about, yet those that complained and claimed to care about the roleplay stopped doing it as soon as they didn't 'have to' any more.

I'm all in favor of that^, as long as the restrictions do not hinder the growth of a character.

And the restrictions as they are now do not hinder any of that until it reaches the point where it has a direct impact on the server

 

[Oxy[Morons]]

Honestly, the 'cancerous' attitude you mentioned applies to a lot of (ex) players who feel like they've been wronged or feel like the server didn't turn out the way they wanted it to be, not realizing that said attitude actually makes me more reluctant to take their concerns into account as it's turned into a common sight to see posts trashtalking the server at every slightest opportunity.



I believe I outlined this in every thread that popped up directly after implementation. The kits were implemented to add the element of failure into combat stabilisation, most people mistook it for an attempt to remove the ability to RP, while in reality the RP on the field became optional (MedRP was never removed contrary to some allegations, stabilisation refers to getting you back to your medbay for treatment). Which funnily enough meant that everyone crusading for 'add back RP' suddenly stopped typing /mes.

I found the entire process of stabilisation to be too important to be left in it's previous state, I'm sure we've all seen my posts with the logs of people doing the same lines of text over and over again, often before any attempt was given to players to roleplay their wounds (with players typing being accused of 'stalling', which is a problem naturally). On the other hand, we had the 'victims' often going through great lengths to make situations so complicated, time-consuming (or straight up disputing every action in LOOC) to the point where the medic was likely to be gunned down by said person's squad/QRF.

That in itself is not something I judged as being 'solvable' by mere staff intervention. Why? Because staff simply do not have the time/ability to instantly know where something like that is happening, be able to supervise it all (sometimes 3-4 people at the same time close to eachother) and be able to properly and fairly assess what is 'correct' and what is either too complicated, fitting, too short/weak etc. Aside from the obvious factor of the dramatic increase in disputes/appeals etc if the player disagrees with a staff decisions (that are almost impossible to properly define in the rules due to the large number of factors, there is a profound reason we have the 'no borderline rulebreaking').

For the first point - I remember, back in the day the idea of failure was tossed around quite often. However it was eventually tossed to the side because it wasn't possible with the old system, unless you wanted /rolls. However I do believe requiring roleplay to stabilize someone on the field is far superior than automating the process, even aside from the fact you state people can still med rp back in a medbay.
You're not wrong, however it is far less common than some people like myself always hoped it would be. I imagine it to still be so, and even to the degree when it does happen, no one properly follows the steps of recovery rp. Even though you are taking away a small part of medrp and automating it due to it having been lacking in that field, it still is a significant impact with how little it happens. And before someone says I'm 'nitpicking', and that such a small regression won't make much of a difference, it's a slippery slope when you continually use that attitude.
In the former state before adding these scripts, I'm sure the department was lacking as it always had, but I still believe that trying to improve the quality of rp and setting a bar of which is expected and the only acceptable avenue is much better.
This has been done many, many times by @Toasty and some other old-time staff, and it worked just fine. I'd even go as far as to say it progressively got better, even if it was minor. So long as the staff enforce it, which they should, since they're staff.

For the second point - Some of which I stated applies to this as well, such as raising the bar and proclaiming an acceptable standard. As for the stalling, the simple fact of the matter is that it is a P2L server. Someone who has been shot up, heavily injured, or even knocked over is more than likely disorientated, putting them on the "L" side of P2L. If someone is stalling, then the staff should deal with it accordingly, whether it be by looking in logs or actually flying over in observer.
Also - I'm not sure how it is currently, but in the event of someone stalling/fighting back it usually boiled down to them breaking fear rp. And once that was established and the players picked up on it, they always picked up on it and always killed them to get them PK'd. While one can argue this isn't 'kind' and a disrespectful thing to do to one's character, as someone who had been one of WW3's longest appeal managers, it really just boils down to the fact that they shouldn't have done it, and they more than likely knew what they were doing. Which means there is no acceptable excuse for their demise as a result of their own stalling.
In a case of them specifically taking too long to type, it ended in them just being TP'd to the cells anyway. All these things worked great in controlling the situations.

For the third point - 'Staff simply do not have the time/ability to instantly know where something like that is happening'.
While this may be true, during all my time as staff I have never encountered this problem. I don't mean personally either, I mean with the staff team as a whole. However I'm not saying that this isn't happening to you.
During my time (not to be the oldfag, just to point things out with the hope of helping) 9 out of every 10 firefights had a staff member observing it. It wasn't regulated, and it wasn't required. A lot of the times, staff members didn't follow the patrols out (though sometimes they did) but rather when seeing someone get shot in the logs, they would observer over to watch the fight. And that's how such a tight grip and efficiency of assuring these rules were kept and followed was accomplished.

For the points about rules, during my times as appeal manager if any discrepancies came up with the rules, staff members would usually come to me, as it was my job to know all about the rules, to solve them. I admittedly would apply some discretion sometimes, but that's not saying the same can't be done here. In the end, in situations where discrepancies arise, an SA (or a more appropriate SA) should be the ones to decide.
In these situations which had happened to me, I had always made it clear that in any future similar situations that the verdict reached is how it should be dealt with. I used case law, in the sense that one 'case', or decision on a situation, would affect all others and I made this very clear in every appeal I accepted and denied.
In situations where a rule needed to be expanded upon, removed, or fixed in order to satisfy the outcry of "LOL NOT IN RULES" it's just an easy case of talking to ruler reviewers/SDs in order to make that addition.

Faction leaders are/should be those managing the day-to-day actions of the factions and safeguarding activity, shit like promotions, who to put where, generally the things I find myself lacking the time for. They obviously dont have complete autonomy in that sense, and I often sit with both seal and char if some issue presents itself or there's disagreement between both factions.

In terms of current ones, I won't shy away from saying that both have been rough in terms of leadership transfers etc. What was important was that the factions became stable again with more activity in the leadership (not just fac lead, COs etc in general) and we wouldn't have complete chaos and people of the same rank ripping eachother's throat out on a daily basis.

Now, I know that the faction leaders are often seen as rolemodels, people who should dictate what others should be doing. I'd personally say that they should always focus on their IC rank first, as they're supposed to run the company IC, mainly because there's a need to have a senior officer around to act as the highest level of IC authority, though the responsibility of leading by example is not their task alone, the NCOs (and even JCOs like Lieutenants) are those the (new) players will primarily interact with, the Captain or Major not so much, they are expected to be the individual the SNCOs and COs can take their issues though.

I agree with much of the first point, so I don't have much to offer to debate.

For the second - I don't have much to say either, considering it was simply a question I asked to get your opinion on one of the things I feel the most strongly about.

For the third - I completely agree they are to be rolemodels, and that they should almost always be, and deal with things IC rather than be a bunch of memes OOC, or (generally) deal with things that should be dealt with ICly, OOCly instead. I also do agree that a faction leader should be the person who NCOs and COs should be going to with ongoing, IC situations. (icly, on server hopefully)

Really, this main purpose of the question was so I could criticize current faction leaders, as you had pointed out.

Your tone, however, implies you have issues with a certain faction leader. Feel free to spell that out so I (or they) can make a less general post

I have issues with both. However let me make it clear that I do not have issues with them as people, but as faction leaders. While I believe @seal has made some steps in the right direction, from what I've seen, it's just not at the point where I can comfortably state that I believe his faction is in a healthy state.
Why? Just simply because I don't feel he (or char) approach situations the way in which I have seen many good faction leaders. I feel like both don't put enough stress on roleplay within their own factions. As everytime I get on, I hardly see the quality I once saw regularly. Back in LP, there at least were people roleplaying situations around base, with their own characters and their own stories or just idle gambling and the like. While I'm sure this still happens currently, I can't help but remember a recent time when I entered the server, and for the two hour stay I spent not a single word was said IC, every enlisted was idling, and when something as said IC it was "/r Enlisted to AP." and once to the AP, the only only phrase uttered being "Alpha.".
Which to me, smells like a dead faction. Recently when I have gotten on it has gotten much better, however still not to the degree I once saw.
NCOs, COs, and sometimes perhaps even the faction leader should be the ones creating RP, at all times. It is their job to also make sure the faction runs smoothly, and not only in winning patrols. In the end, the server is supposed to be a roleplay server and it should be treated as such.
Many faction leaders who I hold highly have always put roleplay at an extremely high priority, like charley and @Wulfeh . Most of their promotions being entirely based on how much roleplay and NCO brings, creates, and takes part in. As such, many other people followed suite, as NCOs are rolemodels for not only enlisted, but also lower ranked NCOs.
In the end, while people come here for a variety of reasons, such as S2K or RP, some people also do come here for rank. If they see that a certain aspect is being rewarded very highly, like something as easy as bringing good roleplay (that isnt the same scenario every day) then they will do so in hopes of receiving rank. On base shouldn't be so dull, and an NCO's duty should not end when off field.
Personally, I have promoted many NCOs who could have never taken out a patrol in the span of a week or two, purely because I observed them providing and bringing different and good RP to the enlisted. As such, it ushered in and attracted people who roleplayed to my faction. The same can be said for some other faction leaders.
I feel like both of your current faction leaders don't realize this, or if they do, they don't hold it at such a high regard as they should. Having been a faction leader/co-lead throughout about 90% of my time as staff on WW3, I feel that this is a vital factor in every good faction.

As a final point, to anyone who argues "why should I promote ncos with shit leadership"
Leadership, maneuvers and tactics can be learned through trial and failure. I've seen many NCOs who had questionable leadership that I, or Wulfeh promoted (that did all of the above well with rp) learn and become much better than they once were.

No? Does me making some RP elements optional imply that I favor those who S2K? I've always sought to cater to both sides of the coin. IMO what would be the best in the current environment are those who enjoy doing both, in the sense that they do not get annoyed when their fellow players want to go out and S2K or even sit down with eachother while there's clearly enemies to be shot. I adressed this in that last NATO NCO meeting where people who want to roleplay should not be forced to become (unwilling) part of the S2K unless there's special circumstances.

It is a distorted picture that roleplay is a neglected or nonexistent part of the server. Yes, it is mainly done in those groups of friends or on a basic level between the common enlisted and their commanders, but does that not apply to every roleplay setting, the 'sticking to those you know' part?

Now, I reckon a large part of that 'neglect' stuff stems from the NLR being at 10 minutes, which again, is an optional thing rather than forcing S2K down everyone's throat. Did we all forget the LP times where folks like Nukkel weren't ashamed of stating that they literally sat down watching youtube videos for 30 minutes until their NLR expired?
It was set to 10 for an event at first, then it remained after base activity increased. The reasoning behind that was that if people who were on that 'both' spectrum weren't forced to wait for half an hour (often of their limited time to play every day) they'd be inclined to stay active around the base rather than being tempted to go unresponsive and wait (something which still happens, though in lesser amounts). So far I havent had any concrete indication that it negatively affected those who wish to roleplay (aside from an incident where players were forced away from a situation to form a QRF, which has since been dealt with in the meeting mentioned earlier).

For the first point - No, I didn't mean to imply such. It was just a question to see if you actually were trying to take a different direction away from rp. Though I've gathered you haven't.
I do agree that people shouldn't be forced to join a patrol when they may be RPing, however.

For the third point - I won't cry about NLR like the majority of others, just because I haven't seen it affect as much as I had always figured in the past. Aside from that, if you feel it is necessary then I have no quarrel with it, it's not an issue I feel too strongly on, so long as it doesn't get too low.
However many people while on NLR, infact should be roleplaying, but again that is down to the player and not much can be done to affect that, aside from all I previously stated in pushing RP as much as possible, with the influences of NCOs.

I'm quite sure I eventually started talking about this point in the previous responses, namely the part about catering to both while not facilitating an S2K-only mentality, which is what turning it into 'darkrp' would do. As said, both sides of the coin have their freedom to exist and play on the server.

Ah, okay. I think I've seen it in responses, though I wasn't really sure so I figured while I had your attention I may as well get a definitive answer in order to clear any grey areas on how you felt about the server. Same goes with some other parts.
But thanks for actually taking the time to reply, and sorry I usually have a bad attitude.

 

[ⓅⓊⓅ]

I already adressed that these kits have nothing to do with MedRP

This is precisely why I'm saying the staff is blind to certain things. Listen, I'm done being toxic. I mean no offense, but if you honestly believe that the implementation of stabilization kits in no way affect medrp, .... I'm not even going to say it.

I'm sorry to say this, but if a warning from staff is not enough to get a medic to do actual med rp other than make a 3 line /me , you're doing something wrong. there are semi-serious rp servers with genuine, legitimate med rp, not just because of staff enforcement, but because it's so much more fun and progressive for characters. I won't say it myself-- around 3 other people in this thread have stated that it's time for staff to grow a backbone and pound down on unruly meme rp and s2k rp. Stabilization kits aren't a bad thing per se, but they take alot away from medrp, specially when staff isn't cracking down on the lack of injury rp and medrp-- two components which are crucial to a good serious rp server. I'd be willing to bet that you wouldn't even have to remove stabilization kits as long as you're forcing people to actually med rp like it should be.

^^, Oh, and don't take my word for it if you don't want. I've got over 10 players agreeing with me on this, many of whom's statements I'd be happy to quote for you-- anonymously if needed.