Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About J.B.

  • Rank


  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1281 profile views
  1. Except it was. The build up to the vote was enormous. Up to several months before the vote there were several dedicated threads at multiple pages each, a crossfire of PMs and the discussion spilled over into other threads both public and regular-only. To say disparity ensued afterwards would not be hyperbolic, but more importantly as far as I remember the vote distribution was clear cut. Those who had doubts to begin with had decided by the end of the vote. I don't think it would have passed if it had been put up for vote again two weeks later and with what modifications is a fool's guess by now. But simply because we have a rule saying that a failed poll can be put to another vote doesn't guarantee anything at all. I don't mean this as a jab at you, Jak, but from your posts I get the impression you weren't included in or remember the discussions or vote. Please correct me if I am wrong.
  2. It failed by 3 votes some time ago and you can find the policy discussion (17+ pages) in those forums if you are interested. I actually found the thread. http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/20136-410-barrier-of-entry/page-1?hl=barrier
  3. This seems like an excuse for a good response to a stupid thing to say by Kingslayer. A cop out. Your post is even more silly with Kingslayer having been a staunch opponent to the BTE when it was discussed and voted on, for him now to be making this thread. Thawk, you Irish prick. I'll run you over with my tank.
  4. The be all, end all issue is that ArmA at UO doesn't sufficiently appeal to or retain those type of players and persons one could build a lasting competent player base on. A thriving and evolving playerbase is driven by enthusiasm that manifests itself in mission makers, players who step up to moderate or administrate the server, put effort into training or teaching others and simply show up to play. A proof of this is in the Regular applications and nominations, or lack thereof, coming from A3. Granted, it is now required to be a donator in order to be a Regular, but the fee is small and can be overcome easily if one is willing. Regulars are the embodiment of the community values and the type of persons we appeal to, so when compared to the frequency of nominations and applications from years past it becomes apparent that we are lacking in this department. Why aren't we appealing to or retaining these persons? Some can be attributed to the nature of being an open community with an ever revolving door. This can result in fatigue for admins and teachers as they will have to deal with the same issues over again, something which I believe is less pronounced in a closed community. Being an open community has many, many great benefits to it with the ease of which a person can come along and find a place for sometime or even life, where they wouldn't have ventured had it been closed, with the community reaping the benefits of their skills. It allows a greater diversity of personalities that give different insights and viewpoints. However, it seems this upward curve was broken around the introduction of Day Z, perhaps it is not possible to reverse it at all. The watering down of skills and quality of gameplay directly affect the attraction of the community. As has been pointed out we aren't promoting ourselves well enough or to sufficient degree that we may reach these desirable players. What can we do? Shit, it is the same discussion over again and while I won't beat the BTE drum this time around, I will tell you what you shouldn't do. Forget training frequency or quality being a remedy to the issue. There's a Danish saying that you can pull the horse to the trough, but you can't force it to drink. We can and have tried to reinvent, ruinvigerate and represent UOTC and player-held courses widely throughout the community from the time I joined UTOC under Zedic and Jake Perill, until Godhand and I stepped up and down as Traning Officers and now under Azzwort. The players that attend courses are automatically no longer part of the problem. Yes, they might absolutely fucking suck at the game, drills and what have you, but they are dedicated and enthusiastic players who take opportunities to better themselves, and in the long run they will likely prove capable players and good members of our community. What should be focused on instead is those who do not attend courses, how they are reached and improved or in the other ditch, removed or negated from ever joining the community to begin with. Training will not solve this.
  5. I can't tell whether or not if you are going to use this for RL or ArmA, but are you considering magnetic declination?
  6. Between those two it is entirely a matter of which is the better deal. If you do want to read more about them and their differences, I suggest you check if http://www.jonnyguru.com/ has a review for it. It is the go-to site and guy for PSU reviews.
  7. Hell, I would make a return for this. Book it, Headshot!
  8. What resolution do you play at and what was your previous GPU?
  9. 32GBs of RAM will only become relevant if you're into some video creation/editing. I would go for the Windforce edition of the same card for the extra fan and OC potential.
  10. 1080 Aero: MSI's version of the reference model which is the basic model. It uses a reference PCB without any additional changes to the power delievery or cooling solution. 1080 Armor: Uses a custom PCB which delievers better overclocking potential via more power pins, VRMs (Voltage regulator modules), capacitors and features a better cooling solution. 1080 Gaming X: Again it uses a custom PCB with the same advantages over the reference PCB. It furthermore features MSI's top tier Twin Frozr cooling solution. In general they vary in clock speeds (called Factory Overclocked) and while they all use the same GPU you are paying for the extra design and build of the card along with the overclocking potential the latter bring.
  11. J.B.


    Jackson, you son of a bitch! Good to hear from you and that things are going well. Congratulations on the marriage and your daughter. Welcome back.
  12. Considering price degradation over time with the performance difference and that Nvidia is set to launch a new line of GPUs in 2017 (Named Volta), there is really no point in upgrading from the 1070 to the 1080 at a later point. The GTX 1070 will wreck any game at 1080p at the moment.
  13. PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant CPU: Intel Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz Quad-Core Processor (£213.34 @ Aria PC) CPU Cooler: CRYORIG H7 49.0 CFM CPU Cooler (£29.99 @ Ebuyer) Motherboard: MSI Z170A KRAIT GAMING 3X ATX LGA1151 Motherboard (£127.96 @ CCL Computers) Memory: Kingston FURY 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-2133 Memory (£63.84 @ Ebuyer) Storage: Samsung 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive (£132.71 @ Amazon UK) Storage: Seagate Barracuda 2TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive (£59.88 @ Aria PC) Video Card: EVGA GeForce GTX 1070 8GB ACX 3.0 Video Card (£399.99 @ Amazon UK) Case: NZXT S340 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case (£60.54 @ More Computers) Power Supply: EVGA SuperNOVA G2 650W 80+ Gold Certified Fully-Modular ATX Power Supply (£79.99 @ Amazon UK) Total: £1168.24 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2016-09-12 21:42 BST+0100 The 2TB HDD is thrown in there for the overall picture, but as you can see if you deduct it we are around the 1300€/1100£ area. All are quality parts, but you could save some money by going with a lower capacity SSD (still recommend the Samsung 850/750 EVO line) and a cheaper GTX 1070 version. I couldn't really squeeze in a GTX 1080 due the large price difference, but this rig will last you a good while even more so if you game at 1080p.
  14. Logicalincrements is a fairly good shot at it, but if there's anything UO has then it's a horde of PC builders that are just waiting for a thread likes this. Throw us a budget, what tasks you will use it for (Gaming, video/photo editing, compute tasks etc) and I throw something back at you.
  15. Leads is a generic word in this case. What you're really asking me is when does the contact report fall in the reaction to enemy fire/sighting. At an enemy sighting where the squad hasn't come under fire the contact report is sent as soon as possible. If the squad is engaged or engages a suddenly appearing enemy the contact report is sent as soon as possible. In the latter scenario the reaction to contact for the SL should be as follows: Fall down facing your security direction. Orient yourself of the direction of contact. As soon as possible send a short contact report consisting as a minimum of "This is 1. Contact, contact. wait, out." and ideally direction (front, left, right, cardinal direction etc), range (close, middle, far, meters etc) and type. Example: This is 1. Contact left, far, fireteam. Depending on the distance either go into position or assault the target (only if very close). Send full contact report and preferably include a suggestion for the next manoeuvre. Common for all points are that the full contact report is to be sent as soon as possible. If you can send it while you throw yourself at the ground, you do it.
  • Create New...