Jump to content

Verox

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Verox

Regulars

core_pfieldgroups_2

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    North West England
  • Interests
    I am interested in my interests.

Recent Profile Visitors

818 profile views
  1. That's kind of my point, over time the community becomes less dedicated as older players drop off and the new blood to replace them just doesn't quite know what they're doing.
  2. Isn't there a thread like this every year? We never forced people to qualify for assets, just look at that milkshake guy (or whatever his name was) crashing all the copters on the persistent mission we did a few years back. It still took him ages to get banned, even then most of what he was banned for was being an ass not crashing all the assets. IMO the audience of ARMA changed. The game play quality used to be upheld by virtue of the larger proportion of people knowing what they were doing; the people who didn't but were interested would learn by osmosis, and the people who weren't interested would play a few games and leave. You can't escape the fact that as an audience widens less people will know what they're doing, and aside from becoming a closed community and aggressively vetting new entrants (which, for the record, I think is a terrible idea) I don't think you'll ever recapture the kind of gameplay UO used to have when it was smaller.
  3. that time kief loaded DPICM instead of illum and dropped it on friendly positions... that day we learned one reason why illum is dropped AWAY from friendly positions... good times...
  4. Please don't make me do this... In regard to no action being taken against Whitehead; neither myself, Marvin nor Impulse have the time to perform background checks on every single new user to the community to ensure they haven't been banned. Especially when that user continuously rejoins the community under different aliases through a proxy. Impulse mentioned this in the quoted post in the OP.
  5. Hasn't this been voted on already, in the past? Not that it'd invalidate this poll, but I swear we've put this to poll before...
  6. Looks like the end condition fired as soon as Jebus and Remnant, the last two inside the area, left the area.
  7. I fixed this problem, it turned out to be deceptively simple. The fix is backward compatible. Apologies for the months of no replays. There's also a utility anyone can use if a replay fails to close (it will give error 404 on the replay) http://aar.unitedoperations.net/api/v1/FixUnclosedReplay.php The instructions are in the link.
  8. I see your intention with making the Olsen framework official, and the idea is a good one, but for terminology's sake I would leave out the "official". I echo VKings sentiment about the additional support on Olsen's framework, if it is selected as the primary framework for new mission makers; there have been issues in the past with this framework where it would break and subsequently all missions on the primary that used it would break. We'd need to know that there would be timely fixes to these problems, should they ever occur again. In regards to mission reviewing, would this mean mission makers are able to review and pass their own missions? This has the potential to severely damaging, especially as all active mission makers are included upon release. We've been having trouble recently with some mission makers not even doing cursory testing on their missions like checking for script errors, or if the mission even loads. As I'm sure you're aware a corrupted mission is capable of bringing every single ArmA server we own down (that share the same mission repository) until someone can remove that mission and restart the server. This is a nightmare whenever it occurs for the people who manage the server, as it's usually Impulse (and at times myself) who will first discover it's broken and have to drop whatever we're doing to fix it, sometimes hours later as people have a extremely annoying habit of not notifying us of problems. The rest of your ideas are pretty good and you seem overall pretty motivated, but I'd recommend you break it down into smaller manageable tasks, prioritize them, create a timeline and publish that timeline. It's a problem that has plagued UOTC since almost it's creation that plenty of good things can be implemented, but there just isn't the manpower or time and eventually nothing gets done at all. I'm abstaining my vote for now pending the answer to my above concerns, but leaning towards a yes.
  9. I'd like to hear some specifics on what policies you'd like to change and what practices you'd like to implement. I don't need fully refined SOPs; I just want some general ideas on where you're planning to take the mission making office, and by extension the entire Arma community. In addition to that primary question, there's a few others I'd like to hear from you on: What are the ideals you'd like to see of the office, and what do you think you can realistically achieve of those ideals? Are you specifically displeased with current policies or you do just feel as if it could be done better? Do you have the time to commit to reviewing missions in the queue? Currently the biggest requirement of the MMO office is timely reviewing and uploading of missions.
  10. I now have something for you to do, should you be elected. More information shall be provided if you are elected, the NDA signed and the first born given.
  11. That was 2012..................................................................................................................................................................................
×
×
  • Create New...