Giovanni

Hmm... https://tlx-gaming.com/topic/530-fuck-it-done-with-the-server/ Let's not take this post off topic please.

This is fixed.

Email issue has been fixed, he shouldn't have an issue signing up now.

Hi everyone, Today at our staff meeting we went over the results of the community survey and have made decisions on faction whitelisting per the majority votes. BLUFOR and OPFOR will have a full ranking structure and chain of command, however players who are not whitelisted will be able to play in public slots that have limited equipment available to them. Faction qualifications will exist independent of ranks and will be instated for heavily armoured ground vehicles and attack-capable air vehicles. PMCs will be whitelisted to qualified players, however we will not restrict them to registered Private Military Companies as it did not receive as much support in the survey. Having Private Military Companies in addition to independent contractors is something we will be looking into for the future, however. BLUFOR 50% voted for "BLUFOR needs to have a full ranking system and chain of command" 36% voted for "BLUFOR needs to be whitelisted to qualified players" 14% voted for "BLUFOR should not be whitelisted" BLUFOR controls North Takistan and will mainly consist of NATO, so players will be able to access equipment and uniforms from various NATO countries. The ranks here are based off the US Army, however they are not 100% accurate as we have pulled a few out for simplicity. Because NATO's force in Takistan isn't that of an entire military, the cut-off rank at the top will be Major. Commissioned Officers Major Captain First Lieutenant Second Lieutenant Officer Candidate Non-Commissioned Officers Sergeant Major Master Sergeant Staff Sergeant Sergeant Corporal Enlisted Members Specialist Private First Class Private There will be a small subfaction of United Nations that will have their own goals, capabilities, and equipment however we have not decided how they will work just yet. OPFOR 40% voted for "OPFOR needs to have a full ranking system and chain of command" 36% voted for "OPFOR needs to be whitelisted to qualified players" 24% voted for "OPFOR should not be whitelisted" OPFOR controls South Takistan and they mainly represent the Takistan Liberation Army. They are a puppet to Russia and therefore receive assistance and equipment from them. We have based their ranks off of the Russian Army. The Russian titles will be used in text, however for pronunciation purposes we have included their English equivalents for people to use when addressing them. The initial consensus among staff was that we weren't going to do a comprehensive command structure for OPFOR, but after seeing the work Kane has accomplished himself with the ranking and training he's done while unofficially leading the faction, we decided to go for it. Officers Polkóvnik (Colonel) Mayór (Major) Kapitán (Captain) Stárshiy Leytenánt (Senior Lieutenant) Leytenánt (Lieutenant) Mládshiy Leytenánt (Junior Lieutenant) Enlisted Members Starshiná (Sergeant Major) Stárshiy serzhánt (Senior Sergeant) Serzhánt (Sergeant) Mládshiy Serzhánt (Junior Sergeant) Yefréytor (Private First Class) Ryadovóy (Private) Summary We have not decided yet how we will be appointing initial leadership for both BLUFOR and OPFOR. They will likely go to who we feel is qualified and capable of liaising with the staff team, however it's also possible that some sort of voting campaign will be held. We're glad to be taking this step forward to increase roleplaying and immersion for the militarized factions. Feel free to reply with any feedback (positive or negative) you may have. Raw Survey Results

no thanks

Your post was hidden because you shared information on duping in game even though one of the reasons you were banned was because you precisely threatened to do exactly that. Also, there is no such thing as "paying for VIP subscription". You're not really helping yourself here. You're just decreasing the likelihood that you'll be unbanned.

You said it yourself that you were intoxicated the night of your ban, so have you considered the fact that you probably don't accurately remember what exactly occurred? You can say it was a joke all you want, but if he took it to support then he didn't see it that way. I looked at the chat myself. You were spamming messages asking to be banned. I looked at the Discord chat and didn't see anything that corroborates this. Threatening to release information is wildly different from "helping". In that case, we won't put any effort into removing your ban. I don't see how we "copied" anything from the Arma 3 community in question. The only similarities are that both forums are using themes made by IPSFocus, although they're still 2 completely different themes. The other community is https://arma-life.org/forums/ in case anyone wants to look for themselves.

Here is what happened as described by the case reports filed by other staff members. You started off by stealing a vehicle from civ spawn, a safe zone. When brought into a support room on Teamspeak, you decided to leave on your own accord and then go into global chat and say "fuck the admins". A strike was issued. After this, you repeatedly spammed global chat asking what you could get banned for, and telling the staff to ban you. A ban was then issued against you for 14 days citing the previous strikes and your continuous trolling. Following this, you decided to start advertising an Arma 3 life community on Discord by posting links to their website. This led to you getting banned on Discord and your 14 day ban getting extended to permanent. You then came back on Teamspeak where you threatened to "release duping information" to other players if you weren't unbanned. This got you banned permanently off Teamspeak. You are 100% responsible for your own behaviour whether you were intoxicated or not. I'll leave the final decision on this ban appeal to Unknown since he dealt with you directly. However, as it stands right now, I am not convinced that your behaviour will change in the future and the lack of effort put into your ban appeal illustrates that.

I like the idea of separating laws from rules and I've looked into setting this up in the past similar to how British Borders did it. However, it is very time consuming to write and implement.

People honestly don't value their lives that much as it is. I feel like death should carry a larger punishment than jail time.

Here's what will be happening in regards to the embassies. If factions wish to set up an embassy in one another's territory with the permission of the other faction, that is fine. However, if you don't have permission, you are simply setting yourself up to be engaged for trespassing by the opposing faction. There will be no official implementation of embassies in game, nor will there be permanent embassies. However, if you wish to RP and set up an embassy in agreement with the other faction, you may do so.

That hasn't existed for several versions. Plus, it doesn't solve the issue of actually deleting the statistics of that one day, which is what I want to do so our online user count isn't messed up forever.

I believe it's not the bank itself that you buy passports/licenses at but rather the building (hotel?) beside it. Have you tried buying anything there?

We had a DDoS attack at one point so it showed hundreds of guests online at once. However, for some reason, it decided to stop at the number 666 despite there being more than that. If I knew how to reset the stats for that day so we could have an accurate number to show for our most users online, I would do it.

That's what a human gunner is for. As I've stated multiple times already, AI provide an advantage in that they can instantly spot, target, and kill enemies. Players vs players provides a more fair combat environment. If there's not enough people on to get a gunner in your helicopter, then you don't need that helicopter and you'd be better off on the ground. It's ridiculous when the entirety of OPFOR takes out helicopters with AI to go hunt down terrorists while having no boots on the ground to patrol territory or man border checkpoints. It requires a gunner, not specifically an AI gunner. A human gunner would do fine. The suggestion is also to remove AI from every faction, not from one faction specifically. If you really believe that AI don't provide any advantages over others, then you would be fine with them being removed. That's another reason why we shouldn't have AI available, regardless of whether you "bitch about it" or not. Completely irrelevant, this has nothing to do with AI providing significant advantages over other human players. Maybe you haven't noticed that there is also a group of people that disagree with you? Unknown has been playing on the server since 2014/2015. I think he has a lot of first hand experience.

Thank you for applying to become a staff member at Takistan Life Xtreme. Upon administrative review, your application has been rejected. Please wait 2 weeks before submitting a new application.

757 minutes is only 12 hours. The requirement for applying is 40. You state that you have 2400 minutes in game (which is exactly 40 hours)... it's a pretty obvious lie. Didn't set your birth date on the application... Requirements state that you must be 16, we rarely make exceptions to this. ??? You haven't even been here for a week... Well, there you have it...

Requiring licenses for AI isn't going to fix anything. It's nothing to do with "noobs with AI", it's the plain fact that AI gives an unfair advantage over other players who are using tactics that are designed work against humans, not insta-spot, insta-kill AI. Making this restricted to supporters only would only make it more unfair for others. You seem to believe that the only problem with AI is that they don't hold fire and lead to chaotic incidents, so obviously you didn't read my previous reply to you.

No. Different server.

I agree with the removal of AI. Aside from the fact they often don't listen to commands to hold fire and cause mayhem at borders, they are cheaty in the fact that they can magically identify and open fire on enemy targets in situations where a human player would not see them. Example 1: An insurgent is driving around in a civilian vehicle. A human player would see this vehicle and think it's a civilian, and probably not think anymore about it. An AI on the other hand will recognize it as an enemy and immediately open fire. Example 2: An insurgent is hiding in a bush behind a rock on a mountain near Checkpoint Alpha. Opfor is struggling to find this insurgent as they endlessly pick off soldiers at the border. Opfor decides to bring an Mi-24 with an AI gunner. The AI immediately spots the concealed insurgent and kills it. Example 3: Someone places AI into an armed vehicle in a location where they are able to annihilate any enemy that even comes near. This is often used on roads leading out of the Independent base to instantly murder any unsuspecting insurgents leaving before they are even able to identify the AI vehicle. With these type of situations in mind, I feel that AI provides a huge reconnaissance advantage to the players using them, as they will insta-identify enemies and engage them. Therefore I agree with the proposal that they get removed. This is exactly the type of behaviour we're trying to prevent though. The AI are just used as spotters because people are too lazy to go look for enemies themselves. It's irrelevant whether people can control their AI or not.

Then it's on you for not bringing a taser. The rules of engagement don't change just because you forgot one. That said, I want to leave it to the discretion of players if they wish to equip a taser or not. If they go into the field without one, it may end up putting them at a disadvantage but in the end, that's their fault. Just because someone isn't carrying a taser doesn't mean the use of force rules change and they're all of a sudden allowed to kill somebody. As Unknown has stated, BLUFOR is a military occupational/peacekeeping force. They are not your local police department. TL;DR: Not bringing a taser puts you at a disadvantage. It does not change the rules regarding use of force. If people want to make the choice not to equip a taser, it's on them.

I don't think Blufor should be required to carry a taser, because not having one is simply putting them at a disadvantage. Just because they don't have a taser on them doesn't give them the right to kill people in situations where they normally couldn't, they'll just be left without a proper tool at their disposal to stop someone who is fleeing. Plus, requiring a taser would make other pistols redundant, since you wouldn't be able to use them.

Hey, I'm from the D-NICE days too!

Thank you for applying to become a staff member at Takistan Life Xtreme. Upon administrative review, your application has been accepted. You will receive further details within the next 24 hours.

This will be the final response from staff regarding your ban appeal. Your ban was justified however it will be lifted. Please refrain from duping in the future as the consequences will increase in severity. If you have any questions or issues with your ban please report to a support room on TS3. Topic is be locked to prevent further responses.