djackl

I didn't think that making games that are sufficiently bugged so as to be unplayable counted as a niche.

Just want to take this opportunity to say that I think all of what RKSL does is great! It gives me a semi.

Oh, I'd call myself an ass and a moran or whatever 1000 times if only it would change anythin You my dear friend are an optimist. When visiting a graveyard people like you don't see crosses above graves, they see "+" signs And I am a realist. Btw, at the end of which day??? You're not a realist. You're a spacker.

Let's be honest, ArmA was clearly intended to be a quick moneyspinner. The unaddressed problems indicate that BIS were just looking get a 'quick buck' by releasing a game that, while on the surface was satisfactory, really hadn't moved on in terms of coding from the days of vanilla Operation Flashpoint. I'm surprised they even read these forums anymore.

Don't know who this Placebo character is. Still, hi.

We almost always have somebody online (if not on the server), give us a shout if this happens and we can do a quick server restart for you. It should have an email on the www.volcbat.com website.

Sorry, but in many cases (most?) the admins either partially or fully pay for their server in question. They can do whatever they want with it, which is fair enough as different servers will be admined in different ways. Maybe instead of 'poor quality', some admins would rather just adopt a no-nonsense attitude towards cheating etc. I've seen people complaining about being banned after giving an admin a very similar attitude to yours - the key is to realise that the admins don't owe you anything and you aren't entitled to anything. A single hacker can completely ruin a game. It's not a case of 'letting them go', it's the choice between allowing a suspected hacker to stay on the server to hack or to not take the risk. Which is more important - the enjoyment of the entire server, or one single player who is falsely labelled? After all, it's not like in a lot of situations that there is no comeback. I know for a fact that if you come back on our forums and ask nicely, you've got a very good chance of being allowed back on. Your attitude is just wrong. While it's true that the admin pays for the server, it doesn't mean it's right to play god and do whatever you wish just because it's yours. It's a public server for the public to play there and they are human beings, too. Your philosophy in banning resembles a witch hunt: players with good scores, fast moves or otherwise unorthodox game style are prone to get a ban. Not to mention those 1-4 random players who needed to be banned along with the real cheater (not always) to stop the falling tanks and bombs. If you were a good player, you'd know how it feels to get ban after ban by paranoid admins. Maybe a no-nonsense attitude is wrong in your eyes. As it is, it tends to attract the players who don't want to see an admin stuck in all kinds of red tape situations where they are concerned about whether a player has done 'just enough' to get banned. You haven't actually got a clue about my 'philosophy in banning', so it doesn't pay to speculate. It is simply not up to players to determine how they want a server to be adminned, and there is no prescribed formula for doing so. When you're dealing with people who will happily ruin your game and crash your server, you appreciate that a 'let them go on their way' attitude doesn't quite cut it. If, as a player, you have issue with being banned, is it really that difficult to give a heads up on a forum to be unbanned? I really don't think it is, to be quite honest. Don't mistake pragmatism for paranoia.

Sorry, but in many cases (most?) the admins either partially or fully pay for their server in question. They can do whatever they want with it, which is fair enough as different servers will be admined in different ways. Maybe instead of 'poor quality', some admins would rather just adopt a no-nonsense attitude towards cheating etc. I've seen people complaining about being banned after giving an admin a very similar attitude to yours - the key is to realise that the admins don't owe you anything and you aren't entitled to anything. A single hacker can completely ruin a game. It's not a case of 'letting them go', it's the choice between allowing a suspected hacker to stay on the server to hack or to not take the risk. Which is more important - the enjoyment of the entire server, or one single player who is falsely labelled? After all, it's not like in a lot of situations that there is no comeback. I know for a fact that if you come back on our forums and ask nicely, you've got a very good chance of being allowed back on.

I can see the usefulness of an 'allow list' system. It prevents the hassle of needing to change the password every time an approved member 'falls from grace', but also allows JIP without having to mess about locking or unlocking the server every time somebody wants to join.

There seems to be a major difference between Arma and some more mainstream games, in my opinion, in relation to which servers are ok to go on. On CS:S, for example, you can safely assume that a large amount of servers will be ok to go on, especially the ones that have a large population. Similar story with BF2, and others. It's a sorry state of affairs when you find a game like Arma is sufficiently riddled with cheaters, teamkillers and griefers that your best bet is to find a single 'safe' server and spend all of your time playing there. Apart from the two VCB servers and the 88th server, I haven't been on any others, and from what we've seen on here - I'm not sure there is anything to gain by doing so. This game insists on shooting itself in the foot sometimes.

VCB Public. Â We operate a "Zero Tolerence policy". Act like a twat and you're gone! Â Indeed. This isn't even the usual 'no-tolerance' policy either. Too many servers get bogged down in the 'has this person done enough to be banned' bureaucracy. Has quite a good success rate I might add.

Sounds quite hard going.

I've been on many servers with people running XAM fine? It's not XAM mod in and of itself that causes the crashes, it's how it is used. If somebody, for example, uses one of the full auto M16s, holds down the trigger and hits somebody on the 4th shot (or anything after the 3rd) it will crash the server, because (from what I understand) the server is under the impression that only a burst is meant to be fired, but the client is saying that a hit is being made with a non-existent bullet. If you get what I'm saying. I don't know all that much on the techie side, all I know is that we've had countless evolution games ruined and we tested that specific M16 bug ourselves, guarranteed crash every time.

Aye, the XAM mod changes how the weapons work and this will crash the server, even if a single client connects with it loaded up.

I'm in the SAS. And a gay robot. Nephilim, you're a woman. Where does it say on the rules that you know anything about anything? Not least the SAS. To the thread starter - Attaching the SAS tag to an addon does not give it any more legitimacy.