You are not logged in.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Announcement
#151 Re: Report Abuse » BFSoldier - again: » 2016-02-16 17:29:09
Banning by IP is a pretty serious thing. The green highlight is not a reliable indicator. The BFSoldier that rejoined had not yet started a TK spree.
#152 Re: Report Abuse » Abuse » 2016-02-12 20:45:31
If you were tk'd 14 times by a player, no worries, he was autobanned after the 9th tk.
#153 Re: Report Abuse » Russ flying/attacking our main » 2016-02-12 20:44:04
Omen wrote:you want to read this
1. not all the maps with uncap' are mentioned
2. the boundaries of the mentioned maps are not final decision (since more than half a year ago, well...)
3. map modder needs to ensure that death bubbles match with the boundaries
4. once all the maps are done, can tuia put these info near the no-base-attack rule
If you want to talk about uncap boundaries, start your own thread or contribute to the other thread. The topic of this thread is not related to uncap boundaries.
#154 Re: Report Abuse » Russ flying/attacking our main » 2016-02-09 09:41:33
The axis base on bocage is very close to the nearest flag, overflying it is an inevitability. Additionally, not remotely against the rules. In this case, I had just finished shooting down a 109 over the axis village. You'll notice that even though I was overflying the base while you were taking off, I did not shoot your plane. Not until you chased me and started shooting at me. Then I lit you up.
Attacking the enemy uncapturable main base (basecamping or basebombing) is not allowed. You must not snipe at the main base. You are not allowed to shoot at planes during take-off. All other vehicles must be given the opportunity to leave their base. Nevertheless, it's permitted to air strike at a fireing AA gun or a shooting artillery that's inside the base.
#155 Re: Videos and Screenshots » Random short videos from the Battlefield » 2016-02-07 12:45:07
Great video of me getting midair bombed by a B-17, somehow I accidentally scaled it down to 800x600, which is a bummer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhPE42NXLc8
And general fails:
#156 Re: Report Abuse » BFSoldiers - again: » 2016-01-27 09:39:18
Bock wrote:sorry bos
i not kick automatic players when i got reported they not play correct - i trust u but first i watch reporter players. this may take little time. maybe i should shoot (kick ban) first and ask later if it was correct... would give good discussions and a lot of fun )When you have 1 or more regulars on the server reporting about the same issue then in my opinion shouldn't watch just trust your regulars, that is what we are here for, play and also help keep server clean of smacktards.
I'm of the policy that if I'm going to kick or ban for something, I almost always need to see it (unless it's a BFSoldier). If many reliable players are complaining and the smacktard is not listening to warnings, meaning I have to suicide/switch team and waste time watching their ass for a minute or two, the minimum ban will usually be 1 week.
#157 Re: Report Abuse » More admin abuse » 2016-01-27 09:34:38
Had a round on midway that for about 10 minutes the enemy prince of whales class ship kept sinking the carrier each time it spawned. Bots were operating all our destroyers and were busy finding nemo or whatever the hell it is they do. Our prince of whales was not far, and I asked the operator to come help, but he just sat there and pounded the island. Eventually issued a !kill to go take care of the problem and then returned it. He was similarly butthurt.
Having the M10 leave the main base on torbuk to get blown up on the front line of flags is pretty bad strategy wise for the entire team. Makes defending the rear base much harder. Maybe if you actually responded, or, shocker, just said sorry, things could have gone differently.
#158 Re: Report Abuse » BFSoldiers - again: » 2016-01-25 12:05:19
Just kicking auto on BFSoldier would just mean they'd change their name, then be an ass. I don't think it's a big enough barrier to entry. Any anyway, at least when I'm admining, my threshold of evidence and for kick/ban is much much much lower for anyone with BFSoldier as a name. Kindof a handy notation.
#159 Re: Server Ban Appeals » I was banned » 2016-01-12 22:46:11
Letting others play under your name should be an automatic ban. That would stop all the "it was my brother/son/cousin/dog not me" protests!
I think the ban is by keyhash, not name.
#160 Re: Videos and Screenshots » Random short videos from the Battlefield » 2016-01-08 04:45:31
bf109 intercepts a perfect pass
#161 Re: Technical Help » Playing on Linux » 2015-12-02 09:42:48
Something like:
wine explorer /desktop=desktop-two,800x600 ./BF1942.exe +restart 1
Is helpful, you can set bf1942 to run in a window rather than take over the screen.
#162 Re: Report Abuse » What do you think? » 2015-11-21 22:47:58
Hey Russ,, what's wrong with Bob?
Not sure if you are trying to be funny, but the point is the '.' way out to the right.
#163 Re: Report Abuse » BFSoldier » 2015-11-20 00:43:32
Also, griefers live to grief. A simple ban on 'BFSolder' or similar would do very little to slow them down.
#164 Re: Report Abuse » What do you think? » 2015-11-20 00:38:17
If you have a name that is specifically designed to annoy, ok, whatever, maybe show it off, but once people get the joke or whatever, change it. Especially if an admin gives you a !wname. This includes names like:
"Bob ."
#165 Re: Feedback » Some things to consider for BF1942 USA » 2015-11-16 02:09:16
Stali - no tanks
All maps, extra subs
Especially berlin.
#166 Re: Report Abuse » Shotgun » 2015-11-11 08:15:07
Eh, my new logic is BFSoldiers can play, but if you do anything to disrupt play, you should get insta-kicked. Of course, the BFSoldiers are often the people who just downloaded the game and started playing. So....it kinda works against getting new players.
#167 Re: BF1942 Discussion » The team wounding medic » 2015-11-09 20:19:14
I accidentally shoot people sometimes because of buggy net behavior and fat fingering. If I'm a medic, I'll heal them.
However, there are clearly players that like to play this game. It's disruptive, if someone is doing it intentionally, it becomes apparent pretty quickly and they may require "adjustment".
#168 Re: Report Abuse » worst hackcusator ever » 2015-11-02 04:28:15
Ohhh, I get it now. Deathbailer.
I just laugh at them. It's a game! Who cares what someone else does (on the other team)? You are trying to make sure the team wins!
It is kinda silly though. I would have bailed after him with my chute only to find the dead body! Doh!
I used to care, now as soon as the plane catches fire I'm done and I consider it a kill. If they want to bail, fine, I probably won't see them again for a while.
#169 Re: Report Abuse » worst hackcusator ever » 2015-10-30 04:57:17
There are also poor sports who constantly use altitude to avoid any reasonable attempts to be fought by 98% of players and/or when the game is severely out of balance don't take their plane fairy skills to the other team to attempt to make it an enjoyable play experience for others. Sometimes they rack up killstats while their own team can't even hold a flag and loses the game. They don't say much in chat, but their play style says plenty. Can't leave those folks out either.
Certain players that you may or may not be talking about do that pretty much *every* time they play El Alemein.
#170 Re: Report Abuse » worst hackcusator ever » 2015-10-29 23:59:24
There's quite a few players that are poor sports. From what you say, FC Altona 93 sounds like he's currently being one of them. Another player repeats 'hk' pretty much every time he's killed. And there's another that a little more subdle says stuff like "sure" whenever he gets waxed.
I takes a lot for someone to get kicked for poor sportsmanship (deathbailing, etc), but straight out hackusations can get a kick pretty quickly and even a ban if they continue. I'll keep an eye out for FC Altona 93.
#171 Re: Feedback » Liberation of Caen map not good with all flags north of river » 2015-10-22 07:14:37
Yes, as someone who plays well with and enjoys non-stop, close in infantry like berlin and stalin, I really dislike this mod. Usually there is some kind of strategy in a map by which you can take and hold flags. On this one, no matter how many players there are, it just ends up being an endless circle.
The attacking the uncap main is especially difficult to patrol because on the normal cain map, this is where infantry drop and you attack them and it's a good thing to do so.
I'm all for experimentation though. Maybe if the mod placed the allied spawn on the west bank?
#172 Re: Server Ban Appeals » Why Banned? » 2015-10-21 06:40:47
I'd have to check the server logs, but if I remember correctly, it was from repeatedly ignoring warnings not to attack uncap flags. It was only a 24hr ban, so it should be expired by now.
#173 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Rules - Simple Server » 2015-10-18 03:21:01
RTB'ing is and should be a risky proposition.
#174 Re: Technical Help » Stupid question regarding DDR graphic card and DDR ram » 2015-10-17 19:41:53
*sigh*....the DDR2 on the motherboard refers to the RAM *it* supports. Whatever type of RAM the graphics card supports in the graphics card own damn business and it'd ask you kindly to mind your own.
#175 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Battlefield 1942 beta testers needed » 2015-10-17 05:56:45
Wow, this game is going to be awesome!
#176 Re: BF1942 Discussion » Battlefield 1942 beta testers needed » 2015-10-17 05:51:19
Well crap!
Beta Test Application Period Over...
The beta test application period for Battlefield 1942 has come to a close. Over the next few days we'll be looking through each application to find the appropriate beta testers.
Thanks for taking the time to send in applications, and good luck!
The Battlefield 1942 Community Team
#177 Re: Technical Help » Microsoft Mouse goes haywire » 2015-10-16 20:40:42
Logitech G500 here. They don't make it anymore and online sources (newegg, amazon) are selling it for 3 to 4 times the original price.
#178 Re: Videos and Screenshots » Posting Finally » 2015-10-16 08:38:22
I still have a long way to go for good dog fighting, but I also experiment with DCS, which is just as much simulator as game. While pretty much everything about dogfighting is vastly different, one of the most striking things is closure speed:
#179 Re: Technical Help » SiMPLE USA Lag WorkGroup? » 2015-10-16 05:34:20
Ya, it can effect stuff. But having a very good connecting to the server, you really start to notice the very odd behavior and how it differs from actual network issues. The game will repeat certain sequences of events, and it gets really clear when you're in a plane. You'll be headed towards some building, or the ground, expecting to pull up, but you'll get a connection issues popup. And you know, in the next few hundred milliseconds, you will crash. But the connection issues thing goes away, and instead of being a pile of aircraft, you're actually backed up away from the obstacle and have a chance to control the plane, just as if nothing had happened. Depending on the severity, this can actually repeat a few times before clearing.
As far as ICMP being handling differently, it isn't necessarily an issue of being discarded, it's an issue of being queued differently. Likely locally generated packets (ping replies) go into a different queue than forwarded packets. For instance, here's my ping statistics on the server:
100 packets transmitted, 100 received, 0% packet loss, time 99132ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.951/3.461/5.539/0.553 ms
And some of the hops:
103 packets transmitted, 103 received, 0% packet loss, time 102157ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.323/4.434/11.244/1.097 ms
101 packets transmitted, 101 received, 0% packet loss, time 100135ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 4.744/9.815/86.941/11.787 ms
103 packets transmitted, 103 received, 0% packet loss, time 102153ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 3.665/4.476/13.877/1.456 ms
106 packets transmitted, 106 received, 0% packet loss, time 105170ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 2.417/4.458/6.608/1.152 ms
As you can see, all of them have worst average ping than the server, with the main difference being that the variance in RTT's is higher. One of them even had an 87ms RTT on one of the pings. But none of this is actually reflected in my connection with the server.
#180 Re: Technical Help » SiMPLE USA Lag WorkGroup? » 2015-10-16 03:22:39
Extended pings on every Comcast node listed from the destination through hop 8 revealed huge inconsistent lag bursts (600+ms in some cases) Those spikes could potentially be a cause for performance issues as they appeared to be more frequent than I'm used to seeing on commercial paths of similar complexity. It would be interesting to get several people with different routes together to run the same extended pings and see the results. Additionally several admin have stated in TS and server chat that the server had all but been eliminated as the source of the problem by the host. I'd just like to see the problem solved for the benefit of the server, and I'm really not interested in a pocket-protector pissing match about it. If you have something better to suggest, please?
Pinging individual hops doesn't give you an accurate picture unfortunately. The way icmp packets are handled too and from that one hop can vary significantly with how other packets get handled and traversed along the way.
The 30 ms referred to the increase in delay between the two hops.
And as I stated, the server is screwed up and it has nothing to do with the connection. Today on Battle of Britain on three separate occasions, the server hung long enough for the timer to jump backwards a full 10 seconds.