GST

@ Milo

Apologies it has taken me a little while to write something on here, I haven’t really had the chance to look through this until now. sharing my experience as SAPD, aswell as someone that has been junior APD not that long ago perhaps may shine some light onto it from our perspectives. Feds and BWs have always and likely will always be a spot of contention and disagreement among the players that regularly do them aswell as the APD that are required to fight them. To just plainly state, in my opinion there is a vast difference between a Fed composed with those that know what they are doing, ie. Your Aegis/TP/AP versus those that are more of a ragtag group of disorganised players. I won’t much comment on that more ragtag players that fights them as this has become incredibly rare and I haven’t seen one in many months. When responding to Feds we as APD are required, and expected to respond proportionally. This is something that ultimately tends to lie in the seniors realm of responsibility and should be open for justification if asked. This should mean that ultimately if both sides of the player base were to combat a Fed APD response should be difference to combat the level of skill shown by the defending civs. Things that we or I myself take into account when justifying a response are, time left on bombs, number of defenders, number of roaches, equipment being used, aswell as patterns of recent Feds completed by the same group. We as SAPD know that responding to a fed is shit for juniors, and it can often feel like a grinder at times. We understand because we have been there. I can understand that having a senior or even an FTO present makes a huge difference to level of response and combat ability that juniors will have to a Fed and if there is neither of those on then the juniors response is very linear and I can assure you that many seniors if they see you fighting a fed will join in to support you. More on the topic of civilians, it has died down recently the number of Feds I personally am fighting; as I can remember a few weeks ago it was nonstop. We respond with higher numbers or potentially authorise lethals even when we outnumber you if we believe we are still at a significant disadvantage. That being a clear skill gap, the fact we are being slamming enforced positions with worse gear, and for the majority of it no armoured vehicles (ps the hunters are awful). It needs to be understood these are end game events, and should be successfully completed by gangs with high organisation and skills. Aegis have a clear monopoly with including some of the best players on the server, and so I understand that your group will fight Feds more often than not because that’s what you find fun. I personally believe we need more to be able to keep this a challenging fight for you guys, however this id required to be used proportionally. because ultimately the APD aren’t going to just ‘get good’ as we have a lot of newer players in the faction, and if you were to bring a rough 10 man, even with a senior on it is a huge likelihood you as civilians win. it is worth me saying by my suggestion of giving us more to combat this, it should 100% be monitored and the seniors or FTOs using more equipment should be required to justify the use of them. That is my 10pence, once again apologies for not getting on here earlier. If anyone has any points or questions they want to raise then I’ll be on here monitoring it, and happy to answer or clarify things. many thanks,

I will use the money to purchase @ Milo programming lessons

So prior to speaking to you, myself, Xlax and a few others were discussing both points to the IA you put in. Following this you had wanted to discuss things in teamspeak, as I can quite rightly understand. Subsequently, we were attempting to find the “rule” that stated this incident. However during this time it was clear that it wasn’t written down, and it was an “unwritten” rule. To make absolutely clear, I can understand your frustration with the idea that it was just “made up”. However if it were written in there I don’t think anyone would have looked twice because it makes sense. That is not to excuse it not being there, but instead to bring validity to a point you made in your argument. I am not here to dismiss your points, rather to discuss them. During the time in TS we were present to hear what you had to say and listen to the outcome of proceedings. Aside from Xlax and Knifemaster, the others present in the TS channel did not say a word, and that was purposeful so you wouldn’t feel ganged up on. Because ultimately that wouldn’t have been fair. I do not believe Xlax was at any point being condescending. That is my perspective, and if I had believed he was I would have discussed this with him and / or interjected. However I believe he handled it with decorum and respect. Following this we instantly stated that this should be put in writing somewhere, so that everyone can have access to this information. Ultimately it is for staff to decide, however I would rather bring validity to what you are saying than to start jabbing at people to extenuate your point, surrounding it in pettiness.

If you believe that there is a clear contingency that the server rules and / or the APD handbook do not cover or left "open to interpretation", then we can have that discussion. However taking potshots at people because they have given their opinion on something makes this look petty. This is a concern that you have raised, and if you feel is a misjustice then this is the opportunity to hear the wider communities independent perspectives, not to have a jab at people. This works both ways. @ Milo agreed with you on the fact it perhaps should be better spelled out, or that this is the opportunity to do so.

@ Squeeze I found a really good scenario, I used to use for single player that will get you exposed to It. I believe it’s this one, but I’m not at home right now so I can’t be sure…so if not I’ll throw the right one in here later. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=173804041 but honestly, practice makes perfect…well perfect practise makes perfect and in this case you get to target exactly what you want to improve on.

I'll help you out chief