Dest!Ny

I really like this script! Excellent use of +vstr. You got me nerding out so I modified the script a bit to my liking: You can reduce to a single F8 press for both scripts if you use multiple vstr's and you can clean up a lot of repeated commands by pulling the reset into the -vstr. Not to mention that you can also move the "set sc0 vstr sc00" to the -vstr to avoid repeating more text. I also took the liberty of initializing sc0 in case you single press F8 at the start of the session Ah, and lastly I added an additional bind to "keep current", in case you don't want to change your name/team anymore. EDIT: since the scnames and scteams are so simple now, we can simply eliminate them and define them inline to reduce a lot of spaghetti without it looking more clonky bind F8 "+vstr nameteam_script1 nameteam_script2" seta nameteam_script1 "bind mwheelup vstr name0; bind mwheeldown vstr team0; bind MOUSE3 vstr donothing" seta nameteam_script2 "vstr sc0; set sc0 vstr sc00; vstr sc1; set sc1 vstr sc00; vstr reset_binds" seta reset_binds "bind mwheelup weapnext; bind mwheeldown weapprev; unbind MOUSE3" seta name0 "vstr name1" seta team0 "vstr team1" seta sc0 "vstr sc00" seta sc1 "vstr sc00" seta donothing "echo ^1X ^7CANCEL ^1X; set sc0 vstr sc00; set sc1 vstr sc00" seta name1 "echo ^7/name ^1ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name2; set sc0 name ^1ETPlayer" seta name2 "echo ^7/name ^2ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name3; set sc0 name ^2ETPlayer" seta name3 "echo ^7/name ^3ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name4; set sc0 name ^3ETPlayer" seta name4 "echo ^7/name ^4ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name5; set sc0 name ^4ETPlayer" seta name5 "echo ^7/name ^5ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name6; set sc0 name ^5ETPlayer" seta name6 "echo ^7/name ^6ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name7; set sc0 name ^6ETPlayer" seta name7 "echo ^7/name ^7ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name8; set sc0 name ^7ETPlayer" seta name8 "echo ^7/name ^8ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name9; set sc0 name ^8ETPlayer" seta name9 "echo ^7/name ^9ETPlayer; set name0 vstr name1; set sc0 name ^9ETPlayer" seta team1 "echo ^1Axis ^7team; set team0 vstr team2; set sc1 team r" seta team2 "echo ^4Allies ^7team; set team0 vstr team3; set sc1 team b" seta team3 "echo ^zSpectator; set team0 vstr team1; set sc1 team s" seta sc00 ""

This is a very weird script 😄 Since you have only 1 bind, every toggle also triggers a select, instead of separating the two. What's the consequence? When you freshly load your cfg, vstr AxisAllies is set to Axis, meaning that you can only join Axis with this button. If you want to join Allies you either need to do it manually or press F8 twice.\ Then you have the part of the names. Every time you press F8 you cycle to the next name, however you also switch teams. Therefore this doesn't work if you want to switch names while staying in the same team 🤔 Very interested to know for what you're using this hehe

You don't need to do anything else tbh. It's not like people who play for rating do much more than just trying to frag as much as possible

There are many things to take into account and the exact formula for if you go up or down and by how much are not publicly known, but I can tell you some things to look out for. Let's compare Goldrush GALS with Goldrush GALS one day prior, and only TSP for now: On 22/10: - Your rating before map: 11.83 - Your map rating: 9.12 - Average rating server before map: 9.18 - Map rating server: 9.16 - Result: -0.02 Conclusion - People on average played according to their rating (9.18 v 9.16), in your case you performed lower than your rating (11.83 vs 9.12) so you go down On 21/10: - Your rating before map: 11.11 - Your map rating: 9.74 - Average rating server before map: 10.19 - Map rating server: 9.66 - Result: +0.04 Conclusion - you performed lower than your rating, but so did the rest of the server. At 11.11 rating, your expected performance on this specific map was less than 9.74, therefore you go up I'm sure you will find counterintuitive examples because I also don't know all of the details, but whether you go up or down should be decided mostly by these factors. How much exactly you go up or down is a whole other thing on top of that.

I think the issue with buffing restricted weapons is that it will be a fight for who can use it. We already have the 3 map rule for Panzer, I don't want it for more heavy weapons ?

I would consider checking your NVIDEA control panel to let the custom game res override your native res. Don't know if it is possible otherwise

A few more posts I wanted to comment on that are not directly related with the original post: This is the first time in this topic where this is addressed: "it's not something that ruins the fun". This is very interesting to me because what does it mean that something "ruins the fun". Aren't people just playing? Are there people playing with the intention of ruining the fun for others? What are the intentions of people playing specific weapons or playstyles? And the most important question, how can we make sure that regardless of intention, playstyle, or personal objective in the game, everyone can co-exist together? Because that is what jay1 is about if you were to ask me. One example is the restriction on heavy weapons. The game allows for more panzer and mortar users but we choose not to. Why would we do this if there would definitely be people waiting in line to take the second panzer slot? It's not because we want to ruin these people's fun, but we believe it will harm more the fun of the rest of the server. Many changes that we can make will make a relatively small impact to your experience and still benefit the balance of the game, whether the weapon you use gets nerfed or buffed. Sometimes these topics derail because people believe the intention is to nerf a weapon to the point it becomes unusable while we can remove 10% of AOE damage from the panzer and you will not even notice it (random example). No, this isn't hypocracy. Medics know they can heal themselves back up so it is more natural to take risks and enter the spam, that's why they die more by it and are more likely to complain about it. On the opposite side of the coin, engis and fops might be more cautious around spam and will instead choose to hold back little and maybe throw a nade (feeding the cycle) or pick a long distance fight. Spammers prey on medics while medics prey on spammers, it's natural that one complains about the other, not hypocritical. As someone who plays Medic maybe 90%+ of the time, I am by no means opposed to nerving the class if there is something clearly unfair about it. My personal frustration with medics are those who are on 40hp and will run away and heal after they feel that they will lose the 1v1. But please come with actual suggestions rather than just naysaying the OP, nobody is pointing fingers. This might very well be correct, but what is the conclusion that you want to take from that? If 90% of people suggesting changes are medics does that mean medics are inherently more "whiny" or could it mean that heavy weapon players have less to complain about? Let's keep an open mind and listen to genuine feedback, especially when you keep hearing the same few complaints over and over. I feel like this goes back to previous points. First of all, balance changes can benefit everyone, not just medics. Saying that "the 10 people who play nothing but rambo medic would be happy" is very diminishing towards the well intended post. Balancing the different classes in the game does not only benefit those who play for kills as you say, but also helps objective players. It's all about what you change and how. What comes to mind are maps where you need to collect/deliver an objective from/to a small room (goldrush, hanted mansion, river port, fuel depot) where a guarded flamethrower can make it next to impossible for allies to progress. In the past, I remember seeing suggestions to make the flamethrower inflict damage on the user. Would that make medics and other classes more powerful? Yes. Would it be more healthy for objective players? Also yes. There is a world of things that can be done that will make the vast majority of players not "upset or grumbling" This kind of goes back to what I was saying in response to ELSO and tipsy. Classes doing "damage" to the server is hard to measure (unless you are talking literally ). MoFo isn't also mentioning "all other weapons"; Shotgun, FG42, Mg42, Sniper, Flamethrower are not even mentioned. Sten is even mentioned to be buffed. Let's look at what is actually brought on the table before we make such claims. That said, self-healing is destructive? As a medic, I would say I partially agree. Therefor, please do the same as MoFo did and make a topic about it with a suggestion on how to improve this imbalance. But that should not factor as a discredit of this topic. Interesting point! So this comes down to what you would define as "strong". From experience, I can tell you that in terms of weapons, fg42 might be the strongest weapon in jaymod (at a short or short to medium range). In a fair 1v1 against a fg42 on that range I will easily lose 50% of battles if not more and I'm a pretty okay shot. The problem (and what makes medic so good at racking up kills) is that most 1v1's aren't inherently fair. A medic always has the oppurtunity to heal up and engage a 1v1 at full hp while the rest of classes spend more time respawning and rushing back to the frontline. Medics are powerful because they have a very decent weapon at their disposal and can spend more time actively in the front. You ca verify this youself when you look at the kills+deaths (= total engagements) of a rambo medic compared to any other class, medics just have more engagements and thus more chances to get kills.

Well well well, history repeats itself once again. Topics like these come up from time to time but usually don't lead anywhere. Usually the topic derails a bit as there will always be a few readers who will take constructive feedback as an attack or attempt to make medic stronger. Disagreements aren't properly resolved and eventually the topic kind of dies off in an inconclusive way. This is unfortunately one of the reasons that this part of the forums isn't visited often these days (one topic per month this year excluding map suggestions). Nevertheless, thank you @MoFo for opening the conversation, I can tell that your interest in the betterness of the server and not just your own personal benefit. Comments in quote marked red

Any more log entries aside from what you put here? This kind of error is hard to examine without more information. I am thinking that maybe your ETL version doesn't match with the one that the server runs. It could also be related to corrupted pk3's for which you should run the pk3 cleaner but there are multiple scenarios possible. I'm assuming that this server does have other people playing on it? If the server is empty and nobody seems to be able to connect it can also be related to the server configuration itself

this u? ? https://et.trackbase.net/player/2827966/