New RP rules

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • New RP rules

      Wanted everyones input on the new rules.

      I suppose I'll go first with the rule that not only has been shot down by one of the highest admins but several members.

      - New no-jump-prop allowed in houses aka (2. Props must be placed in a way that Shoot Outs are "Fair" for both sides.)

      I personally try not to post on the forums, but to observe. However, this occasion screams for attention. I personally think this is the most illiterate rule on the motd. A house belongs to the owner, ONE person. Not the entire server, if someone wants to safeguard their drug growing or money printer without being antagonized, they should be able to. With locks, doors can be kicked down (obviously for collecting or selling drugs and money from the printer). It is their house, what they choose to do in it, place in it, or all else, is ultimately up to THEM. Not the MOTD.

      With that being said, if John Doe complains that Jane Doe's props make it unfair for him to kill her in HER house, he should request a 1v1 in the DEDICATED 1v1 TELEPORTER ROOM.

      Really quite disappointed that the entire community did NOT have a say in this, really, it's quite disappointing. More-so to the people who donate to this server, really expect a little bit more respect than this.

      /rantover
      #triggered

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Zirvhirex ().

    • I agree to this statement because if you have like 20k in your house or weed you need to protect it as much as possible and another thing I agree with it is your own house you should do anything to it as you please. So this new rule is fucking stupid and it should be gone.
      #Dolphin Rant
      #Suckish Rules

    • mr_dolphin09 wrote:

      I agree to this statement because if you have like 20k in your house or weed you need to protect it as much as possible and another thing I agree with it is your own house you should do anything to it as you please. So this new rule is fucking stupid and it should be gone.
      #Dolphin Rant
      #Suckish Rules
      you gotta think about not just the rebels side, but the cops side

    • Zirvhirex wrote:


      - New no-jump-prop allowed in houses aka (2. Props must be placed in a way that Shoot Outs are "Fair" for both sides.)
      What makes a "fair" shootout? Should a fight in John Doe's home not give a advantage to John Doe? If one player is crouched and the other is standing is that fair to the player crouched?

      Fairness rule needs to be rewritten in my opinion, I respect those who are giving their time to make mostly outdated rules and translate them into what makes sense to all players.

      These loopholes must be fixed, but this rule in particular runs rampant on the server, most houses do not have a "fair" layout to the attacking player.

      My home in particular was deemed "unfair" to both players because people could not get in. When in reality certain methods would work, they have just not yet been discovered by attacking players.

      Can someone please explain to me a "fair" shootout and a "fair" orientation of props in a home?

    • Propping Defense must allow clear shots for both attacker and defender during combat. (location of shot doesnt matter)

      in according to the above, in @Naujoji s case, this means you can keep ur current setup - minus the walls layering the crouch tunnels that make u have to jump in shoot - making a clear shot for the attacker

      what if we had a rule

      Crouch Tunnels must be made with fences only?

    • I know let's get @Sidezz Old Rules back, ya'll will be in for a treat. Are you ready for No Crouch Tunnels, No Mazes, No Jumps that require even a tap of the Crouch Button, No Straight-A ways(Even Fences). Basically nothing that Obstructs while being fired at thus a Home basically consists of areas that can't be shot through followed by both players ending up out in the open with nothing blocking anything and shoot at each other.

      -No? No one wants the pre-2016 Rules back? Yeah I figured.
      The set of Rules that are current were posted on the forums and voted upon. After about a Month they were made Official. Do I agree that the wording could be a bit better, sure. So I'm glad Duer is taking a shot at making them be worded better.
      The one being bitched about currently is a Rule made when we had 1 way view Black TVs literally covering a room and everything in it. So the home owner could see the attacking player but the attacking player couldn't see anything but a fucking giant ass Black Screen which would have a Fence behind it and a tiny ass opening somewhere to Crouch through. "Fair" was also stated in a thread that made these Rules and was stated that the Home Owner would always have an advantage over an attacking player since it's their home, difference being they wouldn't have an overwhelmingly retarded advantage like the old Resized TVs.

      Ya'll are new to the Server so I can't be mad at you for not understanding why a Rule was set in place however Dolphin was around during that time and knows exactly what I'm talking about.

      Zirvhirex wrote:

      It is their house, what they choose to do in it, place in it, or all else, is ultimately up to THEM. Not the MOTD

      Really quite disappointed that the entire community did NOT have a say in this, really, it's quite disappointing. More-so to the people who donate to this server, really expect a little bit more respect than this.
      Technically it's up to the MOTD since MOTD = Syles agreed upon words. MOTD = Information and Rules.
      As for the disappointed part as I said above these were all voted upon by the Community, just because you weren't around during the time doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's like saying I'm disappointed that the Government banned Weed all those years back before I was born, I should have got a say in it. Well how could you have a say when you didn't exist?


      Rules can be reworded and changed if deemed needed by the community. I will add Duers version of text to the MOTD shortly and have it reviewed by Syles and posted if he deems it.

      Duer about the Fences only. The thing in general with crouch tunnels is bullet knock-back. If you crouch and walk down a tunnel even a shitty pistol can knock you backwards thus halting you from advancing. This was a major thing in the past since Cops didn't have Skill Cuffs thus a Cop had to shoot to kill instead of Cuffing. It's why they were banned.

      Fences only would work, but you could also just have them made in a way that neither side can shoot at each other while traversing the crouch tunnel unless also inside it.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Volar ().

    • Mike wrote:

      If I remember correctly, the "fair" rule was added for one-way black walls. People had like 4-5 one-way looking screens and it was impossible to shoot in for anyone.
      Well, I think you will find that the resize rule covers that. The one about the window.


      I am not the architect of these rules but I think I can help explain them.........

      "Fair" as a word conjures up a great many interpretations and opinions. The subjectivity can probably be removed - Duer et al are working on it. I had to ask Beef about an aspect and he assured me that...
      "Volar: Fair in that sense is for the purpose of if I can shoot you then you can also just as easily shoot me. (Location of shots matters not)" .
      So, you can still have those lovely twinned highway barriers with shelf. Defender gets headshots, attacker gets body shots. "Fair" has a limited meaning in this context. Perhaps if the Wiki information had actually made it to the Wiki, all this might have been explained.

      Regarding the crouch tunnels with a wall up against them [at least two houses have/had them].
      Attacker has to jump and shoot. Defender doesn't have any such impediment. As a first step I asked for the walls to be a bit transparent so at least the attacker could see the defender.
      As far as these "slot" windows of opportunity.........
      "Volar: I've seen several of Kaitos slot shot mazes and don't deem them as fair."


      Regarding that proposal by Duer [post 3 ],
      "Propping Defense must allow clear shots for both attacker and defender during combat. (location of shot doesnt matter)."

      How about adding "simple" to "clear shots" ? Look for something that rules out the gymnastics aspect. Not just for these slot proppings, but for other and also as-yet unbuilt stuff.
      [Given my choice I would go back to the bad old days of no prop rules :) . Cops be damned. But of course that might have the effect of depleting the cop numbers; even the player numbers.]



      If the discussions/explanations re the rules vote are still available, it would be nice to point these new guys at it so they can see the reasoning used at the time.
      @Volar .. can you point at them all pls? If I just search for stuff I might miss something important/relevant.

    • Sidezz wrote:

      My whole outlook is if I can't blast said man but he can blast me, something is wrong.
      And we agree. The discussion seems to hinge on how easily the blast can be made to hit.
      Shouldn't have to be an expert or have to jump through hoops to make the blast.

      I always liked Eas's judgements about props where it was based on just how good you had to be at strafing for instance. I remember a few props being 'disappeared' at FMC based on it.