alexalex303

This suggestion would be a lot more complete if you detailed what the benefit was.

That's not patrolling with hakuchou, that's responding to a specific situation with a hakuchou. Big difference.

The new interior is amazing, its so seamless it could've been built like that originally, but it's even more impressive to know it was build from scratch.

There is precedent for it.

It's not power-gaming that the person with a group of armed friends can overpower the single civilian. It's just life and realism. It seems that instead you would rather have an OOC protection bubble around civilians.

Thread updated with notable screenshots from the past week and our very own Machinima-style video.

The issue with forcing people to fix their cars another way, is that like @JakeInnit_ said, most of the vehicle damage your car takes is due to OOC reasons.

It would hurt very much. If we add every example we can think of, the list goes from "not limited to examples" to "limited to this", which makes it less flexible. It will be up to the administration team member to decide if in a situation, the knife put the victim under Fear RP.

I have the utmost confidence in the administration team to not be biased in their decision making. I find that when a person is making decisions that involve his own interest, they will be even stricter than usual, just to not appear biased. Unless you can point to very strong cases of people being biased, I don't see why you would limit and insult the administration team this way.

This has been brought up several times, and I'd like to give the definitive answer on it, as I will not be addressing it again. It isn't the 90s anymore, we're not playing GTA San Andreas. The people that make it from the hood do not drive low-riders and bounce down the street, they drive luxury cars, buy luxury watches and flex as much as possible, sometimes even bankrupting themselves with flexing. That's the leadership of the organization. We have members from all stages of the grind, we even have some people that are new in town, and they are in low-income vehicles such as Dominators and Sanchez'.

Was this inside an interior? You need to follow the format outlined here: https://forum.eclipse-rp.net/topic/12-bug-report-requirements-must-read-before-posting/

I think the thread greatly illustrates the main causes of this, specifically the DM/FearRP rules which are very inflexible right now plus the fact that criminals have very few avenues for cash income. It really says a lot when farming makes you more money per hour than any other activity (including drug manufacturing). If both of those things were to change, we could see the symptom (i.e. people running around shouting "hands") as well, but until then, I wouldn't expect it to.

I'm sorry, but you're the one that didn't think this through. Look at the thread you're replying to. Under the suggestion made by the original poster, if someone points a gun at your car, you are FORCED by fearRP to get out. Then you get robbed. 100% of the time. Under my suggestion, you have the choice to get out, or drive away. If it's a single man with a .50 and you're in a decent car, chances are you won't be stalled. It's RNG. I also do not agree with providing civilians with magical protections just because they're civilians. People get robbed, cars should not be your personal NCZ just because you haven't committed a crime recently.

I concur that it would probably fall under Non-Roleplay, but it's a great showcase of heavily armed people having no recourse just because you're in a car.

big -1 Your solutions would cause even more problems. I do not believe that making all interactions either FearRP or Deathmatch is healthy for roleplay. There needs to be shootouts and chases, and your approach would kill the vast majority of them. Adding this to the FearRP rules guarantees that you will almost never be able to shoot at anyone. Imagine the following scenario: Two gangs, purple and green for example are on bad terms. A few green gang members are chilling in the hood, purple car drives around. They decide to make a play for the car. They go up to it, and point weapons. The driver is under FearRP now, which means he is FORCED to get out and surrender. I feel that this is very bad for both ends of the spectrum. On one hand, it kills cars providing some measure of safety, and second, it makes shooting people even more hard than it is now. It is customary when you point out problems with someone else's approach, that you provide your own solution. Therefore, my suggestion is that the following be removed from Deathmatching rules. Now let's visit the same scenario. Two gangs, purple and green on bad terms. A few green gang members are chilling in the hood, purple car drives around. They decide to make a play for the car. They go close, point weapons, they tell him "Out the car!". At this point, the driver has a choice, he can make a run for it, risk getting injured/his car stalled, or he surrenders. I feel that this is much more realistic and better suited for a roleplaying game, than hard coded rules that force you to act in a very linear fashion. --- On to the /analysewounds thing. /analysewounds can not be used realistically, like "I was shot five times in the chest, death RP should be granted" because unlike real-life, it is not uncommon for people to survive after 5-6-7 shots. Unless you make all guns two shot people, /analysewounds will always give out a large number of wounds that would make it ALWAYS give deathRP.