Donator
What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Implement a 323 SWEP-style system for attempting to mechanically enforce cuffed FearRP: The idea being that instead of where the 323 SWEP fills a meter that causes slowness and visual effects in affected players, this meter would instead disable the ability to break out of cuffs all the time it's filled past a certain threshold (The threshold in this case being past 0%, but you could experiment with something like 1% to give certain RP situations some wiggle room? Although that'd need a rule change and is likely not viable due to minges).This meter would fill when the cuffed player is having a gun pointed at them in close-range (Testing & experimentation would need to be done to find the appropriate range at which this should happen - For example, take the hallway leading to the elevator to Floor 3, just from the door to the double lift doors; If you put someone in cuffs at one end and someone with a gun at the other, is that range reasonable? I actually can't parse this mentally for the life of me - I know you definitely shouldn't be able to do it from distances like across the other side of Lobby, from Garage doors to Main Gate or just from great distances along the map on Surface in general; But some situations get funky. It's ultimately up to Content and I'd imagine a reasonable distance for this can be easily determined). More players holding the cuffed player under gunpoint would ideally fill the meter faster.
The meter would then drain at a steady rate when the cuffed player is not having a gun pointed at them.
The meter should not fill under the following circumstances (Non-exhaustive):
- The cuffed player is an SCP - SCP cuffs are a slightly separate implementation anyway? Since it's a different SWEP under which the cuffs are not breakable without assistance. Not only that, but SCPs are immune to FearRP anyway - So there is no need to have something that could be exploited to potentially keep SCPs bound in situations where they should otherwise be able to escape (i.e. Another SCP shows up to try and free a cuffed SCP; This invariably results in guns being pointed around and having that apply to the cuffed SCP in this case not only doesn't make sense, but is also exploitable in an undesirable way).
- There should be a flag available to the Event Team to apply to any given player, with this flag active, the meter should not fill, for event purposes - I personally can't come up with an eventuality for it other than "The cuffed thing is an SCP or reality bender or w/e", there's probably a few event scenarios where you'd need someone to break out of cuffs while under gunpoint, that may need to apply to jobs over than the Event Role (It could even be as a result of something conferred to someone on a normal job role, as part of an event scenario).
- EDIT: The only person pointing a gun at you is actively trying to break you out.
EDIT 2: Another option here is to only apply this to D-Class, especially considering upcoming changes to first-time players on the server - For reasons outlined in positive point #2.
EDIT 3: The above may also potentially serve as a nerf to D-Class gameplay in some respects, which itself is a double-edged consideration with both good and bad points to it.
Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
A presently active suggestion from Wulfric asks for stricter FearRP enforcement via a rules change. Under the initial mistaken impression that it was a content suggestion, I replied to that in confusion at the lack of an actual, tangible prevention method, suggesting the changes outlined in this suggestion.
In particular, a lot of their issues don't really make sense and/or won't be solved by what they propose. For instance:
I don't see how their suggested rule changes will prevent behaviours like this that, under the current rules, already breaks FearRP and would be punished as such in a sit. Their proposed changes just seem to make things more complicated for both staff and players alike.
Obviously this suggestion is different, because it attempts to resolve the problem by preventing it via game mechanics and not ruleplay.
Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
- Less annoyance & tedium when arresting/kidnapping players.
- (Hopefully) More strongly instils the idea to newer players that you shouldn't try to break out of cuffs while under FearRP -
Yes, new players should be properly learning the way the server works and such; But in this case... Generally people's eyes tend to glaze over at long , important walls of text that yes, you should generally be reading all of if you want to be properly engaging with it, such as any of my suggestions or the server rules - And on top of that, if you give players the option to do something, they'll certainly do it unusually just because they can. You could argue that anyone with that mentality would probably find themselves in trouble in a different way, but that's not really a valid excuse to not clamp down on something that players aren't even allowed to do in the first place. Additionally, in the majority of cases where D-Class break FearRP, it's not really taken to a sit, the D-Class is just immediately killed. Which I understand favours the RP more (As you don't want to constantly be interrupting everything by calling sits just to be like "Yeah, you broke FearRP, don't do that, here's a warning" every few minutes), but in doing so, carries the inherent risk of that player mistakenly learning early on that "It's ok to break FearRP" (Because there was ultimately no consequence for doing so) and potentially carrying that mentality into later roles/positions where retaining that erroneous mentality would be both detrimental to them and the RP they get involved in.
- If the game is enforcing cuffed FearRP in staff's stead, then less sits would need to be called in relation and staff can be freed up for other purposes.
- This also means that cuffed FearRP is more enforceable during lower population hours where there may not be as many staff members on to handle a sit - Granted, anyone who tries to 'game' the time of day to abuse lack of staff presence to do things like break FearRP I imagine will still get punished anyways (And probably even more severely for deliberately trying to avoid punishment), but generally if there's a reasonable, feasible way to crack down on this and ensure potential rulebreakers feel less emboldened, there's no real reason not to take it.
Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
- Potential issues with the mechanic being overly obstructive where it shouldn't be, in ways detrimental to RP - Yeah, this is going to have teething problems unless the majority of use cases are thoroughly tested before adding it to the server proper; This is not an overnight implementation.
- The development effort that it would take to implement this properly would not be worth it, what we have presently is fine - I can understand this reasoning. This would require (potentially extensive?) changes to cuffs and probably also VGuns? This is not a small or simple implementation by any means and I can get that it might seem overengineered and needless levels of effort for a problem that's... Kind of already solved? I'm just putting forward that we may be able to solve it better. But I can see how this might be unnecessarily reinventing the wheel.
- Massive risks of bugs which would be massively detrimental to RP - An example that comes to mind is the system not letting people break out when they should otherwise be allowed, which could be exploited to unfairly benefit kidnap RP.
- Potential abuse of the Event flag - Honestly, the GM team are usually good with handling these kinds of things, but the possibility is not zero. It could be that this functionality is something restricted to specific GM/Staff ranks and its use is requested where appropriate. That would reasonably limit this potential.
- Overreliance on this functionality.
Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
I don't particularly feel much for this idea, I'm just mostly mad that the other suggestion is a rule suggestion, so I decided to make a better one that tries to actually solve the problem they had.Now if I had a penny for every time someone tried to solve an issue with ruleplay when there are perfectly reasonable ways to solve them with content changes...
Last edited:
Game Master
