Search results

You know what, good point, that one I didn't think of much... I just kinda got into writing the suggestion and seems I lost the plot... Striked it out, if this somehow passes now 😭 Anyway, I still stand by basically all the rest. This is meant to be a suggestion as a more improved version of the...

What does this suggestion change/add/remove: This would implement the third person disabled zones which were present on MRP, at each factions base, which would activate during code 1's/5's. These would be located in only certain areas of the map, where combat is rampant, whilest specifically...

"IDK" he says, even though it was quite literally a feature, then got removed because the community hated it....

As both an MRP player and a DEA player, I have no idea what to think of this statement, so I will now implode. But uhhh yeah could be a good idea to get it in here, now that we're no longer an obstacle

I know the US mentality on this is different, but I would definitely love for DEA to be less "nudged" towards combat, and get more stuff done, having peace on surface would be great! (But then again, wouldn't happen) Maybe a war system like MRP? Keeps both surface combat going, allows peacetime...

Harry "The Mapper": Electric boogaloo +soup

+ soup

It's the whole point of MM, it's not meant to have anywhere near a good secondary. So uhh +/-

I'm very greedy, I need all of it for myself, so none can go to you

I WILL NOT LET YOU DO SILLY THINGS, NOT ON MY WATCH

It's what I was talking about, DoEA HAD a team keycard, but lost it. I know it was useful to stop getting targeted by CI and such when doing stuff on surface, as was said in the suggestion, but that reason wasn't accepted when I contested it

Spy and Team cards were removed from Director for like, having no use or something? (Though I heavily disagree with that) So uhh +support But not the machete. No.

Fun fact: The stamina bar itself exists in the game (the green bar under hunger), it's just never been used before, only on MRP. +Support

I'd argue +support, but not necessarily because "grr I hate CI", but because it restricts the "breach" aspect of the server. New players would have to either be lucky enough to be on an SCP that CI want to breach, when they want to breach it, or wait in the autobreach queue. Perhaps fixes could...

Changes/additions to perma weapons will be denied, read FAQ.

- Support for the same reason that I say any time someone does a suggestion like this. We can barely trust CL4's to open the BD responsibly, with me seeing quite a couple instances in which people just rush through the door no questions asked because... they can, which lead to SCP's moving up, I...

Uhhhh 2 month suggestion still up?

This is a rule suggestion... so dclass could already do this.... only the rules stop them, first the "dclass can't breach rule" then the "12 MTF + needed" rule

Oh no, I do have issues with class D breaching 079 or 682, just that SL agreed it's allowed (I think? I don't even know if class D CAN breach SCPs, or if nobody cares enough to call sits). I'd say this is a good balancing, class D can feasibly breach SCPs but 008 is too far. My last point was...

That would be an argument for class D not to follow fearRP, which would never happen, but remember that they would think that they are getting out in 30 days. Some of the more disobedient class D would be more prone to extreme acts like breaching, but not to the degree where it's basically...