Search results

-Support For armoured and weaponised vehicles +Support For civ cars https://civilnetworks.net/community/threads/let-me-use-civ-cars-without-being-a-civ.13164...

I've seen D-Class medics on UK. I think it would need a little tuning, but this could work across the board +Support

+/- Neutral I like adding another front through which GOis can attack another faction, but it'd be hard to work it in and balance it with the way raids currently work on the server. The way I see it, CI gameplay at least could use some kind of non-disruptive passive assault method. When reading...

Inanimate rotations are already done by GMs The problem with doing that for playable SCPs, is what about the VIP ones? - Not to mention needing to have the content ready for them I wouldn't mind having like variant SCPs (i.e. for something that has specific map content exclusive to it like...

+Support I think that if you hack 096's containment box or breach tool it, it should spawn a ton of pics. Because even though 096 is a popular breach, that's because you can just break open the doors and get it to wander - With no real reason to spend your time hacking the box or using your...

There was this from last year which asked for a similar route of administration type tweak for chems. I'm personally still a fan of going this direction with chem development and using it as a potential vehicle for balancing, especially since you can only inject one chem from an injection vial...

+Support Perfectly balanced, nothing could go wrong

+Support I misread 'deciding on applications' as 'dancing on applications' and didn't bat an eye.

What if warnings could be broken down, something like minor v major warnings? Everything goes on the record, but in applications major warnings are all you care about.

Fairly certain the 90 can't pen marder, no?

https://civilnetworks.net/community/threads/foundation-warfund-hacking-terminal-change.38043/ See, if the varying locations aspect of this was implemented and not just the change in location, we'd have better defence capabilities IMO 😭 But as a both a current CI & a current Nu7, I also agree...

o7

I am mad about it 😭 Please let me be a cunt and break rules with impunity, thanks (y)Play videogame, videogame fun /s I agree, which again, is why I never appealed the warnings. But at the time when I did this, it was basically near-instant. I did the thing and then within the next few...

FailRP, but not the content of the rule specifically - More so how it's enforced as it's a very weird grey rule IMO the current standard by which this is enforced is beginning to encroach on RP situations that could be resolved ICly ...Or I could just be allowed to create RP without Staff...

What does this suggestion change/add/remove: Increased leniency on FailRP warnings in situations where the situation could very feasibly be resolved as an IC issue. EDIT: Harold put it pretty well here: Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?: No...

+Support 2 seconds is entirely too much tbh

Want to sound less negative? menx'k rxxp qiurezok

I mean, Johnson talks about m202s like he's an oil baron and they're the world's last oil reserve, so I can't imagine this is good reasoning

+Support I agree with a rework but yeah 😭

+Support I remember people suggesting this before and it being denied due to technical limitations or something? I don't remember