Denied Add Bodygroupr

[Jeager]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
Adds the plugin Bodygroupr or something similar to it

Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not that I am aware of

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
Allows customization of the base models for players without pac
Unlocks many unused and unseen parts of many different models

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
Dev time(If it is decided to go that route)
Less instant job-recognition

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
This addon is very simple. It allows players to change the bodygroups on their models. These are already on the server on every model and they are almost never used. This addon would allow people to use more of their models. Certain bodygroups could be used to denote sub-regiments such as the brown suit that the E-11 model has or the ISD patch on the back of A-1 models. This would also allow DCs/ARs/ISD to not be metagamed quite as easily. Im sure all of us instantly recognize an fake E-11 just from the brown suit, and this would eliminate that option. Certain restrictions can also be put in place so that some bodygroups can only be accessed by some jobs such as say the white suit for Site Director or the hat for A-1/O-1 specialist so that other jobs can't pretend to be them. I don't think it would cut into pac subscriptions at all because nobody that buys pac does it just to change a bodygroup or two. They buy it to add something to their model or to change it all together.

Overall this is a QoL addon for regular players that don't have pac while providing other benifits as mentioned above.

 

[Dark Soldier]

I'm sure about planning the Site-09 addons. That's why Yeke said GMs only allow us to use the Pac3 event on Site-09

+Support

 

[Emilia Foddg]

+Support +/- Neutral following later discussion
This will never be accepted due to PAC being part of the server's financial model.

Honestly, a happy medium would be a VPoints package for this - For people that don't really care as much about the granular capabilities that PAC offers and just want bodygroup changes. Maybe something like 400 VPoints for 60 days of Bodygroupr. I dunno, I haven't done a cost-benefit analysis in over a decade, I'm rusty.

Although in that discussion, I can say that anyone tending towards the more laggier uses of PAC3 would do so, because they're seeking specific things out of PAC3, that they wouldn't otherwise get from just something that can change bodygroups.

 

[Zen]

+Support
This will never be accepted due to PAC being part of the server's financial model.

Honestly, a happy medium would be a VPoints package for this - For people that don't really care as much about the granular capabilities that PAC offers and just want bodygroup changes. Maybe something like 400 VPoints for 60 days of Bodygroupr. I dunno, I haven't done a cost-benefit analysis in over a decade, I'm rusty.

Although in that discussion, I can say that anyone tending towards the more laggier uses of PAC3 would do so, because they're seeking specific things out of PAC3, that they wouldn't otherwise get from just something that can change bodygroups.

Or just a X VPoints package for permanent bodygroupr access, while PAC remains behind a subscription.

 

[Michael Dzhetnikov]

having to pay to change the colour of your tie is beyond BS, it makes sense for goofy 200tb pacs to be paid, but a tie? really?

 

[Rito Munro Fraser]

+/- Support, Leaning -Support.
Right off the bat, as you mention, this can already be achieved with PAC3.
And just as with PAC3, there's a concern about abuse. Many different jobs use the same model, but different bodygroups.
Some examples could be:
- Trainee, Doctor, Jr. -, Normal -, and Sr. Researcher all use the same model.
- Most of GSD uses the same model.
- Most of ISD uses the same model.
This would introduce significant confusion if a player edits their playermodel to look as a higher clearance or different job.

Rules could be imposed, but part of the reason PAC3 rule violations aren't rampant is that it is paid access. And making this suggested addon paid access too would be weird, given that players could just buy PAC3 to get the same + more.

There are also concerns of extra workload for SL in regards to addons like the bodycameras, which are manually configured per. bodygroup.

 

[Jeager]

And just as with PAC3, there's a concern about abuse. Many different jobs use the same model, but different bodygroups.
Some examples could be:
- Trainee, Doctor, Jr. -, Normal -, and Sr. Researcher all use the same model.
- Most of GSD uses the same model.
- Most of ISD uses the same model.
This would introduce significant confusion if a player edits their playermodel to look as a higher clearance or different job.

As far as I am aware restrictions can be places do that certain bodygroups can not be accessed by certain jobs which would restrict this type of abuse. The current bodygroups assigned to roles can be restricted to only those roles and the more tertiary bodygroups can be accessed.

There are also concerns of extra workload for SL in regards to addons like the bodycameras, which are manually configured per. bodygroup.

I wasn't aware that the bodycams were manually configured per bodygroup. Is it just the placement of bodycam on the model itself or is it more indepth?

 

[Rito Munro Fraser]

As far as I am aware restrictions can be places do that certain bodygroups can not be accessed by certain jobs which would restrict this type of abuse. The current bodygroups assigned to roles can be restricted to only those roles and the more tertiary bodygroups can be accessed.

I wasn't aware that the bodycams were manually configured per bodygroup. Is it just the placement of bodycam on the model itself or is it more indepth?

Since each bodygroup may or may not affect how the bodycamera should be placed, and there is no convenient way to check if it does, the placement of the bodycamera is manually configured for each playermodel and bodygroup combination that is in use on the server.
Right now that is already ~350 configs, but this number would significantly increase if all bodygroup combinations needed to be accounted for.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

And just as with PAC3, there's a concern about abuse. Many different jobs use the same model, but different bodygroups.
Some examples could be:
- Trainee, Doctor, Jr. -, Normal -, and Sr. Researcher all use the same model.
- Most of GSD uses the same model.
- Most of ISD uses the same model.
This would introduce significant confusion if a player edits their playermodel to look as a higher clearance or different job.

Rules could be imposed, but part of the reason PAC3 rule violations aren't rampant is that it is paid access.

Oh, right. Yeah, no, this is better restricted mechanically. ...Which of course would in all likelihood, mean developing a custom addon for altering bodygroups in a prescribed way, with no room for abuse. Which sounds like pain, and I don't envy the person who'd take on implementing that.

Since each bodygroup may or may not affect how the bodycamera should be placed, and there is no convenient way to check if it does, the placement of the bodycamera is manually configured for each playermodel and bodygroup combination that is in use on the server.
Right now that is already ~350 configs, but this number would significantly increase if all bodygroup combinations needed to be accounted for.

Hm. Since bodygroup changes are possible via PAC anyway, why not expose the bodycam position as a variable accessible by PAC (and anything that comes out of this, if it does)?

Then from here, have a rule against deliberately hiding the bodycam on the final setup?

And making this suggested addon paid access too would be weird, given that players could just buy PAC3 to get the same + more.

Not at all. It could be something that's priced as like "the budget option," so if you want more, you get PAC. If you're fine with just bodygroups, you buy this. Something something the financial model of casting a wider net to potentially catch more customers that would otherwise not pay in. (I will once again stress that I have not engaged in any form of fiscal theory for a long time, so my recollections are reduced to vague remembrances of monetary models that may or may not be obsolete/outmoded. But I do recall there being a model along these lines.)

 

[Rito Munro Fraser]

Hm. Since bodygroup changes are possible via PAC anyway, why not expose the bodycam position as a variable accessible by PAC (and anything that comes out of this, if it does)?

It is already technically possible to move the bodycamera using PAC3 by moving your Spine2 bone.

 

[Tykeck]

Suggestion Denied

---

Hi @Jeager ,

Thanks for taking the time to make a server suggestion.
The Content Team has chosen to deny your suggestion due to the following reasons.

As of current we have PAC3 so if someone wishes to change their models body groups they can do so through the PAC3 system.

Your suggestion will now be locked and marked as denied.​