Denied Allowing AT-4ing structures and staff rulings to be placed in the main ruleset

[core]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
two things:

It changes two things regarding the staff rulings and the specific staff rulings of AT-4s

1. includes staff rulings at the bottom of the ruleset
2. staff ruling 3.01 and 3.12 to be changed to allow the usage of AT-4's always against vehicles and FOB structures


Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

I have no idea


Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

1. Includes staff rulings at the bottom of the ruleset
+ clears up rules
+ no new player is gonna know about staff rulings (I didn't know about it since yesterday and I've been playing for a year)

2. Allowing AT-4ing structures and vehicles no matter what
+ less confusing and gray-zoney AT-4 rules (from experience a lot of players still think that it's allowed to AT-4 structures no matter what)
+ makes it easier to kill a FOB as Infantry --> more entertaining gameplay
+ limiting what u can do with a weapon in general is boring, especially if it's a realistic action, which in this case it absolutely is


Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

1. Includes staff rulings at the bottom of the ruleset
- the effort of copy and pasting it
- maybe staff wants it to be in a seperate place on the forums for other reasons?

2. Allowing AT-4ing structures and vehicles no matter what
- As infantry u can get blown up by an AT-4 if u stand next to a structure which may be annoying if u keep respawning and getting AT4'd, but then again there's other stuff that gets that same effect, like helis CASing you, it doesn't mean we should restrict that.


Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

1. Includes staff rulings at the bottom of the ruleset
Clears up rules, right now the ruleset is pretty basic and encompasses a lot of rules but by far not all of them. Putting it right below the main ruleset would be easier to access, especially if you don't know about staff rulings, which especially many new players don't.

2. Allowing AT-4ing structures and vehicles no matter what
being allowed to AT-4 something, but not if someone moves in front or to the side of it doesn't really make sense. It's either their fault that they're next to it or the structures and vehicles shouldn't be there for someone to be able to AT-4 it and thereby kill people. Adding to that, it helps with providing less confusing and gray-zoney AT-4 rules and more entertaining gameplay

 

[Doofy]

The staff ruling section is separate for a reason. It's not "rules" as such, but more a clarification on situations in which senior staff have said that would have the ability to break the rules. It makes it easier for new players to understand the rules from multiple scenarios.

It's also separate as we don't want the rules to be longer than they already are. This is set in stone and will not be merged.

 

[I luv kebabs]

+support

 

[core]

The staff ruling section is separate for a reason. It's not "rules" as such, but more a clarification on situations in which senior staff have said that would have the ability to break the rules. It makes it easier for new players to understand the rules from multiple scenarios.

It's also separate as we don't want the rules to be longer than they already are. This is set in stone and will not be merged.

Can't you just amend the rules to make sense to people without needing a staff ruling? So that it includes the staff ruling in the rule itself. It's either that or putting it beneath the rules. Putting it in another thread that is only reachable by traversing the forums isn't user friendly at all

 

[Doofy]

Can't you just amend the rules to make sense to people without needing a staff ruling? So that it includes the staff ruling in the rule itself. It's either that or putting it beneath the rules. Putting it in another thread that is only reachable by traversing the forums isn't user friendly at all

The rules are in a logical format, and the rulings are distinct. They are easy to access, and the rules are already comprehensive enough. If you comprehend the rules, you won't violate any on the server. The rulings serve their purpose by informing others about the actions they would take and the possibility of conflicting with a rule. I won't merge the rulings with the rules because this would defeat the clarity and concision of the rules.

 

[Dukem]

Suggestion Denied​

---

Hi Core, Your suggestion has been denied. The content team have talked about you suggestion and decided to deny as the rules are clear enough in our understanding. Thank you for taking the time to make a suggestion.

Regards​