Backup Sections => HL2RP Development[ARCHIVE] => Suggestions => Topic started by: Lone Wanderer
-
Title: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on January 14, 2014, 12:18:39 AM - In terms of authorizations, how are these going to be going about in the new server? Is it going to be a similar way as before, is it going to be based more IC? Just curious as to if anyone has a stance on this, or if Rofl has an idea of what he wants to do.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 14, 2014, 12:31:35 AM -
the applications, at least at the start, should require decent detail before its accepted, especially for stuff that gives an advantage or helps in crime/etc type rp, but i think as time goes on if the playerbase can be trusted and generally everyone is serious then it should be made easier and easier for people to obtain passive items/benefits and also a little easier for more nonpassive stuff
like, generally, as hard/harder then it was before for the start, but slowly opening up to let more people get stuff, but still no ridiculous stealth suites and silenced snipers and bullshit -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Anzu on January 14, 2014, 01:07:55 AM - I dont think we need to change anything regarding the application, but I think wr should let people apply for some more things generally. The application itself is fine imo
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Sexy Frog on January 14, 2014, 01:20:11 AM -
I dont think we need to change anything regarding the application, but I think wr should let people apply for some more things generally. The application itself is fine imo
I second this. I don't really see much of an issue with the system that's always been used. At most, going a bit lighter of restrictions is the only improvement that comes to mind. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 09:18:26 AM - Id like to see the spot auths system i was talking about awhile back where admins could grant auths on the server right then and there based on a basic flow chart.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Monkey with a gun on January 14, 2014, 12:46:38 PM -
No more authorizations please.
Reviewing that shit was so tedious, it just really did not need to exist.Id like to see the spot auths system i was talking about awhile back where admins could grant auths on the server right then and there based on a basic flow chart.
This sounds okay, as-long as it's not ridiculous.I dont think we need to change anything regarding the application, but I think wr should let people apply for some more things generally. The application itself is fine imo
No. Bad. Shoo. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Mr. Pettit on January 14, 2014, 12:54:13 PM - I like Statua's idea compared to our standard one from what I'm thinking. Could you explain what you're thinking more pls? Like prerequisites and what would need to be present.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on January 14, 2014, 12:56:14 PM - i honestly prefer the application way
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Nicknero on January 14, 2014, 01:01:07 PM -
At least with applications you can confirm that someone has the ability to do xyz.
Having things done in-game can easily be fucked up somehow. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Mr. Pettit on January 14, 2014, 01:14:22 PM - Well Statua says there's a process in which you'd have to go through, it's just in game rather than having to do it on the forums and type out a story. But that being said, I'm wondering what the process he has in mind is because it does seem very 'xyz' but it may not be that effective. You'd also have a lot more people bothering admins for authorizations and that could get overwhelming- That helped in a way to keep people away from auths because of the amount of work you'd have you put into it.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 01:19:02 PM -
The spot auths still relies on the full application, however it cuts down on users having to write huge paragraps to obtain something as simple as a camera. Here's the flow chart and how an admin/player decides if they need to write an app or just get an online admin to jot down the auths in their detail sheet or whatever it's called:
Yeah there's a number of boxes but the questions are straightforward and should take no longer then a minute to review with the player. This is an older chart and I haven't really revised it yet though so if something doesn't look right, I can change it. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 14, 2014, 02:00:26 PM -
The spot auths still relies on the full application, however it cuts down on users having to write huge paragraps to obtain something as simple as a camera. Here's the flow chart and how an admin/player decides if they need to write an app or just get an online admin to jot down the auths in their detail sheet or whatever it's called:
Yeah there's a number of boxes but the questions are straightforward and should take no longer then a minute to review with the player. This is an older chart and I haven't really revised it yet though so if something doesn't look right, I can change it.
the first question stumped me already on a number of things, i think it'd need better wording to be used -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on January 14, 2014, 06:23:34 PM - I do like the application process, but for things like clothes or a crude weapon or other somewhat common supplies i do think that maybe they shouldnt have to create a full backstory and such, because that just seems kind of weird if you just want to get a pair of cargo shorts or something similar like that
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 06:26:57 PM -
I do like the application process, but for things like clothes or a crude weapon or other somewhat common supplies i do think that maybe they shouldnt have to create a full backstory and such, because that just seems kind of weird if you just want to get a pair of cargo shorts or something similar like that
Hence spot auths.
And yeah smt it will be worded and organized better if we were to implement it. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Delta1116732 on January 14, 2014, 06:51:46 PM - Personally I just like writing authorizations the old way. It seemed to work well, and if anyone needed to confirm if someone was authorized, and accepted it was a simple visit to the forums. The only problem I see with spot auths is that I could see people arguing over it, and about if it was actually confirmed by an admin or not. Then resulting in one person having to do the thirty minute steam search for the admin that may or may not have accepted it.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Mr. Pettit on January 14, 2014, 07:01:24 PM - Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Tyrex on January 14, 2014, 07:32:22 PM -
Idk I really didn't have a problem with the old auth apps because i had the most op shit but i earned it legitimately and auth'd
The only real restrictions on auths were on canon characters or knowledge of them which i don't think anyone should have access to for RP reasons anyways -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 14, 2014, 07:37:13 PM -
Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
im sorry but while i'd love for this system to work, it's gonna end up to "talk to the admin that likes you best and get whatever you want", it worked exactly the same on tnb, it might work here if you need to get multiple admins auths but it could still just be "ask ur fav admins n get everything l0l" - if we do this i'd also want the admin(s) who authed it to write their names down next to the auth so if anything bs is done we can see -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 08:24:10 PM -
Personally I just like writing authorizations the old way. It seemed to work well, and if anyone needed to confirm if someone was authorized, and accepted it was a simple visit to the forums. The only problem I see with spot auths is that I could see people arguing over it, and about if it was actually confirmed by an admin or not. Then resulting in one person having to do the thirty minute steam search for the admin that may or may not have accepted it.
But that's the good part. If there's an issue with it, the person is more than welcome to try it on the forums. Just like bans. We don't have to sit there and argue over it. All we have to do is explain the ban and if there's a problem, they go make an appeal.
As for seeing if it was confirmed? I would say just open up the characters datapage and jot it down like we are supposed to for regular auths... -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on January 14, 2014, 09:41:58 PM -
Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
im sorry but while i'd love for this system to work, it's gonna end up to "talk to the admin that likes you best and get whatever you want", it worked exactly the same on tnb, it might work here if you need to get multiple admins auths but it could still just be "ask ur fav admins n get everything l0l" - if we do this i'd also want the admin(s) who authed it to write their names down next to the auth so if anything bs is done we can see
K but it was the same with the old auth system. If the admins loved you, then you'll have a high chance of getting whatever you want going in your favor.
This happened to me once b4...
I think spot auths are good but they need to be revised and for the chart to be far more extensive. Also have it so it takes TWO admins to accept a spot auth, no less. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 14, 2014, 10:07:53 PM -
Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
im sorry but while i'd love for this system to work, it's gonna end up to "talk to the admin that likes you best and get whatever you want", it worked exactly the same on tnb, it might work here if you need to get multiple admins auths but it could still just be "ask ur fav admins n get everything l0l" - if we do this i'd also want the admin(s) who authed it to write their names down next to the auth so if anything bs is done we can see
K but it was the same with the old auth system. If the admins loved you, then you'll have a high chance of getting whatever you want going in your favor.
This happened to me once b4...
I think spot auths are good but they need to be revised and for the chart to be far more extensive. Also have it so it takes TWO admins to accept a spot auth, no less.
spot auths are even worse for this, old auths required you to do work so even if you happened to get 2/3 people reviewing your app while everyone loved you it's be denied if you didn't work for it -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 10:44:43 PM -
Spot auths are objective. It doesnt matter how much an admin loves you, something will be spot authorized or require a full auth based on standing guidelines which, when followed correctly, should prevent abusable authorizations from being granted without proper review.Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
im sorry but while i'd love for this system to work, it's gonna end up to "talk to the admin that likes you best and get whatever you want", it worked exactly the same on tnb, it might work here if you need to get multiple admins auths but it could still just be "ask ur fav admins n get everything l0l" - if we do this i'd also want the admin(s) who authed it to write their names down next to the auth so if anything bs is done we can see
K but it was the same with the old auth system. If the admins loved you, then you'll have a high chance of getting whatever you want going in your favor.
This happened to me once b4...
I think spot auths are good but they need to be revised and for the chart to be far more extensive. Also have it so it takes TWO admins to accept a spot auth, no less.
spot auths are even worse for this, old auths required you to do work so even if you happened to get 2/3 people reviewing your app while everyone loved you it's be denied if you didn't work for it -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 14, 2014, 10:46:15 PM -
Spot auths are objective. It doesnt matter how much an admin loves you, something will be spot authorized or require a full auth based on standing guidelines which, when followed correctly, should prevent abusable authorizations from being granted without proper review.Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
im sorry but while i'd love for this system to work, it's gonna end up to "talk to the admin that likes you best and get whatever you want", it worked exactly the same on tnb, it might work here if you need to get multiple admins auths but it could still just be "ask ur fav admins n get everything l0l" - if we do this i'd also want the admin(s) who authed it to write their names down next to the auth so if anything bs is done we can see
K but it was the same with the old auth system. If the admins loved you, then you'll have a high chance of getting whatever you want going in your favor.
This happened to me once b4...
I think spot auths are good but they need to be revised and for the chart to be far more extensive. Also have it so it takes TWO admins to accept a spot auth, no less.
spot auths are even worse for this, old auths required you to do work so even if you happened to get 2/3 people reviewing your app while everyone loved you it's be denied if you didn't work for it
is there anything stopping mr soppy dick giving his friend any auth he wants, even if guidelines are there? whats stopping him just ignoring it other than other people spotting it and trying to call it out -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 11:07:35 PM -
Its no different then regular auths. The only difference is in the datapage where instead of saying:
Spot auths are objective. It doesnt matter how much an admin loves you, something will be spot authorized or require a full auth based on standing guidelines which, when followed correctly, should prevent abusable authorizations from being granted without proper review.Can just make a list of each person with auths and write a short summary of what it entails and sticky it on the forums. Any admin that auths it has the job of adding that.
im sorry but while i'd love for this system to work, it's gonna end up to "talk to the admin that likes you best and get whatever you want", it worked exactly the same on tnb, it might work here if you need to get multiple admins auths but it could still just be "ask ur fav admins n get everything l0l" - if we do this i'd also want the admin(s) who authed it to write their names down next to the auth so if anything bs is done we can see
K but it was the same with the old auth system. If the admins loved you, then you'll have a high chance of getting whatever you want going in your favor.
This happened to me once b4...
I think spot auths are good but they need to be revised and for the chart to be far more extensive. Also have it so it takes TWO admins to accept a spot auth, no less.
spot auths are even worse for this, old auths required you to do work so even if you happened to get 2/3 people reviewing your app while everyone loved you it's be denied if you didn't work for it
is there anything stopping mr soppy dick giving his friend any auth he wants, even if guidelines are there? whats stopping him just ignoring it other than other people spotting it and trying to call it out
Authorizations:
-ex military (forums)
-trenchcoat (forums)
It says:
Authorizations:
-ex military (forums)
-trenchcoat (spot: Statua)
If something doesnt look right, admins can reference what is said in there with forums. If an auth is not documented and the player says "oh cockmuncher gave them to me" then they need to get cockmuncher to add it in. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 14, 2014, 11:09:36 PM - so, anyone can give anyone an auth just because they say "yes" - in the old auths you had to actually write story about it and reasoning, if anyone tried to accept it when the app was dumb people would see
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 14, 2014, 11:14:54 PM -
so, anyone can give anyone an auth just because they say "yes" - in the old auths you had to actually write story about it and reasoning, if anyone tried to accept it when the app was dumb people would see
for items that dont really matter like a camera or a dvd player and a tv, yeah. for items like a shank, they fall under a weapon so no -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Yak on January 14, 2014, 11:21:36 PM -
what about a cinderblock, is that just blunt?
seeing as we aren't industrial any more -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Nicknero on January 15, 2014, 02:51:30 AM -
what about a cinderblock, is that just blunt?
You could go and ask every single item in the universe and keep going on for years. But I think if you have the seriousness to play serious RP, then you would also have enough common sense to figure out yourself if something needs an auth app, spot-on auth, or nothing at all.
seeing as we aren't industrial any more
As for the cinderblock, I would say no since they are kinda common. And specially in old deserted places like S6 where buildings are somewhat destroyed anyway, there would be bricks all over the place. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: BltElite on January 15, 2014, 01:00:41 PM -
the thing with spot auths is you will still need to spend about 10 minutes talking to them to determine if they've got it legit and are good enough to have it etc.
with people just giving auths to their freinds then thats up to owner/sa/whatever to make sure the admins aren't doing that and if so, demote -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 15, 2014, 01:15:27 PM -
the thing with spot auths is you will still need to spend about 10 minutes talking to them to determine if they've got it legit and are good enough to have it etc.
with people just giving auths to their freinds then thats up to owner/sa/whatever to make sure the admins aren't doing that and if so, demote
its hard to spot this unless we enforce strict rules then whats wrong with normal auths anyway~ -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on January 15, 2014, 01:19:19 PM - i still think just having auth apps like before would be the best idea in the long-term because then instead of seeing someone with something that requires an auth and spending like an hour talking to them about it, we can just flick to the auth app they made and if it was accepted and what conditions there are to the authorisation, if any
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: tics on January 15, 2014, 03:03:08 PM - If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 15, 2014, 03:30:34 PM -
Maybe we dont need spot auths. Maybe instead of admins giving it, players can just use it as a guideline to see if what they want needs an auth or they can just aquire it.
Example, a player finds a cassette player and an old megadeth casette. They can look at the flow chart:
Can it be used as a deadly weapon? No
Is it uncommon? No
Is it of classified value? No
Will it affect anyones RP? Yes (they will ICly hear the music)
Will it give the player an advantage over others? No
Will it affect anyones RP in a negative way? No
No auths required. However if an admin asks, they must provide a valid backstory as to how they got it and how they maintain it. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Sexy Frog on January 15, 2014, 04:40:24 PM -
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
^
What we had going has always worked pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: kmp on January 15, 2014, 09:24:30 PM -
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
^
What we had going has always worked pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Don't start this shit again. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on January 15, 2014, 09:30:56 PM -
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
^
What we had going has always worked pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Don't start this shit again.
why, there is no reason to change how auth apps are handled lol -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Delta1116732 on January 15, 2014, 09:35:57 PM -
Agree, it worked fine the way it was and no one complained about it often. Seemed to get the job done, so there isn't a reason to make a new system.If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
^
What we had going has always worked pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Don't start this shit again.
why, there is no reason to change how auth apps are handled lol -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: kmp on January 15, 2014, 11:21:02 PM -
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
^
What we had going has always worked pretty well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Don't start this shit again.
why, there is no reason to change how auth apps are handled lol
I agree that auth apps don't need to be changed, but just using the good ol' "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" excuse to justify it is fucking retarded and annoying. Give reasons for why it's fine. A reason of why it works is because the auth apps that we had were very effective as admins could pick out major flaws in an app thanks to the format.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Yak on January 16, 2014, 12:18:23 AM -
ok who needs suggestions, our last hl2rp ran well so lets not improve it!
if it broke don't fix it right guys!
literally the worst mentality you can bring here -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on January 16, 2014, 01:59:21 AM -
ok who needs suggestions, our last hl2rp ran well so lets not improve it!
if it broke don't fix it right guys!
literally the worst mentality you can bring here
Pretty much this.
Guys, horses back in the day worked just fine, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"! Cars were invented for a reason, they better. Adding new things into HL2RP will make it better. Just because a system is 'fine' doesn't mean it can't be improved. Why should we even bother having a suggestion board because "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
Sorry if my sentences are worded weird, I'm really tired right now so proof reading is a nope. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on January 16, 2014, 02:38:29 AM -
Quote
Adding new things into HL2RP will make it better.
this isn't really true, until someone suggests a valid and good reason with a proper suggestion that works and has no flaws i don't see a reason to change apps either, they worked fine, it doesn't matter if hl2rp was bad before, it wasn't because because of the apps for people to find toasters in the wild -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Dallas on January 16, 2014, 02:44:16 AM -
I don't have a problem with auths and how they were handled but I actually agree with KMP when he says
"dont say 'if it aint broke dont fix it' - kmp 2k14
If we dont change shit then the server will just nosedive into obliteration a week after launch just like it did before, of course I think it best to keep auths the same and change other things like our CP/Anti-Citizen policies, focus on cca to be removed and an emphasis placed on AC rp and civi rp. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on January 16, 2014, 05:14:23 AM - i fail to see how changing auth apps, which are fine to begin and would still be more helpful than doing that spot auth thing, would improve hl2rp
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: tics on January 16, 2014, 12:16:38 PM -
I don't have a problem with auths and how they were handled but I actually agree with KMP when he says
Let's stop pretending as if the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is being applied to everything. We used it in the context of authorizations. The authorization system had no problems whatsoever. Your example, by the way, shows something that is broken and therefore needs fixing.
"dont say 'if it aint broke dont fix it' - kmp 2k14
If we dont change shit then the server will just nosedive into obliteration a week after launch just like it did before, of course I think it best to keep auths the same and change other things like our CP/Anti-Citizen policies, focus on cca to be removed and an emphasis placed on AC rp and civi rp.
The problem we are consistently having with suggestions is that everyone wants to suggest the next big thing. We should avoid any changes that are huge and, instead, focus on tweaks. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on January 16, 2014, 02:16:58 PM - The problem with the old auth system was that you had to apply for nearly everything. I remember when I played one time, found a brick and used it to attack someone. Guess what, he started asking me for auths. Do you REALLY think its that hard to find a brick where the buildings are beginnining to wear down, and I mean, it's a brick. Or one time I had a non UU tshirt, guess what, I got bothered because I didn't have auths for it. Do you really think every single shirt magically disappeared off the face of the planet never to be seen again? If you have ever gone dumpster diving in your life you'd be amazed at the stuff you can find, but guess what, you need auths for nearly everything. Spot auths would be there to fix that problem, as I really dont think writing a multi paragraph application is necessary for a brick or a tshirt. Not only that, but does anyone at all remember how long it took for your application to be accepted/looked at? I remember when it sometimes took over a month. Spot auths fix that problem as it shouldn't take more than 30mins to go through the flow chart.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on January 16, 2014, 02:34:48 PM - theres nothing wrong with the old auth apps as long as they arent north korea style of strictness
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on January 16, 2014, 03:25:31 PM -
theres nothing wrong with the old auth apps as long as they arent north korea style of strictness
pretty much this. If the system just gets a bit more lenient for basic kind of stuff that doesnt really dramatically affect roleplay, i think that itll be just fine -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Sexy Frog on January 16, 2014, 05:01:24 PM -
The problem with the old auth system was that you had to apply for nearly everything. I remember when I played one time, found a brick and used it to attack someone. Guess what, he started asking me for auths. Do you REALLY think its that hard to find a brick where the buildings are beginnining to wear down, and I mean, it's a brick. Or one time I had a non UU tshirt, guess what, I got bothered because I didn't have auths for it. Do you really think every single shirt magically disappeared off the face of the planet never to be seen again? If you have ever gone dumpster diving in your life you'd be amazed at the stuff you can find, but guess what, you need auths for nearly everything. Spot auths would be there to fix that problem, as I really dont think writing a multi paragraph application is necessary for a brick or a tshirt. Not only that, but does anyone at all remember how long it took for your application to be accepted/looked at? I remember when it sometimes took over a month. Spot auths fix that problem as it shouldn't take more than 30mins to go through the flow chart.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/4/5/1/5/5/5/why-not-both-119952397394.png)
Then if that's the problem, why not have both? Personally, I can see the advantages to Spot Auths, but the one key flaw that I do see is that they take place over steam so like previously mentioned, its a simple means of "lets ask the admin who likes me best!" so in which case, I think it should be forum based. While yes, it does sort of defeat the purpose of it being a "Spot" auth, we can go about making the authorization process for something like you mentioned much less...tedious. So instead of writing paragraphs for something insignificant, you can just list the character getting it, what you want, list the advantages and disadvantages and then write like one paragraph on how you plan to use it and submit.
Why not have auths separated into tiers or something? For example, Tier 3 auths would include things such as clothing, minor melee weapons (shanks, bats, razors), minor knowledge (novice level of more major skills), minor equipment (tools, helmets, rope), and minor abilities (light parkour, light gymnastics, etc) which would consist of the Spot Auth format and would be essentially fast to complete and fast to get reviewed (probably the same day), probably just looked at by any basic administrator and given the okay so that way people get their little needs and wants out of the way without a long process and there are still recorded documentation of it.
Tier 2 could consist of moderate melee (swords, axes, brass knuckles, etc), minor projectiles (sling shots, homemade bows, BB guns), moderate knowledge, moderate equipment, moderate abilities and the like which can maybe also be handled by Spot Auth formatting or not depending on what it is.
Tier 1 would be the big stuff which would, without a doubt be handled by the old auth system which would include firearms, above average knowledge, above average equipment, above average abilities and what not.
To be honest, I can find myself agreeing with this and it's really the best of both worlds since it encompasses both the want of a new system and the well known uses of the already established system. It's a compromise, you see? Everyone gets what they want. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on January 16, 2014, 06:39:22 PM -
The problem with the old auth system was that you had to apply for nearly everything. I remember when I played one time, found a brick and used it to attack someone. Guess what, he started asking me for auths. Do you REALLY think its that hard to find a brick where the buildings are beginnining to wear down, and I mean, it's a brick. Or one time I had a non UU tshirt, guess what, I got bothered because I didn't have auths for it. Do you really think every single shirt magically disappeared off the face of the planet never to be seen again? If you have ever gone dumpster diving in your life you'd be amazed at the stuff you can find, but guess what, you need auths for nearly everything. Spot auths would be there to fix that problem, as I really dont think writing a multi paragraph application is necessary for a brick or a tshirt. Not only that, but does anyone at all remember how long it took for your application to be accepted/looked at? I remember when it sometimes took over a month. Spot auths fix that problem as it shouldn't take more than 30mins to go through the flow chart.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/4/5/1/5/5/5/why-not-both-119952397394.png)
Then if that's the problem, why not have both? Personally, I can see the advantages to Spot Auths, but the one key flaw that I do see is that they take place over steam so like previously mentioned, its a simple means of "lets ask the admin who likes me best!" so in which case, I think it should be forum based. While yes, it does sort of defeat the purpose of it being a "Spot" auth, we can go about making the authorization process for something like you mentioned much less...tedious. So instead of writing paragraphs for something insignificant, you can just list the character getting it, what you want, list the advantages and disadvantages and then write like one paragraph on how you plan to use it and submit.
Why not have auths separated into tiers or something? For example, Tier 3 auths would include things such as clothing, minor melee weapons (shanks, bats, razors), minor knowledge (novice level of more major skills), minor equipment (tools, helmets, rope), and minor abilities (light parkour, light gymnastics, etc) which would consist of the Spot Auth format and would be essentially fast to complete and fast to get reviewed (probably the same day), probably just looked at by any basic administrator and given the okay so that way people get their little needs and wants out of the way without a long process and there are still recorded documentation of it.
Tier 2 could consist of moderate melee (swords, axes, brass knuckles, etc), minor projectiles (sling shots, homemade bows, BB guns), moderate knowledge, moderate equipment, moderate abilities and the like which can maybe also be handled by Spot Auth formatting or not depending on what it is.
Tier 3 would be the big stuff which would, without a doubt be handled by the old auth system which would include firearms, above average knowledge, above average equipment, above average abilities and what not.
To be honest, I can find myself agreeing with this and it's really the best of both worlds since it encompasses both the want of a new system and the well known uses of the already established system. It's a compromise, you see? Everyone gets what they want.
I think this would work. Having tiers of auths would make the process much more simple. Have tier one auths easy and quick to write up since they would be less "obstructive" to roleplay. Make it simple and whatnot. To find what tier auth you would be applying for, then I think a flowchart should be used and from that you would be told that your requested auth is Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. From there, you'd fill out different formats. But yes do this pls. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Monkey with a gun on January 17, 2014, 04:41:34 AM -
wall of text
Yes. Somebody listen to this man. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Anzu on January 17, 2014, 10:03:10 AM -
I see no reason that people require auths (of any type) for common items that hardly affect stuff. If someone finds a brick and wants to use it.. let them. If an admin (or other player idk) asks for proof that it was actually obtained ICly and not /me shits a brick then they should provide it.
However I agree with having both spot auths and written auths for different kind of stuff so yeah -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on January 17, 2014, 01:04:28 PM - So, about that thing I brought up where we dont need spot auths.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Khub on January 18, 2014, 06:36:50 AM -
I think that the way of handling authorizations in the days of the last HL2RP era was one of the reasons resulting in it's extinction.
To keep the server alive, you need new players and you need to make them stay.
They want their characters to go in action and you don't let them because:- Write a million words backstory about:
- How you broke a window with a random object and took the glass shard to use it as a makeshift knife, or how you found a rusty piece of wire or a little square of metal with sharp edges that would serve the same purpose.
- How you managed to smuggle an old t-shirt, a pair of shoes or a hat of yours from the pre-war era in your suitcase, because the UU is perfect and there's absolutely no way your suitcase wouldn't get searched in it's entirety.
- How your character used to take martial arts lessons for a few months and gained some basic self-defense abilities. Don't forget to include the same, generic backstory already seen before.
- Make up a handful of fake perks and disadvantages of you having the item. Please refrain from telling us you want to look cool and have fun because that's not what we're aiming for.
- Wait a few days for the administration team to review your application. Reapply twice because your grammar isn't the best and because the ability to write a sentence or two in a form of /me definitely isn't sufficient to RP.
Take what I said above with a grain of salt, but think of it.
Like, of course there'd be metal detectors and probably x-ray scans utilized on the suitcases, but there's this factor named human error and the fact that t-shirts and books aren't made of metal.
What is the risk of letting a player gain an IC item like a t-shirt or shoes they can brag with, or even a knife? There's the risk of roleplay. What if you had the units roleplaying confiscate your items on sight and detain you for a little while? No way we can allow that to happen, right?
Even if you get a knife, so what? You go and mug someone. There's roleplay in the mugging itself, there's roleplay in them reporting you, in the units going after you, in your detainment or execution, in the victim seeking medical attention (even if it only went as far as purchasing a bandage from a player-seller, it's still better than "sit in p3 and repeat indefinitely").
Of course, when you give a player a perk there's a high chance they'll abuse it sometime. So what? Even if you go and stab everyone around with your IC knife, given a decent administration team who won't instantly physgun you, ban you and void everything, you will cause some roleplay (again! woah!). The victim will probably cause it too as they might seek medical attention again.
The requirements put in place were stupid and are the cause of why the server died. The influx of new players literally died out and I believe this is the cause of it. The administration acts more like "fun police" than "administration and roleplay assistance".
You don't let new players have fun, they leave, simple as that.
"No guns in plaza" and "no guns outside of p3". No fun allowed. Worst case - unit is headshot and drops their weapons. Admins have to spend fifteen minutes looking up who all got the guns, what a disaster. They have to work. Shame. (hint, there can be systems put in place to allow for easier logging/tracing of weapons)
"No rogue units without owner approval" - rogue units should be allowed, given the character has a valid reason. Agreement of a handful of administrators / SA should be enough. If they cannot be trusted then they shouldn't be administrators. What are the risks of a rogue unit anyways? Dropping weapons? See the previous point. Other than that, it's just the risk of roleplay, again.
typical khub you just point out whats wrong and i dont agree with you because xxx
I voiced my opinion, feel free to disagree. Provide counter-arguments and I will try to react.
you're dumb it wasn't like this go away you're just wrong we don't want your opinion stick it up your ass
ok
ok so you pointed out whats wrong but how to fix??
My suggestions:- Instruct administration not to act like fun police.
- Stop making tons of rules that will prevent roleplay just because there's a chance of it resulting in a breach of the server rules.
- Demote administrators who intervene in roleplay only because it might eventually sometime possibly result in someone breaking a rule.
- Demote administrators who intervene in/void roleplay because a rule was broken, as long as it's not massive RDM and as long as the situation can be dealt with ICly.
Most of the requirements and restrictions currently in effect serve two purposes:
1. remove player fun
2. make admins' jobs easier
That's wrong.
There obviously need to be some rules and restrictions put in place but not like this.
In-spot authorizations are a good idea, but I cannot see them working well due to the already mentioned problem of admin bias.
There should also be a system that allows for easier applications on both sides (players and admins).
Imagine a part of the TAB menu called "Authorizations", synchronized with the forum. That way, you can fill up the application ingame if it's something minor and it's posted to the forums for you. Administration members vote on the application, even from in-game. Given enough votes or a SA's approval, the application is accepted. People can use a command like '/Auths' while looking at you, you select authorizations granted to your current character that you'd like to show them. Administrators can use this command to instantly revoke an authorization or to tweak it.
Edit: While I guess I can understand the reasons behind postponing certain things (outlands, OTA, vortigaunts) until the server is running well, it can get a little counter-productive. I believe you should set everything up before the server is launched. You keep players by providing them fun/entertainment/roleplay, not by saying "this thing you like won't come until we are 128/128 populated for two weeks in a row, you have to wait bored meanwhile". - Write a million words backstory about:
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on January 18, 2014, 11:37:48 PM -
I think that the way of handling authorizations in the days of the last HL2RP era was one of the reasons resulting in it's extinction.
To keep the server alive, you need new players and you need to make them stay.
They want their characters to go in action and you don't let them because:- Write a million words backstory about:
- How you broke a window with a random object and took the glass shard to use it as a makeshift knife, or how you found a rusty piece of wire or a little square of metal with sharp edges that would serve the same purpose.
- How you managed to smuggle an old t-shirt, a pair of shoes or a hat of yours from the pre-war era in your suitcase, because the UU is perfect and there's absolutely no way your suitcase wouldn't get searched in it's entirety.
- How your character used to take martial arts lessons for a few months and gained some basic self-defense abilities. Don't forget to include the same, generic backstory already seen before.
- Make up a handful of fake perks and disadvantages of you having the item. Please refrain from telling us you want to look cool and have fun because that's not what we're aiming for.
- Wait a few days for the administration team to review your application. Reapply twice because your grammar isn't the best and because the ability to write a sentence or two in a form of /me definitely isn't sufficient to RP.
Take what I said above with a grain of salt, but think of it.
Like, of course there'd be metal detectors and probably x-ray scans utilized on the suitcases, but there's this factor named human error and the fact that t-shirts and books aren't made of metal.
What is the risk of letting a player gain an IC item like a t-shirt or shoes they can brag with, or even a knife? There's the risk of roleplay. What if you had the units roleplaying confiscate your items on sight and detain you for a little while? No way we can allow that to happen, right?
Even if you get a knife, so what? You go and mug someone. There's roleplay in the mugging itself, there's roleplay in them reporting you, in the units going after you, in your detainment or execution, in the victim seeking medical attention (even if it only went as far as purchasing a bandage from a player-seller, it's still better than "sit in p3 and repeat indefinitely").
Of course, when you give a player a perk there's a high chance they'll abuse it sometime. So what? Even if you go and stab everyone around with your IC knife, given a decent administration team who won't instantly physgun you, ban you and void everything, you will cause some roleplay (again! woah!). The victim will probably cause it too as they might seek medical attention again.
The requirements put in place were stupid and are the cause of why the server died. The influx of new players literally died out and I believe this is the cause of it. The administration acts more like "fun police" than "administration and roleplay assistance".
You don't let new players have fun, they leave, simple as that.
"No guns in plaza" and "no guns outside of p3". No fun allowed. Worst case - unit is headshot and drops their weapons. Admins have to spend fifteen minutes looking up who all got the guns, what a disaster. They have to work. Shame. (hint, there can be systems put in place to allow for easier logging/tracing of weapons)
"No rogue units without owner approval" - rogue units should be allowed, given the character has a valid reason. Agreement of a handful of administrators / SA should be enough. If they cannot be trusted then they shouldn't be administrators. What are the risks of a rogue unit anyways? Dropping weapons? See the previous point. Other than that, it's just the risk of roleplay, again.
typical khub you just point out whats wrong and i dont agree with you because xxx
I voiced my opinion, feel free to disagree. Provide counter-arguments and I will try to react.
you're dumb it wasn't like this go away you're just wrong we don't want your opinion stick it up your ass
ok
ok so you pointed out whats wrong but how to fix??
My suggestions:- Instruct administration not to act like fun police.
- Stop making tons of rules that will prevent roleplay just because there's a chance of it resulting in a breach of the server rules.
- Demote administrators who intervene in roleplay only because it might eventually sometime possibly result in someone breaking a rule.
- Demote administrators who intervene in/void roleplay because a rule was broken, as long as it's not massive RDM and as long as the situation can be dealt with ICly.
Most of the requirements and restrictions currently in effect serve two purposes:
1. remove player fun
2. make admins' jobs easier
That's wrong.
There obviously need to be some rules and restrictions put in place but not like this.
In-spot authorizations are a good idea, but I cannot see them working well due to the already mentioned problem of admin bias.
There should also be a system that allows for easier applications on both sides (players and admins).
Imagine a part of the TAB menu called "Authorizations", synchronized with the forum. That way, you can fill up the application ingame if it's something minor and it's posted to the forums for you. Administration members vote on the application, even from in-game. Given enough votes or a SA's approval, the application is accepted. People can use a command like '/Auths' while looking at you, you select authorizations granted to your current character that you'd like to show them. Administrators can use this command to instantly revoke an authorization or to tweak it.
Edit: While I guess I can understand the reasons behind postponing certain things (outlands, OTA, vortigaunts) until the server is running well, it can get a little counter-productive. I believe you should set everything up before the server is launched. You keep players by providing them fun/entertainment/roleplay, not by saying "this thing you like won't come until we are 128/128 populated for two weeks in a row, you have to wait bored meanwhile".
Khub pretty much gets it. Either way, if you are buttbuddies with the admin team, you can still abuse the auth system, spot on auths or the old auth way. But aside from that I pretty much agree with Khub on everything. The admin team should really re-evaulate what their job is and what they should be doing. Less intervention in every little aspect of roleplay by admins would help tremendously. - Write a million words backstory about:
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: tics on January 19, 2014, 12:10:08 AM -
In any context, if you're friends with someone in power, then you can abuse that relationship to your own advantage. That's an inescapable reality of life.I think that the way of handling authorizations in the days of the last HL2RP era was one of the reasons resulting in it's extinction.
To keep the server alive, you need new players and you need to make them stay.
They want their characters to go in action and you don't let them because:- Write a million words backstory about:
- How you broke a window with a random object and took the glass shard to use it as a makeshift knife, or how you found a rusty piece of wire or a little square of metal with sharp edges that would serve the same purpose.
- How you managed to smuggle an old t-shirt, a pair of shoes or a hat of yours from the pre-war era in your suitcase, because the UU is perfect and there's absolutely no way your suitcase wouldn't get searched in it's entirety.
- How your character used to take martial arts lessons for a few months and gained some basic self-defense abilities. Don't forget to include the same, generic backstory already seen before.
- Make up a handful of fake perks and disadvantages of you having the item. Please refrain from telling us you want to look cool and have fun because that's not what we're aiming for.
- Wait a few days for the administration team to review your application. Reapply twice because your grammar isn't the best and because the ability to write a sentence or two in a form of /me definitely isn't sufficient to RP.
Take what I said above with a grain of salt, but think of it.
Like, of course there'd be metal detectors and probably x-ray scans utilized on the suitcases, but there's this factor named human error and the fact that t-shirts and books aren't made of metal.
What is the risk of letting a player gain an IC item like a t-shirt or shoes they can brag with, or even a knife? There's the risk of roleplay. What if you had the units roleplaying confiscate your items on sight and detain you for a little while? No way we can allow that to happen, right?
Even if you get a knife, so what? You go and mug someone. There's roleplay in the mugging itself, there's roleplay in them reporting you, in the units going after you, in your detainment or execution, in the victim seeking medical attention (even if it only went as far as purchasing a bandage from a player-seller, it's still better than "sit in p3 and repeat indefinitely").
Of course, when you give a player a perk there's a high chance they'll abuse it sometime. So what? Even if you go and stab everyone around with your IC knife, given a decent administration team who won't instantly physgun you, ban you and void everything, you will cause some roleplay (again! woah!). The victim will probably cause it too as they might seek medical attention again.
The requirements put in place were stupid and are the cause of why the server died. The influx of new players literally died out and I believe this is the cause of it. The administration acts more like "fun police" than "administration and roleplay assistance".
You don't let new players have fun, they leave, simple as that.
"No guns in plaza" and "no guns outside of p3". No fun allowed. Worst case - unit is headshot and drops their weapons. Admins have to spend fifteen minutes looking up who all got the guns, what a disaster. They have to work. Shame. (hint, there can be systems put in place to allow for easier logging/tracing of weapons)
"No rogue units without owner approval" - rogue units should be allowed, given the character has a valid reason. Agreement of a handful of administrators / SA should be enough. If they cannot be trusted then they shouldn't be administrators. What are the risks of a rogue unit anyways? Dropping weapons? See the previous point. Other than that, it's just the risk of roleplay, again.
typical khub you just point out whats wrong and i dont agree with you because xxx
I voiced my opinion, feel free to disagree. Provide counter-arguments and I will try to react.
you're dumb it wasn't like this go away you're just wrong we don't want your opinion stick it up your ass
ok
ok so you pointed out whats wrong but how to fix??
My suggestions:- Instruct administration not to act like fun police.
- Stop making tons of rules that will prevent roleplay just because there's a chance of it resulting in a breach of the server rules.
- Demote administrators who intervene in roleplay only because it might eventually sometime possibly result in someone breaking a rule.
- Demote administrators who intervene in/void roleplay because a rule was broken, as long as it's not massive RDM and as long as the situation can be dealt with ICly.
Most of the requirements and restrictions currently in effect serve two purposes:
1. remove player fun
2. make admins' jobs easier
That's wrong.
There obviously need to be some rules and restrictions put in place but not like this.
In-spot authorizations are a good idea, but I cannot see them working well due to the already mentioned problem of admin bias.
There should also be a system that allows for easier applications on both sides (players and admins).
Imagine a part of the TAB menu called "Authorizations", synchronized with the forum. That way, you can fill up the application ingame if it's something minor and it's posted to the forums for you. Administration members vote on the application, even from in-game. Given enough votes or a SA's approval, the application is accepted. People can use a command like '/Auths' while looking at you, you select authorizations granted to your current character that you'd like to show them. Administrators can use this command to instantly revoke an authorization or to tweak it.
Edit: While I guess I can understand the reasons behind postponing certain things (outlands, OTA, vortigaunts) until the server is running well, it can get a little counter-productive. I believe you should set everything up before the server is launched. You keep players by providing them fun/entertainment/roleplay, not by saying "this thing you like won't come until we are 128/128 populated for two weeks in a row, you have to wait bored meanwhile".
Khub pretty much gets it. Either way, if you are buttbuddies with the admin team, you can still abuse the auth system, spot on auths or the old auth way. But aside from that I pretty much agree with Khub on everything. The admin team should really re-evaulate what their job is and what they should be doing. Less intervention in every little aspect of roleplay by admins would help tremendously. - Write a million words backstory about:
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on January 19, 2014, 01:12:55 AM - Regardless of it being an inescapable reality of life, we should try to avoid it. If admins are abusing their powers or giving special treatment for people, they shouldn't really be an admin. I think there's a whole thread on that idea here (http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27205.0).
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Dixon on January 19, 2014, 02:01:37 PM -
I say Cow got it.
No one should get special privileges.
I would like to add to that, even Admins even he/she is liked by the entire community, they still shouldn't get anything better than anyone else in the community, I liked the fact that even a new player could mug an admin and the admin wouldn't even have enhanced martial art skills, hell, even a gun for christ sake, I have been to several servers after CG HL2RP died and on every server, the SA's were treated like Gods, Owner had SeC and all the SA's or Admins were the DvLs and CmD.
CG was different, if they had the right RP capability they could be literally anything or nearly have anything, if you knew how to Roleplay as a species or knew how a weapon worked, if the person knew how to handle or clean a katana, a firearm, of course RPG's were out of the question but even so, if you can provide the right backstory and have amazing grammar, you could potentially get what you applied for, we should keep the north korea strictness because it was really needed, well maybe for a glass shard is a bit far, wouldn't be a long story but a somewhat compelling one. (dudedixonstfu)
What I'm trying to get at is, a normal player could have SeC if they're amazing at RP and knows the lore of how SeC works, I didn't know what our server lore was, I presumed (after seeing other servers) that SeC was a giant robot who ordered all squads, probably a seven foot machine.
But- Back to the applications.
Then there is hate, if an admin or a normal player hates a player, they are more likely to -Support the application from sheer hate and possibly the Application was terrible but if the application was good in the eyes of others, this player -Supports because of again, hate as Lone said, we should try to avoid it and if people are getting special treatment from admins, they shouldn't be admin.
(really tired so im sorry if none of this made sense or seemed out of context) -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Airborne1st on January 19, 2014, 02:02:40 PM -
The problem with the old auth system was that you had to apply for nearly everything. I remember when I played one time, found a brick and used it to attack someone. Guess what, he started asking me for auths. Do you REALLY think its that hard to find a brick where the buildings are beginnining to wear down, and I mean, it's a brick. Or one time I had a non UU tshirt, guess what, I got bothered because I didn't have auths for it. Do you really think every single shirt magically disappeared off the face of the planet never to be seen again? If you have ever gone dumpster diving in your life you'd be amazed at the stuff you can find, but guess what, you need auths for nearly everything. Spot auths would be there to fix that problem, as I really dont think writing a multi paragraph application is necessary for a brick or a tshirt. Not only that, but does anyone at all remember how long it took for your application to be accepted/looked at? I remember when it sometimes took over a month. Spot auths fix that problem as it shouldn't take more than 30mins to go through the flow chart.
(http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/3/4/5/1/5/5/5/why-not-both-119952397394.png)
Then if that's the problem, why not have both? Personally, I can see the advantages to Spot Auths, but the one key flaw that I do see is that they take place over steam so like previously mentioned, its a simple means of "lets ask the admin who likes me best!" so in which case, I think it should be forum based. While yes, it does sort of defeat the purpose of it being a "Spot" auth, we can go about making the authorization process for something like you mentioned much less...tedious. So instead of writing paragraphs for something insignificant, you can just list the character getting it, what you want, list the advantages and disadvantages and then write like one paragraph on how you plan to use it and submit.
Why not have auths separated into tiers or something? For example, Tier 3 auths would include things such as clothing, minor melee weapons (shanks, bats, razors), minor knowledge (novice level of more major skills), minor equipment (tools, helmets, rope), and minor abilities (light parkour, light gymnastics, etc) which would consist of the Spot Auth format and would be essentially fast to complete and fast to get reviewed (probably the same day), probably just looked at by any basic administrator and given the okay so that way people get their little needs and wants out of the way without a long process and there are still recorded documentation of it.
Tier 2 could consist of moderate melee (swords, axes, brass knuckles, etc), minor projectiles (sling shots, homemade bows, BB guns), moderate knowledge, moderate equipment, moderate abilities and the like which can maybe also be handled by Spot Auth formatting or not depending on what it is.
Tier 3 would be the big stuff which would, without a doubt be handled by the old auth system which would include firearms, above average knowledge, above average equipment, above average abilities and what not.
To be honest, I can find myself agreeing with this and it's really the best of both worlds since it encompasses both the want of a new system and the well known uses of the already established system. It's a compromise, you see? Everyone gets what they want.
I was going to post this very thing, but you beat me to it. Therefore you sir, are an fagit.
Yes, we should keep the application auth system as it was, but also give hl2rp SA+ admins the authority to give in game auths without applications. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on January 19, 2014, 02:05:00 PM -
Regardless of it being an inescapable reality of life, we should try to avoid it. If admins are abusing their powers or giving special treatment for people, they shouldn't really be an admin. I think there's a whole thread on that idea here (http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27205.0).
That thread wasn't aimed at just admins, it was aimed at anyone who treated anyone differently because of their gender. But yes, if you're abusing your power then it should be taken away. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: [LP]GMK-MRL on January 19, 2014, 10:18:40 PM -
I think that the way of handling authorizations in the days of the last HL2RP era was one of the reasons resulting in it's extinction.
To keep the server alive, you need new players and you need to make them stay.
They want their characters to go in action and you don't let them because:- Write a million words backstory about:
- How you broke a window with a random object and took the glass shard to use it as a makeshift knife, or how you found a rusty piece of wire or a little square of metal with sharp edges that would serve the same purpose.
- How you managed to smuggle an old t-shirt, a pair of shoes or a hat of yours from the pre-war era in your suitcase, because the UU is perfect and there's absolutely no way your suitcase wouldn't get searched in it's entirety.
- How your character used to take martial arts lessons for a few months and gained some basic self-defense abilities. Don't forget to include the same, generic backstory already seen before.
- Make up a handful of fake perks and disadvantages of you having the item. Please refrain from telling us you want to look cool and have fun because that's not what we're aiming for.
- Wait a few days for the administration team to review your application. Reapply twice because your grammar isn't the best and because the ability to write a sentence or two in a form of /me definitely isn't sufficient to RP.
Take what I said above with a grain of salt, but think of it.
Like, of course there'd be metal detectors and probably x-ray scans utilized on the suitcases, but there's this factor named human error and the fact that t-shirts and books aren't made of metal.
What is the risk of letting a player gain an IC item like a t-shirt or shoes they can brag with, or even a knife? There's the risk of roleplay. What if you had the units roleplaying confiscate your items on sight and detain you for a little while? No way we can allow that to happen, right?
Even if you get a knife, so what? You go and mug someone. There's roleplay in the mugging itself, there's roleplay in them reporting you, in the units going after you, in your detainment or execution, in the victim seeking medical attention (even if it only went as far as purchasing a bandage from a player-seller, it's still better than "sit in p3 and repeat indefinitely").
Of course, when you give a player a perk there's a high chance they'll abuse it sometime. So what? Even if you go and stab everyone around with your IC knife, given a decent administration team who won't instantly physgun you, ban you and void everything, you will cause some roleplay (again! woah!). The victim will probably cause it too as they might seek medical attention again.
The requirements put in place were stupid and are the cause of why the server died. The influx of new players literally died out and I believe this is the cause of it. The administration acts more like "fun police" than "administration and roleplay assistance".
You don't let new players have fun, they leave, simple as that.
"No guns in plaza" and "no guns outside of p3". No fun allowed. Worst case - unit is headshot and drops their weapons. Admins have to spend fifteen minutes looking up who all got the guns, what a disaster. They have to work. Shame. (hint, there can be systems put in place to allow for easier logging/tracing of weapons)
"No rogue units without owner approval" - rogue units should be allowed, given the character has a valid reason. Agreement of a handful of administrators / SA should be enough. If they cannot be trusted then they shouldn't be administrators. What are the risks of a rogue unit anyways? Dropping weapons? See the previous point. Other than that, it's just the risk of roleplay, again.
typical khub you just point out whats wrong and i dont agree with you because xxx
I voiced my opinion, feel free to disagree. Provide counter-arguments and I will try to react.
you're dumb it wasn't like this go away you're just wrong we don't want your opinion stick it up your ass
ok
ok so you pointed out whats wrong but how to fix??
My suggestions:- Instruct administration not to act like fun police.
- Stop making tons of rules that will prevent roleplay just because there's a chance of it resulting in a breach of the server rules.
- Demote administrators who intervene in roleplay only because it might eventually sometime possibly result in someone breaking a rule.
- Demote administrators who intervene in/void roleplay because a rule was broken, as long as it's not massive RDM and as long as the situation can be dealt with ICly.
Most of the requirements and restrictions currently in effect serve two purposes:
1. remove player fun
2. make admins' jobs easier
That's wrong.
There obviously need to be some rules and restrictions put in place but not like this.
In-spot authorizations are a good idea, but I cannot see them working well due to the already mentioned problem of admin bias.
There should also be a system that allows for easier applications on both sides (players and admins).
Imagine a part of the TAB menu called "Authorizations", synchronized with the forum. That way, you can fill up the application ingame if it's something minor and it's posted to the forums for you. Administration members vote on the application, even from in-game. Given enough votes or a SA's approval, the application is accepted. People can use a command like '/Auths' while looking at you, you select authorizations granted to your current character that you'd like to show them. Administrators can use this command to instantly revoke an authorization or to tweak it.
Edit: While I guess I can understand the reasons behind postponing certain things (outlands, OTA, vortigaunts) until the server is running well, it can get a little counter-productive. I believe you should set everything up before the server is launched. You keep players by providing them fun/entertainment/roleplay, not by saying "this thing you like won't come until we are 128/128 populated for two weeks in a row, you have to wait bored meanwhile".
this young man is correct. - Write a million words backstory about:
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: alaskan thunderfuck on January 24, 2014, 05:06:15 AM - pretty much completely agree with khub and sexy frog and those are the approaches we'll be taking for the most part. the only thing I still don't agree on is the whole rogue unit thing - I've never seen anything good come out of it. not saying they won't ever be allowed, but it's a subject we'll come back to once the server is online.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on January 24, 2014, 02:08:10 PM - if a rogue unit really wants to go rogue, then I don't think having them ask an owner for permission is the worst idea in the world. Obviously, though, what if a unit wants to go rogue when their facing their execution by a superior officer? What if they're a spy within the CCA the whole time, and they get found out? Because in that case, I think it's a little stupid to say that they can't do anything pending an owner's authorization
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Dixon on February 03, 2014, 03:05:39 PM -
Honestly, rogue CCA shouldn't happen, it can but it shouldn't.
I mean, i2 (02 whatever) and lower could possibly go rogue, 05 definitely.
But, I don't see the point in it. It /literally/ just causes drama, like it has on every other server I have seen, arguments all the time like most Resistance groups, unless it's handeled correctly, I disagree with Rogue Units and if someone /actually/ knows how to do so and act like you're (would they be on the BOL list?) a runaway unit, paranoia, I don't think you'd trust anyone.
It's not needed.
Fuck it.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 03, 2014, 03:38:42 PM - I'd just save the rouge unit arguments for until the server is up like what waffle said.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: raged on February 03, 2014, 07:49:08 PM - i dont agree how you all stereotype rogue units as the sole reason being "i hate the combine" and that they're going to join the resistance
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Hazard Time on February 03, 2014, 09:05:41 PM -
As I said earlier in this article, there are two reasons why the admin team is hesitant about allowing rogue units:
1. Idiots would make up stupid reasons to go rogue like, "I got a black mark" or "I was secretly a part of the resistance". In reality, these sorts of people would be rooted out during the application cycle and later in recruit camp. Plus, even if one does make it through and goes rogue, he's not going to last long.
2. The last rogue unit that was allowed powergamed his way out of every attempt to capture him by OTA hitsquads. Still, we shouldn't let one bad experience speak for the majority.
In short, once we get a sizable population going on the server, I don't see why rogue units shouldn't be allowed. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on February 03, 2014, 09:20:02 PM -
As I said earlier in this article, there are two reasons why the admin team is hesitant about allowing rogue units:
1. Idiots would make up stupid reasons to go rogue like, "I got a black mark" or "I was secretly a part of the resistance". In reality, these sorts of people would be rooted out during the application cycle and later in recruit camp. Plus, even if one does make it through and goes rogue, he's not going to last long.
2. The last rogue unit that was allowed powergamed his way out of every attempt to capture him by OTA hitsquads. Still, we shouldn't let one bad experience speak for the majority.
In short, once we get a sizable population going on the server, I don't see why rogue units shouldn't be allowed.
First off, not all rogue units get rooted out. Look at Barney, just as a canonical example. Also, Sexy roleplayed a plant at least just fine, and I could totally see a unit like that going 'rogue'. I mean afterall, their loyalty to the Union is fake, so why they wouldn't just leave on a whim if their life is danger?
Also secondly, I'm pretty sure I was the last rogue unit before the server went down. And I didn't do anything to powergame out of my capture; hell, I was powergamed against during that whole ordeal. And regardless, that whoel situation really didn't cause any problems at all, and went much better than I had expected in the end.
And raged makes a good point as well. Not all units are just like 'fuck the CCA I am a rebel now". My unit was in no way a part of the Resistance following her defection, nor would she have been. You guys are really quick to assume that a rogue unit (if rogue is even the right term in the first place) are going to shoot the SeC or something stupid like that. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Hazard Time on February 03, 2014, 09:43:11 PM - I didn't make it clear in my last post, but I was referring to "minge CPs" getting rooted out, not potential rogue units.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: raged on February 03, 2014, 10:27:09 PM -
Quote
In short, once we get a sizable population going on the server, I don't see why rogue units shouldn't be allowed.
going rogue should be the IC consequence of prior actions - not something that is either ruled yes or no by administrating parties
reminds me of the old hl2rp where i was threatened with bans for wanting to do things IC -
Title: Re: Re: authorizations
Post by: Nicknero on February 04, 2014, 01:50:33 AM -
Absolutely not.QuoteIn short, once we get a sizable population going on the server, I don't see why rogue units shouldn't be allowed.
going rogue should be the IC consequence of prior actions - not something that is either ruled yes or no by administrating parties
reminds me of the old hl2rp where i was threatened with bans for wanting to do things IC
I have nothing against "rogue" units in the way I'm thinking of. But if we were to just allow them without any approval at all, then EVERYONE would go lolrogue and mind up retarded reasons to go join the resistance and give out free stuff from the nexus because they still have access to it.
The way how I see "rogue" units and the way I'm fine with is units who start to regret joining the union and want to flee as a citizen. So flee the union, not turn against them. (Get what I mean?)
<::[[ Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2 ]]::> -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: raged on February 04, 2014, 02:15:12 AM - i didnt say they shouldn't require approval i said they shouldn't be told bluntly "no" because admin dont want a rogue unit even if IC'ly it should happen
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Hazard Time on February 04, 2014, 02:18:15 AM - I still think it would be best to wait for Internal Affairs to be properly set up before we allow any rogue units. That way it'll actually be a challenge to go rogue.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Nicknero on February 04, 2014, 02:39:33 AM -
i didnt say they shouldn't require approval i said they shouldn't be told bluntly "no" because admin dont want a rogue unit even if IC'ly it should happen
Oh, I misunderstood that then, my apologies. -
Title: Re: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 04, 2014, 08:41:22 PM -
Absolutely not.QuoteIn short, once we get a sizable population going on the server, I don't see why rogue units shouldn't be allowed.
going rogue should be the IC consequence of prior actions - not something that is either ruled yes or no by administrating parties
reminds me of the old hl2rp where i was threatened with bans for wanting to do things IC
I have nothing against "rogue" units in the way I'm thinking of. But if we were to just allow them without any approval at all, then EVERYONE would go lolrogue and mind up retarded reasons to go join the resistance and give out free stuff from the nexus because they still have access to it.
The way how I see "rogue" units and the way I'm fine with is units who start to regret joining the union and want to flee as a citizen. So flee the union, not turn against them. (Get what I mean?)
<::[[ Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2 ]]::>
just going to point out that i believe it was rank 01 or high that you got acess to the armory, and so unless people are being assmoted then i highly doubt this swarm of people would go rouge and give out weapons like you make it seem to be. and thats not even what you do if you go rouge, you could simply go rouge to benefit yourself and not the uu. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 04, 2014, 08:49:22 PM -
rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we should allow it now
should stay un-authorisable -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: raged on February 04, 2014, 10:47:05 PM -
rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we should allow it now
should stay un-authorisable
i thought one of the main ideas of the reboot of hl2rp was less admin intervention and more IC consequences
http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27217.15 (http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27217.15)
see here -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on February 04, 2014, 10:48:15 PM -
rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we should allow it now
should stay un-authorisable
again, when did my rogue unit cause drama? you guys always just assume shit when it comes to stuff, and it's always just a blatant no. Have you guys ever considered tackling the people that just constantly complain about stuff instead of just saying no to roleplay? Because it's getting really old hearing "No, we aren't going to allow this because someone is gonna complain". Then tell that person to shut up, grow a pair, and play nicely or they're going to get the boot. Because I'm sick and tired of hearing people's bullshit honestly, because there is no reason why a unit shouldn't be able to leave the CCA for a perfectly legitimate IC reason.
Take, for example, a unit that never really was loyal to the CCA at all. What if they joined under a fake loyalty, and were a plant for a Resistance group they were apart of? Say they just act the part the whole time, and eventually, they get found out. Are you saying that, since it's 'going to cause drama', that they should suck it up and get executed? Are you saying that the totally legitimate situation of them avoiding capture, fleeing the Nexus, and possibly fighting/killing units that pursue them is not allowed? Because that'd be pretty fucking stupid to do all that work, all that subterfuge, just to say that they can't even defend themselves at all.
Which brings me to a whole other thing; not all units are even going 'rogue'. Some units just defect. Yet everyone instantly makes the assumption that a unit leaving the CCA is going to give weapons out, kill their division leader, blow up a HAP, etc. That only happened, what, a grand total of one time that I can even remember?
Rogue units should require an admin's approval, yes. But if a player brings up a perfectly valid reason for either going rogue or just defecting, saying no purely based on it causing drama is just fucking stupid. Because I certainly wasn't aware this was a guided roleplay session where the dungeon master tells me that I can't exercise the basic idea of running away from a situation where I'm guaranteed to get killed, when the clear, logical option is right in front of me. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 04, 2014, 10:48:44 PM -
rogue units have only caused drama and shit in the past and dont see why we should allow it now
should stay un-authorisable
i thought one of the main ideas of the reboot of hl2rp was less admin intervention and more IC consequences
http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27217.15 (http://www.catalyst-gaming.net/index.php?topic=27217.15)
see here
ouch
raged is right. less admin intervention in roleplay will greatly lower drama and make the general atmosphere better. nothing should be limited by ooc factors. if something is realistically feasible, why should anyone stop that? -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 05, 2014, 05:19:16 AM -
still sticking with no rogue units should be allowed because it only caused more shit than it did good
EDIT: imo it would require owner auth but ye -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on February 05, 2014, 09:25:03 AM - Less admin intervention doesn't mean no admin intervention.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 05, 2014, 12:11:22 PM -
Less admin intervention doesn't mean no admin intervention.
Admins should intervene when rules are broken. If no rules were broken, don't intervene. Admins have no buisness destroying/interrupting rp if someone didn't break a single rule. If someone acts like an idiot and wants to spit on a units shoes(this is just an example), don't pull him aside and say you cant do that because that's failrp(which it really isn't, anyone can spit on someones shoes), let him suffer the concequences in character. He will get beat up by the unit and thrown in jail or whatever the unit decides. If some moron is power gaming and whatnot, then ya, step in, but just because your friend is getting killed that's no reason to stop the role play. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 05, 2014, 12:14:14 PM - but it would be failrp and then admin intervention is needed, it was really dumb seeing someone everyday going up to a unit and spitting on them or some stupid shit
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 05, 2014, 12:18:32 PM -
but it would be failrp and then admin intervention is needed, it was really dumb seeing someone everyday going up to a unit and spitting on them or some stupid shit
Who cares if he's spitting on someone's shoes? It's realistically feasible to walk up to someone and spit on his shoes, so why should that be restricted on the server? I'm sure it would get annoying, but don't you think if someone spat on your shoes IRL you'd be annoyed too? If the guy becomes so much of a problem to the CCA and that's all he does, then take a gun and shoot him in the head. Let him suffer the IC concequences. Let units deal with it so they have something "fun" to deal with, because admins would have just stole that scenario/situation that could have been fun to a unit. I sure as hell know I'd rather deal with that than aimlessly walk in circles around plaza aka patrol. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 05, 2014, 12:21:21 PM - fail to see how being spit on every single day by citizens is fun and how that would be legit rp
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 05, 2014, 12:35:44 PM -
fail to see how being spit on every single day by citizens is fun and how that would be legit rp
If the citizen is doing it every day then take him into the nexus and amputate him? -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 05, 2014, 12:50:13 PM -
again you didnt read what i said properly
every single day by citizens -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: BltElite on February 05, 2014, 01:16:23 PM - Cow, your using different examples that don't tie into a proper rogue unit RP. Less admin intervention will mean mainly in smaller things as examples you gave, not within large scale happenings such as a rogue unit. You can't just think oh its stopping RP, you have to look at all sides of what that rogue unit will cause, and its something you don't want to happen every two days - hence a regulation on rogue units.
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Statua on February 05, 2014, 01:50:30 PM -
Failrp is broad and very subjective. It takes a few braincells to determine what is fail and what is not. A general guideline to follow is "is this realistic? Can it be done?" so yes you can spit on a units boots but don't complain when you get pk'd by amputation. I personally won't void the rp but i will pm the unit suggesting he find a way to amputate the citizen.
If you do something stupid that will most likely get you killed and you icly get killed, I'm damn right gonna pk you. I'll be more lenient on the deaths that are more of wrong place wrong time. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 05, 2014, 02:10:12 PM -
Cow, your using different examples that don't tie into a proper rogue unit RP. Less admin intervention will mean mainly in smaller things as examples you gave, not within large scale happenings such as a rogue unit. You can't just think oh its stopping RP, you have to look at all sides of what that rogue unit will cause, and its something you don't want to happen every two days - hence a regulation on rogue units.
If a unit goes rouge and decides to rob a citizen for his tokens, let internal affairs investigate it and deal with it properly. Why should admins stop the possible interesting roleplay? Or what if some unit decided to use his powers to get into the CWU hospital or something and steel some morphine so he can get high? Why stop units from going rouge when they can create good rp? You guys are under the assumption that every rouge unit is going to try and shoot the sec in the head when he's not looking. I'm not saying there shouldn't be an auth system for it, but if there was, then there needs to be a smart and sensible way to go about it. Admins tend to metagame a lot harder than the regular citizens, I've seen this first hand and have looked in logs (when I had acess) just to prove my point. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on February 05, 2014, 02:32:40 PM -
you cant ask for evidence for one thing then say ", I've seen this first hand and have looked in logs (when I had acess) just to prove my point." without evidence for anotherQuote
If a unit goes rouge and decides to rob a citizen for his tokens
that should never happen LOL, i think peoples ideas of what a rouge unit should be is skewed -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 05, 2014, 03:40:04 PM -
you cant ask for evidence for one thing then say ", I've seen this first hand and have looked in logs (when I had acess) just to prove my point." without evidence for another
QuoteIf a unit goes rouge and decides to rob a citizen for his tokens
that should never happen LOL, i think peoples ideas of what a rouge unit should be is skewed
Satn went in and out of observer when tracking down my character, logs backed that statement up. Not only that but when oz was sa even he saw him doing that. Funniest part is that he went directly to my location without even trying to look somewhere else. Evidence. Anyways, this isn't about me.
What do you mean it shouldn't happen? Let internal affairs take care of the unit and do what's deemed nessescary. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on February 05, 2014, 03:44:43 PM -
satn is stupid he doesnt count as an admin,, also if he tp'd anywhere everyone would see it no one does that outside of admining
and no, a rogue unit should like, always be hiding pretty much, that's just another example of terrible rp that shouldnt be happening, they dont just walk around mugging units after running from the cca who's hunting them down -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Nicknero on February 05, 2014, 04:20:44 PM -
Call me crazy, but here is just a random idea okay?
How about we all just STOP arguing about each and every single fucking detail that happened in the past, and rather look into the future.
Let's just fuck it, and wait for the server to come up before we continue any arguments.
Just go with it. If something happens you don't agree with, THEN you have the rights to bring it up and talk about it with everyone else. But don't you guys all agree that all these threads are completely fucking useless and only cause shit when the server isn't even up yet? Hence no one knows how things are going to turn out... Who knows, it turns out just the way you want it? Or maybe not... -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: rBST Cow on February 05, 2014, 04:28:44 PM -
Call me crazy, but here is just a random idea okay?
How about we all just STOP arguing about each and every single fucking detail that happened in the past, and rather look into the future.
Let's just fuck it, and wait for the server to come up before we continue any arguments.
Just go with it. If something happens you don't agree with, THEN you have the rights to bring it up and talk about it with everyone else. But don't you guys all agree that all these threads are completely fucking useless and only cause shit when the server isn't even up yet? Hence no one knows how things are going to turn out... Who knows, it turns out just the way you want it? Or maybe not...
The whole point is to bring up the problems in the last server so they can be prevented/changed in the new one. -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 05, 2014, 04:29:14 PM -
Satn
example of a shit admin who did abuse and intervene in rp for no fucking reasons and manipulate it to his will
but yes, lets wait til hl2rp actually comes up and see what happens, then we can tweak and adjust as necessary instead of causing drama before its even up lol -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: raged on February 05, 2014, 08:23:03 PM - tweak whatever you want but if i see admins telling people 'no' for things that should happen ic'ly without a really good reason i can assure you it will die just like the first hl2rp
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 05, 2014, 08:38:02 PM -
tweak whatever you want but if i see admins telling people 'no' for things that should happen ic'ly without a really good reason i can assure you it will die just like the first hl2rp
pretty sure thats not the reason hl2rp died in the first place but ok -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: raged on February 05, 2014, 08:44:12 PM - admins not letting me do things i wanted to do was one reason why i stopped playing
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Lone Wanderer on February 05, 2014, 09:50:18 PM -
admins not letting me do things i wanted to do was one reason why i stopped playing
thisyou cant ask for evidence for one thing then say ", I've seen this first hand and have looked in logs (when I had acess) just to prove my point." without evidence for another
QuoteIf a unit goes rouge and decides to rob a citizen for his tokens
that should never happen LOL, i think peoples ideas of what a rouge unit should be is skewed
an so far members of the administration are proving to be just that. So far, a good chunk of people are pretty much accusing all rogue units of causing a shit ton of problems, when I've clearly proven this to be false many times over again with my rogue unit. yet people continually ignore this and just go ahead and jump to the "yeah rogue units cause shit storms lol im just gonna ignore your proof against this"
good start when people are just assuming shit to be the case 100% of the time when clearly it doesnt happen 100% of the time -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: smt on February 05, 2014, 10:11:39 PM - drama drama something something
-
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Khub on February 06, 2014, 03:36:44 PM -
pretty sure thats not the reason hl2rp died in the first place but ok
i am curious to hear your opinion on that matter then -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: Teitoku Ippan on February 06, 2014, 04:15:30 PM -
gonna quote what i said in the other thread because its relevant
heres an idea
why dont we just wait for the server to actually come up then see how it goes, adapt to what is needed and not needed and stuff like that. we could probably discuss stuff like authorisations and shit a couple of weeks after the server has been up to give people time to settle in, citizens to develop and choose their alignments of pro-union or anti-citizen or somewhere in between etc, the cca & cwu to develop, etc.
we could look at shit like rogue units (strictly though) and a couple of other stuff after a couple of weeks, might not hurt to try them once more but if someone goes potato with it then they've pretty much ruined it for the rest of the people
even then, rogue units should not be something common, in fact it should be extremely rare and if someone wants auth for that, itd have to be thoroughly investigated and made sure the roleplay and backstory for it is really good and legit because units shouldnt be thinking about rebelling against the union when theyll be taking the union supplements which will affect their mind and memories
also on the topic of names, unless someone literally tells you their IC name ICly or, if you are part of the CCA, get a scanner to identify someone, you wouldnt know their name, even if the name shows up above their head because you were maybe in the vicinity of F2 or whatever the hotkey was again
drama in a serious roleplay server is inevitable and we are already seeing this in both threads (this one and the authorisations one), but instead of bickering with each other before the server is even up. we should discuss this sort of stuff when the server is up and adjust rules/restrictions accordingly when its been up -
Title: Re: authorizations
Post by: kmp on February 06, 2014, 05:30:57 PM -
tweak whatever you want but if i see admins telling people 'no' for things that should happen ic'ly without a really good reason i can assure you it will die just like the first hl2rp
pretty sure thats not the reason hl2rp died in the first place but ok
It contributed to it. Massively. The restrictions the administration team placed on the server were downright ridiculous and mostly unnecessary.