@Rubikwhy didnt you add verity pet 😞

OCTOBER UPDATE: Added Fall 2026 pet box & more go explore and see whats new!   3d map will be updated to Halloween Theme soon.      ----> titsrp.wiki

fuck U guys get your facts Straight SBC got 12 SHOTS HOLY LARP ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Equip crip cannon for free reloads.

The argument that the SBC Cannon should return to its old re-equip-on-empty system assumes that its ten-shot ammunition limit is enough to balance the weapon. The problem is that ammunition capacity and access to the weapon itself are two different balancing factors. Ten shots may sound restrictive in isolation, but if a player can immediately re-equip the cannon after firing those ten shots, the practical limitation isn't really ten shots per life — it's ten shots per inventory cycle. That distinction matters considerably for a weapon capable of having a major impact on raids, firefights, and base defenses. The death requirement can therefore be viewed less as an additional punishment and more as a way of establishing a meaningful endpoint for the weapon's use. Without it, a player who survives an engagement can potentially reset their cannon and immediately return to using one of the server's most destructive tools. This means that simply surviving doesn't necessarily end the weapon's influence. A death-gated system creates a natural reset point: you can have your ten shots, but once you've used them, your current life with the cannon is over. The argument that this reduces player agency also overlooks the fact that every game mechanic places limits on player agency. Players already accept cooldowns, role restrictions, item limits, weapon restrictions, and other mechanics that prevent powerful tools from being used indefinitely. The fact that a restriction is inconvenient does not necessarily mean that it is poorly designed. In this case, tying the reset to death provides a clear and predictable rule rather than allowing players to repeatedly refresh a high-impact weapon whenever they exhaust its ammunition. There is also a flaw in the claim that the system inherently rewards players for dying. A player isn't necessarily better off by dying simply because death allows them to use the cannon again. Death carries its own costs: losing the current engagement, potentially losing resources, being removed from the situation, and having to respawn before returning to play. If anything, the mechanic creates a tradeoff between preserving your life and preserving access to the cannon. That can be intentional design rather than an accidental incentive to play recklessly. The comparison between a player who gets killed immediately and one who successfully uses all ten shots also isn't necessarily unfair. They have not experienced the same circumstances. The player who gets ten shots out of the cannon has already extracted substantially more value from it than someone who died immediately. The fact that both eventually have to reach a death/reset state doesn't mean they received the same outcome during their lives. More importantly, the idea that ten shots are automatically sufficient because each shot is limited ignores the effectiveness of those shots. A weapon doesn't need unlimited ammunition to be overpowered. If every shot can dramatically alter an engagement, ten shots can represent a substantial amount of influence, especially when the player is able to remain alive and repeatedly acquire more ammunition or another cannon without having to relinquish their current life. The death requirement can also serve as a safeguard against situations where the cannon becomes the default solution to every conflict. If players know that exhausting the cannon means they must eventually lose their current life before obtaining another one, there is a meaningful opportunity cost to deploying it. Players have to decide when those ten shots are actually worth using rather than treating the cannon as a renewable resource. Ultimately, the disagreement comes down to what the ten-shot limit is supposed to represent. If it is merely an ammunition limit, then the old system makes sense. But if the cannon is intended to be an extremely powerful, limited-use tool, then restricting it to one cannon per life creates a much stronger and more meaningful limitation. The death requirement doesn't necessarily undermine the sandbox nature of the server; it can be what prevents one of the server's most disruptive weapons from becoming endlessly reusable. Reverting the mechanic would therefore solve the frustration described in the original argument, but it could also remove one of the few meaningful restrictions on repeatedly accessing the SBC Cannon. The question isn't simply whether players should have more freedom to re-equip it. It's whether a weapon with that level of destructive potential should be renewable without requiring the player to give up their current life. If the goal is to keep the cannon powerful without allowing it to dominate prolonged engagements, the death requirement provides a straightforward way to accomplish that.