Name on Doors Rule & Other Issues

[caleb]

Hi, old player SwaVe (DJ SwaVe) who came back from a long break from when I quit in 2019 here. I came back recently cause my friends have been playing and I genuinely have been having a good time with them on the server. I have been viewing the rules and getting adjusted to them as a lot has changed and I'm not used to a lot of them and slowly I'm getting used to all of them. However there is one issue with a rule that keeps getting me and others in trouble constantly. There are a lot of issues with the name on doors rule and it's causing multiple people to get in trouble for nonsense that can be solved and also causing staff to go out of their way to get people in trouble for it cause they're so used to this rule.

Rule that I have an issue with: In order to defend a base, you must be on the front doors of the base or inside of the base before raid starts.

Reasons why this rule causes so many issues (I've experienced these personally as well).
 

• If you lag out, crash, disconnect somehow someway, your props stay but your name instantly gets removed from the door. Admins will view this as "Well you don't own the door so when you reconnect you can't defend the raid."
  
  SOLUTION: Tying the door's ownership to the player's SteamID just like how DarkRP's base gamemode prop protection keeps the props in the server for a few minutes to allow the player to reconnect. This could also be fixed by creating a function off of the hook in the code when a player disconnects to view if said player owns a door and instantly assigns said door (alphabetically or whatever way) to another owner own the door instantly.
   
• Hobo bases or as they're called -- "free-standing-bases" would be heavily affected by this rule because if a group of hobos are being raided or attacked, no one can defend their base because there is no DOOR to own to defend it?
  
  POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Review the server's in-game party rules and raiding rules and possibly think of a way to allow people to defend their party members or simply make a base limit just like like Rust. Another solution that is more challenging and weirdly new for people if implemented would be (thought of by Moderator -- Sewer "Nong danCX")  to create an entity that registers base members to the entity such as a flagpole or base claim system that can only hold a certain amount of people. Cause if we allow people to defend purely by party then people could have up to 10 people defending one base which would seem overpowered to some.
   
• Garage doors do NOT show names on the garage door. The reason this is such a problem is because there are some base locations that PURELY use a garage door as an entrance. I know this is an easy simple fix to put the text on the garage doors and this can easily be fixed.
  
  SOLUTION: Get off your cute asses and put god damn names on the garage doors if we're going to keep this name-on-doors shit, it's causing so many issues (only joking with the vulgar comments).
   
• Waterfall bases or other base locations that are completely allowed to the playerbase to base in but don't have doors. This causes so many issues by having a "name on door" defending rule because there is no doors on these bases and the rule "Must be behind dupe in order to defend waterfall base" is probably the dumbest rule I have ever seen to try to fix this issue. You are basically limiting a player to ONLY grinding in their base and not allowing them to leave their base because of a potential raid. You're basically telling a player to sit in their base all day and encourage grinding like a gremlin in their base instead of roaming around doing fun stuff and not being able to defend their base raid if it happens while they're out and about.
  
  POSSIBLE SOLUTION: Check the second possible solution listed above as this falls under the same issue.
   

This thread isn't to bitch about things that bother me, just a friendly post to try to view ways we can change things that are constantly causing issues for players and also STAFF. I've never seen staff situations take so long over a rule change. This rule has caused me to sit through 30 minute sits to try to figure out what's going on.

Edited April 15, 2023 by caleb

[bugman]

27 minutes ago, caleb said:

Hobo bases or as they're called -- "free-standing-bases" would be heavily affected by this rule because if a group of hobos are being raided or attacked, no one can defend their base because there is no DOOR to own to defend it?

If someone destroys/ affects your props in any way you are allowed to kill them. 

 

28 minutes ago, caleb said:

Waterfall bases or other base locations that are completely allowed to the playerbase to base in but don't have doors.

You were never allowed to base in waterfall for multiple years, and it was usually used as a fun spot to hang out without ents until one day some staff decided they wanted to base there and now its allowed ig.

[caleb]

11 minutes ago, bugman said:

If someone destroys/ affects your props in any way you are allowed to kill them. 

 

You were never allowed to base in waterfall for multiple years, and it was usually used as a fun spot to hang out without ents until one day some staff decided they wanted to base there and now its allowed ig.

 

1. You're completely missing the point, it's not one sole player who is defending that base. There needs to be a way for people to defend said base who are actively living in the base without a DOOR. Did you even read the post? The issue with the rule is when MULTIPLE people are basing together and their name isn't on any door because there isn't a door to own, LMFAO.
    
2. I never said you could base in it in the past but there needs to be a rule change for multiple reasons or some solution to solve nonsense that shouldn't happen. Garage doors should also show names on them so raiders don't throw a hissy fit when they get killed by someone who owns it and waste people's time. There has to be a better way to go about defending your friend's base that doesn't cause an issue every time someone complains about dying to a defender. I don't care for the waterfall base as there's multiple locations that are just as good/if not better -- I could care less if it got removed or stayed but I do think that a lot of rules that are created prevent people from having creative base designs even though clearly in the rules it just states as long as it can be raided by default raid tools, it's allowed.

Edited April 15, 2023 by caleb

[bugman]

not readin alla dat

[Mumper]

Imo if you want to defend watefall you gotta be behind the dupe. either that or you watch them raid cause i get your point there

[Mal]

+1
As someone with unstable internet, the whole unowning doors on disconnect thing is really annoying when my steam loses connection to the servers and I have to rejoin, Only to find out someone bought my doors and claimed all my entities, or I find I am currently being raided and I can't defend cause I don't own the base anymore.

I agree that there should be some kind of way for your doors to stay owned for the same length or more than how long your props take to de-spawn on disconnect, Making garage doors display the owner would be nice as well.

[HooDi]

+1 If your party owns a base location you should be able to defend it end of discussion really I own the dupe at the slums double garage and constantly deal with the dumb shit even when its my props I'm not just gonna sit in my base for hours on end just because of the possibility of a raid no1 is doing that makes for an unfun environment

[That one rain frog]

I have fallen victim to the "Must be behind dupe in order to defend waterfall base" rule I dont think it should be removed but I think it should be altered to that you have to be inside of the water fall or something along the lines of that so I personally would love this being added getting a warn verbal and or ban for this would be very frustrating because   at that point if you leave your base and come back to defend all you can do is watch witch I'm not gonna call dumb but I would like you to see how this would be a Couse of issue  about the garage door issue that's just a thing that should non arguably be changed  I would also like to add to the water fall situation I be leave that that one door way area should just have a garage door (PS I have no clue how easy or hard it would be to add this) thank you for the time   

[Mori]

7 hours ago, HooDi said:

+1 If your party owns a base location you should be able to defend it end of discussion really I own the dupe at the slums double garage and constantly deal with the dumb shit even when its my props I'm not just gonna sit in my base for hours on end just because of the possibility of a raid no1 is doing that makes for an unfun environment

Yeah no there is a reason the server went away from using parties to determine who can defend or not (it was terrible and everyone loopholed) but then the "you have to be in the dupe to defend" is such a bandaid fix for the issue. Even having a fucking text screen with the people name on it is better than that but there is no real easy fix to an issue like this without people being able to take advantage of it. Reason why I think the rule of must be behind dupe to defend was made because you can't really loophole that. This is something for the "community meeting that is happening" and surely won't be a flop.

[Tene]

On 4/15/2023 at 7:22 PM, HooDi said:

+1 If your party owns a base location you should be able to defend it end of discussion really 

i think this should not be a thing and when it was a thing it was cancer because you can have multiple people added to the door and sometimes in different parties and then their party can defend... just use the add party members to door feature and f2 the door, and use calebs method of keeping the player added to door on disconnect so that there isn't any issues with crashes etc. allowing parties to defend bases again is silly and broken as the raider isn't allowed to fight the party member that isn't on the door unless the party member presses his '/yell party assist' bind - basically the raider 9/10 times will die or fail the raid because he is waiting for the party member stood next to him to party assist..
also the raider also cant use '/advert warn 1/2/3' because they are KOS to the guy they're warning the second they warn once, so still the raider loses.

for the other stuff, i think a flagpole or any other 'claimable' entity type thing where it shows who owns what and where could be good, only issue is if people just buy flagpoles and place them down in the streets randomly (not sure how the flagpoles would work in the first place in the sense of obtaining a flagpole to place it) - but then how would the raider know who is a base defender or not, would the flagpole have to be outside the entrance of the base? or would the names pop up?

the rule was mainly put in place to avoid the confusion/abuse of party assists and random party members coming to defend a base that they didn't own (they would own a base elsewhere and still be allowed to defend their party members base in a different location)