Name on Doors Rule & Other Issues

[That one rain frog]

2 minutes ago, Tene said:

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)

 

we know why it was added but we think it should be changed 

[Tene]

2 minutes ago, That one rain frog said:

we know why it was added but we think it should be changed 

how do u think it should be changed which avoids all the negatives of the old system but allows the party member to defend a base they aren't on the doors of

[That one rain frog]

2 minutes ago, Tene said:

how do u think it should be changed which avoids all the negatives of the old system but allows the party member to defend a base they aren't on the doors of

(you have to be inside of the water fall) I think this would be a easy fix

[That one rain frog]

2 minutes ago, That one rain frog said:

(you have to be inside of the water fall) I think this would be a easy fix

since your confused by it (you have to be inside of the water fall)  you have to be threw the water fall to defend it 

[Tene]

3 minutes ago, That one rain frog said:

since your confused by it (you have to be inside of the water fall)  you have to be threw the water fall to defend it 

i didnt disagree with that rule at all in my post so idk what u replied to me about..  - its a good rule change though as instead of behind dupe its if you're in the waterfall, but still i didnt mention dat at all so not sure what u replying to me about

Edited April 16, 2023 by Tene

[That one rain frog]

8 minutes ago, Tene said:

i didnt disagree with that rule at all in my post so idk what u replied to me about.. 

I never said you disagreed with it or acted like it I was just helping you understand you acted as if we did not know why it was added also you said (how do u think it should be changed which avoids all the negatives of the old system but allows the party member to defend a base they aren't on the doors of ) that's why I replied bc  you asked also if your talking abt you first thing that I replied to you abt I was just trying to help you better understand  - 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) this was why I thought you where talking abt the water fall base sorry if I was wrong 

Edited April 16, 2023 by That one rain frog

[goodnight]

Overall, I liked all of your points and suggestions! I don't base much personally, but there have been moments I've been a bit nervous to proceed with a base defend (friends) and was truly unsure what was allowed and so I ended up not helping as much as I wanted to because lord behold, the rule is a little weird. 

 

Big +1 from me!

[toosii]

On 4/14/2023 at 8:28 PM, caleb said:

 

• 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.

I think it would be great if this feature could be added to the server. When I was a mod I had dealt with sits involving these types of situations where somebody crashes and before rejoining/ being able to go back to buy the door somebody is raiding them then there is nothing they can do to save all of their stuff, or sometimes people will literally just buy the doors and take over the base including all entities within (which I always thought was a dick move to do lmao)

 

Overall you have some pretty good ideas in this post and I think adding some of these suggested solutions could relieve a few issues that seem to come up quite frequently. +1

                           

[1-800-Suicide]

not reading all that but the doors thig is the only way to regulate the cockroach basing clans from having 25 man parties with 17 out of party agents ready to counter a raid