Jump to content

FoxHound

Management
  • Content Count

    676
  • Donations

    0.00 GBP 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  • Teamspeak

    Never Logged On

FoxHound last won the day on May 7

FoxHound had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

262 Excellent

Profile Song

About FoxHound

  • Rank
    Management

Member Info

  • In Game Name
    FoxHound

Personal

  • Location
    Antartica
  • Interests
    ferret racing, time travel, sleeping and streaking

Recent Profile Visitors

4788 profile views
  1. +1 i think now more than ever we need a CM to liaison with factions
  2. Message me on Steam or TS and we will talk ill close this for now.
  3. Until a better solution is found that does not contradict current rules Taser rule has been reverted. Removed: "you will be tased" From valid player initiation. Added "If someone states you will be shot with a taser, or you are shot with a taser." to invalid player initiation.
  4. With the addition of the dispute system changes made to 1.9: Previously: 1.9 Side Chat - You must never threaten or conduct disputes in text chat or in-game voice chat. You may politely ask another player to join you on TeamSpeak to resolve a problem. All disputes should be taken outside of the game. If you need to speak to someone about a dispute, you must send them a private message by sending them an in-game text message or contacting them on TeamSpeak. Sending messages such as "I am reporting you" is unacceptable. Changed to: 1.9 Side Chat - You must never threaten or conduct disputes in text chat or in-game voice chat. You may politely ask another player to join you on TeamSpeak to resolve a problem. All disputes should be taken outside of the game. If you need to speak to someone about a dispute, you may dispute the player by using the Home key, furthermore the person(s) disputed should come to TeamSpeak to resolve the dispute.
  5. Added: 1.15 Dispute System- You may not use the dispute system unless you intend on opening a support case or player report against the player you are disputing. Changed: 4.9 Hostages - CSO & PCSO's may not be taken hostage under any circumstances. These ranks are still in training and should not be singled out. to: 4.9 Hostages - You may not take your own gang member's hostage in addition CSO & PCSO's may not be taken hostage under any circumstances. These ranks are still in training and should not be singled out.
  6. i think we should give it a chance for a bit, the community (not cops) were asking for it, there has to be a way to even the playing field so all community members cops or not have a fair approach to all sits. previously we have seen it may times over where cops approach an (or a group) armed rebel and taser initiate (to have an advantage), generally isn't a disadvantage if you were a civilian with a group, but a solo rebel is at a great disadvantage there is absolutely nothing the player can do against a cop taser initiating yes he could lethal initiate back but with a taser pointing at him he doesn't stand a chance and that's a fact. so if this rule was going to change back there would have to be something to counter cops taser initiating on rebels for an advantage. @Alexander Taser is used to control zones, and used as a primary against unarmed civ's by saying there is no point you are wrong. @Spud i understand that there are contradictions, but the Green zone rules take precedence over other rules when you are in that zone you must abide by the zone rules, and yes if that person leaves the green zone within 3 min he can be shot and killed, this is something that all officers must be aware of its not something that i would call a deal breaker as it can simply be avoided by not leaving the zone within 3 min of taser initiation. @Jelle it wasn't as it was not within the rules, but you are right it should be power gaming, and stopping members from getting power gamed was the reason for this rule change. @Commie Snake agreed that was the initial idea, the rule was suppose to be changed to "not being able to taser initiate against armed rebels", but after discussing it with other members of the board the idea was brought up to simplify it as it would cause alot of unnecessary support cases and arguments about whether or not the fire arm was visible. i would say that would be a great counter to the current rule if it would be changed it should be changed to "not allowed to taser initiate on any persons with a visible firearm"
  7. Initiation Rules Valid Player Initiation - Saying “You will be shot” or “I will kill you” or "you will be tased" or threatening to knock someone out with the use of a firearm after prior roleplay is valid initiation. If someone states they will shoot you or rubber bullet you then this is valid player initiation. Invalid Player Initiation - Any form of player initiation without holding a weapon that can actually endanger the life of the victim. Any form of player initiation that is not through Direct Chat (Voice). Any form of player initiation that is not within the hearing range of the victim. Any form of player initiation on a vehicle that is moving at a reasonable speed. Removed - "If someone states you will be shot with a taser, or you are shot with a taser." from Invalid player initation Added - "you will be tased" to valid player initiation
  8. @vxd.icu 💊 🐍 🔫 could we look into giving havoc a taser for use in the blue zone as a rule change would not be feasible for this suggestion.
  9. declined, when you want to fess up and tell us how you (and Ross) deposited 320mil in 2 hrs into a gang fund then we can talk about your appeal.
  10. this rule is already under review and will be changed within the next few days.
  11. this rule is under review and moved to being implemented.
  12. This Issue has been reviewed in the past and it had come to the conclusion that Using SDAR+Wet suit+re-breather is essentially using an in game mechanic purposely designed and placed there by the developer of the game, thing is there are ways to counter it, if you were playing smarter i.e if planing on a gun fight next to shore have a team member bring a wet suit sdar etc to counter possible combatants in the water. having it as a server rule would cause issues with administrating the rule (staff team) staff team has the authority to restrict peoples access to platforms its a big responsibility as they have to be 100% sure that a rule had been broken before issuing a ban, with sharking its not as easy as watching a sit in CAM and saying the guy was sharking for it to be an "exploit" he would have to use a bug inadvertently placed the game to his advantage and saying that i can say that i dont share the same communities view on sharking (because i look at it as an in game function that is able to be countered). if we are saying that this is an exploit then any another item that can be purchased in game to give you an advantage in a gun fight would be an exploit? do you see where im going with this? so with that im going to have to deny adding a rule BUT we are looking at other options (development) to reduce the effect of using the SDAR wet suit and re breather.
  13. This rule would severely limit actions and scenarios in game. the game would also lose some of its "fun" factor. sorry but like its been stated if someone has the ability to walk to a sign post without being shot and killed then there is no reason why they cant pull a vehicle out, possible change your play style i.e better map awareness, better communications and better team work can stop these situations from occurring.
  14. This has already been declined see other post in declined, this is mostly due to an unbalance it would cause and its an unbalance that can be taken advantage of and is unfair to the majority of community members... i.e new players that are limited to funds vs free gear (cops) limited funds would always lose the fight....... eventually.
×
×
  • Create New...