Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
04-24-2019, 10:00 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:07 AM by Fearless Community. Edited 4 times in total.
Edit Reason: Checked Encoding
)
Hey Robbtja,
Like I said in the discussion we had about this defence in-game, which you did cut out of this video, might I add, this defence is far from a doomfort.
To quote the FearlessRP description of a doomfort:
"Doomforts are overpowered defences that are almost impossible for a raiding party to overcome, even if they are realistic."
"You cannot build complex mazes, tiny firing holes, toggled cover using the fading door tool, you cannot force people to crouch, and you cannot use materials that dazzle, blind or visually confuse the raiding party."
"Chest-high cover is generally allowed, but there are limits. Do not spam chest-high cover or use them constantly in combination with features such as tight corridors; this also often looks unrealistic."
This defence does use chest-high cover for the defenders as you can see from this image, but it is also quite easy for the raider to hit the defender:
There is also a lot of parts to this base that the defenders at the top cannot see or hit, the defenders at the top can only see the raiders whilst they are at or near the front door(s), as you can see from these other two images:
The screenshots above show that the defenders can only see the raiders near the door(s), if the raider was to just run through that door and get past the bullets, then the raider has basically gotten passed the entire defence, and it's physically impossible for you to be hit whilst keypad cracking or whilst you are near the front of the defence.
For the reasons I have specified above, I do not believe that this defence is a doomfort or overpowered in any way, I'd be happy to let an admin see this defence if needed, but I think my screenshots should be sufficient.
If the admins do decide that this is, in fact, a doomfort however (as the doomfort rule is mainly opinion based as stated by the admins, as everybody has different requirements for what a doomfort is), I'd be more than happy to make changes or just remove the defence in full.
Thanks.
Like I said in the discussion we had about this defence in-game, which you did cut out of this video, might I add, this defence is far from a doomfort.
To quote the FearlessRP description of a doomfort:
"Doomforts are overpowered defences that are almost impossible for a raiding party to overcome, even if they are realistic."
"You cannot build complex mazes, tiny firing holes, toggled cover using the fading door tool, you cannot force people to crouch, and you cannot use materials that dazzle, blind or visually confuse the raiding party."
"Chest-high cover is generally allowed, but there are limits. Do not spam chest-high cover or use them constantly in combination with features such as tight corridors; this also often looks unrealistic."
This defence does use chest-high cover for the defenders as you can see from this image, but it is also quite easy for the raider to hit the defender:
Spoiler :
![[Image: nGDzJYy.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/nGDzJYy.jpg)
There is also a lot of parts to this base that the defenders at the top cannot see or hit, the defenders at the top can only see the raiders whilst they are at or near the front door(s), as you can see from these other two images:
Spoiler :
![[Image: ofzpQRO.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/ofzpQRO.jpg)
Spoiler :
![[Image: rNyZJBv.jpg]](https://i.imgur.com/rNyZJBv.jpg)
The screenshots above show that the defenders can only see the raiders near the door(s), if the raider was to just run through that door and get past the bullets, then the raider has basically gotten passed the entire defence, and it's physically impossible for you to be hit whilst keypad cracking or whilst you are near the front of the defence.
For the reasons I have specified above, I do not believe that this defence is a doomfort or overpowered in any way, I'd be happy to let an admin see this defence if needed, but I think my screenshots should be sufficient.
If the admins do decide that this is, in fact, a doomfort however (as the doomfort rule is mainly opinion based as stated by the admins, as everybody has different requirements for what a doomfort is), I'd be more than happy to make changes or just remove the defence in full.
Thanks.