Explain your suggestion, in detail: This suggestion is to make it so people can't temporarily move, or at the very least move very slowly, when being handcuffed/restrained (not unrestrained/unhandcuffed). Also, whilst being handcuffed you shouldn't be able to switch weapons during that animation.
Explain why the suggestion should be implemented: Considering the current FearRP rule states that you cannot move when being handcuffed or restrained, as well as it being somewhat more realistic than it currently is when cuffing someone, players shouldn't be able to move when being handcuffed as in reality their arm would be held by the cuffing officer or his partner.
For example,
> Jim starts a gunfight with the police.
> Jim surrenders as he's outnumbered.
> Police move in to handcuff Jim.
> Whilst Jim is being handcuffed, he cannot move.
[font=Roboto, sans-serif]> Jim has been handcuffed and can now move like you would be able to before when cuffed.[/font]
[font=Roboto, sans-serif]As for not being able to switch weapons whilst in the animation, this is basically what it says on the tin. Theoretically, when being handcuffed your hands are restrained by the police officer, meaning that you won't be able to grab anything (or swap weapon in this case).[/font]
What about when the cuffing player leaves? They're not being grabbed if they're not there. That's also the case with the FearRP rule.
'during the animation', the animation gets cancelled if the cuffing officer gets too far away
Wait just to confirm:
This is a suggestion to temp slow/stop a player only WHILE they are being cuffed/tied, not after, correct?
I need to confirm this because if its only while, then that makes sense, your literaly holding them while your doing it, but if its also after, that makes no sense.
(Jan 22, 2019, 05:13 PM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]Wait just to confirm:
This is a suggestion to temp slow/stop a player only WHILE they are being cuffed/tied, not after, correct?
I need to confirm this because if its only while, then that makes sense, your literaly holding them while your doing it, but if its also after, that makes no sense.
Yes this suggestion is suggesting that the player is basically frozen while being handcuffed and would return to the handcuffed state after being handcuffed.
(Jan 22, 2019, 05:38 PM)Monkey Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 05:13 PM)BlackDog Wrote: [ -> ]Wait just to confirm:
This is a suggestion to temp slow/stop a player only WHILE they are being cuffed/tied, not after, correct?
I need to confirm this because if its only while, then that makes sense, your literaly holding them while your doing it, but if its also after, that makes no sense.
Yes this suggestion is suggesting that the player is basically frozen while being handcuffed and would return to the handcuffed state after being handcuffed.
What do you mean by "would return to the handcuffed state after being handcuffed." ?
Like the normal, kind of slowed, but still able to move we have now?
, the idea is only whilst the animation is running the person can't move. After they've been cuffed they'd return to the normal handcuffed walk
>Holds suspects hands behind his back
>places one cuff on
>whips out uzi
>not today son
+Support
Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
(Jan 22, 2019, 07:22 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
Pardon my french, but at the lack of betting phrasing:
What the fuck are you on about?
(Jan 22, 2019, 07:22 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
Yeah. It's in violation of FearRP. That's why there's a suggestion to have it fixed.
(Jan 22, 2019, 07:31 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 07:22 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
Yeah. It's in violation of FearRP. That's why there's a suggestion to have it fixed.
"Fixed" lack of proper moderation and morale to follow upmost basic fearrp rules with a game game mechanic that restricts the thing as a whole
(Jan 22, 2019, 07:28 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 07:22 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
Pardon my french, but at the lack of betting phrasing:
What the fuck are you on about?
Please refrain from responding to MY OWN OPINION with foul language and unconstructive questions.
(Jan 23, 2019, 09:46 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 07:28 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 07:22 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
Pardon my french, but at the lack of betting phrasing:
What the fuck are you on about?
Please refrain from responding to MY OWN OPINION with foul language and unconstructive questions.
That's not a response to your opinion, rather than a response to how it was worded.
Quote:Wouldnt that violate fearrp
Why would a game mechanic to implement FearRP, be in breach of FearRP?
(Jan 23, 2019, 09:43 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 07:31 PM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ] (Jan 22, 2019, 07:22 PM)Armard Wrote: [ -> ]Wouldnt that violate fearrp afterall making this a ""mechanic" just because people dont follow the rules?
-support
Yeah. It's in violation of FearRP. That's why there's a suggestion to have it fixed.
"Fixed" lack of proper moderation and morale to follow upmost basic fearrp rules with a game game mechanic that restricts the thing as a whole
Why do we have alarms and locks? After all, a lack of proper policing and morale to follow the most basic theft laws...
Why do we allow self-defence? After all, a lack of proper security and morale to follow the most basic murder laws...