[Tom*]

Explain your suggestion, in detail: Remove Job name when you look at someone in the game, and remove color from names while speaking and while looking at people 

Explain why the suggestion should be implemented: Stop Metagaming for example, if your job name is a bank robber and there was a bank Robbery you are almost 100% more likely to get arrested than someone with their job name as Citizen 

[Somali Drug Lord]

Massive +Support
This will both stop metagaming and make it more realistic

[Soviethooves]

As much as I know a good bit of people want this, good luck. This isn’t getting past ataff review

+Support

[Markus]

I posted this a while back so not sure if a duplicate, but +Support

[Cochise]

+support also the voice visualizer colour will have to be removed as well

[Armard]

https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-22199.html

[Nudel]

Neutral.

[Tom*]

The Voice Chat has just been made colorless https://limelightgaming.net/forums/thread-22199.html

[Jokhah]

I see cons to this as well.  What about in cases where someone performed an action with an inapproriate job title but changed it mid way?  Would be a lot harder to prove that without logs if you weren't paying attention.

I'm not pro-metagame, but you also have to be careful with removing some of the contextual information.

Conversely, this could lead to more @ related calls to check for job changes mid way.


Anyone got a logical way to solve this issue for the coding side?

A cooldown wouldn't be all that useful, because mispellings happen and then you'd be stuck with them.
No way to check job title to determine criminal or not.

Perhaps we could have a tag to the clothing worn that hits on the nameplate
IE if in citizen clothes, card displays "Wearing plain clothes"
If also wearing kevlar "Wearing bulky plain clothes."

The issue I have is, if a bank robber showed up wearing full armor and had high power weapons, his two piece suit isn't going to conceal that fact.  Without a card, the player has no warning that they are dealing with someone who is obviously armed and armored.  (To elaborate, Yes guns show on back, when I say "armed and armored" I mean it in the sense of you can tell when someone is dressed for combat, 90% of the time)

Remember, it wouldn't be meta to note that they are wearing a kevlar vest in most cases.

*holding vote till we talk this through a bit*

[Markus]

I see cons to this as well.  What about in cases where someone performed an action with an inapproriate job title but changed it mid way?  Would be a lot harder to prove that without logs if you weren't paying attention.

I'm not pro-metagame, but you also have to be careful with removing some of the contextual information.

Conversely, this could lead to more @ related calls to check for job changes mid way.


Anyone got a logical way to solve this issue for the coding side?

A cooldown wouldn't be all that useful, because mispellings happen and then you'd be stuck with them.
No way to check job title to determine criminal or not.

Perhaps we could have a tag to the clothing worn that hits on the nameplate
IE if in citizen clothes, card displays "Wearing plain clothes"
If also wearing kevlar "Wearing bulky plain clothes."

The issue I have is, if a bank robber showed up wearing full armor and had high power weapons, his two piece suit isn't going to conceal that fact.  Without a card, the player has no warning that they are dealing with someone who is obviously armed and armored.  (To elaborate, Yes guns show on back, when I say "armed and armored" I mean it in the sense of you can tell when someone is dressed for combat, 90% of the time)

Remember, it wouldn't be meta to note that they are wearing a kevlar vest in most cases.

*holding vote till we talk this through a bit*

From my time being staff for a year and a half on another server I shall not name, I can tell that job names can easily be recorded via logs and thus accessible to staff members. If this is currently not a feature, I'm very surprised.

[Jokhah]

@Markus 

I have no idea of how the logs are set up here, but I now its very easily accomplished.  Its still a check that wouldn't need to happen without said feature.

I'm trying to keep from adding to the admin workload.  People already cry constantly about their activity, giving them more to do seems silly.


While I understand that the check is extremely simple and consumes little time, you also have to take into account that the average admin coverage is 0 - 1 admins.  One more task added to a non-existent admin means that's one more thing not getting done.

[Limelight Gaming]

Pushing for Staff Review.

#type:[review]

[bananen_ephihal]

+ Support

Would like to try something new like this on the server.

[Doctor Internet]

Approved.

[Doctor Internet]

Added in Revision 8625 and 8628.