Make it mandatory to mark stolen CIS vehicles

[Kalin]

Your In-Game Name: 212th CO Kalin

Suggestion: Add a way to mark stolen CIS vehicles

Reason: I have noticed that a lot of the recent events include stealing CIS ground vehicles (especially AATs).

Sometimes people forget to announce in comms that they have stolen enemy equipment and complain that they get shot at.

Even when they do, it is hard to keep track of them, and if you randomly see an enemy tank running your way at mach 5, there is no time to assume whether it is one of ours or an AAT that is getting cheeky in close range.

What I suggest is for stolen vehicles to be marked with paint(staff change them to a different color, they plan in events for the tanks to be stolen anyway), so that when you see an enemy tank in the distance, you immediately know whether to fire upon it or not.

In general, it will reduce the confusion when people steal AATs and will remove the friendly fire accidents of shooting something that looks like an enemy but it is not.

Staff Vote Required?: No
Generals Needed?: Yes

 

[ShadowRyser]

People can mark stolen vehicles already they just have to do it through RP, e.g "/RP takes paint can from outpost and marks vehicles and friendly" or"/rp Uses old oil from vehicle wreckage to mark vehicle"

Its more of a choice for the person who stole the vehicle, Whether not they attempt to mark the stolen vehicle, or rely on communication.

 

[Kalin]

People can mark stolen vehicles already they just have to do it through RP, e.g "/RP takes paint can from outpost and marks vehicles and friendly" or"/rp Uses old oil from vehicle wreckage to mark vehicle"

Its more of a choice for the person who stole the vehicle, Whether not they attempt to mark the stolen vehicle, or rely on communication.

My apologies, forgot about the title.

I meant to make it a rule that stolen vehicles have to always be marked.

Fixed now.

 

[Tom]

If I see a person saying /rp paints AAT, icl they would have to do a whole progress and they would have to carry spray paint. It's a bit dumb considering not many people should be driving any enemy vehicles.

With the rule mentioned below, it should be a complicated process considering not many people would be trained and in the end would still need to gather OD's permission to take over the enemy AAT. So I think people should be getting told off if they are getting into AATs without permission and especially if they are using the AATs as a support fire considering they wouldn't be trained for it and would risk killing other.

Also do want to mention OOC wise, people shouldn't be dropping down on AATs and take over them without the Event Hosts permission, so if people do see an AAT that isn't AI'd it doesn't mean you should just jump in it cause you can. Make sure to ask first before jumping in it.

"3.6a - You may only pilot ships/drive vehicles/use special regimental equipment if you have been trained IC to do so, are playing in an RP job which has access to that equipment and have had permission from a navy/general or staff member."

In summary, I think the suggestion is dumb because rule 3.6a should be enforced and if it were to be followed the taken over AAT's (or other tanks) would not be that much of an issue.

Edit: Want to also mention that if people are jumping randomly into AAT's or any other enemy vehicle you could be given a verbal for FailRP if you do it without permission and consistently doing it might cause you to get warned.

 

[LoCho]

Not gonna lie Kalin every time a vehicle has been stolen the respective party always announces it atleast once in comms. There has not been a point where they have not but I understand why you are trying to make it mandatory to announce it.

I know it is easy to miss but comms reading is something a lot of people need to improve on.

 

[ShadowRyser]

If I see a person saying /rp paints AAT, icl they would have to do a whole progress and they would have to carry spray paint. It's a bit dumb considering not many people should be driving any enemy vehicles.

With the rule mentioned below, it should be a complicated process considering not many people would be trained and in the end would still need to gather OD's permission to take over the enemy AAT. So I think people should be getting told off if they are getting into AATs without permission and especially if they are using the AATs as a support fire considering they wouldn't be trained for it and would risk killing other.

Disagree with this one a bit, a distinguishing mark doesn't necessarily mean a full respray and paintjob could be as simple as a X painted, burned, Scratched or Mounted to the Vehicle that could distinguish it in character for it then to be painted (Limitations of the game an all that)

Also do want to mention OOC wise, people shouldn't be dropping down on AATs and take over them without the Event Hosts permission, so if people do see an AAT that isn't AI'd it doesn't mean you should just jump in it cause you can. Make sure to ask first before jumping in it.

"3.6a - You may only pilot ships/drive vehicles/use special regimental equipment if you have been trained IC to do so, are playing in an RP job which has access to that equipment and have had permission from a navy/general or staff member."

Definitely agree with this though, people shouldn't really be stealing them wherever an whenever especially when they're normally kept around corners and such so that they aren't seen being spawned in, a AAT on a bend not moving isn't a free vehicle for you to take when you want but it is a quick ticket to the afterlife if you hang around it too long

 

[Tom]

Disagree with this one a bit, a distinguishing mark doesn't necessarily mean a full respray and paintjob could be as simple as a X painted, burned, Scratched or Mounted to the Vehicle that could distinguish it in character for it then to be painted (Limitations of the game an all that)

I mean I was just thinking, how could you mark a vehicle as a staff member. First, simply but a big change is simply changing the colour of it and then Secondly is adding something like a light to it so its a thing people can see. If 327th were to use lights on stolen AAT's I think it would be way cooler and simple rather than forcefully repainting the whole AAT as you can't add a small distinguishable mark to it.

 

[Roger]

The only ones allowed to hijack enemy vehicles are RC anyway

 

[Kalin]

In summary, I think the suggestion is dumb because rule 3.6a should be enforced and if it were to be followed the taken over AAT's (or other tanks) would not be that much of an issue.

Its not about "stop people from driving enemy vehicles", but make sure that one that are stolen are accounted for and easy to recognise.

Not gonna lie Kalin every time a vehicle has been stolen the respective party always announces it atleast once in comms. There has not been a point where they have not but I understand why you are trying to make it mandatory to announce it.

I know it is easy to miss but comms reading is something a lot of people need to improve on.

Sometimes it gets announced as it happens or a few seconds afterwards - there has been such accidents in the previous weeks. This will help with that problem, but another issue that will be helped is -

If you lose track of the friendly AATs, and then happen to see manned AATs in wild, there is no way to know if it is a friendly one without risking your life. Especially with the TX, if you don't take advantage of the terrain and use cover immediately, you will most definetely get destroyed.

 

[Lexi]

can you not just stick to your own vehicles?

 

[Kalin]

can you not just stick to your own vehicles?

Vehicles are usually stolen by CCs on spec-opses. Since the staff hosting the event decided what should be stolen, I believe it is not a big ask to recolor them.

 

[Lexi]

Vehicles are usually stolen by CCs on spec-opses. Since the staff hosting the event decided what should be stolen, I believe it is not a big ask to recolor them.

a big ask, probably not. but realistically in clone wars if someone actually steals an enemy vehicle they arent gonna 1. have a paint bucket or whatever on them and 2. spend their time painting it all pretty pink. they're gonna use comms to make sure they dont get shot at so they dont waste time on the field. do the same

 

[Kalin]

a big ask, probably not. but realistically in clone wars if someone actually steals an enemy vehicle they arent gonna 1. have a paint bucket or whatever on them and 2. spend their time painting it all pretty pink. they're gonna use comms to make sure they dont get shot at so they dont waste time on the field. do the same

If the vehicles are stolen and immediately put into combat - then yes, there is no time to paint them. But if they want to join the frontline and push with the rest, then realistically they will figure out a way to distinct the Friendly AAT and the Unfriendly AAT. Paint jobs, scratches, ornaments, etc. , but in gmod a simple color is good enough.

 

[Tom]

I think this should be more about how the driver presents itself, I personally don't want to see an AAT coloured red, blue or anything else cause it will look dumb. The driver can present themselves as harmless by having their co-pilot simply face the canon away from the allies or simply not driving towards allies, so yeah can there be some actual roleplay in it rather than, "ohhh its coloured so its ours" because I will simply just put a random colour on AAT's even if they are hostile and then you won't have a single clue. Just establish communication with others or even have a system where the AAT drivers requests for 212th to escort them as a sign of control.

 

[Roger]

- - -=Initiating log=- -
-=Credentials: | Codename: Roger | ID: 8072 | Rank: Battalion General | Stationed: Titan Crew=-
Representing Republic High Command
This suggestion has been ACCEPTED by the Generals.


RC and 212th will be working together to find a solution, please keep in mind RC are the ONLY regiment allowed to hijack/use enemy vehicles.​