DerpyNerpy Rule Suggestion - Basing Rule Addition (Entryway Rules)

DerpyNerpy

Member
User
Apr 30, 2022
10
0
Suggestion Type: Change to the Rules

What is getting changed?: Basing Rule Addition (Entryway Rules)

Where does this need to be changed?: Entryway rules: Skeletonized exterior walkways

Why is this a good change?: Raider/defender balance. Currently bases of particular design are becoming comically nonadherent to the rules and in certain locations impossible to raid. I've come to the conclusion that this behavior can be chalked up to the writing of the entryway rules themselves - and after one forum post last week I have decided upon a different course of action.
Currently:
  • The maximum distance of a walkway isn't stated.
  • Skeletonized walkways remain unprohibited.
  • Raider/Defender balance is therefore null and void
I have thought of some possible courses of action, feel free to comment your own:

Idea one: Make the maze base rule far more explicit. You can use plastic props to determine if an entryway is too long - or if the doors are spaced too far apart. This is a much more simple change requiring a single staff meeting to determine a literal length and skeletonized walkways can continue to exist on Atomic network.


Idea two: (This is my favorite option.) Instead of updating the maze base rule, an entirely new rule could be implemented. Skeletonized walkways in the street - for instance downtown - prove incredibly difficult to raid when the server pop is at it's peak. It would be nice for the maximum walkway length to be clearly stated - but a stronger ban on exterior skeletonized walkways would make enforcement much easier.

Here are some criticisms from my last suggestion that I will address;

Aquatic Lemon "-1 There would be a riot like building on or over road and that would ruin so many bases"

I think that - for example - the prior ban on megabases didn't exactly kill the server, in fact it provided some much needed balance between raiders and defenders. Yes there would be a riot but it won't be as large as you think it is.

Totally Not Bruce Wane "+\- There are bases like this everywhere and yes it is raidable , just have someone in the back sniping whoever is using the shooting blinds. Helium vapes also help. Also I do agree that this base specifically has a longer pathway then needed but some sky bases need the pathway to be a certain length so it doesn’t get one shot by a sticky emp. There are no ways to give an accurate measurement of a path way to make sure it isn’t fail base if it’s implemented , unlike shooting blinds where it’s easy to tell if something is two blocks wide or not, there’s just no way to measure a correct length of pathway without limiting certain props which also limits creative freedom."

I agree there are bases like this everywhere. Yes on a technicality they are raidable but you neglect to mention that besides defenders in the base there are defenders likely in the street - or quite possibly in the surrounding buildings. Helium vapes don't help with that in my opinion. There are in fact ways to accurately measure bases - ie) plastic props. Creativity? These bases opt out of building within a defined structure and instead opt to be giant rooftop cubes. Creativity my ass lol.

Here, I am going to attach some examples of these "creative" base designs. Forgive me for I play at a terrible resolution:

20220507035339_1.jpg
20220506170411_1.jpg
20220430202114_1.jpg
20220507035231_1.jpg


The examples far exceed the four I have presented here. It's an incredibly uninspired and common base design that is impossible to raid. Something clearly has to be done about this.
 
Last edited:

DerpyNerpy

Member
User
Apr 30, 2022
10
0
I use the term skeletonized walkways a lot. It sounds badass and I think it gets it's decently accurate. I would like to clarify that I have absolutely no issue with walkways like this when they are in the interior of a base.

Once again - if a walkway like this is INSIDE YOUR BASE I'd personally call it fair.

Skeletonized walkways above that extend out into the sky beyond the base are the issue. The uncoordinated enforcement of entryways due to insufficient wording only adds to this issue, leading to some wacky results like Fig. 3.
 

Tabby

Active Member
User
Apr 2, 2022
50
3
these skeletonized walkways are so it’s emp proof to non-sticky emps
 

DerpyNerpy

Member
User
Apr 30, 2022
10
0
these skeletonized walkways are so it’s emp proof to non-sticky emps
I hear you, designing a base to be emp-proof using skeletonized walkways within your walls is and should remain non-prohibited. Having walkways like this within your base is not the issue.

The issue at hand is skeletonized entryways that extend outside of the base out into public spaces, making countering and defending from just about anywhere exceedingly easy.
 

StygianPhoenix

Phoenix Admin On Atomic DarkRP
User
Oct 20, 2021
813
31
23
Virginia
+1 I honestly feel like this is a fair judgement. If not I think defenders must be within their kos area to defend their base. Meaning unless they also would be breaking their kos they shouldn't be allowed to defend.
Edit: This would only apply to players that are not the owner of the base. Meaning people on the defending sign would have to be breaking KOS to defend. Owner of the base should be allowed to defend if being raided no matter what otherwise solo basing would not be viable for meth cooks or weed growers that need to leave.
 
Last edited:

totally not bruce wayne

Mod on Atomic Dark RP
User
Mar 8, 2022
154
7
Suggestion Type: Change to the Rules

What is getting changed?: Basing Rule Addition (Entryway Rules)

Where does this need to be changed?: Entryway rules: Skeletonized exterior walkways

Why is this a good change?: Raider/defender balance. Currently bases of particular design are becoming comically nonadherent to the rules and in certain locations impossible to raid. I've come to the conclusion that this behavior can be chalked up to the writing of the entryway rules themselves - and after one forum post last week I have decided upon a different course of action.
Currently:
  • The maximum distance of a walkway isn't stated.
  • Skeletonized walkways remain unprohibited.
  • Raider/Defender balance is therefore null and void
I have thought of some possible courses of action, feel free to comment your own:

Idea one: Make the maze base rule far more explicit. You can use plastic props to determine if an entryway is too long - or if the doors are spaced too far apart. This is a much more simple change requiring a single staff meeting to determine a literal length and skeletonized walkways can continue to exist on Atomic network.


Idea two: (This is my favorite option.) Instead of updating the maze base rule, an entirely new rule could be implemented. Skeletonized walkways in the street - for instance downtown - prove incredibly difficult to raid when the server pop is at it's peak. It would be nice for the maximum walkway length to be clearly stated - but a stronger ban on exterior skeletonized walkways would make enforcement much easier.

Here are some criticisms from my last suggestion that I will address;

Aquatic Lemon "-1 There would be a riot like building on or over road and that would ruin so many bases"

I think that - for example - the prior ban on megabases didn't exactly kill the server, in fact it provided some much needed balance between raiders and defenders. Yes there would be a riot but it won't be as large as you think it is.

Totally Not Bruce Wane "+\- There are bases like this everywhere and yes it is raidable , just have someone in the back sniping whoever is using the shooting blinds. Helium vapes also help. Also I do agree that this base specifically has a longer pathway then needed but some sky bases need the pathway to be a certain length so it doesn’t get one shot by a sticky emp. There are no ways to give an accurate measurement of a path way to make sure it isn’t fail base if it’s implemented , unlike shooting blinds where it’s easy to tell if something is two blocks wide or not, there’s just no way to measure a correct length of pathway without limiting certain props which also limits creative freedom."

I agree there are bases like this everywhere. Yes on a technicality they are raidable but you neglect to mention that besides defenders in the base there are defenders likely in the street - or quite possibly in the surrounding buildings. Helium vapes don't help with that in my opinion. There are in fact ways to accurately measure bases - ie) plastic props. Creativity? These bases opt out of building within a defined structure and instead opt to be giant rooftop cubes. Creativity my ass lol.

Here, I am going to attach some examples of these "creative" base designs. Forgive me for I play at a terrible resolution:

20220507035339_1.jpg
20220506170411_1.jpg
20220430202114_1.jpg
20220507035231_1.jpg


The examples far exceed the four I have presented here. It's an incredibly uninspired and common base design that is impossible to raid. Something clearly has to be done about this.
If you are so worried about party members defending in the public why not suggest something like “Having your party name displayed above your head” That way before you start your raid you can see all nearby base defenders and view your options accordingly instead of trying to limit entryways. Yes these bases are getting really common but the only reason for these skeletonized walk ways are because there’s not enough room to build these indoors. Buildings are too small and the EMP range is too big for this. (I am aware that there are a few buildings that do have these “emp proof” designs but if you go into any server you will notice that someone already has a base posted in there.) Now you might say: “Why not build in single player?” Well the reason for this is that many players if not the majority of the server prefer building in the server because it already contains all the plugins you need to get a decent build. Also the majority of the community who rioted on GLR8, was angry about sky bases being banned. There are multitude of other suggestions you could make to get the reduction of skeltonized bases without the community freaking out:

You could say the suggestion I mentioned before about party names hovering over players heads

You could suggest maybe a larger map since it’s hard making an efficient base indoors with most buildings in the server being inefficient, and there’s 110-120 people on atomic.

You could suggest that defenders should have to be inside the kos lines to defend. Just like what phoenix said.

My concern is not about the possibility of these bases getting removed/reduced it’s about how you suggest these bases to get reduced which concern me. People get angry when change is happening from the minority, not the majority. That was proven by GLR8. Since you’ve obviously seen these bases everywhere you know how popular they are. The majority of the community who bases anywhere bases in these bases. If all these bases were banned suddenly it will cause sparks. That’s why I say you should ask for rule changes which “nerfs” these bases rather then delete them from the face of the planet. +\-
 

DerpyNerpy

Member
User
Apr 30, 2022
10
0
If you are so worried about party members defending in the public why not suggest something like “Having your party name displayed above your head” That way before you start your raid you can see all nearby base defenders and view your options accordingly instead of trying to limit entryways. Yes these bases are getting really common but the only reason for these skeletonized walk ways are because there’s not enough room to build these indoors. Buildings are too small and the EMP range is too big for this. (I am aware that there are a few buildings that do have these “emp proof” designs but if you go into any server you will notice that someone already has a base posted in there.) Now you might say: “Why not build in single player?” Well the reason for this is that many players if not the majority of the server prefer building in the server because it already contains all the plugins you need to get a decent build. Also the majority of the community who rioted on GLR8, was angry about sky bases being banned. There are multitude of other suggestions you could make to get the reduction of skeltonized bases without the community freaking out:

You could say the suggestion I mentioned before about party names hovering over players heads

You could suggest maybe a larger map since it’s hard making an efficient base indoors with most buildings in the server being inefficient, and there’s 110-120 people on atomic.

You could suggest that defenders should have to be inside the kos lines to defend. Just like what phoenix said.

My concern is not about the possibility of these bases getting removed/reduced it’s about how you suggest these bases to get reduced which concern me. People get angry when change is happening from the minority, not the majority. That was proven by GLR8. Since you’ve obviously seen these bases everywhere you know how popular they are. The majority of the community who bases anywhere bases in these bases. If all these bases were banned suddenly it will cause sparks. That’s why I say you should ask for rule changes which “nerfs” these bases rather then delete them from the face of the planet. +\-
If you would like to see some of my base designs what I call "protest bases" message me on discord. It is entirely possible to design bases that are within the rules and within different structures. I have designed a base for the smallest structure in atomic and I base in it regularly.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/734169938574573648/972552510256611378/20220507113549_1.jpg

I did ask for nerfs - check idea one. Both ideas can be implemented as well as just one or the other, that is what this forum post is for - we have to decide upon some action. This is an opinion piece - I made option one already for if you believe that the server would implode. The megabase ban went pretty smoothly and the server is always near max pop - there would probably be better player retention if bases like this were not permitted (opinion). Megabases were popular among players, just as these are.

Inaction is not key. The real issue is letting it get to this point. The issue was letting players get comfortable with bending the rules. Many of these hallways are simply to long and that is abundantly clear - yet staff refuse time and time again to enforce entryway rules. This is a major issue with basing, not something that can be brushed aside for the "majority". It's the minority of players that base in structures like this. Certifiably suppressive cubic ceiling monoliths of metagaming are not possible for players with 40 props.
 
Last edited:

Wilkers

Director @ Atomic Networks
Forum Administrator
DarkRP Staff Member
User
Sep 14, 2020
2,254
149
United States
How would you guys feel about a swep that could automatically fade certain props automatically (even if they aren't faded?

This could apply very well to the stick prop design, and bases that make large use of fences to defend.
 

DerpyNerpy

Member
User
Apr 30, 2022
10
0
How would you guys feel about a swep that could automatically fade certain props automatically (even if they aren't faded?

This could apply very well to the stick prop design, and bases that make large use of fences to defend.
Like fade any prop or just fading doors? If you could break down even a single prop temporarily that would be game breaking for most bases.

I must have the wrong idea what kind of swep is this?
 

Wilkers

Director @ Atomic Networks
Forum Administrator
DarkRP Staff Member
User
Sep 14, 2020
2,254
149
United States
Suggestion Noted
We are working on ways to change this mechanic up.
Thanks for taking the time to make a suggestion, for further questions feel free to reach out on Discord.​