Leaderboard

@AtlexYou made the right choice. 501st came to me asking my opinion on this change on what would have to be give/swapped and what would be gained. It did not seem worth it in my opinion(losing multiple lore characters, and 332nd skins on all 501st jobs).

It's a bit of everything. So we really only had three options when attempting to design the sabers. First we give everyone custom Master sabers and allow them to access to all force abilities. We can't reasonably monitor or manage the usage of these sabers nor could we expect Jedi or Staff to manage players using abilities they shouldn't have access to. Second option being give everyone a second personal saber which would have no customization and just access to their current trees and abilities. On paper this idea seemed perfect and should be easy to do, but unfortunately WiltOS proved us wrong when looking into how realistic it would be to have a saber with no attributes. We also ran into problems when looking into how storage and hilts / crystals would operate and interact with the second saber which would require an annoying amount of reworking the core of WiltOS and our databases linking player information. Third and last option was to make it so force abilities could be used while you didn't have the saber out. Realistically this can be done, but would require reworking WiltOS almost in its entirety as your Personal Saber itself counts as a SWEP which is a key component to telling our server back end that you are using WiltOS. TLDR; The sheer amount of development required to make it so you could use force abilities without having a saber showing would not be worth the final product. In the future with the WiltOS rework eventually releasing I'd like to revisit this topic to see if it's possible. Hopefully this answers any concerns or questions that you may have had!

Unfortunately, this suggestion has been DENIED. If the same suggestion is submitted again within 60 DAYS of this post it will be automatically denied. // LOCKED // MOVED TO [CW] SERVER SUGGESTIONS - DENIED

Hmm. I'm a bit skeptical of this one. It's a cool idea and all but idk if it would make the most sense for ARF per say. If it can detect cloaked people then it would definitely be a really good idea to give to individuals that can actually see cloaked people allowing for the actual possibility to locate cloakers. I honestly see this more as an RC tool tbh.

Suggestion was denied at request of BCMD. To add a JT job to a battalion it would need to be in a sub unit as per the jetpack rules we established when releasing HVO. I worked with the BCMD of 501st to find a solution that would work for them and we decided to work on releasing 332nd as an actual sub-unit. Unfortunately this decision was decided against after much discussion, therefore the JT suggestion was void. R.I.P my 332nd sub unit dreams

All of these problems are just from assuming it will function in a very oddly specific way. Spawns don't have to be set job by job, other servers have no issue categorizing the player jobs into "setspawnrepublic" and the EJ jobs as "setspawncis", these are extremely specific issues that can easily be fixed just by coding the command in a certain way and I don't see why they should take away from the utility of the command overall. And as I've already said, they shouldn't be permenant, they probably even couldn't be permenant between map changes as different maps have different scales and having the same spawn between maps could result in people just spawning in the void, so I'm not sure why it would ever be coded that way. Also you're *really* underestimating the utility that this would have, you're saying most maps default spawns are good as if GMs always just use a map the way it comes, which is far from the case, often times there is an obscene amount of building that can completely transform the layout of a map to where it is unrecognizable from its default state, just look at any of the flatgrass deployments there have been, you can't really just have a "pretty good" default spawn with how massively changeable map layouts can be. And this would eliminate a lot of unnecessary work as already stated earlier with the whole tac process which never goes smoothely and often has to be revisited mid event.

Unfortunately, this suggestion has been DENIED. If the same suggestion is submitted again within 60 DAYS of this post it will be automatically denied. // LOCKED // MOVED TO [CW] SERVER SUGGESTIONS - DENIED