Keo

A little clarification on the issue as I helped test it. Tessa is a [VIP] Admin and was unable to ban a user for 1 day, or any other time she entered for that matter. She copied the exact command she used and then gave it to me. It worked for me when I used the same command. Tessa was also unable to ban a [SUB]VIP for 1 second (this user consented to the test). We then replicated the scenario with another [VIP]Admin who was also unable to use the commands and received the same error in chat. Keep in mind that according to the staff rules, Admins should be able to ban for up to 3 days.

+1 sure

The quests would be created and then the guild could say how much renown they think the quest should be worth. It's the same concept as how the bounties currently work. It's no different. If you are talking about guild rewards, this post has nothing to do with that. I'm simply saying quests from the BH npc should award renown towards the guild.

Name: Keo RP Rank: CSM Suggestion: In the new quest system (for BH only quests), add renown as a reward in addition to credits. (See below for how this could easily be done) Implementation: How could this be accomplished? The dev team can make a hidden counter on the server just like how credits work. The renown counter cannot be seen unless the player is talking to the BH npc in which case the player's renown will be displayed to them (this can be shown another way if needed). Once the quest is completed, the renown counter increases by the amount indicated on the quest, ex: +5 renown. Would this replace or ruin the current BH system? No, it would not. The renown can still be stored how it currently is. How this new feature could work is that there will be an option in game for a player to reset their renown back to 0 through the npc. When the player wants the guild to put their renown on the docs, the player simply contacts a guild officer or above to transfer their renown to the documents. Once the guild officer has logged the renown to the current system, the player can then reset their ingame renown to 0 and show the guild officer a screenshot or such as proof. How difficult or complicated would this be to implement? From my personal programming experience, this suggestion would be extremely simple to implement. This is definitely one of the easiest suggestions to implement compared to the many others that can require intensive testing. All this requires is a few lines of code to manipulate a variable. Any devs reading this can feel free to tell me I'm wrong if needed. Why would we do this? I see this as beneficial with no problems arising from this addition. This can make BH more attractive to play as due to the simplicity of getting renown this way. This would also utilize the quest system more and promote gameplay on the server. Lore: None Workshop content if applicable: This would require development.

Completely agree +1

Oops, I didn't see. I guess I take back my suggestion

Name: Keo RP Rank: CSM Suggestion: Visibly show the roles that players can potentially play as apart from just the event jobs. Opening up the F4 menu feels very empty and if I were a new player this would be a massive turn off as there appears to be little to no jobs to play as. I would like there to be a way (either F4 menu or something similar) that would showcase different battalions and factions that exist on the server. I don't even entirely care about the individual jobs showcased in each battalion but it would at least be nice to easily see battalions like DU, 212th, and others exist. Implementation: Some type of visual to showcase the existing factions/jobs. Lore: None Workshop content if applicable: Require Development

I mean the name calling was immature but it was still a while ago. Docs are just docs. It's not the end of the world. Literally just don't let him have edit access to docs anymore, I do not see what is so hard. This whole omg he deleted docs bs is kind of ridiculous. If docs are so important then just have the directors own them all. The docs are not and never will be "synergy property". Noone signed a contract saying they would be. As far as I'm concerned if Dagger made them then he owns them. +1

I am almost 100% sure he got muted early on in the ceremony and didn't stop on his own. While I do feel it was extremely disrespectful for what Incognito did I also do not see what this report will do besides help taint the ceremony. I understand what you are going for but I just don't know if this is right. You should just personally tell him how you feel I guess. I don't know. Rest in piece Indomitus, I will miss you.

This is going to cause major headaches for people -1

If people want to do a bunk thing or put it in their TS then fine but I don't want to see a textscreen with a bunch of people's names who have died. This sounds wrong but this idea is super cringy. If I died I would be happy if some people kept me in their thoughts but I would probably die a second time from embarrassment if this was done to me if a video game. -1

I have very conflicting opinions regarding this but let me just say this. For those of you saying this map we currently use (Felucia) is good for events then I want to tell you that you are pretty wrong. The main part of the map (clone base) is really nice and we do have multiple planets BUT the planets are very small and do not have good layouts. The maps are practically just small boxes with a few plants/structures. Not to mention the lighting is horrible and everything is hard to see. Ilum is the only exception as it has an interesting layout and is easy to see but is often super repetitive. TLDR: Won't give opinion, current map is too small outside and is not fun for events.

I always like new event maps +1

Complete +1 I think the current fist fighting rules are bad. If someone dies from fists it should not be an AOS. Especially when considering characters like mine (Kom'rk) I would get in fights with people whenever they disrespected my null brothers or Kal especially. This would allow me to fight BHs and other people to add more complex RP to the server. Of course the fight would have to have bother parties consents though.

I hope you understand that the DC-17m is built to serve as a short range to medium range weapon. This is why it has lower damage and higher fire rate. The Westar is more or less a marksman's rifle which is why it has a lower firing rate and higher damage. This also explains why the Westar gets a scope on it with improved accuracy. A Westar should be able to beat someone with a DC-17M from a distance. Likewise at short range someone with a DC-17M should be able to shred the person using the Westar. My point is that they are built differently because these guns are meant to be used very differently.