Regarding the latest changes to Rule #2

[Pixie]

tl;dr Having no way to combat anti-theft when chopping cars is, to my mind, both unrealistic and unfair, since an update to Rule #2 now requires us to roleplay taking a car apart before we can chop it mechanically. Being able to deal with anti-theft OR just having stricter requirements on roleplay following the mechanical chopping of a car would be really nice.

 

Part of the most recent update to Rule #2 is

 

Quote

Those that are sending a location, chopping a vehicle or doing a physical action that requires a script command after, are required at all times, to roleplay first before doing the script command. Players should not for an example, send location to a friend, and then do the RP presented. Or for another example, you must show the RP first before chopping a vehicle. 

 

In the past, I've chopped cars and then roleplayed taking them apart (a process that I take seriously, spending a lot of time and effort stripping a vehicle down), and the reason that I do this is pretty obvious—to defeat anti-theft. In character, dealing with anti-theft is, I think, more or less trivial. Unless I'm parting a high-end sports car, it's about as simple as locating, removing and destroying the tracker before I take the car to a garage, right? Something more expensive might require software fuckery with a laptop, but my character is also perfectly capable of doing that.

 

Now that I absolutely must roleplay taking the car apart before I can chop it with a command, I feel compelled to rush my roleplay and put out the bare minimum that I think administrators will find acceptable, because I have no means of detecting or dealing with anti-theft. If the car's owner or the cops are led to the garage I use by the GPS I can't see or destroy, I'm turbo fucked. Rather than being able to take my time and do the job right, I just want to minimize the window in which I'm at risk because of this bizarro magic invincible LoJack. It's really, really pushing the risk/reward ratio towards untenable. We're talking about a system where, benefits-wise, a Huntley can't quite produce a single switchblade and a Benson can't produce two.

 

I don't know what the exact answer is? If chopping the car and then roleplaying it is completely unacceptable, it would be nice if I had some way to combat anti-theft. RF jammers aren't expensive, my character has the knowhow to remove a GPS tracker, etc.—I don't think it's super reasonable that I'm completely at the mercy of the car's owner on this. But, honestly? I don't think there needs to be extra work put into the script to fix this problem. It doesn't seem unfair to me for a chopper to mechanically chop a car before they roleplay doing so, as long as they're putting in the right amount of time and effort to roleplay it afterwards.

[slump]

It’s very clearly a rule change to stop those who pick, wire, spin the car around the block to do a half assed one roleplay line then get their car parts from chopping. The rule should be looked at again with the fact that after a car is taken away and secured there’s no possible way to make it so that you aren’t tracked in the event of anti theft, realistically speaking you wouldn’t put yourself at risk and leave it... Disabling in some way once you get the time is something I feel like would be the solution, but that may be a bit complicated I’m not familiar with how it works. Something should change with this though, yes. Don’t punish everyone for the few who lack in roleplay while doing this.

[DasFroggy]

Or, maybe pick cars that are unlikely to have anti-theft? You are not being held at gunpoint and forced to choose cars that would be missed if stolen.

 

If I am remembering, this rule addition came specifically as a result of people doing as you have explicitly to nullify the purpose of anti-theft. That is to say that your tactic of chopping before roleplay, a decision you have made to make anti-theft useless, has been done to such an extreme that a rule has been now implemented to fix it.

 

Pick your targets better.

[i dont wanna od in LA]

3 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

Or, maybe pick cars that are unlikely to have anti-theft? You are not being held at gunpoint and forced to choose cars that would be missed if stolen.

 

If I am remembering, this rule addition came specifically as a result of people doing as you have explicitly to nullify the purpose of anti-theft. That is to say that your tactic of chopping before roleplay, a decision you have made to make anti-theft useless, has been done to such an extreme that a rule has been now implemented to fix it.

 

Pick your targets better.

Each garage is given a list of vehicles every day so it's not that they get to pick the cars. What the OP pointed out here is completely fair and understandable, anti-theft has no counter whatsoever and I can see where he comes from.

[DasFroggy]

22 minutes ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

Each garage is given a list of vehicles every day so it's not that they get to pick the cars. What the OP pointed out here is completely fair and understandable, anti-theft has no counter whatsoever and I can see where he comes from.

Except there is a counter - scope out the car, see if it's being monitored, and then check for anti-theft. If the vehicle isn't being monitored, the anti-theft is useless. If the vehicle doesn't have anti-theft, the anti-theft is equally useless (you can tell by stealing it, and then parking somewhere other than your garage and waiting for a response).

 

If it's being monitored and it has anti-theft, move on to the next car. 

 

That's it. It's THAT easy. 

 

You're not supposed to be speedrunning the theft of cars. If it takes longer to find something that doesn't have anti-theft or active monitoring, that's the system working as intended by making theft difficult.

 

Again, nobody is forcing you to pick the cars that have anti-theft. You can shrug, and look for a different car that is safer to steal.

Edited June 4, 2021 by DasFroggy

[i dont wanna od in LA]

6 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

Except there is a counter - scope out the car, see if it's being monitored, and then check for anti-theft. If the vehicle isn't being monitored, the anti-theft is useless. If the vehicle doesn't have anti-theft, the anti-theft is equally useless (you can tell by stealing it, and then parking somewhere other than your garage and waiting for a response).

 

If it's being monitored and it has anti-theft, move on to the next car. 

 

That's it. It's THAT easy. 

 

You're not supposed to be speedrunning the theft of cars. If it takes longer to find something that doesn't have anti-theft or active monitoring, that's the system working as intended by making theft difficult.

 

Again, nobody is forcing you to pick the cars that have anti-theft. You can shrug, and look for a different car that is safer to steal.

You can't check if the vehicle has anti-theft.

[DasFroggy]

1 minute ago, i dont wanna od in LA said:

You can't check if the vehicle has anti-theft.

Yes, you can. If you'd like, we can go ingame, and I can show you how.

 

 

[AM]

2 minutes ago, DasFroggy said:

Yes, you can. If you'd like, we can go ingame, and I can show you how.

 

 

 You can't check antitheft or do /vstats to a vehicle that you do not a have a key to. They changed that a month or two ago.

[i dont wanna od in LA]

Just now, AM said:

 You can't check antitheft or do /vstats to a vehicle that you do not a have a key to. They changed that a month or two ago.

This

[DasFroggy]

Just now, AM said:

 You can't check antitheft or do /vstats to a vehicle that you do not a have a key to. They changed that a month or two ago.

You don't use /vstats and there isn't a chat command to check it, but you can check for anti-theft easily enough.

 

Again, if you want proof, I am more than happy to go ingame and show you.