PLPD | Currently proposed changes
- Thread starter Momo
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #102
@BigBenji "The whole “bring back SWAT” fiasco was tried with an “event” and the results put the majority of people off of the idea." We both know there was a whole lot more to this than just having SWAT don't try and make it seems like there wasn't. Again what is your issues with slightly changing how light gear works. not agreeing is one thing actually explaining why besides saying "i thinks its fine dont touch it" is another.
- Thread starter
- #103
@ShadowJoey You would be better of having a look at some of I believe TinySlayers and Samuels old posts for this. I don't really want to go into this as I am obviously in one of the most biased positions. We have accepted the idea of a superintendent though, hope to get that up and running as soon as I am done with college.
- Staff
- #104
- Staff
- #108
@Momo I don’t see the point in getting rid of a perfectly functional system, just to replace it with normal cops but with rifles and sub machine guns. The principal of having officers with additional equipment, such as breaching charges and a single flashbang, as well as an M24 in the trunk of a vehicle you can use as an elevated platform for sniping is far more appealing to me than just letting cops shove an M16 or MP5 into their trunks. Officers hardly follow remington policy, I’m seeing far more corporal +s walking and driving around with a shotgun on their backs only for them to say “I forgot it was there” when I point it out.
The current model for TFU also allows officers to physically identify themselves without announcing themselves as an additionally armed officer to their peers, allowing any smart, policy abiding officer to immediately step aside and allow the TFO to lead the charge into securing an active firearms crime scene.
On top of this, due to light TFU having a unique vehicle and player model to other officers, this adds the element of players being able to identify and prioritise the TFU vehicle whilst partaking in violent crime. Not so much a benefit for the PD, but last I checked, balance was kind of a big deal here. Having an at least half solid idea on who’s hopping out of what car would be ideal for other players.
Also, regarding the comment on me being “dense”, forgive me for not wanting a perfectly functional system to be replaced with a shittier version of what we already have. I see no real reasoning behind this downgrade at all, and it seems plenty of people here seem to agree.
The current model for TFU also allows officers to physically identify themselves without announcing themselves as an additionally armed officer to their peers, allowing any smart, policy abiding officer to immediately step aside and allow the TFO to lead the charge into securing an active firearms crime scene.
On top of this, due to light TFU having a unique vehicle and player model to other officers, this adds the element of players being able to identify and prioritise the TFU vehicle whilst partaking in violent crime. Not so much a benefit for the PD, but last I checked, balance was kind of a big deal here. Having an at least half solid idea on who’s hopping out of what car would be ideal for other players.
Also, regarding the comment on me being “dense”, forgive me for not wanting a perfectly functional system to be replaced with a shittier version of what we already have. I see no real reasoning behind this downgrade at all, and it seems plenty of people here seem to agree.
- Thread starter
- #110
@BigBenji Right you know perfectly well you weren't actually answering the question... I appreciate the response though.
As I said before though, the changes to TFU and especially, how heavy gear works has very much been influenced by complaints that have been raised in the past and have had the approval from TFU command.
I can get behind your reason for wanting a different skin for officers carrying TFU equipment, and this is probably a good idea. however, a compromise must be made somewhere. These changes aren't just here for people who already like the PD as it is.
As I said before though, the changes to TFU and especially, how heavy gear works has very much been influenced by complaints that have been raised in the past and have had the approval from TFU command.
I can get behind your reason for wanting a different skin for officers carrying TFU equipment, and this is probably a good idea. however, a compromise must be made somewhere. These changes aren't just here for people who already like the PD as it is.
- Thread starter
- #112
Yea you have now <3
For once a PD discussion that actually contains useful stuff..
So as Momo has touched on, the restructure will require major development. We are literally starting from scratch, to make a website that will work in the long term. The project aim is to make a "static" website where we will not do changes every two months because some Captain comes up with an idea what won't work. Another aim is to allow people to do stuff in-game, so a focus will be to make sure the website works without issues ingame.
To complete this project we have went ahead and gotten even more developers, I now have six developers under me.
And seeing as everyone wants transparency, here is what everyone does.
@Samuel
@TinySlayer
@Ayjay (On leave)
@roxie
@McGlinchy
@flugs
@Smudger
If you have any questions, feel free to PM me!
So as Momo has touched on, the restructure will require major development. We are literally starting from scratch, to make a website that will work in the long term. The project aim is to make a "static" website where we will not do changes every two months because some Captain comes up with an idea what won't work. Another aim is to allow people to do stuff in-game, so a focus will be to make sure the website works without issues ingame.
To complete this project we have went ahead and gotten even more developers, I now have six developers under me.
And seeing as everyone wants transparency, here is what everyone does.
@Samuel
- Head of Development Services
- Project Manager (or Product Owner depending on what you want to call it)
- Third Party Services and Privacy
@TinySlayer
- Senior Developer
- Data Architecture
@Ayjay (On leave)
- Senior Developer
- Front-end
@roxie
- Developer
- Responsible for testing environments
@McGlinchy
- Developer
- Employee Well-being and Support
@flugs
- Junior Developer
@Smudger
- Junior Developer
We are still looking for developers with prior Python/Django experience.If you have any questions, feel free to PM me!
- Messages
- 1,183
- Reaction score
- 1,638
- Points
- 910
- Staff
- #116
Although I do agree some stuff should be changed within the PD, I also think you should allow the community to vote for these changes. These changes might be fun for some new players, but other players might completely disagree and dont like it at all. There is a few people in this server that play cop to progress within the ranks as of how it is. And to be able to RP as a different officer everytime.
It would be sad if we would lose alot of players that are here for the PD system.
EDIT: also if you do allow a vote. Please do a ingame vote. We dont need forum lurkers or permabans or someone like that to vote stuff the community doesn't want etc.
It would be sad if we would lose alot of players that are here for the PD system.
EDIT: also if you do allow a vote. Please do a ingame vote. We dont need forum lurkers or permabans or someone like that to vote stuff the community doesn't want etc.
I thought this post was coming soon so I thought id reply with my thoughts seeing as quite a few of the changes affect my division.
I'm all for everything going onto the live server however my trainers need to be involved somehow. However I wasn't aware there was a problem with the training server in the first place.
Overall I like some of the changes and don't like others. I have had a lot of people ask me since this post was released how much of a say I had in these changes. I was informed about the RTU becoming Secondary about 2 months ago by SMT as explained at the start of the post. This was something that they wanted to happen so tried to argue the case for it to stay like it was but here we are. I said to myself that it wouldn't make a difference what i said about if i wanted the changes or if i liked them or not. In terms of the rest of the changes, some of them i was told about a week ago that was happening and some i just found out when this post was released.
I hope this answers any questions that people have about my involvement and also I am open to answer any questions about my response or about anything else to do with this update. I want to be as transparent as I can hence this post.
@Momo @Collier
When this was proposed to me about 2 months ago I reacted quite badly to this as I knew Traffic Gear wouldn't be used, it will end up like dispatch, everyone holds the role but then never actually use it. Personally I have no problem with RTU becoming a secondary division, if the gearing up in traffic gear becomes a thing then can we expect Hour Tracking in Traffic Gear. Being able to track officers hours using Traffic Gear will allow me to prevent people from just holding the role to use it once in a blue moon as i can accurately see when they use it or not.
This, in my opinion, won't solve any problems. Whilst I can see why this is happening will just make people in traffic gear complain more. There are some times where its impractical to go back to PD to gear out of Traffic Gear to just get armour and sometimes traffic officers are required to head to shootouts. Why should they suffer just because they want to be encouraged to do more traffic duties? What if they are on the perimeter, surely this puts them at more of a risk? Personally I would want to armour to stay the same as it is now. Any traffic officers misusing stuff can be handled by command already and if we becoming a secondary will allow me to be stricter also.
I am completely behind this change however I have some questions and some ideas alongside this to propose and will make idea threads if needed. If Highvis jackets are implemented can we make it optional? A trunk option in traffic vehicles? Or an option in the police armoury? Or an item in your inventory to equip and de-equip?
I can completely understand this change, however, I do have a feeling this will kill off the appeal of RTU especially due to the light gear supervisor update coming along. Anyone ranked Corporal+ will be put off from using the gear as they would be at an immediate disadvantage. Maybe allow them to gear primary firearms, but restrict their use within policy? Make it so they cant transport them and must go to PD to collect a primary if the situation requires it?
This is perfect. Nothing against this change whatsoever. Encourages people to pick either sets of vehicle. One question, however, the command car, will that be available command officers in traffic gear?
Could more information be provided on how this will work or who will be able to use it? What situations would it apply to ETC. I think its a good idea!
The new training system, conducted ingame unless I've read the thread wrong. I'm assuming this is conducted the way @TinySlayer showed me. If so, how will trainers be involved? Is there anyway I can continue some of the new techniques taught in the current Stage 2 into this new assessment (TPAC - Contact and Reinforced Stops)?
I'm all for everything going onto the live server however my trainers need to be involved somehow. However I wasn't aware there was a problem with the training server in the first place.
This is the bit that i have a few questions on, this flowchart shows Patrol above, RTU, TFU and Dispatch. Does that mean Patrol will be in charge of the secondary divisions? Or will Operations Services (McGlinchy) be in control of all 3 captains (me, peach and madda) separately like now, just with a new Line name and us all being in the same line (Hope that makes sense). If that's not the case then what control would Patrol have over RTU?
Overall I like some of the changes and don't like others. I have had a lot of people ask me since this post was released how much of a say I had in these changes. I was informed about the RTU becoming Secondary about 2 months ago by SMT as explained at the start of the post. This was something that they wanted to happen so tried to argue the case for it to stay like it was but here we are. I said to myself that it wouldn't make a difference what i said about if i wanted the changes or if i liked them or not. In terms of the rest of the changes, some of them i was told about a week ago that was happening and some i just found out when this post was released.
I hope this answers any questions that people have about my involvement and also I am open to answer any questions about my response or about anything else to do with this update. I want to be as transparent as I can hence this post.
@Momo @Collier
- Messages
- 630
- Reaction score
- 238
- Points
- 495
So for me, this is making us look like more Highway Patrol Division instead of a Road Traffic Unit, removing the primary firearms (Im assuming the Remmy shotgun?), is a bit pointless as Highway Patrol has remmy shotguns in their trunks most of the time. If we lose all patrol vehicles, what vehicles are you giving us as we would be losing the Crown Vic, The Dodge Challenger and Charger and the Escalade, so what vehicles would we be getting for the loss of these 4 vehicles. The blacklist system for RTU is already in place as I have been a victim of the Blacklist system (was my fault for drinking and driving whilst on duty). For the Armour thing, i feel like its silly, as we are already at a disadvantage with pistols if your going up against an AR.
You dont need any vehicles in return, the whole point in removing them is to force RTU Officer whilst geared up in Traffic Gear to use traffic cars. If your not in traffic gear you get access to those cars. Even if they removed them permanently from RTU Officers it wouldn't be a problem as the Porsche, BMW and Merc and unmarked cars are better than the dodge and the crown vic.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Suggestion
