i win

Almost enough for corp!

@Ryan I'm sure we bought this up last meeting. Same time next week?

You stacked with 30 dudes, honestly they could have started inviting civs to roach and I'd have been cool with it. We never once complained how many cops they logged in if we were stacking too, it was only ever an issue when they logged out...

@Zahzi fix your broken code.

All weapons inside conquest are now tasers.

@Zahzi stats are wrong dude, fix it.

@Luke Duke Your lack of presence during staff meetings and roundtables is a failure to represent your faction. Your role is one of leadership, yet you show none.

After years of buffs and power creep by the APD, civilians finally have a voice that argues for them. If you can't see how that's good for the community then I guess you should keep dodging the roundtables and meetings. 

@ThatNerdyGuy Next meeting is this Sunday at 6pm EST, welcome to turn up!

@ThatNerdyGuy The entire process is broken right now because one side wont participate, in fairness, it's been like that longer than we've had the current chief - however that doesn't mean it should continue.

One thing that's bothered me for a while is that "us vs them" mentality. Sure early on it was rough, but that was to be expected after years of power creep and fixing some of that imbalance. We shouldn't be undoing the progress we've made, we should be figuring out what we have in common. I've tried to encourage discussion between the civilian council and the sAPD outside of roundtables but sadly that has fallen on deaf ears.

I've even gone as far as inviting a one or two sAPD to a civilian council meeting just so they can experience what actually goes on themselves, so far I guess everyone has been too busy to attend

4 minutes ago, Strikke said:

I really hope you under stand this:

Owner -> Senior staff -> Staff -> Factions.

If you believe some of the sAPD after a staff meeting it actually goes like this:

Civilian Council -> Owner -> Senior staff -> Staff -> Factions.

@Sandman during an APD meeting:

SeLlInG cIv CoUnCiL HaTcHbAcKs FoR pIzZa

no good can come of this, i love it

We used that trader a bunch when we wanted to flex and drive through apd hq, or when we were dodging the plague "fed guards". I think keeping the option open is good, no need to remove.

I'm kind of mad I didn't suggest it a year ago. Watching a group of strangers piss on each other in square is hard to beat.

(there is no meeting tomorrow)

@DeadPool If you want you can find me in TS and give me a play by play, if it's as scuffed as it sounds, we can bring it up next meeting.

Pretty sure this was changed because the cartel guys were getting bullied by vigis when they spawned in.

Just now, d a k o t a said:

If I'm on restrictions I dont have a chance right. 

No issues at all, only thing that would prevent anyone from applying would be a current ban of more than 7 days.

3 minutes ago, Xlax said:

why tf is unjo in cartels council ?????

Oh he's just babysitting them while we find replacements that aren't too busy playing HvH on cap.

When I came up with the apd hatchback claiming idea, I kinda wanted all shared vehicles to be claimable eventually  But only after we saw how it plays out with hatchbacks. I knew this would get some pushback so I would rather wait and see if both factions enjoy this sort of gameplay first. 

Personally I think hunters and orcas, maybe not ghosthawks, would be awesome to claim. Might need to increase how aggressively the APD respond to those vehicle skins though. 

2 hours ago, ThatNerdyGuy said:

A shorter response time is not what any of the seniors want because that does not solve the problem. If anything that is an offered compromise from civilian council.

Here's the thing, look at what we're offering and how many compromises and changes we've suggested so far to this issue. What have we been met with so far in that roundtable thread "i don't like that", "no". What a joke. The JrAPD here have made more progress in a status update than the entirety of the sAPD that are supposed to represent them.

While I'm always happy to see you actively reply in threads like these, even if as you said we don't always see eye to eye - I just wish it wasn't just you.

1 hour ago, SystemChips said:

Unless the suggestion @Phizx provided for a reward for defusing the bomb, cops below corporal have actually zero incentive to stop the bank as any bounties fly away even if they succeed the defuse. This is why I suggested the fire escape type scaffolding on the side of the buildings but to start I think just putting them on at least one of the three office buildings would be a good idea to try.

I would have no issue whatsoever with the APD being rewarded for defusing the bomb, me and phizx talked about this and it simply makes sense to encourage that.

I think if we added more cover inside the banks on the ground floor and potentialy some on the other floors, with scaffolding on one of the buildings you might see a decrease in roof camping. If we look at why civs sit on the roof, it's literally the only cover you have in that building.

@ThatNerdyGuy So defuse the bomb? I really don't see adding scaffolding as some magical "yes, this will fix the bank". It just doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up. This feels a lot like the first fed season where the sAPD couldn't figure out why civilians were winning all the BWs and just started nerfing things at random until the winrate was sub 10%. Oh, maybe it was the 30 civilians camped inside killing them?

There already is somewhere to push, the vault. Civilians aren't just going to let you walk in and let you defuse if there is an actual threat and enough cops that make it there due to the increased respawns and time availiable to fight. With more pushes you get more chances, just like at a fed. You don't always make it to the wall, or even over the top during a fed, but once you do you can do some serious work if they're not paying attention.