APD Handbook Update 11/04/21

[Winters 1950]

Preface - Application Process and Rank Progression

Ranks

1. Captain
   1. Responsible for a section of the APD
   2. Appointed by the Chief and Deputy Chiefs

 

Chapter XV - APD Undercover

SGT+ FTO+ may utilize the APD undercover system.

 

Chapter XVII - APD Equipment & Ground Vehicles

APD Tools

1. APD officers can utilize heli crew helmets when piloting/co-piloting helicopters.
   1. Exception: SGT+
2. APD officers can utilize the basic helmet for Federal Events.
   1. Exception: SGT+
3. APD officers can utilize skate helemts when conducting quadbike patrols.
   1. Exception: SGT+

 

Chapter XVIII - APD Aircraft

The Ghosthawk

If the Ghosthawk is fired upon it may return fire, and that specific ghosthawk remains guns hot until the situation is resolved.

1. This includes when the Ghosthawk is presented with a clear threat (Example: civilian with an explosive launcher that has engaged the Ghosthawk via text or an explosive launcher clearly pointing at the Ghosthawk in a red zone)
   1. Example: A civilian that is engaged with the APD that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the ghosthawk.
   2. Example: A civilian that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the Ghosthawk in a red zone.

 

@Deputy Chief of Police, @Senior APD Member & @APD Member

[johnny goose 3338]

you need to update more stuff so no one sees that ur buffing the cop hawk, this is a sad attempt at hiding it.

[PolarBear 303]

15 hours ago, Strafe said:

you need to update more stuff so no one sees that ur buffing the cop hawk, this is a sad attempt at hiding it.

you know it'd be at this point some idiot talking head would pipe up with

 

Edited November 6, 2021 by PolarBear

[Kamikaze 1178]

Weird this never went to a roundtable or staff meeting and is a massive buff for hawks 

Example: A civilian that is engaged with the APD that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the ghosthawk.

Example: A civilian that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the Ghosthawk in a red zone.

 

So without any discussion y'all changed it from having to be text engaged / actively pointing at the hawk INSIDE a redzone to, if any way shape or form I point it at you JUST ONCE no matter where I'm at you can tap code 3 and instantly gas me with the hawk no matter if I'm directly engaging you or not, this is scuffed as fuck.

[Orbit 295]

I 100% agree, very large buff coming in that benefits the APD. The APD is already a dominant faction when it comes to fighting everything but major crimes. The lack of NLR and the current amount of ranking APD that has permission allows for them to easily access and abuse them. APD also play with full regards to win a fight allowing for you to hardly full wipe them before another set of APD comes including the ghosthawk. Shooting down a ghosthawk minus a titan (A launcher) or a armed vehicle which they will just gun with no regards is impossible. This should receive another round of voting and should be looked at by staff and voted on by them as well.

[Winters 1950]

4 hours ago, Kamikaze said:

So without any discussion y'all changed it from having to be text engaged / actively pointing at the hawk INSIDE a redzone to, if any way shape or form I point it at you JUST ONCE no matter where I'm at you can tap code 3 and instantly gas me with the hawk no matter if I'm directly engaging you or not, this is scuffed as fuck.

To clarify,

"Example: A civilian that is engaged with the APD that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the ghosthawk."

You would need to be engaged with the civ prior to them pointing an explosive launcher at the Ghosthawk. You would NOT be able to witness a civ that you are not engaged with aim an explosive launcher at you and then engage them to gun them down. They would have to be engaged in some form first and then point the explosive launcher at you. 

 

[Rossco 1159]

4 hours ago, Kamikaze said:

Weird this never went to a roundtable or staff meeting and is a massive buff for hawks 

Example: A civilian that is engaged with the APD that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the ghosthawk.

Example: A civilian that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the Ghosthawk in a red zone.

 

So without any discussion y'all changed it from having to be text engaged / actively pointing at the hawk INSIDE a redzone to, if any way shape or form I point it at you JUST ONCE no matter where I'm at you can tap code 3 and instantly gas me with the hawk no matter if I'm directly engaging you or not, this is scuffed as fuck.

This isn't really a major change.... If you're engaged and you point an explosive launcher at a ghosthawk, you'll be piped. "Tapping" code 3 like you've described is an obvious skrt of the rule, and if reported it would be dealt with accordingly. 

 

I've always operated like this anyway, its just now explicitly written that its allowed to play this way. If someone points a titan at you and you're engaged, it should be obvious what they're trying to do, and it should be even more obvious what I will do in response.

[Orbit 295]

If this remains the case it will be nearly impossible to shoot down ghosthawk when they go guns hot.

[Rossco 1159]

18 minutes ago, Orbit said:

If this remains the case it will be nearly impossible to shoot down ghosthawk when they go guns hot.

As I said this changes virtually nothing. If you're not engaged with the APD, and you point an explosive launcher at them, they still CANNOT shoot you. If you point an explosive launcher at the ghosthawk and you're already engaged (EX. You've already texted them hand up or die EX. You're in a redzone like a rebel) they can shoot you on the spot.

 

The notion that the APD can now just pop code three and suddenly are able to merk the titan holder is simply incorrect. 

[Jordan540 582]

APD wins again!

[Kamikaze 1178]

48 minutes ago, Rossco said:

This isn't really a major change.... If you're engaged and you point an explosive launcher at a ghosthawk, you'll be piped. "Tapping" code 3 like you've described is an obvious skrt of the rule, and if reported it would be dealt with accordingly. 

 

I've always operated like this anyway, its just now explicitly written that its allowed to play this way. If someone points a titan at you and you're engaged, it should be obvious what they're trying to do, and it should be even more obvious what I will do in response.

It's being changed from someone pointing the launcher at you to, pointed the launcher at you meaning even if they aren't actively pointing at you, you can gas them. 

Seems like a pretty major change to me.

[Orbit 295]

It is a major change. It changes the ability to hold a titan out in proximity of a ghosthawk without being gun downed. There will be a loophole, cops will abuse it, and everyone will lose a feel for even fighting cops that use a ghosthawk as there first resort. Its a rough game we play but this is something that is major and does give APD a serious advantage. 

[nicole 808]

6 minutes ago, Orbit said:

It is a major change. It changes the ability to hold a titan out in proximity of a ghosthawk without being gun downed. There will be a loophole, cops will abuse it, and everyone will lose a feel for even fighting cops that use a ghosthawk as there first resort. Its a rough game we play but this is something that is major and does give APD a serious advantage. 

This isn't even a change to the rule at all, it is an update to the examples listed the rule has been the same for years and hasn't been abused it's pretty clear if you're posing an imminent danger to the vehicle it will fire upon you. Trust me this rule isn't going to be used against you or your gang like you think it is.

Edited November 9, 2021 by juicer

[Orbit 295]

Its more of the idea that it will be summoned upon in some doubtful ways. If this wasnt a major change and was a loophole from the start why was there an APD handbook change in the first place?

[nicole 808]

3 minutes ago, Orbit said:

Its more of the idea that it will be summoned upon in some doubtful ways. If this wasnt a major change and was a loophole from the start why was there an APD handbook change in the first place?

If I am not mistaken it is in direct response to multiple hawks being lost before ever being able to defend themselves or ever be in the fight. 

RPGs on this server are highly buffed and easily acquirable by civilians, all it takes is one RPG for a hawk to be a complete loss or even one titan hit for the hawk to be completely useless because the pilot can no longer maintain control of the aircraft.

There's been multiple explosive devices introduced to civilians after this rule was implemented all this post is doing is attempting to remove gray areas. 

Edited November 9, 2021 by juicer

[Creepy 1305]

For what it's worth, I'm 100% against this change. Especially if it didn't go through a staff/civ council. Fairly large quality of life buff for the APD that is going to hurt the civs quite a bit. Lots of times I've "pointed a titan" at a ghosthawk, but the gunner didn't swing on me in time and I squirreled it away and re-positioned. Now you'll just get gunned down regardless of what you're doing or if you even used an explosive or not.

[jig 2115]

31 minutes ago, Creepy said:

For what it's worth, I'm 100% against this change. Especially if it didn't go through a staff/civ council. Fairly large quality of life buff for the APD that is going to hurt the civs quite a bit. Lots of times I've "pointed a titan" at a ghosthawk, but the gunner didn't swing on me in time and I squirreled it away and re-positioned. Now you'll just get gunned down regardless of what you're doing or if you even used an explosive or not.

Bro like 95% of the civs aren't going to be affected by this rule at all. And like Winters said, you have to be previously engaged with the APD. Ex you send a titan text to the APD and we see you on the ground with a titan aiming at us we can shoot you. So as long as you aren't engaged you will be fine. And this will not affect 95% of the people who just sit do runs. There is only a few situations where this would actually happen. Examples like a blackwater vehicle being chased and you try to titan us. An orca chase this would most likely never happen because its not worth titaning a hawk you would just land. AND IF YOU ARE SO AGAINST THIS HIDE IN A BUSH OR IN A HOUSE WITH YOUR TITAN NOT IN PLAIN SIGHT AND YOU WONT BE SHOT SIMPLE AS THAT.

[jig 2115]

3 minutes ago, rabid said:

When you can find me that second part about being previously engaged I'll be sure to follow that rule but until then myself and @ Bloodmoon  will continue to follow written apd handbook rules.

 

3 hours ago, Winters said:

To clarify,

"Example: A civilian that is engaged with the APD that has clearly pointed an explosive launcher at the ghosthawk."

You would need to be engaged with the civ prior to them pointing an explosive launcher at the Ghosthawk. You would NOT be able to witness a civ that you are not engaged with aim an explosive launcher at you and then engage them to gun them down. They would have to be engaged in some form first and then point the explosive launcher at you. 

 

are you blind or something the chief clarified the rule right here. He explained what it means if you do not understand.

[Creepy 1305]

Even if it's 5% of civs, it's still enough of a % that sAPD felt the need to make the change. I'm simply saying it should have been a conversation. Maybe it was, but I was led to believe it was not.

[Lucien 3081]

21 minutes ago, rabid said:

If the rule was written properly winters wouldn't have had to make a post after explaining how it is meant to be used, again before he said anything it was open to be abused by ANY senior apd member.

ong homies need to use grammarly on the handbook 

[Eddy Spagooti 108]

i personally feel like SAPD always played like this rule update is just now explicitly saying they are allowed to do it to stop having people join support and saying... "WElL It DOeSNt SaY ThAt In tHe HanDboOK!"..... and people will always complain when APD is buffed in anyway at all regardless so it is what it is.... lol they could take everything away from cops and give them only mx tasers at all ranks only and add in 1 buff saying but they are allowed to wear tier 2 helmets and people would whine and moan about it immediately regardless..... but hey thats just my opinion its just really funny reading all these responses crying about it....

[Xlax 2713]

This was already a thing, just rewording it so it's easier to comprehend.

RPG that you're engaged with aims at you, you previously were able to shoot them as they obviously are aiming at you / engaged. Nothing has changed other than the handbook saying explicitly that you can.

Simple as that, and if you're rioting over this you clearly didn't understand what I just said.

[SPBojo 6863]

1 hour ago, Xlax said:

This was already a thing, just rewording it so it's easier to comprehend.

RPG that you're engaged with aims at you, you previously were able to shoot them as they obviously are aiming at you / engaged. Nothing has changed other than the handbook saying explicitly that you can.

Simple as that, and if you're rioting over this you clearly didn't understand what I just said.

Literally this.

 

Its worked like this for ages. I can't count on both hands nor toes the amount of times even ex-sAPD arguing that this is OP has imidiatelly piped people pointing launchers at them upon being engaged. The fact that a change that does nothing but make the chief sound less dyslexic is causing this much of a uproar is straight up retarded.

[Bloodmoon 2222]

8 hours ago, SPBojo said:

Literally this.

 

Its worked like this for ages. I can't count on both hands nor toes the amount of times even ex-sAPD arguing that this is OP has imidiatelly piped people pointing launchers at them upon being engaged. The fact that a change that does nothing but make the chief sound less dyslexic is causing this much of a uproar is straight up retarded.

Who is mad about being piped for pointing a launcher? The update changes the wording from present to past tense, if you fly away while im pointing an rpg at you, you can come back 3 mins later guns hot.

[Creepy 1305]

52 minutes ago, Bloodmoon said:

present to past tense,