Being Allowed to use Noclide Glass

[Tronic 13]

Description: Being able/allowed to have Noclide Glass on bases

Reason: I believe Noclide Glass should be allowed because not only is it the only way to counter rocket spamming it helps players move in and out of bases easier without having to put more props or bind multiple props to a single bind resulting in less lag. With Noclide Glass it helps keep base raiding more fair as without Noclide Glass it’s pretty clear you have no way of defending yourself against a full on rocket barrage without having glass as a door in general. Without glass rockets fly through almost every single prop and removing Noclide Glass ends up resulting in Glass having to become a Fading Door for players to even get in or out. Even with Noclide Glass somewhat being abusable as of modern bases with it blocking bullets, it should effect both sides still and if it’s being used as a fading door to prevent raiders from fighting back then it should be placed under Fading Door Abuse instead of a flat out ban of Noclide Glass.

[hooboododoMartian 334]

+1 most players are using it already and it doesn’t seem to harm the game at all so I don’t see why it shouldn’t be allowed 

[ChrisRid 900]

Neutral

I think a better title for this suggestion (and the main focus here) is “Allow the use of the no-collide tool”, given that using the adv. dupe to spawn any no-collided prop in is a form of exploiting as it currently stands, and not the most practical way of building either.

I'm not totally against the idea of allowing it, however I’m not sure I see the need to honestly, given that it’s totally possible to use glass to rocket-proof a base without making it no-collide. I’ve seen some great bases which use standard glass for protection in areas which would be difficult or impossible to base without it, but I’m not sure I see the necessity of it being made no-collide.

The only other factor to take into account is that as it stands, only those with access to the Adv. Dupe tool are able to place no-collide glass which restricts this form of rocket proofing to VIP only, and I’m a firm believer that this tool should only be used for convenience and not in ways which affect the games balance. So I’d assume the no-collide tool would then be open to all?

If the no-collide tool was allowed, it would also then bring into question all evidence for things like prop block, as it’s all too easy to say a prop was no-collided and not blocking anything. 

As I say, I’m not totally against the idea of it being allowed but I feel there’s greater weight potentially for disallowing it, even if many do use it already but it simply goes unreported in most cases.

Edited December 28, 2022 by ChrisRid

[Vortex 270]

+1

It’s about time we make it legal, too many people already using it anyways. The only counter to rockets which is a big part of modern raiding.

[mossly 144]

a big old -1 unless nocollide is available to nonvip

although advdupe is banned for nonvip, they should at least be able to build the same base as paid players

[Wendoly 220]

+1: This has been used for a long time now, and I think that without the use of no-collided glass basing in so many buildings would be either not worth or impossible to hold against an RPG/Matador raid. Without this, you would be almost forced to base in the same buildings in order to have enough space to not get insta-killed by the explosion rate of the RPG/Matador, that's why I think that allowing the use of no-collided glass in the rules would be actually beneficial.

[Criteria 103]

+1 reasons above

[xFish 394]

No-Collide tool will most likely not be added back into the menu, there's just too many ways to abuse and minge with it which causes more headaches for staff than it's worth.

Even if Nutter was able to implement glass no collide as a prop in the menu, people would start building hidden peeks, and use it for other things than its intended purpose-to defend from rocket raids.

 

That being said, I would still love the no-collide tool to be added back because it's a great tools for hobo's and other rp oriented classes.

I would love to hear from @Proggy who probably remembers why it was banned in the first place, and the likeliness of it getting added back.

As well as @Nutter as to how hard it would be to implement this, as well as thoughts on the topic.

If it was implemented, there would probably have to be a rule put in alongside it to inform the playerbase the can's and cant do's with no-collide.

The tighter the rules on the subject, the easier it is for staff to do their job and enforce it.

As of now, Neutral

 

[Legions 3]

-1 

I pull out a rocket every raid I do and my success is basically zero I just like the big booms!!! The only bases it works on are poorly made bases it’s incredibly easy to make a rocket proof base. massive amounts of people already use nocollide props to counter rockets normally as an entrance….. really should get rid of nocollide all together tbh. 

[mossly 144]

59 minutes ago, Legions said:

-1 

I pull out a rocket every raid I do and my success is basically zero I just like the big booms!!! The only bases it works on are poorly made bases it’s incredibly easy to make a rocket proof base. massive amounts of people already use nocollide props to counter rockets normally as an entrance….. really should get rid of nocollide all together tbh. 

i've never seen anyone with negative forum points

 

are you famous

are you the devil?

[Pluto_ 686]

On 12/28/2022 at 1:27 PM, mossly said:

a big old -1 unless nocollide is available to nonvip

although advdupe is banned for nonvip, they should at least be able to build the same base as paid players

its 20 bucks for a game you'll spend 100 hours on in the first week without notice and something that can easily be achieved just by having in game money 

[mossly 144]

13 minutes ago, Pluto_ said:

its 20 bucks for a game you'll spend 100 hours on in the first week without notice and something that can easily be achieved just by having in game money 

Yes, most people are apt to spend over 75% of their time on a gmod server or grind for long enough to get 10-15m dollars

 

you realize that 100 hours is nearly 5 whole days, right

 

[1998Corolla 325]

Neutral

Ngl it's funny seeing people say to allow it because people are already using it, after seeing @ChrisRidsaid is against the rules. 

Lets call it what it currently is, an Adv Dupe exploit which players are using. It reminds me of This famous report on proggy from someone who used Adv Dupe to spawn a prop with the rope tool, and that was just a hanging sign. 

Since the use of no-collide is now right in the open, there's no way it's going to be allowed to use by using the Adv Dupe tool since just like the rope, it's considered an exploit. The only way it could really be used is by allowing the no-collide tool, and enforcing what props can have no-collision. 

I see the benefit to allowing it, but I don't think it should be by using the Adv Dupe tool and getting the dupe off of someone in game or making it in single player. 

[mossly 144]

1 hour ago, 1998Corolla said:

Neutral

Ngl it's funny seeing people say to allow it because people are already using it, after seeing @ChrisRidsaid is against the rules. 

Lets call it what it currently is, an Adv Dupe exploit which players are using. It reminds me of This famous report on proggy from someone who used Adv Dupe to spawn a prop with the rope tool, and that was just a hanging sign. 

Since the use of no-collide is now right in the open, there's no way it's going to be allowed to use by using the Adv Dupe tool since just like the rope, it's considered an exploit. The only way it could really be used is by allowing the no-collide tool, and enforcing what props can have no-collision. 

I see the benefit to allowing it, but I don't think it should be by using the Adv Dupe tool and getting the dupe off of someone in game or making it in single player. 

this comment (by proggy) specifically should decide the question outright

 

tried to attach but if it didn't work i refer to their first response

 

wait, in my infinite wisdom i have a solution

give admins access to nocollide

if a player wants a prop nocollided, they do !report and the admin no collides it

this makes it so 

-players still get nocollide glass

-moderation is easier

-no exploits are needed

-it allows nonvip players to have access to nocollided props

 

if no admin is on, that is a total "sucks for you" moment

this also allows for nocollided rp props like someone mentioned above

[ChrisRid 900]

2 hours ago, 1998Corolla said:

Lets call it what it currently is, an Adv Dupe exploit which players are using.

I agree completely, it's baffling to me how everyone's still going forwards with "allow the exploit" with no discussion surrounding the no collide tool its-self? Allowing an impractical exploit is definitely not the best way forwards and I'm sat here wondering what I'm missing lol.

Following from your points, I'd like to change my response to the following, just to be clear to others and in hope that a reasonable discussion might come from it:

-1 for allowing an Adv. Dupe exploit as an impractical way of placing no-collided glass in the server
Neutral for allowing the no-collide tool

 

1 hour ago, mossly said:

give admins access to nocollide

if a player wants a prop nocollided, they do !report and the admin no collides it

While I like this idea on face value, as it currently stands a moderator can pretty reliably take their months worth of reports in one evening, and so I'm pretty against anything that unnecessarily adds to the current workload, and it goes without saying that players who have a genuine concern would be affected by those who just want a rocket-proof doorway. So while this would be fantastic if the workload wasn't so high, I don't think this is a viable option as of right now unfortunately.

 

I'm not entirely sure what the best answer is, but it would be surrounding the idea of adding the no-collide tool back into DarkRP. I'd be interested to know the reason for it being restricted in the first place, but I'm still edging on the side of a -1 for the reasons I've previously stated, but I'm open to suggestion too, I'm not totally against the idea but still not sure it's a necessary change.