TOPIC: [SSRP Suggestion] Change Rule 4.3

Server Name:
SSRP
Suggestion Title:
Changing Rule 4.3
How would it benefit the server:
It would make props that cannot be seen by the human eye even if its transparency 50 (this would be up to a staff members discretion)
Potential Issues/Exploits:
None
Additional notes:
[OLD] 4.3 Structure Appearance - Built structures must not have any flickering effects or invisible props. Your structures may not have any blacked out rooms or areas, only a single wall of face of your structure may be completely blacked out. Props may not have a lower transparency than 50. Structures should not obstruct vehicle passage on the roads, they may overlap with the roads so long as vehicle passage is possible without driving off-road, district bases, checkpoints and tollgates are excluded from this part of the rule.

[NEW] 4.3 Structure Appearance - Built structures must not have any flickering effects or invisible props. Your structures may not have any blacked out rooms or areas, only a single wall of face of your structure may be completely blacked out. Props may not have a lower transparency than 50, however if the prop cannot be seen by the human eye, it will count as invisible.Structures should not obstruct vehicle passage on the roads, they may overlap with the roads so long as vehicle passage is possible without driving off-road, district bases, checkpoints and tollgates are excluded from this part of the rule.

This is just an example of what it could look like, if you have a better edit for the rule, be sure comment it.

Always had trouble with this rule

spodermon wrote: In my opinion invisible is invisible, transparency shouldnt matter.

Can you give an example of where this is an issue?

Raeker wrote: This is a prop with transparency 50, and a normal dark-blue colour with the comball_tape material (the standard see-through material thats moving)

Here's the prop:


Here is the colour+transparency which is ALLOWED by the rules

I was told by Anna long long time ago that it counts as invisible but if its allowed then

To be honest looking at the rule again it already says that, that is the definition of invisible and I think that should overrule the 50 transparency bs.

Xeronise wrote: That's what i thought until an SA told me otherwise

Let me just get my colour spectrum glasses on

If anyone wants to add anything to this, please reply it

Raeker wrote:
Blind people.

OnionRings wrote: You are not very smart are you?

474 Denis wrote:
No...

Ashur. wrote: Well that is interesting, to my knowledge if you can't see something that is the definition of invisible. That is just loopholing the rule. It's still not allowed and never was.

SkeletonWarrior wrote: SyStem said it was allowed mate

Ashur. wrote: SyStem should reread the rules then.

EMP wrote: Per definition, invisible is something that you cannot see. This is not allowed.

——————