Denied Just add PAC already

[Hunk]

No, i dont wanna see anime-inspired characters with crazy hairstyles

 

[Deleted member 7576]

No, i dont wanna see anime-inspired characters with crazy hairstyles

the gingerbread man mask will be standard issue for civil protection

 

[Ond]

the few who do it well and tastefully are far outweighed by those who make "literally me" self-insert hero PACs

hard pass on allowing PAC to be used on-server outside of equip-able clothing

 

[Deleted member 906]

Just a reminder to all those who may be unaware. But we already use an element of PAC. This comes in the form of the Aviators and various Modular Helmets and Clothing. Quite frankly, we don't need PAC, but it'd be nice to have a larger catalogue of modular clothing sets.

 

[Señor Jaggles]

I mean I am impressed the first take on "communities that do not have PAC" is "communities that are outdated"

You're playing a billion year old game technically everything is absolutely outdated, deprecated and recycled, why would you risk putting this in a server with 50+ players daily and actually obsessive explayers

 

[Ond]

I'd rather have the restrictions on clothing bodygroups for premium only removed than PAC

 

[Señor Jaggles]

Seeing the OP not many people seem enthusiastic about PAC3 maybe we're all old men screaming at clouds but come on

 

[STUCK IN A CAKE]

Just a reminder to all those who may be unaware. But we already use an element of PAC. This comes in the form of the Aviators and various Modular Helmets and Clothing. Quite frankly, we don't need PAC, but it'd be nice to have a larger catalogue of modular clothing sets.

Can someone make some of those items equipable for Vortigaunts...

 

[Ond]

seriously though can we remove the restrictions for bodygroups availability (within reason)

 

[Chiptune]

solution: create a pac authority committee council union panel (comprised of me and @Chiptune and other pac adepts)

all custom pac outfits must be cleared by unanimous council committee panel board vote and all changes to said outfits must be cleared as well

this may be the pettiest reason to not want PAC but its also my biggest one

and its just that most people who use PAC just use it to make their characters actually awful looking

No, i dont wanna see anime-inspired characters with crazy hairstyles

the few who do it well and tastefully are far outweighed by those who make "literally me" self-insert hero PACs

hard pass on allowing PAC to be used on-server outside of equip-able clothing

That was my proposal to begin with, application-based. A lot of these posters ignore the proposition we made to simply lock PAC behind a very tight application format which would require you to update the post and have full approval before making any change to the PAC, to ensure that it remains lore-accurate, non-immersion-breaking and in good taste. As for the size limit, it can be set manually by the staff team so you wouldn't even need to enforce it in the application. It's simple, if your PAC is too large, it doesn't load.

Additionally, even if you got past the application process and got to use your PAC, anyone who would have any sort of issue relating to it would only need to disable it on their end.

.net, a Starship Troopers RP server used a system similar to this with great success, anything too extravagant or stupid was simply refused and the PAC flags were never given to the specific character.

I would also like to point out that the "PAC leads to anime characters" thing might as well be cold war era propaganda at this point, if you've played in many RP servers throughout the years you'd know that this is not what the great majority of people use PAC for, especially not on HL2RPs where it's usually limited to small accessories and maybe headhacks.

The one and only downside of having PAC would be running the risk of people breaking immersion or abusing it... which is solved via the application process. Every other negative argument against it, including "it lags my game", "I don't want to see it", "FPS is bad as it is" which are fair points, can all be solved by disabling PAC client-side. If your hate-boner for PAC users is that big, well you can see it as clowning on PAC users by simply not seeing it and letting them think they look awesome to you!

 

[avralwobniar]

That was my proposal to begin with, application-based. A lot of these posters ignore the proposition we made to simply lock PAC behind a very tight application format which would require you to update the post and have full approval before making any change to the PAC, to ensure that it remains lore-accurate, non-immersion-breaking and in good taste. As for the size limit, it can be set manually by the staff team so you wouldn't even need to enforce it in the application. It's simple, if your PAC is too large, it doesn't load.

Additionally, even if you got past the application process and got to use your PAC, anyone who would have any sort of issue relating to it would only need to disable it on their end.

.net, a Starship Troopers RP server used a system similar to this with great success, anything too extravagant or stupid was simply refused and the PAC flags were never given to the specific character.

I would also like to point out that the "PAC leads to anime characters" thing might as well be cold war era propaganda at this point, if you've played in many RP servers throughout the years you'd know that this is not what the great majority of people use PAC for, especially not on HL2RPs where it's usually limited to small accessories and maybe headhacks.

The one and only downside of having PAC would be running the risk of people breaking immersion or abusing it... which is solved via the application process. Every other negative argument against it, including "it lags my game", "I don't want to see it", "FPS is bad as it is" which are fair points, can all be solved by disabling PAC client-side. If your hate-boner for PAC users is that big, well you can see it as clowning on PAC users by simply not seeing it and letting them think they look awesome to you!

locking pac behind an application is just as goofy as giving it to everyone on the server

 

[Chiptune]

locking pac behind an application is just as goofy as giving it to everyone on the server

Could you provide arguments as to why it's "goofy"? It's an objectively successful system that has ran into practically zero issue compared to the usual fully free-access PAC model most RP servers go for.

 

[avralwobniar]

Could you provide arguments as to why it's "goofy"? It's an objectively successful system that has ran into practically zero issue compared to the usual fully free-access PAC model most RP servers go for.

because its pac

 

[Erkor]

Could you provide arguments as to why it's "goofy"? It's an objectively successful system that has ran into practically zero issue compared to the usual fully free-access PAC model most RP servers go for.

By restricting the availability of the customization tool, you're making it an exclusivity based on trust. This reads great on paper, but you can't just "give people a chance" and watch as they, immediately after being given the flag, put on a PAC3 outfit called "mechwarrior5firestarter" and force everyone to download a massive outfit file and hotload a myriad of greeble models so that their custom FS9-H 'mech displays correctly.

Of course, the logical response to this is to remove the flag. How many times are you willing to bother doing that, though? It might not happen instantly, but someone will think that it would be really funny to put together or equip a ridiculous PAC3 outfit to fool around. Of course, nobody's advocating that everything should be grimdark and sincere at all times, but one man's joke is another man's nuisance a lot of the time. In more than a few cases, people's LOOC jokes can be grating at best and outright obnoxious at worst (and that's just text).

The ultimate evolution of an application-based PAC3 system is, in my opinion, that whomever it is that bothers approving the applications will realize that a huge amount of people applying aren't worth accepting. This bottlenecks the availability, and subsequently makes the people who have PAC3 access stand out like a sore thumb. It's like going on TnB and seeing a bunch of Male01-09s in a crowd and, somewhere among them, is Albert Wesker with shades and that one city 8 black jacket item.

The system itself might not be a bad idea -- it's certainly one of very few solutions to the hypothetical problem at hand -- but the players who get accepted will eventually start looking kind of goofy.

 

[avralwobniar]

Could you provide arguments as to why it's "goofy"? It's an objectively successful system that has ran into practically zero issue compared to the usual fully free-access PAC model most RP servers go for.

- having staff check every pac is annoying as fuck, and abuse can happen at any moment (and abuse will happen)
- servers with pac are laggy as fuck, even when only like 8 people are using it. restricting the amount of people who have pac will lead to;
- pac alienates players that dont like it/dont want to use it/arent good enough of a player in the eyes of staff to have it
- pac alienates the players that do use it because everyone makes fun of how cringe they are
- every server that uses pac doesnt survive to see a 2nd month
- even if pacs are checked, youre giving up control of the theme to the players who will inevitably make the cringiest outfits and characters thus repeating the cycle

pac is by no means a successful system on any rp server, its the best way to streamline your inevitable shutdown

 

[Chiptune]

By restricting the availability of the customization tool, you're making it an exclusivity based on trust. This reads great on paper, but you can't just "give people a chance" and watch as they, immediately after being given the flag, put on a PAC3 outfit called "mechwarrior5firestarter" and force everyone to download a massive outfit file and hotload a myriad of greeble models so that their custom FS9-H 'mech displays correctly.

Of course, the logical response to this is to remove the flag. How many times are you willing to bother doing that, though? It might not happen instantly, but someone will think that it would be really funny to put together or equip a ridiculous PAC3 outfit to fool around. Of course, nobody's advocating that everything should be grimdark and sincere at all times, but one man's joke is another man's nuisance a lot of the time. In more than a few cases, people's LOOC jokes can be grating at best and outright obnoxious at worst (and that's just text).

The ultimate evolution of an application-based PAC3 system is, in my opinion, that whomever it is that bothers approving the applications will realize that a huge amount of people applying aren't worth accepting. This bottlenecks the availability, and subsequently makes the people who have PAC3 access stand out like a sore thumb. It's like going on TnB and seeing a bunch of Male01-09s in a crowd and, somewhere among them, is Albert Wesker with shades and that one city 8 black jacket item.

The system itself might not be a bad idea -- it's certainly one of very few solutions to the hypothetical problem at hand -- but the players who get accepted will eventually start looking kind of goofy.

Since that's not what happened in other communities using the system, I disagree. Firstly, it would not be restricting the availability based on trust, but based on common sense. This would ensure that to be accepted you would have to keep your PAC simple and not immersion-breaking. Secondly, the size limit would ensure no one could force others to download a massive outfit. The size limit is coded into PAC's functions, it's not based on trust, you actually literally cannot load more than a certain size once it's set.

Using a headhack or adding accessories on your character does not make them stand out in too large an aspect, and it's such a simple thing to do on PAC that most people would actually consider doing it, which would lead to less "sticking out like a sore thumb". And if, for some reason, that ends up happening, then once again anyone bothered by it could just turn off PAC for themselves.

 

[avralwobniar]

I will be writing a pac application purely so I can fly around with the pac camera and metagame my enemies

 

[Chiptune]

- having staff check every pac is annoying as fuck, and abuse can happen at any moment (and abuse will happen)
- servers with pac are laggy as fuck, even when only like 8 people are using it. restricting the amount of people who have pac will lead to;
- pac alienates players that dont like it/dont want to use it/arent good enough of a player in the eyes of staff to have it
- pac alienates the players that do use it because everyone makes fun of how cringe they are
- every server that uses pac doesnt survive to see a 2nd month
- even if pacs are checked, youre giving up control of the theme to the players who will inevitably make the cringiest outfits and characters thus repeating the cycle

pac is by no means a successful system on any rp server, its the best way to streamline your inevitable shutdown

-Staff would not need to check it due to the application process in place, and any abuse would be immediately punished since you can see what the PAC is SUPPOSED to look like
-Servers with PAC are not laggy if they have a limit, most servers today have over 30 people with PAC at the same time with no issue due to the size limit
-PAC does not alienate anyone because most PAC experts are more than happy to assist others in making their own PAC, or even making it for them and everyone is free to disable it if they don't like it
-PAC does not alienate people who use it because anyone making a cringe outfit would not go through the application process
-That's objectively wrong, I have seen more servers using PAC survive than the opposite and I have been roleplaying for over 13 years now
-No, the control of the theme remains in the hand of those making the PAC guidelines, which would enforce immersion and respect of the lore. If you do not respect the guidelines you do not get a PAC flag and cannot wear your PAC.

PAC is a successful system as proven by the miriad of RP servers successfully using it with zero issue for like, almost a full decade now. Not having PAC available to players is an extremely strange thing in today's Gmod and most players would immediately assume it's behind a paywall if it isn't. That's how popular it is.

 

[avralwobniar]

-Staff would not need to check it due to the application process in place, and any abuse would be immediately punished since you can see what the PAC is SUPPOSED to look like

so, who checks to make sure that the people that applied are using the pac outfit they applied for? who checks pac applications? the players?

-Servers with PAC are not laggy if they have a limit, most servers today have over 30 people with PAC at the same time with no issue due to the size limit

yes they are

-PAC does not alienate anyone because most PAC experts are more than happy to assist others in making their own PAC, or even making it for them and everyone is free to disable it if they don't like it

pac experts

-PAC does not alienate people who use it because anyone making a cringe outfit would not go through the application process

yes they will

-No, the control of the theme remains in the hand of those making the PAC guidelines, which would enforce immersion and respect of the lore. If you do not respect the guidelines you do not get a PAC flag and cannot wear your PAC.

no, youre wrong

PAC is a successful system as proven by the miriad of RP servers successfully using it with zero issue for like, almost a full decade now. Not having PAC available to players is an extremely strange thing in today's Gmod and most players would immediately assume it's behind a paywall if it isn't. That's how popular it is.

the servers using it for a full decade come and go on a monthly basis, always started up by the same 5 different people and always have the exact same players on them

 

[Chiptune]

I'll only answer the ones that have genuine arguments in them and not just "you're wrong" with no attempt at elaboration since that makes my detailed answers more trustworthy by default.

-The ones who would check would be people with PAC knowledge whose job is exclusively that, to ensure that PACs are safe, lore-accurate and in good taste with specific, strict guidelines discussed and put in place with the staff team. Beyond putting the guidelines in place, the staff team would not have to monitor PACs and could focus on doing staff stuff instead. If an issue arises with a PAC, the PAC team would be able to report it, or someone else entirely. Those issues would be immediately apparent thanks to the application process and guidelines.

-The servers using them come and go literally like every other server, without a difference in frequency or behavior. Server owners and developers usually know one another and this explains why communities, Neb included usually has the same few faces at the top, this has nothing to do with PAC and it has no impact on the longevity of a server or community. People willing to open servers, manage servers and write code are not extremely common so it wouldn't be crazy to think they oftentimes gather to open servers together and stick to the people they know and trust in order to do so.