Lsrcr Forum

Your name: [Lsrcr]Talis
Suggestion headline: Creating a /partner command for LEO's
Picture:
Importance of suggestion: 5/10
Why should it be accepted: Hey everyone.

With the coming of V9, the command /partner was added for players to rob places together, which I absolutely love. What I'm here to suggest is more or less the same for Law Enforcement.

In a way so that cops and partner with 1 other cop, 1 Army with another Army and SWAT I'm not sure this command would benefit since they pretty much are rewarded as a team anyway. So to clarify, players can only partner with those of the same class as them.

The way this could work is the partner reward will only be given if the partner is within said amount of meters of their partner. Of course the cash reward for arresting/killing a wanted would be split in half between the partners and the score would be given to the arresting officer or army member (that completed the kill).

For me it's an idea that I think could be fun to motivate players to team with each other and may end up with less stealing (although the last bit is debatable).

I'd love to hear your thoughts on why this is a good idea or even a bad idea - if someone feels like something should be added/removed, feel free to say so.

It could work like this:

Playa wrote:

+1
For army members - Score to both and split the cash
For cops - give the score to the arresting/killing officer but split the cash
For swat - don't change anything, its good as is

Edit: added some clarity and extra explanation to rewards.
Edit 2: Added Playa's comment as it is a lot clearer.

+1 for the reasons you've stated above. It will encourage more teaming and less intentional stealing.

+1
For army members - Score to both and split the cash
For cops - give the score to the arresting/killing officer but split the cash
For swat - don't change anything, its good as is

Yeah agreeing with what playa said

The idea is fair enough.
But I think so that /partner command is added to encourage criminal activity in group works as they have to face cops/army/swat.

A single criminal can't face all 3. And I know there is an exception when criminals are hunting on a single car but not always.

Simply cops/army/swat is law enforcement and they are meant to be working with their respective team. So I don't think so this command should be added.

Ps. I am inactive from long. I am not aware of many changes. So let me know if I am wrong.

I am negative on this for now.

Absolutely Positive for this suggestion because we love teaming to clear the san andreas and make it fair enough, also stealing no longer.

Playa wrote:

+1
For army members - Score to both and split the cash
For cops - give the score to the arresting/killing officer but split the cash
For swat - don't change anything, its good as is

+1 to this. SWAT already has the benefit of assist score. Would be a great addition for Army and Cops.

Swat already has assist score, so why not make it for the rest as well?

Positive , This is a good suggestion , but like some players said , Swat has already a great system so Army and cops are the ones who should be concerned .

It is a good idea and will make game more enjoyable for Cops and Army playing as a team however this can be abused in a way which I will explain below:

Imagine a unskilled player wants to team with a skilled player and gain free score and cash he would abuse it in such a way that he will sit as a passenger in his car and the car will be parked within the area where the partner thing would work. He can get AFK or not while the other player is busy killing/arresting the criminals. Let's say he doesn't gets AFK in the car he just gets AFK at LSA or some other popular location where criminals mostly gather and hunt. His skilled partner can ask him to get AFK there and then he keeps on coming there to arrest/kill the criminals.

This way only one has to work for it and the other will get the score and cash for free. Some players can help their unskilled friends with this way to get score and money both for him. If this thing can be avoided then the suggestion is good and I would support it.