[TC] Gaming Forums

Maybe because cops should rather rely on their skills and teamwork than on dodgy lfs-physics.

(2012-06-02 08:10)Chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe because cops should rather rely on their skills and teamwork than on dodgy lfs-physics.

To be fair, if you get pitted in real life into a barrier, it's game over for you. Even if you get pitted once or twice it's pretty much over lol (without hitting anything.)

So, (deliberately) taking out a car this way is ok for you?

(2012-06-02 08:20)Chuck Wrote: [ -> ]So, (deliberately) taking out a car this way is ok for you?

[img]http://web830.dashosting.de/kits/46.gif[.img]

In my opinion yes, as long as:

It's a valid pit
You don't harm any traffic
You don't push them into a barrier/or ram

In regards to the video, what the cop did I think was okay, but in the end it back fired on the cop and that's fair enough, do it at your own risk.

Forget the skins on the cars. Is it ok to TAKE OUT a car like seen in the image? Im talking about the FLYING car.

(2012-06-02 08:45)Chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Forget the skins on the cars. Is it ok to TAKE OUT a car like seen in the image? Im talking about the FLYING car.

When the cop pitted the suspect, the suspect (through no fault of his own) started skidding in one direction, and the result of the pit wasn't in favour of the police officer. It was actually the cop's fault that he crashed, that's the way that the pit went.

As I said, I think that if the pit was successful and the robber went into the barrier, that's fine too.

Chuck i see your point, but in a difficult chase it becomes impossible to pit your suspect in a way he is never going to hit a barrier when the whole layout consists of barriers.

Especially when you are going 180+km/h you can't really predict how far he is going to slide or if small lag will spin him totally of course.

The Main thing i am on about is balance and if you introduce such a rule there will be a lot more cops being reported for getting it wrong. I predict unbalancing the whole system towards making it easier for the suspect.

(2012-06-02 08:45)Chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Im talking about the FLYING car.

If you take a proper look you see that the cop is trying to pit the suspect which isn't really sucessful and the suspect is stuck sideways. Suspect tries to counter that maneuver by braking which sends the cop of course and into the barrier.

In this case the cop did it to himself and there is hardly anyone to blame.

OK again. IMAGINE the suspect would have DELIBERATELY pushed the cop into the barrier to make him crash. Do you really say this is a valid move?

(2012-06-02 09:02)Chuck Wrote: [ -> ]OK again. IMAGINE the suspect would have DELIBERATELY pushed the cop into the barrier to make him crash. Do you really say this is a valid move?

Pushed, no. Rammed, no. Pitted, yes.

If by pushed you mean pitted then yes i do, just as the suspect could and tries to do the same to me in almost every chase.

Just to add pitting somebody into a barrier rarely sends him flying now, mostly you get just as much damage as youl would from hitting a wall, amco is a bit different. However the main aim is not to get the suspect to fly, but to slow him down and make it possible to block him.

Id like to see any place on sydney except h1 where i could safely pit a car at highspeed without the chance of it hitting a barrier/amco.

With pushing I mean pushing a moving car, like "deflecting". Not like pushing a stationary car.

Of course, nobody can guarantee where a car goes after pitting, but if a cop's action (all kind of force, no matter how you actually name it) is only about deliberately destructing a suspect, that should be considered as crashing. Ie. aiming for the front-edges of barriers.
You can hardly say ramming is forbidden, but pitting him into a lake filled with tnt is allowed. That's utter rubbish and those cops should get their cop-rights revoked.

And how are you going to seperate all of them? Some might have been an accident, some might not know the layout that well, some got lag and hes gone in a different direction than supposed while others do it deliberatly.

Cops are interested in a good chase aswell and getting your suspect to fly out of bounds is hardly as satisfying as boxing him, but even with a rule it will happen to any cop at some time.

To me the downsides are greater if you oppose this by adding a rule.
I can see your point, but in reality you will punish those who lack in experience or are a bit clumsy (like me ).

General rules:
"1.2. Do not crash or ram other cars deliberately."

Causing someone to crash is basically the same as directly crashing into somebody.
And I don't see a reason why a chase would change anything to that. The "force-rule" does indeed allow a limited amount of force, but it does not generally release them from keeping other rules.

Imagine we're just cruising side-by-side down the AB and I deliberately push you in a centerline-barrier (more precise, make you hit the front-edge of a barrier) which sends you flying across or even off the track. You'd certainly consider this a ram or crash. So, why would that be different in a chase?


Edit: As for the separation: Everyone here in this thread played the game long enough to judge on one's actions. As robber, you know exactly what the cop is trying to do and what his intentions are. Whether he's trying to stop you, or whether he's trying to kill you.

(2012-06-02 09:48)Chuck Wrote: [ -> ]General rules:
"1.2. Do not crash or ram other cars deliberately."

Causing someone to crash is basically the same as directly crashing into somebody.
And I don't see a reason why a chase would change anything to that. The "force-rule" does indeed allow a limited amount of force, but it does not generally release them from keeping other rules.

Imagine we're just cruising side-by-side down the AB and I deliberately push you in a centerline-barrier and sent you flying across or even off the track. You'd certainly consider this a ram or crash. So, why would that be different in a chase?

The rules also state:

Server Rules Wrote:Any force used must be calculated and tactical. The direct impact of intentional contact should cause very minor or ideally no damage to either car. Ramming is forbidden.

Essentially that means once you pit the suspect and have stopped touching him, what ever happens then (as long as it doesn't hit traffic) is not up to you. No mention that you're not allowed pit into barriers, and it actually implies it's legal to hit them into barriers because it mentioned "direct" impact. Obviously I'm not picking and choosing between hitting traffic and barriers being allowed. Barriers are inanimate objects yet traffic has nothing to do with the chase and not to mention that they're animate.
To reiterate, I'm against ramming (ramming isn't allowed anyway) and pushing into barriers, but pitting is okay.

5.4 Only mentions direct impact not secondary impact from amcos, barriers or walls.

Applying 1.2 to chases would be rather difficult, because even good pits or boxes make the suspect spin or crash into something. The result would obviously different, but in order to make the suspect box you will have to make him crash first.

Example: http://pipa.lima-city.de/kits/51.gif

That's basically an unlucky formulation. One older, more specific, version said "be sure not to kill your suspect" or similar. Even though the direct impact should not cause a huge damage, it doesn't mean that all following damages are automatic acceptable.

Ok i can fully agree with that, but what if it happens accidently?

(2012-06-02 10:13)Pipa Wrote: [ -> ]Ok i can fully agree with that, but what if it happens accidently?

Nothing, its an accident then. Its the intent that counts. Did the cop try to stop the suspect (and just failed or misjudged the situation) or did he deliberately try to kill him. That's the difference.
Not so long ago, cops used to excuse and/or abort the chase if they accidentally crashed their suspect into a barrier and I'm honestly astonished that nobody can remember those times.
If those accidents happen too often, its time for cop training.

Sounds good to me.

.....