Greetings,
Was wondering who rejected this suggestion & what the rationale was for doing so (given this was rated highly / responded to positively including by some Staff) ?
As far as I understood it vehicle armour is not intended for vehicles such as the Seasparrow and accordingly a fix is pending / planned for this - which is good.
However, in the meantime surely it makes sense that obtaining vehicle armour where it is clearly unintended and confers an unfair advantage be covered in the rules in the interim ? For example under exploit / bug abuse.
I've seen a few players doing this now.
@Flyburger Apologies for raising this in the #rule-clarification channel of the MCNR Discord Server - I didn't know I could respond to a rejected suggestion on the forum and couldn't think of anywhere else to ask about this. Noted going forward.