NVFL Clarification Needed

[CamoRP]

As a community member, I am lead to believe the purposed notion of what No Life For Life rule is for has changed, and I am hoping the staff team can clarify of how it's enforced nowadays. I welcome anyone's input, but won't set any answers in stone until the staff team can provide an answer in unison.

Scenario #1 -  A lone wanderer is walking down the road, and is suddenly surrounded and initiated upon by a group of bandits (who he has no previous interaction history with). There's no chance he'll escape to cover or evade them otherwise. He will practically have zero chance he'll survive if he chooses to retaliate by pulling out his weapon to shoot them before they drop him. He chooses to retaliate instead of surrendering and dies. To me this is a clear-cut case of NVFL. In my opinion there are exceptions to this, and no I don't believe having a "suicidal character trait" is a viable reason to commit NVFL. However, I can understand if a character chooses to retaliate if they're intent is to die instead of being tortured, raped, executed, etc, because of their previous history. I would say if they PK their character, it should be allowed.

Is Scenario #1 allowed?

Scenario #2 - A scenario with hostage implications. You're traveling down the road with a friend (official group). You split up for a few minutes to loot the buildings nearby, upon walking up to your rendezvous point, you noticed from a distance your friend is standing at the meeting point but is being surrounded by group of armed individuals.  They hold him up and take him hostage. You then decide to follow them to a disclosed location, a warehouse. You like your friend, and you don't want him to maimed or die by a bunch of strangers that captured him, unfortunately you're his only hope. If you are to rescue him, the odds of your survival will be low. Chances are you're going to die. But it's a just cause for dying, call it a heroic action. You step into the warehouse and open fire. You manage to kill two of them, but unfortunately the third one steps out from a corner and finishes you off. This in my opinion would be a viable reason to commit NVFL, and should be allowed if you PK your character.

Is Scenario #2 allowed?

Scenario #3 - The player in this scenario is playing a character who has heroic qualities or doesn't care if he lives or dies as long as it means risking their life to save others.

There are a number of scenarios that could play out, but I feel with the way the NVFL is setup, it dissuades anyone from playing Hero characters. Let me continue to speak upon Scenario #3. Your character is a White Knight and wants to save every Damsel-in-Distress that he encounters. It doesn't matter what happens. He accepts that one day he will die and pretty much has a deathwish. He's not suicidal, but he'll always risk his life for a greater purpose.  Eventually he dies and PK's his character. I am skeptical if such a play-style should be allowed?

Is Scenario #3 allowed?

Scenario #4 - You and your teammates are hostages (official group). You somehow manage to persuade your hostage-takers that you have zero connection with the other men in the room, to whom they plan on executing. They release you with terms that you must follow. They state that you must leave the area for two hours, if you return within the vicinity before then, they will kill you on-sight. You flee into the nearby town and find a suitable weapon. You return to the area to rescue your friends. The odds are against you if you take them on all at once. However, you strategize by luring them one by one into the building that you bait them into. You manage to kill a majority of them, granting your teammates time to overthrow the hostage-takers. You are given the all-clear by your teammates, but unfortunately, before your teammates could assist you, you were killed by the last two hostage-takers who had been hiding in the room behind your friends. The hostage takers kill you.

With the details provided in this scenario, would it still imply a NVFL situation? You went through all that effort and survived until the very last moment when you let your guard down. You felt confident no one else was in the area. However, two hostiles were still in the vicinity and take you out. What makes this scenario also interesting is the fact that you had Defender rights before you return and also while your opponents have Attacker Rights on you at the same time because you violated their terms of release.

 

Other uses of NVFL enforcement which I expect to be a case-by-case scenario...

Scenario #5 - A player chooses to drive 180 km/hr in a densely populated city with many obstacles. He goes to fast around a corner and collides with a guard rail, instantly killing him.

Would this be considered NVFL? I would think so.

Scenario #6 - A player wants initiate on a vehicle passing by, he steps onto the road and aims his gun at the incoming vehicle and initiates, he is then run over by the opposition's car, instantly killing him.

Would this be considered NVFL? I would think so.

Scenario #7 - A player and his group is attempting to infiltrate a base during an active firefight. He climbs up to the top of a tower in order to hop onto the roof of the base to gain entry. Here's the catch. The jump from the tower to the roof is 5m, and if he doesn't jump off right, he'll fall 80m to his death. He witinessed his other two teammates pull off the jump successfully and felt confident he could do it. However, he fails and dies. (I'm sure some of those reading this know I am refering to an old case that brought up a lot of conversation a couple years ago.)

Would this be considered NVFL? I would think so. NVFL seems to be enforced when a player dies because they chose take an unnecessary risk, when other options were avaliable.

Scenario #8 - You're a hostage. Your hostage takers are demanding you to tell them information that you are guaranteed to know. (Let's assume they can prove in a report you knew the information they were wanting in-character.) They threaten to kill you. The current rules (according to previous answers by staff) dictate they're not allowed to execute you for lying, but they do not cover your refusal to participate in their demands. They then execute you.

Would this be considered NVFL? To what obligation are you to participate when your life is on the line? I speak upon what makes sense in-character, not strictly refering to the current rules.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Camo

[Whitename]

There's an inherent problem with creating scenarios and asking "Yes or no?" because that sets up a weird hypothetical precedent. You can't know for sure if these are allowed or not because they haven't happened and the context isn't there

 

IMO, in regards to NVFL, just don't attack or non-comply when you are wildly outnumbered and you should be fine. There is no clear-cut numbers on what's NVFL and what isn't because it's open to context and information that would sway the outcome one way or another. If there are 5 guns on you and you point yours, there is a near-zero chance of survival and you clearly show no value for the life of your character. Think before you act, decide whether or not the situation you put yourself in has a realistic chance of success

Edited May 9, 2020 by Whitename

[CamoRP]

2 minutes ago, Whitename said:

There's an inherent problem with creating scenarios and asking "Yes or no?" because that sets up a weird hypothetical precedent. You can't know for sure if these are allowed or not because they haven't happened and the context isn't there

 

IMO, in regards to NVFL, just don't attack or non-comply when you are wildly outnumbered and you should be fine

I'm not necessarily asking for Yes or No. I am also not expecting to hold their answers accountable in the future if the time arises (for the same reason I don't hold report verdicts accountable.) I simply asking for some guidance so it can gather a better understanding of the rule and how it's enforced.

[Peril]

I'd like to preface by saying this is solely my personal application of the rules and how I would rule in a report, but is not reflective of the final verdict the staff team may issue.  Additionally, I think it's important to note that any answer to these hypothetical situations doesn't actually guarantee anything in terms of precedent.  NVFL is a fairly clear cut rule in my opinion, simply requiring common sense to follow, and will always be applied to any situation individually, taking into account the nuance of the situation, rather than painting all potentials with a broad brush.

That said, here's my take on your hypotheticals:

Scenario 1:
Retaliating against impossible odds with certain death and then dying would be NVFL.  Permakilling your character does not excuse you from this.  If you want them to kill you and then PK your character, ask them OOC and agree upon that avenue of roleplay, rather than just blatantly breaking rules unexpectedly.

Scenario 2:
Well, firstly, depending on time passed since splitting up, actual distance, and time to the warehouse, I'd always recommend reinitiating just to avoid any potential confusion.  I could see this going two ways: a 1v3 or a 2v3.  You could argue that it was the warehouse raider and the hostage versus 3 armed individuals or you could argue that its just the raider versus 3 armed individuals because the hostage is likely tied up and disarmed.  Personally, I'd consider it NVFL unless the hostage was freed, armed with something, and fighting back, as the raider is walking into the fortress of and attacking 3 enemies in a defensible position by himself, then dying.  Once again, PKing your character does not automatically excuse you from the rules.  I will say that this could easily be up for debate when compared to past NVFL verdict discussions.

Scenario 3:
As long as the rules are followed, that playstyle is definitely allowed.  This does, however, include NVFL.  If this white knight character is willing to singlehandedly try to Rambo a complex of several armed enemies to rescue a damsel in distress, he'd likely die and that would be NVFL.  Naturally, we wouldn't encourage that.

Scenario 4:
I would personally say that would be NVFL, but the question there isn't, "Is this NVFL," but rather, "Who's gonna report this?"  You'd also be a little hard pressed to prove the speed or what not of the vehicle if you do report someone doing this, so it more boils down to, "Is this person clearly, evidently driving recklessly, and is that what lead to their death?" in my opinion.  Cars in DayZ are also wonky, so if you get DayZ'd by a car, I'd probably be a little more understanding.

Scenario 5:
If we're assuming that the car is on a linear path and traveling at a speed fast enough to instantly kill the person, I would consider standing in that linear path, refusing to move out of the way, and being struck by the car NVFL.  I always encourage people to wait for cars to slow down to maneuver obstacles or what not before initiating on them, as well as accompanying initiations on vehicles with short, to the point text initiations.  This helps avoid rulebreaks on all sides, like NVFL or (attempted) invalid kills.

Scenario 6:
I would not consider this NVFL.  The jump is clearly feasible and possible, he just got unlucky with game mechanics.

Hope that offers some insight into these individual scenarios.  But, like I said, that's just me personally in my application of the rules.  Not every Game Master or Admin may agree with me here.

[CamoRP]

 

5 minutes ago, Peril said:

Spoiler

 

I'd like to preface by saying this is solely my personal application of the rules and how I would rule in a report, but is not reflective of the final verdict the staff team may issue.  Additionally, I think it's important to note that any answer to these hypothetical situations doesn't actually guarantee anything in terms of precedent.  NVFL is a fairly clear cut rule in my opinion, simply requiring common sense to follow, and will always be applied to any situation individually, taking into account the nuance of the situation, rather than painting all potentials with a broad brush.

That said, here's my take on your hypotheticals:

Scenario 1:
Retaliating against impossible odds with certain death and then dying would be NVFL.  Permakilling your character does not excuse you from this.  If you want them to kill you and then PK your character, ask them OOC and agree upon that avenue of roleplay, rather than just blatantly breaking rules unexpectedly.

Scenario 2:
Well, firstly, depending on time passed since splitting up, actual distance, and time to the warehouse, I'd always recommend reinitiating just to avoid any potential confusion.  I could see this going two ways: a 1v3 or a 2v3.  You could argue that it was the warehouse raider and the hostage versus 3 armed individuals or you could argue that its just the raider versus 3 armed individuals because the hostage is likely tied up and disarmed.  Personally, I'd consider it NVFL unless the hostage was freed, armed with something, and fighting back, as the raider is walking into the fortress of and attacking 3 enemies in a defensible position by himself, then dying.  Once again, PKing your character does not automatically excuse you from the rules.  I will say that this could easily be up for debate when compared to past NVFL verdict discussions.

Scenario 3:
As long as the rules are followed, that playstyle is definitely allowed.  This does, however, include NVFL.  If this white knight character is willing to singlehandedly try to Rambo a complex of several armed enemies to rescue a damsel in distress, he'd likely die and that would be NVFL.  Naturally, we wouldn't encourage that.

Scenario 4:
I would personally say that would be NVFL, but the question there isn't, "Is this NVFL," but rather, "Who's gonna report this?"  Cars in DayZ are also wonky, so if you get DayZ'd by a car, I'd probably be a little more understanding.

Scenario 5:
If we're assuming that the car is on a linear path and traveling at a speed fast enough to instantly kill the person, I would consider standing in that linear path and being struck by the car NVFL.  I always encourage people to wait for cars to slow down to maneuver obstacles or what not before initiating on them, as well as accompanying initiations on vehicles with short, to the point text initiations.  This helps avoid rulebreaks on all sides, like NVFL or (attempted) invalid kills.

Scenario 6:
I would not consider this NVFL.  The jump is clearly feasible and possible, he just got unlucky with game mechanics.

Hope that offers some insight into these individual scenarios.  But, like I said, that's just me personally in my application of the rules.  Not every Game Master or Admin may agree with me here.

 

 

Thank you for some clarification.

[Jade]

Honestly when I look at NVFL reports there are a few questions I ask myself. 

• 1. Was the death an accident or was it of their own volition.  If it was a god honest accident then 8/10 times I don't see it as an issue, accidents happen.
• 2. Did the person know the situation they were in (Ex: Did one person go to initiate and then three of his friends hid in the trees out of view)?
• 3. If the person was aware of the situation what were the obvious numbers on the opposing side, what were their chances of surviving, who did they have with them as allies, and were they outgunned?  

Of course those questions are very dependent on people being truthful and having the evidence to support their claims. And ofc there are more questions that can be asked as things come to light... so it's hard to judge yes/no type situations, one thing I will say is that you should never use a PK to get out of a NVFL claim. If you want to fight back in order to PK your character then it should be agreed on an OOC level just to avoid sour tastes. Just a safer option imo . 

While it doesn't really answer your scenarios  hopefully it's still an insight for ya.

[CamoRP]

35 minutes ago, Jade said:

Spoiler

 

Honestly when I look at NVFL reports there are a few questions I ask myself. 

• 1. Was the death an accident or was it of their own volition.  If it was a god honest accident then 8/10 times I don't see it as an issue, accidents happen.
• 2. Did the person know the situation they were in (Ex: Did one person go to initiate and then three of his friends hid in the trees out of view)?
• 3. If the person was aware of the situation what were the obvious numbers on the opposing side, what were their chances of surviving, who did they have with them as allies, and were they outgunned?  

Of course those questions are very dependent on people being truthful and having the evidence to support their claims. And ofc there are more questions that can be asked as things come to light... so it's hard to judge yes/no type situations, one thing I will say is that you should never use a PK to get out of a NVFL claim. If you want to fight back in order to PK your character then it should be agreed on an OOC level just to avoid sour tastes. Just a safer option imo . 

While it doesn't really answer your scenarios  hopefully it's still an insight for ya.

 

 

Thanks for the reply.

I think it other factors should be looked at as well. Did the solo individual pursue to open-fire on seven guys out in a field, or did he stand his ground inside a building, with his gun aimmed at the only entry point waiting for the seven of the opposition to enter one by one, giving him the higher odds of survival. After having a private conversation with a staff member and reviewing other reports from the past year. I have noticed that a majority of staff look at situations as a  "Well, it's this person versus seven other guys! (1v7)" but it's not that simple in my opinion. Otherwise solo players would always just surrender, and realistically if you have a high chance of survival, despite it being against numerous enemies, why would you surrender (logically)? I see such matters to be a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 at times.

I'm not a fan of the mentality of "1v7" way of thinking. I believe each part of the firefight and circumstances amongst it should be taken in account. Not just the whole situation liquidated into a simple construct of thinking.

If you're armed with an fully-automatic and body armor --- Say you toss a grenade into the other room, where the opposition awaits to enter and kill you. Say you kill 5 of the 7 guys with that single grenade. A minute goes by, the 6th guy enters, you kill him, but the 7th comes running in behind him and manages to headshot you during the barrage of bullets. The staff team will still look at it as a 1v7. I see this now as a 1v2, with the odds still in your favor.

The staff team shouldn't strictly be looking at player numbers versus player numbers to define what the odds are. For example: I think a pretty obvious case of NVFL would fall in line if a farmer with a Makarov .380 pistol attempts to fight seven armed guys with AKMs and grenades.

Edited May 9, 2020 by Camo

[Jade]

35 minutes ago, Camo said:

I see such matters to be a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 at times.

I'm not a fan of the mentality of "1v7" way of thinking. I believe each part of the firefight and circumstances amongst it should be taken in account. Not just the whole situation liquidated into a simple construct of thinking.

If you toss a grenade into the other room, where the opposition awaits to enter and kill you. Say you kill 5 of the 7 guys with that single grenade. A minute goes by, the 6th guy enters, you kill him, but the 7th comes running in behind him and manages to headshot you during the barrage of bullets. The staff team will still look at it as a 1v7. I see this now as a 1v2, with the odds still in your favor.

If you run into a situation where you know it's a 1v7  it will not be considered a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1 by any standards... unless for some god awful reason none of the people are allied. There's no guarantees you will actually kill that amount of people until you do. Which again is why you don't go with the what ifs you go with the evidence given and what actually happened when deciding a verdict.

If you think of it regarding fractions a 1v2 is roughly a 50% chance you will live. A 1v7 is roughly a 14% chance. Just because you kill a couple does not means your odds will rise, you will always stay at that 14% until they are all killed. 

[CamoRP]

56 minutes ago, Jade said:

If you run into a situation where you know it's a 1v7  it will not be considered a 1v1v1v1v1v1v1 by any standards... unless for some god awful reason none of the people are allied. There's no guarantees you will actually kill that amount of people until you do. Which again is why you don't go with the what ifs you go with the evidence given and what actually happened when deciding a verdict.

If you think of it regarding fractions a 1v2 is roughly a 50% chance you will live. A 1v7 is roughly a 14% chance. Just because you kill a couple does not means your odds will rise, you will always stay at that 14% until they are all killed. 

I can't get behind that logic. If you kill 5 of the individuals right off the bat without risking yourself to exposure (visible target to gun fire), and there's 2 left, your odds would be increased to from 14% to 50% chance of survival if we're strictly speaking upon player numbers. Why is it all opposing players have to be dead in order for your odds to increase? It's like you're treating the whole situation still as "14%". Maybe it's because I divided the firefight into parts? The first part being I used a grenade without exposing myself, and the second part being two guys rushing in the room, and the lsecond guy kills me while I shoot the first guy.

I also can't get behind how player numbers are how are odds are defined. Other important factors should matters. I speak of:

• Environment (open field versus close-quarter combat in a building),
• Equipment (guns, grenades, body armor),
• Situational awareness (how many targets do I have to take out before I am safe?),
• Strategy (offense or defense), etc. I am sure there's more I could add.

Let's focus on the "Equipment" factor. A solo player with body armor, grenades, and an AKM would feel much more confident in his ability to fend off any opposition, and also have better odds of winning in any given scenario, versus say said player had no body armor or grenades, and only had a Makarov .380 pistol with 8 rounds and a spear to defend himself with.

 

My question really is debating how odds are defined in a NVFL scenario. Odds will affect how harsh the punishment should be in a guilty verdict. I would also think it would allow the staff members to decide whether the player's actions should lead them to becoming PK'd for it. I don't think it's right that EVERY NVFL verdict should lead to a PK. 

It seems like there's an imbalance in the rules. Let me explain:

1. I know I am protected by the rules if I surrender, I will never die and will just lose my supplies and possibly receive a scar or two from torture.
2. But if I try to defend myself I am likely to be killed in-game, and lose access to my character (forced PK'd) that I have roleplaying as for the last 3000 hours, because I so happen to die by the last guy of two, from the original seven, who I failed to kill? That seems a little illogical to me.

At what point are the odds to low, that it will lead to an NVFL verdict? If something is lower than a 1:1 ratio (1v1), I am instantly smacked by a NVFL guilty verdict?

I just don't understand how NVFL odds are seen as so "Black & White". I think it's a gray area and varies from situation to situation.

[CamoRP]

Just the other month, I went after three individuals wielding automatics with my Winchester rifle out in an open field (with some trees along the road). I didn't die right away, and even managed to kill one. I had distance as a major advantage. My targets were 400m away, and out in the open. The chances that an assault rifle spraying my direction while the wielder is catching his breath, versus my Winchester rifle as I stood behind cover, are pretty fucking slim of me catching a bullet. The last two individuals ran away and ended up KoSing me an half an hour later when they returned to the Soup Kitchen when my guard was down.

If I were reported by these individuals, would any of my actions had lead me to NVFL if I died during the initial firefight, given that it was a 1v1 then a 1v2 situation?

The dynamic allies I had from the camp, were stripped of their weapons and ammo, so I was on my own.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Camo

[Saunders]

There are so many factors that determine whether somebody commits NVFL or not. These indeed include Environment (where all the enemies were at the time of the accused NVFL and where the other party was also), the equipment that the enemies vs the accused NVFL'er at the time etc. This is why video evidence plays a big part on how things are verdicted. I know you want to understand NVFL as a whole but it's always a case by case basis and although Peril has done a fantastic job with answering your questions you must keep in mind that there are always different scenarios that could happen that could change a verdict. The NVFL promotes roleplaying over always being on the attack, sometimes you just need to admit defeat and get some quality hostage roleplay from the situation. The NVFL rule also comes down to common sense, you need to think whether you have a realistic chance of winning the fight and yes it may seem extreme since you only have a second or two to determine whether you have that chance or not but if you can't make that decision and you choose to fire you ultimately risk being banned. If you don't want to risk being banned either back away from the situation (which could bring some great internal roleplay since you left your friend to potentially die) or go enjoy the hostage roleplay that your friend is getting to enjoy. Just because your character is a hero or a bad ass does not mean that he never backs down, there is always somebody bigger and badder than you in life! 

[CamoRP]

On 5/11/2020 at 6:45 PM, Saunders said:

----- If you don't want to risk being banned either back away from the situation (which could bring some great internal roleplay since you left your friend to potentially die) or go enjoy the hostage roleplay that your friend is getting to enjoy. Just because your character is a hero or a bad ass does not mean that he never backs down, there is always somebody bigger and badder than you in life! ---

That statement there, is what bothers me about the NVFL mentality.

I feel like NVFL verdicts (regarding firefights) would make the most sense if a player is maliciously acting in a way where it clear-cut (such as Scenario #1)

• they don't give a crap if they die in a combat situation "they can just respawn and regear in an hour",
• also the odds are highly against them,
• and in ridiculous scenarios where they might as well just shoot themselves in the head via F11.

It's like "Oh you can't defend yourself? Well sucks to be you, either be a hostage, run away from the situation, or risk getting banned and lose your character!" Just...GAHHHH!! I hate that... lol

-------------

I'm not saying the rules are bad, but they're far from perfect.... I feel like sometimes there's too much imbalance behind them. 

On another topic entirely --- It's like in regards to witnessing players break into your base. I feel like they shouldn't be given the benefit-of-the-doubt that you're present or not. If an intruder is actively hacksawing a gate. The owner should have the right to shoot them; no initiation, or "hey that's mine" warning needed. What roleplay have they given the owner by breaking into his place when he wasn't present? None. So the owner shouldn't be obligated to roleplay either. I'm all for placing roleplay above all else. But it can't always be applied in every circumstance. This is DayZ after all, let's not kid ourselves.

-----------

EDIT: Saunders has requested me to edit my post, to notify any readers that we continued to speak upon the topic of discussion, privately on Discord.

Edited May 13, 2020 by Camo
Saunders spoke with me in Discord.