Rule Suggestion: Raiding and kill rights

[obidan66]

This is something which has bothered me a little bit for a while and is especially a problem for players that are solo or in very small groups of just a couple people. Whenever somebody decides to make a house, settlement, base or camp (whatever you want to call it for RP purposes) and they want that location to be somewhat secure, they must first construct doors from the MoreDoors mod and place them in the entrance to that location along with a combination lock to make it secure. 

Of course, now that the player has a house they made their own, somebody is eventually bound to come along and try to break in to that house. Since currently, the MoreDoors mod on the server has been tweaked in such a way that even the rather difficult to build metal doors take only about 15 minutes to fully break through with a single hatchet, it is rather difficult to truly make a place secure without being around it constantly.

Now here comes the main point. If somebody decides to come along and raid you, forcefully breaking down your doors / windows / door barricades with tools, you are NOT allowed to shoot them, even though they are casing damage to your property / possesions. Instead you must get into voice range and warn them to stop before being able to take a lethal action in case they do not. This will almsot always result in you giving away your positon just to have the raider or his friends shift their focus onto your and shoot you dead. Unless you (the base owner) are a part of a larger group and can afford to send someone as bait to be initiated on by the raiders when they are given a warning to stop... You are always at an absolute and unpreventable disadvantage. This in my opinion is not only realistic but also unfairly favors the attacker. 

The suggestion therfore is simple; Make it so that if the owner witness's somebody breaking down a door / barricade from the MoreDoors mod in order to gain entry into a structure that is otherwise un-enterable, they are able to take lethal action against them without compromising their own life in the process, as the forceful attempt to gain entry is in my opinion a hostile act in it self and should be responded to accodringly. Of course if the owner is a group, any member of the group should be able to take that action against the specific individual that is currently in the process of attempting to force entry and has already finished in forcefully gaining entry. The base owner's allies of course, would NOT have this ability and they would have to warn the intruder the current way. I stress that lethal action should be able to be taken only against the individual that is phisically breaking down a door / barricade and none else even if there are other raiders with him, unless they themselves as well partake in phisically attempting to gain entry too. 

 

Thank you for your time in reading this and please let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comments bellow. 

[neom]

How difficult is it to say “stop what you are doing or I’ll light you the fuck up” 

 

No need to change the rule

[G_DateSB]

I honestly don't think they need changing as @neom said it's not hard to say stop or get lit up. Since I have been here its worked the way it has and honestly don't need changing. 

[Elmo]

Defenders always get to shoot first in instances like this. Once they know its your base and they keep on hammering, you get rights on them but they don't get rights on you. See the big man's response here for further details:

If you're going against a bigger group as a smaller group in the scenario you described, best of luck to you without full basebuilding, chances are you're fucked.

[Chewy]

18 minutes ago, obidan66 said:

Make it so that if the owner witness's somebody breaking down a door / barricade from the MoreDoors mod in order to gain entry into a structure that is otherwise un-enterable, they are able to take lethal action against them without compromising their own life in the process

They don't need to.

All you need to do is like you said, warn them it's your house and to knock it off. If they don't then you can yeet them. You do not need to initiate when you warn them, making this an exception to the initiation rule. If they KNOWINGLY keep hammering your door down despite you telling them, yo that's my house, stop, then- again, yeet them.

Example 1.

You witness a man in the distance smacking your door down. You approach them. "Eyeyeyey, that's my house dude, knock it off."
The man apologizes and leaves the house alone. You don't have rights to kill.

Example 2.

You witness a man in the distance smacking your door down. You approach them. "Eyeyeyey, that's my house dude, knock it off."
The man refuses, and carries on smacking away at the door. You have rights to kill.

Edited October 16, 2020 by ChewyLR

[obidan66]

To adress everyone's comments here, I feel like the main argument for the suggestion is being overlooked. The defender is always at a disadvantage. Especially if youre alone or in a very small group, most of the time you're going to be out-numbered and out-gunned and attempting to warn the raider to stop breaking down your down, will only result in your position being given away, you losing your element of surprise and or vantage point and subsequently being initiated on and overwhlemed resulting in you likely losing any chance at defending your home. 

6 minutes ago, ChewyLR said:

They don't need to.

All you need to do is like you said, warn them it's your house and to knock it off. If they don't then you can yeet them. You do not need to initiate when you warn them, making this an exception to the initiation rule. If they KNOWINGLY keep hammering your door down despite you telling them, yo that's my house, stop, then- again, yeet them.

Example 1.

You witness a man in the distance smacking your door down. You approach them. "Eyeyeyey, that's my house dude, knock it off."
The man apologizes and leaves the house alone. You don't have rights to kill.

Example 2.

You witness a man in the distance smacking your door down. You approach them. "Eyeyeyey, that's my house dude, knock it off."
The man refuses, and carries on smacking away at the door. You have rights to kill.

Actual Example that happens in 99% of the time:

You witness a man in the distance smacking your door down. You approach them. "Eyeyeyey, that's my house dude, knock it off."
The man refuses, pulling out a gun and initiates on you. (He likely has friends which pull out their guns and initiate on you insantly) You have rights to kill, but at that point, your situation is hopeless.

Edited October 16, 2020 by obidan66

[Strangrer]

What about example 3.

You log on the server. You see that some people destroyed 2 doors already and you see them destroy the last one. 

What happens now? You ask them to simply walk away? They destroyed your stuff, wasn't that hostile? Why should they be risk free when they attack someones home? In this situation or any other when they attack your doors/barricades they don't risk anything, because they can leave freely when you ask them to. Maybe I'm wrong, please correct me if so.

 

[neom]

6 minutes ago, obidan66 said:

To adress everyone's comments here, I feel like the main argument for the suggestion is being overlooked. The defender is always at a disadvantage. Especially if youre alone or in a very small group, most of the time you're going to be out-numbered and out-gunned and attempting to warn the raider to stop breaking down your down, will only result in your position being given away, you losing your element of surprise and or vantage point and subsequently being initiated on and overwhlemed resulting in you likely losing any chance at defending your home. 

Actual Example that happens in 99% of the time:

You witness a man in the distance smacking your door down. You approach them. "Eyeyeyey, that's my house dude, knock it off."
The man refuses, pulling out a gun and initiates on you. (He likely has friends which pull out their guns and initiate on you insantly) You have rights to kill, but at that point, your situation is hopeless.

Then surrender and roll on with the RP and not NVFL maybe

 

can rebuild and re-loot another day but that chance for that RP won’t ever come again 

Edited October 16, 2020 by neom

[obidan66]

1 hour ago, neom said:

Then surrender and roll on with the RP and not NVFL maybe

Yes, that is currently usually inevitable. This change is supposed to level the playing field however. Give the defender an actual fighting chance, rather than to just take the punishment.

Edited October 16, 2020 by obidan66

[AndreyQ]

I voted no because if this becomes a thing I'm slapping a door on a random house in the middle of Kabanino and I am farming roleplayers 24/7.

[cas]

As @ChewyLR and @neom already said, you already have a myriad of options available to you when it comes to these scenarios. If you are insistent on shooting someone who doesn't stop when asked, then go ahead and shoot them. If you are severely outnumbered and caught lacking - comply and cut your losses. Your life is worth more than your gear and role play should be put above all else, these are two things that people often forget.

[Elmo]

12 minutes ago, Strangrer said:

What happens now? You ask them to simply walk away? They destroyed your stuff, wasn't that hostile? Why should they be risk free when they attack someones home? In this situation or any other when they attack your doors/barricades they don't risk anything, because they can leave freely when you ask them to. Maybe I'm wrong, please correct me if so.

Because its a roleplay server and roleplay is the priority, not realism. Initiate on them, roleplay, let them walk away and catch them another day if you're outnumbered, kill them if they keep going after you tell them to put your stuff back.

You can apply the same logic you're using here to other situations, like why would I, as a hostile roleplayer, initiate on people I've been long-standing enemies with rather than just KoSing them the second I see them? Because its a roleplay server and roleplay is the priority.

[obidan66]

1 minute ago, Elmo said:

You can apply the same logic you're using here to other situations, like why would I, as a hostile roleplayer, initiate on people I've been long-standing enemies with rather than just KoSing them the second I see them? Because its a roleplay server and roleplay is the priority.

Yes, but this suggestion is not about that. Your example here is tied to a different scenario and a different rule entirely. 

4 minutes ago, AndreyQ said:

I voted no because if this becomes a thing I'm slapping a door on a random house in the middle of Kabanino and I am farming roleplayers 24/7.

While I see your logic and definitely see flaws, one could however argue that if this rule came into action and you did that, one could report you for Rule-Play and potentially Abuse of in game mechancis.

[cas]

7 minutes ago, AndreyQ said:

I voted no because if this becomes a thing I'm slapping a door on a random house in the middle of Kabanino and I am farming roleplayers 24/7.

3 minutes ago, obidan66 said:

Yes, but this suggestion is not about that. Your example here is tied to a different scenario and a different rule entirely. 

While I see your logic and definitely see flaws, one could however argue that if this rule came into action and you did that, one could report you for Rule-Play and potentially Abuse of in game mechancis.

So we should avoid this situation entirely by not implementing this suggestion, because I guarantee you this is how things will play out the majority of the time.

[obidan66]

2 minutes ago, cas said:

So we should avoid this situation entirely by not implementing this suggestion, because I guarantee you this is how things will play out the majority of the time.

So we should therfore avoid any change or suggestion because there is a chance that somebody might maybe abuse it? Thats not an argument... You could say that about pretty much any suggestion or change. If we went with that approach there would be no change in anything at all, simply because it might create a problem in the future here and there. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by obidan66

[Elmo]

10 minutes ago, obidan66 said:

Yes, but this suggestion is not about that. Your example here is tied to a different scenario and a different rule entirely. 

They're both linked into the same rule and mindset, kill rights and a kill based mentality. If your mindset is "oh I can't immediately frag someone for touching my door", you're on the wrong server.

[obidan66]

6 minutes ago, Elmo said:

They're both linked into the same rule and mindset, kill rights and a kill based mentality. If your mindset is "oh I can't immediately frag someone for touching my door", you're on the wrong server.

Thy are not linked, as your example ties to kill rights in general, and thread is tied only to kill rights and how they work in connection to base raiding. Also if your mindset is; " I can raid anyone for no reason at all, simply because I will always be at an advantage, cause Im protected by this one specific rule that none can outright shoot me for a clearly hostile and violent action." , your RP must not be very realistic... And I am on the right server, I'm just attempting to voice my opinion and with some luck hopefully motion a change to the server for the better. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by obidan66

[Elmo]

3 minutes ago, obidan66 said:

-snip-

It actually loops back in to the absurd realism argument, which is that, if DayZRP were realistic, we'd not need kill rights rules and just frag each other's brains out 24/7. Same poor logic.

Might be wrong but from how you've worded this thread, it seems much more focused on being able to kill people before you've even interacted with them. That idea really has no place in DayZRP and from the poll, I think most people will feel the same way.

[obidan66]

My entire focus for this suggestion is to level the playing field for the Defender and the Attacker. I am not focused on killing people by any means, thats why I specifically worded that kill rights would only be gained on that one specific individual performing the action itself. 

1 minute ago, Elmo said:

-snip-

Might be wrong but from how you've worded this thread, it seems much more focused on being able to kill people before you've even interacted with them. That idea really has no place in DayZRP and from the poll, I think most people will feel the same way.

This is by the way a good actual argument, thank you. If of course the overwhelming majority of the player's respondning to this thread react negatively to it, I will ask for the closing of the thread myself and accept the verdict, but I'll give it some more time before that happens. 

[Echo]

Let me tell you a story.

So one time I was working at a plant, and this hydraulic pump had a tiny leak in it. It was nothing serious, just a itty bitty teeny weeny leak. My coworker said, hey let's dismatle this whole thing and fix this leak. I called the boss man, and he said these exact words... "Is it broken?" I replied back with, "No, just a tiny leak." And he said, "Well if it isn't broken, why does it need fixing?" 

I posted all of that so I can just say no to this suggestion.

Edited October 16, 2020 by Echo

[Nyx]

No need for the rule change, it's pretty simple to walk up to the person breaking down your stuff and be like "Hi, stop pls or i'll shoot".
Shouldn't be wanting to just shoot people, should be looking for the interaction and the roleplay out of it and unfortunately this feels like just another reason for a frag.
 

[obidan66]

1 minute ago, Echo said:

-Snip-

I would agree with you, if that was the case. But in my opinion it is broken and does need fixing. 

[Echo]

Just now, obidan66 said:

I would agree with you, if that was the case. But in my opinion it is broken and does need fixing. 

Boss man says it's not, so sorry coworker

Edited October 16, 2020 by Echo

[obidan66]

2 minutes ago, Phoenyxx said:

No need for the rule change, it's pretty simple to walk up to the person breaking down your stuff and be like "Hi, stop pls or i'll shoot".
Shouldn't be wanting to just shoot people, should be looking for the interaction and the roleplay out of it and unfortunately this feels like just another reason for a frag.
 

Okay, could you elaborate on your opinion regarding the Defender/ Attacker balance in this issue and on how this works in regards to solo players / small group players vs large player raiding groups?

1 minute ago, Echo said:

Boss man says it's not, so sorry coworker

Thats an opinion, not a fact. And certainly not a valid argument. 

[Echo]

2 minutes ago, obidan66 said:

Okay, could you elaborate on your opinion regarding the Defender/ Attacker balance in this issue and on how this works in regards to solo players / small group players vs large player raiding groups?

Thats an opinion, not a fact. And certainly not a valid argument. 

21 Bosses.