Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-08-03 11:51

Dynamic Events: "The Mutated.."
TODAY | 2021-08-03 19:00:00 (server time) | Starts in 7 hours, 8 minutes | Nyheim City

How the hell do kill rights work??


Dan

Recommended Posts

  • Game Master

Hate the rule, not the GMs enforcing it, rule should've been canned a long time ago. Bring back old rights plz

Link to post
  • Emerald
4 minutes ago, Elmo Cringe said:

Hate the rule, not the GMs enforcing it, rule should've been canned a long time ago. Bring back old rights plz

Didn't mean to shit on the GMs, since verdicts go through all the thread notes and a majority would've agreed this is how the rule is meant.

Link to post
  • Sapphire

I honestly don't understand this new kill rights rule, that being said I haven't played in like forever. 

But based on the outcome of this report and how it literally makes zero sense,  someone should take a look at this rule and make a change before people start abusing it

Link to post
  • Game Master
1 hour ago, Stagsview said:

Okies guys, I normally dont get involved with these types of situations and verdicts anymore, but this doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Rules as written, it makes perfect sense. Its a shit outcome but there's no fault to be had, the rule is so narrow that this is the only reasonable outcome. Its every man for himself unless you are in an official group.

1 hour ago, Stagsview said:

P.S: Im not calliing out the reporters either. It seems like there was a misunderstanding in the rules and how NVFL worked. Because honestly if he had died in that situation? I would have banned him

Why? A 2v1 has never been considered NVFL if you have similar guns, not since mod at least.

Link to post
  • Lore Master
4 minutes ago, Elmo Cringe said:

Rules as written, it makes perfect sense. Its a shit outcome but there's no fault to be had, the rule is so narrow that this is the only reasonable outcome. Its every man for himself unless you are in an official group.

Why? A 2v1 has never been considered NVFL if you have similar guns, not since mod at least.

im counting the 3rd guy also that was hiding behind the building with the armband. He had his gun out from what i saw at the time of the initiation

 

and to your original response, i agree with you there. Its shitty, but play wise it doesnt make sense to me. Course, my opinion on the matter.

Link to post
  • Game Master
1 minute ago, Stagsview said:

im counting the 3rd guy also that was hiding behind the building with the armband. He had his gun out from what i saw at the time of the initiation

If you mean the guy in green, it looked like he put his gun away and didn't participate. Some tasty OOC in voip at the end too if you listen close.

Link to post
  • Lore Master
2 minutes ago, Elmo Cringe said:

If you mean the guy in green, it looked like he put his gun away and didn't participate. Some tasty OOC in voip at the end too if you listen close.

il give a double check now..uno momento...

Edit: My bad, he didnt have it out. So it would have been 2 on 1 situation. Thought he had his gun out behind the house in the recording.

Link to post
  • Legend

Honestly this is a letter of the law vs spirit of the law kind of thing. 

1 hour ago, Dan said:

you are allowed to defend yourself by gaining  DEFENDER RIGHTS on the attackers

In regards to OPs question, it does state you only have defender rights against the attackers. Had the second man raised his gun or anything I would consider it attacking, but he honestly seemed rather oblivious, even facing away from the accused.

That being said this is greatly complicated by the similar gear and armband the attacker and his friend(s) had, and I'd probably have done the same thing, maybe even tried to kill the 3rd as well. 

The reduction of punishment to 5 points and no ban seems a fair compromise in the situation, due to the accused still technically breaking the letter of the law in this case. 

Link to post
  • Emerald
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, Zanaan said:

In regards to OPs question, it does state you only have defender rights against the attackers. Had the second man raised his gun or anything I would consider it attacking, but he honestly seemed rather oblivious, even facing away from the accused.

 

Then the rule should say "you are allowed to defend yourself by gaining  DEFENDER RIGHTS on those with ATTACKER RIGHTS" because in that instance, they're still attacking him are they not?

 

Guns out, same uniform, easy.

Edited by Dan
Link to post
Posted (edited)

I feel this situation was stacked against the accused in the latest report.

In order for him NOT to invalidly kill, he would have had to not only kill the guy initiating on him, but then initiate himself on the other guy, (who got dynamic defender rights from the first guy dying!) not to mention the guy in green ALSO getting dynamic defender rights. So the three attackers can now share defender rights flipping them from the attacker to defender simply because the one guy who did initiate got killed? WUT.

In which universe does that make any sense? The rules were put in play in order to help stop dynamic groups roaming and initiating on everything like a bunch of arseholes, but it now is blatantly clear these rules heavily benefit the defending party, in which the only requirement is to "recently have roleplayed with" which can be pulled out of your arse easily. If this was an approved group there would be ZERO rulebreaks done. Madness.

I do believe it is time for a revision of the "dynamic" rules as it can lead to some stupid situations and can easily be abused.

Edited by Taffinator
Link to post
  • Emerald

Them rules are wild need to be fixed 🥵

Link to post
  • Legend
46 minutes ago, Dan said:

Then the rule should say "you are allowed to defend yourself by gaining  DEFENDER RIGHTS on those with ATTACKER RIGHTS" because in that instance, they're still attacking him are they not?

 

Guns out, same uniform, easy.

Not really, because not every attacker has attacker rights (even though they, in theory, should). For example, if the other person involved had tried to shoot at Krullix (before krullix shot at him), the other person would get hit with attempted invalid kill as he wouldn't have attacker rights, but krullix in turn would gain defender rights against him, and would not have been hit. 

Link to post
  • Emerald

I personally think this report wasn't very poggers. This rule definitely needs to be revisisted so more pog Roleplay interactions like this can occur in future without points being handed out.

Link to post
  • Emerald
13 minutes ago, Zanaan said:

Not really, because not every attacker has attacker rights (even though they, in theory, should). For example, if the other person involved had tried to shoot at Krullix (before krullix shot at him), the other person would get hit with attempted invalid kill as he wouldn't have attacker rights, but krullix in turn would gain defender rights against him, and would not have been hit. 

How is this against my proposal of rewording? It clearly clarifies that he would not be able to validly kill the other player unless they then became their own attacker.

Link to post
  • Diamond

So we witness 1 report with complications, thus we must now throw out the rule? 

Link to post
  • Emerald
1 hour ago, Crimson said:

So we witness 1 report with complications, thus we must now throw out the rule? 

You see an implication where the rule doesn't make sense, and you try to correct it so it doesn't happen in the future. Pretty normal thing to do in general.

Link to post
  • Diamond
6 minutes ago, Dan said:

You see an implication where the rule doesn't make sense, and you try to correct it so it doesn't happen in the future. Pretty normal thing to do in general.

Fair enough, but I don't see an issue. The rule is fine. It was a complicated situation and I agree with how Staff handled it. I understand where you are coming from, I just disagree. I say keep the rule as is and let Staff interpret the rule as best they can, then enforce it. 

Link to post
  • Emerald
6 minutes ago, Hofer said:

Rule dumb. Change soon. Stay tuned.

Thank you Hofer.

Link to post
  • Administrator
5 hours ago, Crimson said:

So we witness 1 report with complications, thus we must now throw out the rule? 

Let's be honest, the rule as it is right now, is in fact dumb like Hofer said and needs re-working. The report was just the "last drop". We are working on it.

Soon™️

Link to post
  • Sapphire
4 hours ago, Hofer said:

Rule dumb. Change soon. Stay tuned.

Reading through this. This is all anyone needed to say, hofer always coming in with the zings 

Link to post
  • Diamond

Yeah the whole invalid kill thing annoys me also, the fact that ImKrullix got hit there was poor however I am glad the rule is being looked at now.

Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...