Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-08-01 05:30

PLIKT -- O-Squad Patrol -
TODAY | 2021-08-01 19:00:00 (server time) | Starts in 13 hours, 29 minutes | Nyheim City

Rule 4.2 and group rights


TurkRP

Group rights  

56 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Emerald
Posted (edited)

SNIP

Edited by TurkRP
Link to post
  • Diamond
Posted (edited)

Don’t think the rule should changed, I feel as an approved group you should share rights no matter where you are on the map -1

Edited by neom
Link to post
  • VIP

+100000000

Being a roleplay server it makes zero sense as to why RDM or KOS would be allowed in any way. 

If people in your approved group are part of the initial reaction or are within VOIP range and can hear it, then game on. If they're across the map and have not been part of the initial hostilities then I don't believe they have any right to shoot someone without initiating. 

Link to post
  • Game Master
8 minutes ago, Frickin Red said:

If people in your approved group are part of the initial reaction or are within VOIP range and can hear it, then game on. If they're across the map and have not been part of the initial hostilities then I don't believe they have any right to shoot someone without initiating. 

This. 
 

Either give rights to only those present for the initiation, or those within 100-150m of the initiation, not half way across the map. 
 

+1

Link to post
  • MVP

I agree with this. Especially as Nyheim is smaller than Chernarus was and "reinforcments" can pop up in a much shorter time even if they were across the map prior.

Link to post
  • Emerald

-1

 

If you dont want them to kill you, take the radio and move him a ways away and the rest of his party won’t find you anyway.

Link to post
  • Emerald
1 minute ago, Dan said:

-1

 

If you dont want them to kill you, take the radio and move him a ways away and the rest of his party won’t find you anyway.

Its not about being found, its about Kill on sight and that being the issue.

 

If they find me, let them reinitiate and then kill me, not jfk me from 400 meters because the rules allow them to.

Link to post
  • Diamond

I agree with @TurkRP. Great to see you making these suggestions that will improve roleplay.

Make people actually roleplay and figure out how they are going to rescue a hostage instead of making a 400m shot with a mosin. People should not be so focused on getting a kill, but instead on the roleplay. Try and negotiate with the hostage takers, make offers, threaten them, and roleplay! (instead of just JFKing them) 

Like @Frickin Red said, change it to  "Approved groups share kill rights to all group members online during the initial hostile action who are a part of the initial situation or within VOIP range."

Link to post
4 minutes ago, TurkRP said:

Its not about being found, its about Kill on sight and that being the issue.

 

If they find me, let them reinitiate and then kill me, not jfk me from 400 meters because the rules allow them to.

The players that gained killrights from the initiation can still jfk you from 400 meters regardless  if you keep that rule or not.

The party that gets initiated on is either dead, wounded, disarmed or have fled. If you change this rule to exclude teammembers, you might as well change initiating into bullying. 

Don't make a rulechange where the bullies or large groups get all the advantage. That is what your requested change would do.

 

Sure, there are players who think that gunplay is not similar to roleplay. But in fact, everything your character does is roleplay. Even shooting.

There are players who don't agree with that because they lack the experience of initiating, group wars and firefights, or simply say it out of spite.

 

If you do not want to get jfk'd you should not be part of a group that performs hostile actions on others. 

 

Also, this rule has been there for 10 years and it always worked fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Link to post

Your poll options are not honest. The options in favour of your vote "Yes" and "Maybe" are just that. But the option " No this is why" implies that one has to explain themselves in a post. Why does the side that does not agree with you have to explain themselves? Tip: Create an unbiased poll and start over if you want this to be seriously considered. The current poll results are worthless regardless of the outcome because the options you can choose are biased in your favour of choosing yes.

Edited by Misty
Link to post
  • MVP
15 minutes ago, Misty said:

If you do not want to get jfk'd you should not be part of a group that performs hostile actions on others. 

This is already in the rules too btw. It's called Ruleplay. Using KOS rights for the sake of PVP and putting PVP priority over RP.

Link to post
  • Emerald
21 minutes ago, Misty said:

The players that gained killrights from the initiation can still jfk you from 400 meters regardless  if you keep that rule or not.

The party that gets initiated on is either dead, wounded, disarmed or have fled. If you change this rule to exclude teammembers, you might as well change initiating into bullying. 

Don't make a rulechange where the bullies or large groups get all the advantage. That is what your requested change would do.

 

Sure, there are players who think that gunplay is not similar to roleplay. But in fact, everything your character does is roleplay. Even shooting.

There are players who don't agree with that because they lack the experience of initiating, group wars and firefights, or simply say it out of spite.

 

If you do not want to get jfk'd you should not be part of a group that performs hostile actions on others. 

 

Also, this rule has been there for 10 years and it always worked fine.

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

How would my requested change only give advantages to large groups? The rulechange would do the exact opposite of this.

 

If i initiate on a person who is part of a large group then his buddies who are all around the map wont get any rights and therefore i do not have to be worried about getting JFK’d by random group member #14, but instead be worried about his group pulling up on me and reinitiating.

 

And just because a rule has worked in the past it does not mean its the right way, loads of times my hostagerp got cut short because random groupmember start shooting just because they can.

 

@ItsJetexplained it the right way.

Link to post
  • Legend

I think getting rid of 4.2 (specifically the part with approved group rights) gets rid of one of the defining features for becoming an approved group. Without the addon on to the rule approved groups are basically the same as dynamic groups... which isn't a bad thing tbh, but the addon was to help promote group creation by rewarding their efforts at the end w/ a special privilege to defend themselves. It also stopped less hostile groups from becoming a punching bag for the big boys. Getting rid of it outright could take away from people wanting to create an official group. However, getting rid of it stops the abuse of baiting to get those rights, but Staff is usually there to step in at that point and a report can be made.

Currently, @Hofer already made a change to the rule to make it so only group members ONLINE at the time could get rights, this stopped people from logging in after the initiation to go support their buds.

I originally voted for maybe but after rereading a couple times I realized that the rule honestly is fine how it is. If someone abuses it or focuses PVP over roleplay then it's an ez report or talking in HD. I think it should be a bit difficult for people to take others hostage and should worry about consequences to their actions, you actually have to size up people and pick your battles carefully. 

 

Link to post
  • Emerald
1 hour ago, Frickin Red said:

+100000000

Being a roleplay server it makes zero sense as to why RDM or KOS would be allowed in any way. 

If people in your approved group are part of the initial reaction or are within VOIP range and can hear it, then game on. If they're across the map and have not been part of the initial hostilities then I don't believe they have any right to shoot someone without initiating. 

+1 just as Red explained beautifully here.

i accidentally voted no though 

Link to post
  • MVP
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Banksyy said:

+1 just as Red explained beautifully here.

i accidentally voted no though 

But it's also already part of the rules, as has been explained. If you get JFK'd across the map and use KOS rights just to use them... that's ruleplay. 

3.4 You may not focus on out of character gains to the detriment of RP. For example, "rule play" is prioritizing things like kill rights or OOC information above more appropriate IC actions or behavior. Always prioritize role play over rule play.

https://www.dayzrp.com/rules/#rule3.4

Edited by Keira
Link to post

I support the idea behind this and I often felt the same frustration about this topic, but I`d still not want the rule to be changed for the following reasons:

  • All For One
    The entire point of a group is to be protected by your friends/family/allies in a hostile, post-apocalyptic world, a factor that would get lost if kill-rights are suddenly not shared anymore. These people are not co-workers you forget about when you come home after work, they are everything you have left. As such, I believe that attacking one group member should always count as an initiation on the entire pack. It is primal, it can be unfair, but "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" and fighting dirty is how it goes. Especially given a strong bond between characters, it simply does not make sense for me: If I heard my spouse/brother/sister/etc. shout over the radio that there is a fight going on and they are being shot at, there is nothing that should or could stop me from ripping that person`s head off. People will run distances to defend their own people, and I don`t think that`s a bad thing tbh.
  • Abuse
    Two groups dislike each other. Group A gathers their entire team to teach group B a lesson. Group A shows up and initiates on group B.
    In this situation, a whole group gains Attacker Rights on group B, while only a part of group B is allowed to defend themselves without re-initiating.

    This might look good in firefights between two PvP groups, where it would obviously be unimmersive/frustrating if members of Group A suddenly get headshot by a member of Group B from half-a-day`s travel away. But what happens when, for example, a raiding party initiates on a settlement? The already existing, natural disadvantage regarding firepower and present group members would be heavily aggrivated and I just can`t see how this would be helpful. I`m all for reducing KOS but this server is focused on RP. If you want to change a rule, do it in a way that still protects RP-focused groups from getting ambushed.
  • Re-Initiation
    Sounds good on paper but what about in practice? Firefights can be confusing enough, even with armbands. Then how do you reinitiate on someone that is constantly moving? If there is a firefight going on in the apartment blocks, do you just stand on the road and scream really loud? If you are fighting in a forest, do you just shout at every big rock you see and determine wether they heard you if bullets come flying at you? What if you end up shooting someone and that person then claims they never heard you initiating?
    This needlessley complicated firefights in my eyes and makes them barely enjoyable.

I could could go on but I think I made my point. We are an RP server and changes of any rule should never happen without carefully thinking-through if there are any situations where this could be abused and if the RP actually benefits from it. In the end it boils down to reminding people to value RP over PvP. There are many scenarios when you will gain rights on someone but should maybe not use them immediately and rather try to solve the situation in a different way. So if any of our legendary snipers that mainly caused this discussion ever happen to read this: Nice shot mate but I think you can use this talent elsewhere. It`s just so much more immersive.

Edited by Harsardie
Edit: spelling
Link to post
  • Lore Master

Nah, keep it as it is. We have the ruleplay rule already.

Link to post
  • Game Master
38 minutes ago, Misty said:

-SNIP-

IMO there’s nothing wrong with the poll options. If you’re going to go to the effort to vote on the poll, you should atleast have the decency to comment why you voted the way you did.

Link to post
  • MVP

If the rule suggested would be changed I will just whisper initiate on people and their approved members 10 meters away can't kill me for it.

So it's a no.

Link to post
  • Emerald
Posted (edited)

I personally feel no group rights would result in highly confusing hostile scenarios, and I also believe approved groups have earned kill rights due to the fact the admins keep a sense of quality control before groups get approved, meaning, an approved group is an approved group because they do great RP and contribute, even if they might engage in hostilities, they prioritize roleplay foremost, thats how approved groups should be and presumably are like currently. Also how whispering voice like stated above can be used in a way that is more ruleplayish than how it would be with group rights. (though I might be misunderstanding the point.)

Edited by Sword
Better reasoning
Link to post
  • Diamond
Posted (edited)

I don't see this as an issue. Keep the rule as is. We already have the RulePlay rule. If this is implemented, then what's the point of being in an approved group? 

Edited by Crimson
Link to post
  • Moderator

@TurkRP You need to edit the poll options at this moment in time they have been deemed bias which is an infraction in relation to the suggestion guidelines found here: 

 

Link to post
  • Emerald
3 minutes ago, Rickets said:

@TurkRP You need to edit the poll options at this moment in time they have been deemed bias which is an infraction in relation to the suggestion guidelines found here: 

 

Already done before your post lad

Link to post
  • Moderator
Just now, TurkRP said:

Already done before your post lad

Great minds think alike mate, good stuff you have a good suggestion here so don't want anything to get in the way of a proper discussion.

 

OT I think this idea could work, not sure what I think of it right now need to do a little more thinking in relation to the intricacies and run it through a few scenarios before I make up my mind.

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...