Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2023-01-27 12:17

Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!


Do you think "parley" (or something like it) has strong enough potential to be a rule?  

70 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

par·ley

noun

1.

a conference between opposing sides in a dispute, esp. a discussion of terms for an armistice.

Hi guys. :)

I had a big paragraph here listing the major issues with camp attacks. In the interest of not boring you to death I edited the OP to put this at the bottom. The TL;DR version is... Settlement attacks are often chaotic, confusing and have little-to-no role play element after the initiation period. For these reasons I think there needs to be something in place to negate all this crap.

So I am suggesting "The Parley Rule".

During an attack on a designated settlement a representative from each side can open an invitation to parley. This invitation can be accepted or declined. If accepted there would be an immediate cease fire from both sides, punishable if broken.

During parley each side must not attempt to gain ground on the enemy. No entering or exiting the camp during this time. If attackers are already inside then that must be made clear when asking for a parley so a new boundary limit can be agreed on.

In this time, representatives from each side can meet at a designated area with their weapons lowered to Roleplay terms, negotiations or to straighten out any confusing elements.

(EDIT: Additional paragraph)

Concluding Parley: Parley is concluded when there is a verbal acknowledgement from both parties (possibly in text). Then after a 30 second (minimum) countdown hostilities may resume. Both parties walk away with their guns lowered until back in cover. During this walk they are still under the cease fire terms. The cease fire is called off the moment 30 seconds are up, or the representative turns and raises his/her weapon.

Parley is used expressly on the grounds that there is a code of honour. It is designed to break stalemates and to clear up confusion. It is NOT to be used as a distraction or to stall for time until your flanking party gets into position. If you cannot live up to this code, then do not invite or accept parley

IMO if something like this were implemented we'd see less confusion during attacks, a lot less collateral damage and far fewer reports as a result. It would also add a huge amount of roleplay options. Negotiator roles, alpha male show downs between leaders, more interesting bandit demands, single man fights to the death on behalf of each side, arranging ransoms or bribe to halt the assault, shouting banter across the walls without worrying about strategical issues, etc etc etc.

What do you guys think? I'm sure I haven't thought of some variables or issues with this idea so I'd love to hear feedback and input from you guys. I really think it could add something, and hopefully be a remedy to some of these settlement attack problems.

P.S Problems with camp assualts (ignore if you already get it):

I have been involved in settlement attacks/defenses and have seen countless more on Youtube. IMO the initiation and following assault are frustrating many reasons. Civilians, innocents or disinterested parties are left stuck on the inside. Hostages often are simply told to sit and wait it out. Attacks can last a long time and often become stalemated after a while, leaving uninterested parties stuck in the middle twiddling their thumbs. Often there are random factors that cause chaos eg. a civilian wants to join in, which adds confusion as to who exactly you are fighting. Sometimes both forces are whittled down to just a couple of men per side. Both just want to end it and 'call it a draw' but neither side thinks they can give up arms. I've been in assaults where people have said they wan't to talk it out instead of fight but you simply can't trust their intentions... which leads to further delays and often leads back to a stalemate situation.

Enough rambling... You all get my point... assaults are a pain in the ass are very rarely clear cut.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

Sounds good, +1 from me.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

Pretty nice idea!

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

But what happens if terms are agreed between the 2 groups then the defenders decide to shoot them in the back whilst there retreating should that be punishable?

Because technically they still have KOS on them...

Apart from the issue of betraying terms i see no problem with this +1

Link to comment

But what happens if terms are agreed between the 2 groups then the defenders decide to shoot them in the back whilst there retreating should that be punishable?

Because technically they still have KOS on them...

Apart from the issue of betraying terms i see no problem with this +1

Glad you brought that up. I forgot to include that bit.

Once parley is concluded there is a verbal acknowledgement from both parties (possibly in text). Then after 30 second count down hostilities resume. Both parties walk away with their guns lowered until back in cover. During this walk they are still under the cease fire terms. The cease fire is called off the moment 30 seconds is over, or the rep turns and raises his/her weapon.

The whole point of the Parley would be to put KoS rights "on hold" in an attempt to talk it out/ allow role play.

I'll add this to the OP. Thanks for your input! :)

Link to comment
  • Emerald

I am not really for adding more rules, but maybe add something along these lines that if its accepted..staff will enforce.

But, there is nothing stopping people from doing this now. Rping negotiations.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

I am not really for adding more rules, but maybe add something along these lines that if its accepted..staff will enforce.

But, there is nothing stopping people from doing this now. Rping negotiations.

The problem with doing it now is knowing most PVP players they will agree to go out to a destination (not go themselves) and just destroy the enemies rep to be honest.(one less person to worry about right?)

As deception is not against the rules nor should it be.

But still

Link to comment

The problem with doing it now is knowing most PVP players they will agree to go out to a destination (not go themselves) and just destroy the enemies rep to be honest.(one less person to worry about right?)

As deception is not against the rules nor should it be.

But still

The negations would be held at the camp in full view or hearing distance of both groups. For example both parties would meet in the gatehouse at Altar or the Walled off area at the back gate of Desal.

But, there is nothing stopping people from doing this now. Rping negotiations.

With respect... there IS something stopping people talk it out, the fear of betrayal and getting murdered. Why risk it? I was in a situation the other day where some guy was shouting over the wall that he wanted to "just talk" but I was 95% certain it was a baiting tactic to get me to lower my weapon. So... back to the stale fire fight it was... as we both attempted to peek each other... it was a missed opportunity to role play.

We all know how it goes. The adrenaline starts flowing when you're in a fight... it's him or me. It can even get to a point where RPing would give you the disadvantage, to the point where you get killed because your thoughts are on RPing and not watching your back. I believe this is why attacks don't see much role play... people are too busy trying not to die. If there is a set procedure in place I could see a lot more people talking it out, getting better roleplay or at the very least clearing up confusion before resuming a fire fight.

Link to comment
  • Emerald

Isn't that also a chance you take in real life negotiations?

Link to comment
Guest Praetorian

It sure is Thumper, however - this isn't real life, nor are these real life engagements.

We're all here for the experience of roleplaying in a game we enjoy. While the mechanics can be a bit bothersome at times, it's the players themselves that bring the encounters to life. The interactions between other players should be /specifically/ why you're here, not to feel safe from snipers whilst wandering around Elektro.

Such a concept would improve the degree of interactions between players, and encourage better roleplaying. If the rule /was/ implemented - there's nothing saying that the either party HAD to accept the parley request. This simply opens the mutual grounds to a roleplay if both sides wish to do so.

I for one am in support of this. If I wanted to murder thousands with an M14 and DMR without uttering a word, I'd be sitting on a vanilla server. I'm here for the roleplay!

You've got my vote.

Link to comment

If the rule /was/ implemented - there's nothing saying that the either party HAD to accept the parley request. This simply opens the mutual grounds to a roleplay if both sides wish to do so.

This is the entire point. It gives everyone room to breathe for a few minutes where people can fully focus on RP instead of being distracted by the fire fight and would only be in affect if both parties agreed. People could role-play without the paranoia of being shafted. I think anything that encourages discussion and RP should be encouraged. If attackers of a camp are hell bent on taking everyone inside the camp then the rule wont affect them... because they won't ask for/accept parley. That's another benefit of this rule. It's an "opt in" policy.

Link to comment

Unexpected attacks are the best kind though... :(

Nothing I am proposing alters the way initiations are handled whatsoever. You can still launch surprise attacks same as always. Parley is designed to fit somewhere in middle of a fight to allow for role play and to clear up matters that may not be clear, and ONLY if both sides agree to it... perhaps when the battle has gotten stale or something needs clearing up ...or for a number of other reasons I listed in the OP. Heck, maybe Parley could be used directly after initiation and could potentially avoid a long drawn out battle.

Addressing your point though Nightmare...

An attacking force can come in and steamroll a settlement just like the good ol' days. The defenders could be begging for a parley all day... but the attackers can just refuse and fight until everyone is dead if they wish.

Take this example: Bandit clan has a camp, they are caught in a surprise assault by Hero clan who really want a member of Bandit clan for murdering their buddy. Camp also has civilians inside. Heroes don't want to kill civs, but they really want to get the murdering bandit! The civs want nothing to do with a firefight... they just wanted to chill by a fireplace and share stories. Bandit clan wants to fight to the death to defend their camp and their man. It all kicks off. Shots are exchanged. A few people die on each side. Eventually after some time, the battle dies down until it is just a couple of guys on each side. The fight becomes a slow grind as the two sides wait for the other group to make a move. No progress is made... typical stalemate.

The civs get bored sitting in a shipping crate. Bandits are getting bored staring down a barrel towards a doorway. Heros are getting bored banging their head against a brick wall trying to breach the unbreachable or maybe they just don't want to risk running in guns blazing and risking a RDM report. Parley is called by one side... the others agree. A rep from each team meets at the fence of the camp. They both agree that neither will surrender in an awesome display of role play. But in this time it is negotiated that the non-combatants who have been sat there doing nothing for the past 45 mins may leave by the back gate without incident. The civs are free to go about their day. And the two groups get to resume their engagement without making everyone else wait for them to finish.

OR MAYBE they decide to come to terms... or arrange a bribe for the attackers to stop the assault... or agree to give up a man the attackers are after in an awesome display of cowardice and betrayal... or agree to a hatchet fight to see who takes all the mar-balls... or **insert own awesome role-play idea here**!!

...Or maybe they refuse parley and take another 45 mins before someone makes a mistake, is picked off and the engagement is finally brought to an end... boring for everyone involved except the last man standing.

My point is; Parley would encouraging interaction between the two sides offering alternatives to simply trying to trying to pick each other off over the course of a 2 hour stalemate. Parley offers more RP opportunities and also helps the two sides know the stakes and potential consequences their actions have towards others who just happened to be in the camp.

Link to comment
Guest The Nightmare

Unexpected attacks are the best kind though... :(

Nothing I am proposing alters the way initiations are handled whatsoever. You can still launch surprise attacks same as always. Parley is designed to fit somewhere in middle of a fight to allow for role play and to clear up matters that may not be clear, and ONLY if both sides agree to it... perhaps when the battle has gotten stale or something needs clearing up ...or for a number of other reasons I listed in the OP. Heck, maybe Parley could be used directly after initiation and could potentially avoid a long drawn out battle.

Addressing your point though Nightmare...

An attacking force can come in and steamroll a settlement just like the good ol' days. The defenders could be begging for a parley all day... but the attackers can just refuse and fight until everyone is dead if they wish.

Take this example: Bandit clan has a camp, they are caught in a surprise assault by Hero clan who really want a member of Bandit clan for murdering their buddy. Camp also has civilians inside. Heroes don't want to kill civs, but they really want to get the murdering bandit! The civs want nothing to do with a firefight... they just wanted to chill by a fireplace and share stories. Bandit clan wants to fight to the death to defend their camp and their man. It all kicks off. Shots are exchanged. A few people die on each side. Eventually after some time, the battle dies down until it is just a couple of guys on each side. The fight becomes a slow grind as the two sides wait for the other group to make a move. No progress is made... typical stalemate.

The civs get bored sitting in a shipping crate. Bandits are getting bored staring down a barrel towards a doorway. Heros are getting bored banging their head against a brick wall trying to breach the unbreachable or maybe they just don't want to risk running in guns blazing and risking a RDM report. Parley is called by one side... the others agree. A rep from each team meets at the fence of the camp. They both agree that neither will surrender in an awesome display of role play. But in this time it is negotiated that the non-combatants who have been sat there doing nothing for the past 45 mins may leave by the back gate without incident. The civs are free to go about their day. And the two groups get to resume their engagement without making everyone else wait for them to finish.

OR MAYBE they decide to come to terms... or arrange a bribe for the attackers to stop the assault... or agree to give up a man the attackers are after in an awesome display of cowardice and betrayal... or agree to a hatchet fight to see who takes all the mar-balls... or **insert own awesome role-play idea here**!!

...Or maybe they refuse parley and take another 45 mins before someone makes a mistake, is picked off and the engagement is finally brought to an end... boring for everyone involved except the last man standing.

My point is; Parley would encouraging interaction between the two sides offering alternatives to simply trying to trying to pick each other off over the course of a 2 hour stalemate. Parley offers more RP opportunities and also helps the two sides know the stakes and potential consequences their actions have towards others who just happened to be in the camp.

Ahhh okay i get it! Yea +1 bro :D

Link to comment

That sounds like a confusing monster of a rule that would be hell to try and enforce (particularly the bit about gaining ground/advantage during the parley). I like the concept, but I think you it ought to be handled within the scope of the present rules. Sticking a period of no-kos in the middle of a shootout would do more harm than good, I think.

I mean, like you said, if everyone's bored, they would want to talk anyway, right?

Also, isn't there already something in there about allowing non-combatants to leave settlements when they come under attack?

Link to comment

Also, isn't there already something in there about allowing non-combatants to leave settlements when they come under attack?

The rule states-

During an attack on a settlement, the attackers must provide an option for innocent bystanders inside a settlement to surrender or safely leave the area.

I had an issue with this on the 8th when all the Desal attacks were going on. I had left the camp earlier and a Medic asked if I would bring back medical supplies from Berenzino for a few patients there. So I go and upon return I reach the front drive way and I am told that I must drop my weapons, radio and backpack that the area is under attack. Luckily I was unnoticed after 2 more people arrived and did not comply and shot back so I hit the deck and waited there. I crawled back to my gear and contacted my clan mates and had back up on the way. They never gave me the option to turn around and leave. We later regrouped and we tried to remove them from Desal but it did not go according to plan.

Link to comment

That sounds like a confusing monster of a rule that would be hell to try and enforce (particularly the bit about gaining ground/advantage during the parley).

I see your point. I don't think Parley is a "monster of a rule" however. Both parties agree not to shoot each other for a set period. It's like a half time break... but for a firefight. By "gaining ground" I simply meant that people could not take advantage of the cease fire by running through the defensive line during the parley period. You could even remove that bit and just have the rule be "an agreed suspension of KoS for the duration of parley"

I mean, like you said, if everyone's bored, they would want to talk anyway, right?

Great idea but I do not see why it needs to be a rule. This should be a natural part of the role play anyway.

I have been in situations like this before and I have NEVER managed to arrange successful talks beyond shouting across a wall... After a long engagement, neither side wants to back down and every invite to "talk it out is" is viewed as a ploy. And as I previously stated... people in gun fights have their mind in the gun fight... not in RP mode. This is why IMO their needs to be an option for people to meet face to face and RP out there options.

Also, isn't there already something in there about allowing non-combatants to leave settlements when they come under attack?

Their is yes, but IMO arranging an exit strategy for civs in the compound is extremely chaotic during an active engagement. You're basically trying to take cover and shoot at each other, while at the same time shouting over a wall to try and figure out what the hell is going on. Talks under a parley period would give both sides a chance to make this clear to all parties involved.


That's what it will look like, exactly ^^

Exactly Fenris! LOL. All Parleys will be equally as epic! Guarenteed.

Link to comment

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...