Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-20, 00:32

Sign in to follow this  
Rolle

New Community Rules feedback

Recommended Posts

Rolle    2450

For the original thread about the new community rules, click here.

To add new rules, request changes or suggest fixes please reply to this thread using the following template:

[b]Rule:[/b] 
[b]Section:[/b] 
[b]Current text:[/b] 
[b]Your proposed change:[/b] 
[b]Reasoning:[/b] 

Posts not following this template will be deleted.

Thanks for making DayZRP a better place!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ego    1

Rule: 9. Group settlements and player bases

Section: Entirety

Current text:

Your proposed change: There needs to be a cap on how many times clans can attack, with a minimum of people attacking. Otherwise settlements will still rise and die within a month, like every other (Except for odd exceptions)

Reasoning: I want settlements to thrive, not be crushed within a short time of been set up. Im sure a whole lot of people agree with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Nath   
Guest Nath

Rule: 9. Group settlements and player bases

Section: Entirety

Current text:

Your proposed change: There needs to be a cap on how many times clans can attack, with a minimum of people attacking. Otherwise settlements will still rise and die within a month, like every other (Except for odd exceptions)

Reasoning: I want settlements to thrive, not be crushed within a short time of been set up. Im sure a whole lot of people agree with me.

This. They also should have to have a valid rp reason to attack a settlement, not for gear or because they're bored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest John Le Bear   
Guest John Le Bear

Rule: 11. Trade Post

Section: Examples and extras

Current text: Not too sure what you want here :S

Your proposed change: A player cap on the trade post. Meaning it would become 'Full' and the staff/CTC would deny entry to new visitors. The amount of players allowed in would be up to staff.

Reasoning: Adding a player cap to the trade post would prevent almost the whole server from flocking there and sitting inside it for hours upon hours.

As we know from the previous trade post, it drew almost all the players to it and all the player traffic was concentrated around the trade post. I hope it doesn't end up like this again. If the whole server was unable to visit the trade post then they could get bored of trying and go elsewhere on the map. Thus spreading out player traffic. This would help cater for all play styles, such as bandits who like the occasional hostile player interaction are not just either sat in the trade post doing nothing or waiting for people to leave the tradepost to initiate hostile roleplay as the whole server is in there, stopping them from finding other players around the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
naury42    0

Rule: 10

Section: Entirety

Current text: During night time the roadblock should be lit up by a flare or a fire during the initiation.

Your proposed change: Must/Have to be

Reasoning: As I am no English native, I could think of this as - if you want it, light it. If not, dont! This word ''should'' makes me wanna think I have a choice of what to do!

/This is maybe incorrect, but I wanted to state this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magw33d   
Guest magw33d

Rule: 5

Section: What NOT to do

Current text:Under any circuimstances other than the exception above are you allowed to go back within 1km or your body, rejoin an ongoing conflict or loot your body within 60 minutes of your death.

Your proposed change: I'm not sure how it would be worded.

Reasoning: Does this mean that people can now return to a firefight and loot their body after 60 minutes?

I think the wording is a bit confusing and may be used by people to justify committing NLR and looting their bodies after the 60 minute timer is up.

I think it should be made clear that you are not allowed to return to your body under any circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toorrik    4

Rule: 10

Section: Entirety

Current text: During night time the roadblock should be lit up by a flare or a fire during the initiation.

Your proposed change: Must/Have to be

Reasoning: As I am no English native, I could think of this as - if you want it, light it. If not, dont! This word ''should'' makes me wanna think I have a choice of what to do!

/This is maybe incorrect, but I wanted to state this.

Naury is right. Should implies that lighting up a roadblock at night is optional. It needs to state it is a requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tompmal   
Guest Tompmal

Rule: 9

Section: initiations on vehicles

Current text:

Your proposed change: All vehicles must be initiated on through text communication if they are driving, at any speed.

Reasoning: This should be made because the engines of the cars in dayz are extremely loud when you are driving and so if you are in a car chase and the chaser trys to speak the hostile action you can't hear it because of the noise from the engines, and so they think they initiated while you didn't hear anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

Rule: 10

Section: Definition

Current text: Your roadblock needs to be visibly manned during the initiation.

Your proposed change: The roadblock shouldn't have to be visibly manned, basically the removal of that part of the rule.

Reasoning: Well, it is perfectly viable for people to be hiding when a vehicle is approaching to attempt and deceive it into believing they are safe until the last moment.

However, if this is not what the rule means, then some more expansion of it would be helpful!


Rule: 12

Section: Definition

Current text: 5 day standard punishments-Baiting

Your proposed change: Baiting is changed to a 3 day standard punishment.

Reasoning: I don't know if this is up for change because it isn't really a rule, but it appears to me that baiting IRL, or in an apocalypse is actually pretty realistic. Now like you have said with some circumstances, Higher ranking staff can deviate from the list. For example, stealing a vehicle, being shot at and then killing the shooters. That would be worthy of a 5 day ban IMO. But if it were something like: There are 5 men hidden in some trees observing an enemy, one man walks out into the open and goes to converse with the enemy. The enemy initiates and then the men from the treeline gun them all down. That would more be overwatch I believe, however I do not know how this is affected by these and the previous rules.

TL;DR: Some 'baiting' situations can be pulled off really well and can make perfect roleplaying sense. It should receive a lesser ban for certain cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×