Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-20, 09:56

Sign in to follow this  
Othuyeg

Clarification about revenge rights is in order

Recommended Posts

Othuyeg    20

A recent report which went formal and was verdicted has brought into light what I believe to be a conflict within rules. I want to make clear in the very beginning, I am not complaining about the verdict or the manner the report was handled, it is staff's job and responsibility to manage that side.

I am merely hoping to contribute positively towards a better set of rules. A set of rules that I hope will be clearer and also easier for both staff and the community to base their actions upon.

As it stands currently the ability for non-clan-affiliated overwatch to receive KoS rights in a situation where a non-clan-affiliated friend initiates hostile action is unclear and in my honest opinion even unfair.

Based on this part of the supplemental rules, an overwatch can gain (as evidenced in the report) KoS rights on a person who acts out his KoS rights after having his clanmate being initiated hostile action on.

Revenge Rights

As the rules state, KoS/Revenge rights can only be transferred to this within your clan and those who are directly involved in the situation. This means you can validly gain KoS rights in the following way.

*You are over-watching somebody that is getting robbed and are in the same area.

*You are assisting in a robbery/raid and in the same area while it is happening.

Note: The same area is not limited to voice chat range. However a good rule of thumb is that you must be able to see the situation.

This part of the rules has been interpreted as allowing KoS rights to be issued to a person who is not within the same clan as the person who is initiating a robbery/raid.

Now here is where the problem arises.

In robberies you only gain KoS rights if you are there and directly involved or if you are apart of the affected clan.

There is a lack of defined boundaries as to what is considered as being directly involved. In the report that I referred to earlier, a sniper was seen as being directly involved while being stationed over 400 meters away and able to view the situation.

The victims of the initial robbery were confirmed to have seen this sniper, yet they could not affiliate him with the initiator. Therefore they could not confirm him as one of the robbers and one with KoS rights.

When a clan mate of the person who was being robbed opened fire upon the initial initiator (nice wording) it was verdicted that the revenge rights granted the sniper with KoS rights upon the person who shot at his non-clan-affiliated friend.

I do not see how this interpretation would be different from the description of the "Good Samaritan" as he gained KoS rights by seeing a non-clanmember being shot at. Basically by viewing a robbery the sniper gained "Good Samaritan" when his friend was fired upon according to the verdict.

Yet, in the rules this is stated:

The exception to this rule is known as the "Good Samaritan" exception. This exception allows heroes to try and rescue a person being robbed or otherwise threatened. A "Good Samaritan" may take lethal action if he directly views a robbery or other hostile action being committed against a person and only in favor of the victim.

And the rule specificly states that the "Good Samaritan" can only be used in favor of the victim. So the person who initiated the robbery became a victim by being engaged by a person who had legitimate KoS rights through clan membership after having his friend robbed.

At this point we come to the really sticky situation. There is now a person who gained KoS rights upon a person, yet said person has no KoS rights upon the sniper.

Now to take this to extreme lengths, we could say that if a person being robbed fires upon the initiator, anyone viewing the robbery may potentially be granted KoS rights, if they were assisting in the robbery, leaving the victims without knowledge about who has KoS rights on them.

In my opinion this calls for assessment of the current rules. I believe discussion is in order and if you feel I am absolutely missing something which solves this problem, I am willing to accept my own ignorance.

(I tried keeping it to the point and short, but I failed misreably on the second part. I blame sleep deprivation.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Personally I feel that if you are not in the same clan you shouldn't be assisting in a robbery. If all members of the robbing force are all civilians that is obviously an exception. I just feel it makes the situations too hectic. We are limited by the game to knowing basically what is only right in front of us most of the time. If Clan A is robbing me and some friends, and they have some tag-along 500m away with a DMR or something, I am put to a clear disadvantage. I feel it almost adds an invincibility to the initial clan that initiated. Unless of course some hero clan comes along to break up the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Actually glad you brought this up as a few staff had this exact conversation over this report. I'll post a more complete assessment when I am at a PC. Please add all the imput the community can gather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Semiazas    0

I just felt none the wiser for not having noticed this particular contradiction until now. Thanks for shedding light on it, I'll be following this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

My personal view is that, if the people that are being robbed aren't sure if that guy is assisting in the robbery, then he isn't assisting in the robbery.

If Man A and Man B are running together and spot a man. If Man C sees these two men together, and then Man A comes over, robbing him. Then he bloody well knows that Man B is involved. Why on earth wouldn't he be able to shoot if someone tries to intervene?

If however Man A and B spot Man C from afar, split up and then Man A robs Man C. There is no possible way for Man C to know that Man B is involved too. Therefore this is not fair and should not be allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Othuyeg    20

My personal view is that, if the people that are being robbed aren't sure if that guy is assisting in the robbery, then he isn't assisting in the robbery.

If Man A and Man B are running together and spot a man. If Man C sees these two men together, and then Man A comes over, robbing him. Then he bloody well knows that Man B is involved. Why on earth wouldn't he be able to shoot if someone tries to intervene?

If however Man A and B spot Man C from afar, split up and then Man A robs Man C. There is no possible way for Man C to know that Man B is involved too. Therefore this is not fair and should not be allowed.

In addition to that, if they open fire on someone who is not in the same clan as the initiator, they have no proof of the person assisting in the robbery until he does something hostile, such as shoot somebody. Therefore if they shoot the person, for example an overwatch, the overwatch has every piece of evidence on his side and can claim to be an outsider being killed without proper identification. This means nobody will shoot the unaffiliated overwatch as they would get banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

In addition to that, if they open fire on someone who is not in the same clan as the initiator, they have no proof of the person assisting in the robbery until he does something hostile, such as shoot somebody. Therefore if they shoot the person, for example an overwatch, the overwatch has every piece of evidence on his side and can claim to be an outsider being killed without proper identification. This means nobody will shoot the unaffiliated overwatch as they would get banned.

It's an extremely sticky situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Besphynx    0

In addition to that, if they open fire on someone who is not in the same clan as the initiator, they have no proof of the person assisting in the robbery until he does something hostile, such as shoot somebody. Therefore if they shoot the person, for example an overwatch, the overwatch has every piece of evidence on his side and can claim to be an outsider being killed without proper identification. This means nobody will shoot the unaffiliated overwatch as they would get banned.

It's an extremely sticky situation.

Indeed, take a look at this report where this situation has happened before. http://www.dayzrp.com/t-formal-rp1-2x-kos-in-prud-21-02-2014-19-10

The thing that is very irritable aswell is that there is no way to identify if a person is part of robbers or perhaps a good Samaritan and this is where a line needs be drawn. As you can see in the report the person was not mentioned in the initiation, did not provide any overwatch but instead went along with it but because he had arrived earlier with the group they do not have to mention him in the initiation and now there is another major problem. What if I, a random civ get a lift from lets say, BoS and BoS end up robbing Prud but I am not involved in the robbery, does that mean all the civs can shoot me because I arrived with them? But then again, there will be confusion if I am actually assisting in robbing Prud or if I am indeed a person been robbed and that is where a line needs to be drawn otherwise it becomes very blurry very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glenn O    3

First off remove "Good Samaritan" rule. This rule create more problems then it solves. Many times have I seen this rule been abused to max. We rob someone and see none in the area. We start to move out with the victim only to start taking fire from people that in no way have witnessed the robbery.

Regarding random people banding up and robbing others. There was a case in The Ravens Nest last year. I shall try and dig that report back up, but the verdict stated that who ever initated had to make it clear if he did it alone or with the people standing next to him. That way the victims knew who to shoot. So u dont have to be put in a disadvantage where u only can shoot after beeing shot at. That way, the other people in the area are commiting KOS if they shoot u and the robber never stated that he had people with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oldman    22

Its really simple to solve. Go back to the old days. You can rob a guy with a non clan group as long as you are in the area and in the same TS. Area would be roughly the max effective range of the best common guns(800 meters). Make it 1km to be more fair. The overwatch can now act instantly and does not have to watch a so called 'samaritan' on his friend that started the robbery. This requires the removal of samaritan in the first place, since it is abused to the max right now and prevents mishaps like getting the victim killed even though he really wanted to comply and stay alive.

People run in groups so give the rights as a group.

On the revenge part I would say keep it within clan vs clan or person vs clan. This is to make sure there is still a point in being in a clan and gives a more fair chance by witnessing xml's.

Also another example:

A group of three guys is at the NWAF. One is at the DUTY camp and gets robbed, the other two are BEHIND the first hangar. They do not see it, but are so close and in the same TS that surely they should be allowed to kill the robbers. Of course bearing in mind radio dropping and metagaming of course.

I believe this example is not possible right now as you have to witness it and use samaritan.

Solution:

Scrap samaritan to stop abusing and letting the vitcim decide if he wants to stay alive.

Same area same TS = same group. This makes them able to defend them self without seeing and gives an overwatch the right to shoot before his friend gets killed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

Any new light to be shed on this matter Thumper?

Another report has sparked my interest.

I'll disregard the parts mot valid to the situation I'm talking about.

Man A is not in a clan, however his friends, group A are up in the trees.

Man A walks over alone to Group B and a hostile environment ensues

Man A then says to these men, if you raise your weapon at me, my friends will shoot you.

Group B raise their weapons, and are shot by the men in the trees. They find this to be illegitimate and not within the rules.

Now that in my eyes, was a bloody good idea and initiation. Man A made it perfectly clear that he was hostile and as were the people in the trees. What more could he have done?

There were other factors regarding a separate incident within this one, but I don't care for that as it us not relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Same area same TS = same group. This makes them able to defend them self without seeing and gives an overwatch the right to shoot before his friend gets killed.

I agree with this, it would also help civilians stand a chance against groups.

Also, I agree with the "good samaritan", most of the times the hostage/victim ends up dead anyway and possible looses out on some good RP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

Same area same TS = same group. This makes them able to defend them self without seeing and gives an overwatch the right to shoot before his friend gets killed.

I agree with this, it would also help civilians stand a chance against groups.

Also, I agree with the "good samaritan", most of the times the hostage/victim ends up dead anyway and possible looses out on some good RP.

I agree with the points made about Good Samaritan, however I don't think it should be removed. There should maybe even be punishments for failed GS. For example, you try to stop a robbery on your own against 4 people. I'd say that person should be punished.

It has to make RP sense as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Othuyeg    20

I am going to shamelessly bring this thread back to life with a notification of the fact that in my opinion this matter is still very much relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aj1080pGamer    0

I agree 100% this needs adjusting. Because the victims could escape after throwing a grenade or someone shooting the initiator and now that over watch has kos but the victims don't know who or what he is and now they have no chance of going anywhere without fearing they will just get shot. Hopefully that makes sense

On my phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

-snip-

Just gonna quote you Thumper, because we want answers :P

We don't need to encourage civs to join clans even more!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Muntz    3

I also agree that we need to look at the current rules on this sort of scenario. However, any proposed change should be balanced for both aggressor and victim. We briefly discussed this in staff when the issue had initially arisen, unfortunately I think we all have been distracted by other things.

I personally haven't been able to discern a viable solution.

I don't necessarily like having a set distance for 'directly involved' as I don't think it would change anything. For example, Person A and Person B are collaborating. Person A initiates on Person C while Person B hides behind a wall 10m away. The victim (Person C) has not seen the Person B at any point. He is completely unaware of his existence. Therefore he is not aware that he has legitimate kill rights on Person B. This is exactly the same as having overwatch a large distance away unbeknownst to the victim.

I also think that defining 'directly involved' as 'visible to the victim' is incredibly limiting to the aggressors and shouldn't be an option.

Unless a viable solution is found, I don't have a huge issue with leaving it as is for the time being. As it is currently, the aggressor being able to have an unseen overwatch is a leveler for the victim being able to have randoms intervene via Good Samaritan.

Having said that, I would also be happy with a ruling that an unseen overwatch can only intervene if outside forces do. So a non-clan sniper could not shoot a victim for non-compliance if the victim was unaware of their presence. However, if a friend of the victim or Good Samaritan was to open fire on the sniper's friend (the initiator), then the sniper could open fire to assist his friend.

The staff team are always open to community suggestions though, so any viable solutions should be brought up and discussed. If anyone has any ideas, be sure to post them!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Bumping this thread since it's still really hard to know which civies work together in a fire fight/initiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I'm not entirely sure about what happened there, so I'm going to question the relevance of it :P

Explain if you would?

Me and Aegis were at the Free Medic camp, intiating on Amanda of the FM and her bodyguard, as well as Whiskey Willy(the man in that gif) and a guy from ODA. They all complied and we were going to take Willy and leave soon after, only for TFW to initiate on us from the woods. Most of us died from TFW Overwatch and at some point after I had died and we had a couple guys left, TFW or Black Crosses fired a rocket into the camp. Apparently, Willy died and he was one of the hostages TFW was trying to save.

He didn't put up a report, to the best of my knowledge, but it's clear TFW/Black Crosses commited a rulebreak in their attempt to use Good Samaritan.

Only relevant to the bit in OP about Good Samaritan and how it can be mis-used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what Muntz said - that it would be too unfair to require overwatch to be visible - a good solution might be for the initiators, if not in a clan, to state that they have overwatch. Not necessarily how many or their positions or anything, but just that they have overwatch, so the people being robbed know that their robbers aren't alone (unless they're bluffing).

It's basically the scenario that Burgz brought up on the previous page, even though that was a few months ago, which I was involved in - it was a group of civilians, and their 'leader' said that if one of us raised our guns, he and his overwatch would open fire, and they did. I feel like that's a good way to avoid a problem of immunity for the overwatch, they have to be initiated for. It might be hard to monitor though, I dunno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Species    237

When ever initiating I always say "We" or "Me and my friends." Therefor I am allowing people to know I have more with me, if they take in the words that I spoke they would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×