Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-21, 14:10

Sign in to follow this  
Caesar

Settlement attack rule modifications

Recommended Posts

Caesar    438

Hello everyone,

For a little while the staff have been thinking about a few ideas about settlement attacks and we have gotten to the point that we want to run the first draft by you guys.

Please note that only constructive and serious replies will be considered at all.

The current rules regarding settlements would be revised to the following.

-----

Definition

The intention of the camp rules is to allow camp representatives (CR's) to fully manage their camps in all reasonable ways without being interrupted by constant KoS rights that would not be fair when trying to maintain a camp. By entering the camp you must obey all orders given to you by the CR's within and up to 100m's around the camp without gaining KoS rights. Likewise failure to comply can be punished by the CR's in whatever way they deem appropriate.

Group settlements can only be attacked by registered groups who officially declare hostilities (in the settlement thread). A settlement can be attacked when 24 hours have passed since the declaration of hostilities and at least 1 week has passed since their last attack. The declaration of hostilities last for 3 days. Clans may not reuse reasons until a minimum of two weeks has passed.

Individual CR's that retreat to within 100 metres of their settlement while they have revenge rights on them immediately forfeit any KoS rights they have. Anyone wishing to take advantage of their rights on the CR's must first initiate on the whole compound, during this time the usual declaration of hostilities is not required. Those with KoS rights on non CR's in the settlement may demand that CR's remove the appropriate persons or face an attack without the usual 24 hour warning.

Examples and extras:

Settlement CR's can ask you to disarm yourself, lower your weapon, move to another part of the camp, leave the camp or pay any appropriate entrance fee without you having any kind of revenge or KoS rights on them.

CR's should use their powers to further the good governance of the settlement. They may only rob, steal, murder, torture or do other such hostile actions after all other reasonable actions such as temporary disarmament and ejection from the settlement have been exhausted.

Edit 1: Changed you must obey all reasonable orders to you must obey all orders. Orders abusing the special protections CR's are given should be reported, in game is not the place to test out what is reasonable and what is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry    18

But this still doesnt answer one of the questions.

What if there is no CR around does the settlement than

just count as a pcb? And are you allowed to just iniate on the camp

when the cr's are not around when ever you want?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
enar21    1

But this still doesnt answer one of the questions.

What if there is no CR around does the settlement than

just count as a pcb? And are you allowed to just iniate on the camp

when the cr's are not around when ever you want?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Well that is one point you can discuss, I would state yes.

Otherwise nobody would attack when CR's are online and would use that as an excuse to absolutely abuse a loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Reverend   
Guest The Reverend

KOS Rules And The Camp

A lot of the times a camp gets attacked with no-one inside it, and the owners of the clan would lose their gear. Here is what I propose:

When a clan gets initiated on, the initiators can only attack the camp IF there is someone inside the camp. If there is no body there, the initiators have to leave the sights. They are still allowed to wait around the area of the camp and kill the OP though.

If a clan initiates on a camp whilst there are people inside it, the OP have to give a warning before entering the camp and killing/capturing the people. The owners of the camp can either let them in or shoot them AFTER the warning has been given.

The initiators HAVE to warn the clan they are going to attack on the forums, but they do not have to tell them when exactly they are going to attack, due to the time limit lasting up to 3 days. I believe this should be made into 2 days.

CR Rules

A clan can welcome a different clan into their settlement. If the OP do not welcome the clan, the OP can initiate on the clan that entered.

A clan should not disarm the visitors, but ask them to put the gun away. They can also ask the visitors to move between locations in a camp and etc. If the hosting clan gets initiated on, the KOS rights are also given to the other clan, due to them being there (this can also be used as a GS rule).

If there is noone around the camp (owners), then other players can use it as a PCB, but when a member of a clan shows up (any rank) this turns into a CR, and rules should be followed.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry    18

Well that is one point you can discuss, I would state yes.

Otherwise nobody would attack when CR's are online and would use that as an excuse to absolutely abuse a loophole.

Alright seems fair.

And what about this scenario:

One of the CR's manages to capture

a member of our group outside of the settlement.

They bring him inside and toture him.

Does this give us KOS on the cr's.?

If not are we allowed to iniate on them?

(Without the declaration of hostilities made

towards them)

Other wise in my opinion it would

make the other group powerless.

And this could easily be abused.

Example: Knowing that we cant do anything

they iniate on of us. And bring him into the camp

as fast as they can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Heroz_Nick    21

One question,

Say for instance a settlement comes under attack and you have civilians/group members inside, if they wish to join the fight as an Ally is that allowed because technically they are being fired upon granting KoS rights, correct if I'm wrong. I.E in a way claiming good Samaritan because it was "wrong place, wrong time type of thing".

I'm asking this question because I see a lot of confusion in formal reports with new members thinking they can randomly fire on people because their a nice target. [just to emphasis a point]

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Reverend   
Guest The Reverend

Well that is one point you can discuss, I would state yes.

Otherwise nobody would attack when CR's are online and would use that as an excuse to absolutely abuse a loophole.

-

I think a clan should warn the people inside the clan before initiating. Like, shout over the walls - give us our man back or die!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Just a warning, don't expect answers to questions. Your questions and points of confusion will be used internally to make future modifications. I can say my opinion but no more until the rule has been fully fleshed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry    18

Just a warning, don't expect answers to questions. Your questions and points of confusion will be used internally to make future modifications. I can say my opinion but no more until the rule has been fully fleshed out.

Alright but can you give you're opinion about the scenario that

i just pointed out? Same as for the other people.

In my opinion it should be allowed to iniate

on the camp when something like that happends.

Even when you're not the in the hostile list

with them just yet.

And this should than only count

for official groups and not for civi's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Alright the following is my opinion only.

@ The Reverend

I honestly did not fully understand your point. The reduction from 3 to 2 days while possible I do not see as a major area needing reform atm. Other points seem to either be already covered or would be covered by these new rules.

@ Jaso,

Them taking a hostage back to the settlement should allow you to initiate and demand him back otherwise lethal force would be used. I would rather that ultimatum be given before you assault the entire base as you risk ruining other peoples experience and shooting them.

@ Heroz

I would allow civilians to help protect the settlement, they are being assaulted as well. As long as those who do not wish to resist are given the option I see no issue,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

So how does initiating on people in the camp work?

For example two people are having a bit of a disagreement and one of them initiates on the other.

Is that allowed within the walls of a settlement or would you have to go outside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

So how does initiating on people in the camp work?

For example two people are having a bit of a disagreement and one of them initiates on the other.

Is that allowed within the walls of a settlement or would you have to go outside?

Its a good question.

On one hand it is not really an assault on the settlements and should be easily resolved by the CR's.

On the other hand where do we draw the line, initiating on 1 person, 2 people, 3 people etc. Will people use this as a reason to not use the normal process anymore?

Not to mention good samaritan, such an action would be unwise to say the least.

For now I would say don't do it. If we do allow it there needs to be a way to prevent it from being abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   61

Do we need this? Look at the ravens nest, for the past weeks there has been no CRs yet its running fine. Do there really have to be CRs in the first place? The thing about these rules, i dont think they are good for the roleplay. I think these rules are only here so that other people dont take over the settlement from the owners. But, isnt this what evolving rp is all about? If you are too weak to defend your settlement, then you should not have one. That would actually make rp sense i think..So what happens next is what i like to call evolving roleplay. I want the settlements to be there for everyone and I want it to evolve through time. I think that everyone should be allowed to claim ownership of any settlement or camp and that people can fight trade or bargain over it with each other. So yeah, instead of making up new rules and words like CR, i think that without the addition of rules meant for settlements it would be a more fun and evolving roleplaying adventure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Reverend   
Guest The Reverend

Do we need this? Look at the ravens nest, for the past weeks there has been no CRs yet its running fine. Do there really have to be CRs in the first place? The thing about these rules, i dont think they are good for the roleplay. I think these rules are only here so that other people dont take over the settlement from the owners. But, isnt this what evolving rp is all about? If you are too weak to defend your settlement, then you should not have one. That would actually make rp sense i think..So what happens next is what i like to call evolving roleplay. I want the settlements to be there for everyone and I want it to evolve through time. I think that everyone should be allowed to claim ownership of any settlement or camp and that people can fight trade or bargain over it with each other. So yeah, instead of making up new rules and words like CR, i think that without the addition of rules meant for settlements it would be a more fun and evolving roleplaying adventure.

You do have a point. I agree with everything you have just covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I'm just going to bump this for all to see since Solace has been added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Burgz    6

I'm just going to bump this for all to see since Solace has been added.

Isn't this all in the rules now anyway? :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I'm just going to bump this for all to see since Solace has been added.

Isn't this all in the rules now anyway? :S

I'm not sure but a report went up recently and rules change often so just in case nobody looked at them yet this can serve as an alternative so new people don't get confused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moxy    19

I'd like to add a rule:

The Group/People that want to take action against a settlement much try to reach an agreement prior to engaging in a fight. Leaders or members need to talk to one another and try to reach some form of agreement, and if none can be made after a genuine attempt from both parties, then the Group/People that want to attack can declare their attack.

This will, in theory

  • Encourage RP
  • Lower Firefights
  • Increase communication between clans at odds
  • Increase overall RP with creating unique RP agreements
  • Incorporate enemies into the overall scheme of a settlement and allow them to be seen and heard RP wise and not just in firefights.


IN addition, Sumos just informed of havens old rule set which was During a siege on the settlement, anyone armed could be shot by the CR's without identification" This would give a massive advantage to the CR's. I think settlements should be granted this for the first month of being open to allow them to get settled in and work out all the kinks associated with CR'ing and settlements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    281

I'd like to add a rule:

The Group/People that want to take action against a settlement much try to reach an agreement prior to engaging in a fight. Leaders or members need to talk to one another and try to reach some form of agreement, and if none can be made after a genuine attempt from both parties, then the Group/People that want to attack can declare their attack.

This will, in theory

  • Encourage RP
  • Lower Firefights
  • Increase communication between clans at odds
  • Increase overall RP with creating unique RP agreements
  • Incorporate enemies into the overall scheme of a settlement and allow them to be seen and heard RP wise and not just in firefights.


IN addition, Sumos just informed of havens old rule set which was During a siege on the settlement, anyone armed could be shot by the CR's without identification" This would give a massive advantage to the CR's. I think settlements should be granted this for the first month of being open to allow them to get settled in and work out all the kinks associated with CR'ing and settlements.

So if the place gets attacked....the crs could potentially kill everyone inside without consequences? no thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Honestly, why don't we remove the rule...if people are attacking more than once a day just make it reportable. Would make everyone happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dougie    23

Honestly, why don't we remove the rule...if people are attacking more than once a day just make it reportable. Would make everyone happy.

I think it should be limited to one attack a week, if you want PVP setup a roadblock or something.

Attacks should be special and really cool and is good opportunity to have some great rp leading up to it like some hostile visits to the camp leading to an attack. You guys creating fear for Civs and other groups coming up to Solace worried of an attack today or a roadblock on the way up.

It isn't as enjoyable knowing that the camp is gonna be attacked everyday and being forced to leave or avoid the camp because the attackers tell you to leave because there is a firefight going on and if you value your life you'll leave. So basically I don't want it to be limited because others want to PvP at an RP hub. I'm all for attacks as long as there is some good/viable rp leading up to one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phatal    46

I'd like to add a rule:

The Group/People that want to take action against a settlement much try to reach an agreement prior to engaging in a fight. Leaders or members need to talk to one another and try to reach some form of agreement, and if none can be made after a genuine attempt from both parties, then the Group/People that want to attack can declare their attack.

This will, in theory

  • Encourage RP
  • Lower Firefights
  • Increase communication between clans at odds
  • Increase overall RP with creating unique RP agreements
  • Incorporate enemies into the overall scheme of a settlement and allow them to be seen and heard RP wise and not just in firefights.


IN addition, Sumos just informed of havens old rule set which was During a siege on the settlement, anyone armed could be shot by the CR's without identification" This would give a massive advantage to the CR's. I think settlements should be granted this for the first month of being open to allow them to get settled in and work out all the kinks associated with CR'ing and settlements.

As SweetJoe said, this would in theory make it to where you could literally kill anyone you want because a fight is going on. Also, how do you expect a "meeting" whenever you have 4 CR's and the 1 group that's hostile only has one? That's like saying "Come to this meeting point, we out number you but trust us we won't do anything even though we don't like you.

In character meetings between bandits and heros will never work. I'll provide 2 examples.

Example 1. SVR - You are all breaking Directive, you are harboring those breaking directives, and you have set up an illegal camp. There is no getting over that fact, therefore it is a non-negotiable hostility, especially since you've been killing eachother since the stone age.

Example 2. (If) CRA (Maybe Volki) - If CRA were around, not all of you are Chernarussians, they'd expect you to pay tax and expect you to let them enter and leave the camp with no fault or entrance "fee".

Example 3. B-17 - Long standing hostilities, they'll never get over it and you'll never get over them. End of, and in light of the recent reports you continue to do things against each other.

The list goes on for bandits against Hero's. You are asking for a rule that A. Would make no in character sense and in a real life exactly like this scenario, simply wouldn't happen. This rule will also force bandits to essentially tip-toe around being exactly what they are... Bandits, robbers, thieves, people who set up road blocks and checkpoints and torture people.

Also, To address your last 2 points. Unique Rp agreements.. with Bandits.. as an Anti-bandit clan/settlement. (Pretty self explanatory) Also, that's basically forcing a clan hostile with you to walk over to you holding a "I surrender flag" to have a 30 minute conversation that would lead to Nothing. Unless you force your RP and force some kind of Rule onto them, limiting even further what bandits can do at settlements.

Allow them to be heard RP wise? How does that make any sense for you? So far you have robbed, forced to comply, or execute SVR, SOBR, B-17?, SDS? members and you expect them to walk up and have a chat with you? and Why would you let bandits into your camp willingly? Would you disarm them? If that's the case then they wouldn't come because it wouldn't make sense for them to go somewhere that would persecute the shit out of them and taunt and force them to do things whilst disarmed. They're bandits, not push-overs.

Thank you, but I think that kind of "rule(s)" would break settlements, banditry with settlements, and general rp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reacher    0
- Snip -

Here's my suggestion:

If you have past hostilities with a group that maintains a known heroic settlement, don't visit that settlement.

If, for whatever reason, you simply have to visit, then don't expect to be let in without suspicion or caution from those manning the location.

Additionally, you should absolutely expect to be disarmed at the door before being allowed entry, or be turned away. It's not the settlement owner's fault if you don't understand why a heroic group is unable to fully trust a known bandit group with weapons within their settlement walls...

I don't see how you can expect otherwise.

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.

×