Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-18, 18:48
Safe Zone: CLOSED

Sign in to follow this  
Vaine

Another settlement rule change

Should this rule be removed  

71 members have voted

  1. 1. Should this rule be removed

    • Yes
      56
    • No
      15


Recommended Posts

Vaine    23

Right.

After speaking with rolle in this meeting on ts he informs us that CR's can fire upon enemies within 100m of solace and the enemy CANNOT return fire, they must flee or die

Example: SVR are CR's of solace. They are enemies with TOR. TOR move up towards solace. SVR spot them and open fire without an initiation because they are 100m of solace. TOR CANNOT return fire or it is a rule break.

Do you think this rule of not being able to fire back should be removed.

Yes or no

(was told to make this a seperate poll from arctics which is focussed on the KOS within 100m.. this is about not being able to defend yourself..Staff have said to make this poll as arctics will be covering the 100m not the not being able to defend yourself)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fozzy    2

OFC they should be allowed to fire back, what sense is it to just stay there and die?

There's also loop holes. If TOR then sees SVR outside the 100m radius, are they allowed to shoot them, and vice versa? Pretty stupid rule imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mush    2

An example which happened recently:

SVR move up to Solace, about 70m away from the gate. We do some roleplay with a FANGS hostage we have, and then execute him. We wait around roleplaying for sometime, and then are opened fire on by the camp (presumably CR's).

All we could do, is hit the deck and run/hide. To me and my team, this was outrageous. Because we couldn't attack them in at least self-defence. Of course, it could be seen as baiting with the current rules, but this was before the provoking rule was added.

I hate to bring up the real-life argument, but IRL, you'd fire back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haakon    0

Always role play over rule play. This is not going to happend if you're not going to be able to shoot back when someone is shooting at you. This is basically stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cid    333

My opinions on the situation are in this thread, no need to repeat myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vic    0

The rule is you cannot fight back. It's ridiculous. As if im going to stand there and get shot. Of course I'd fight back regardless of it being a rule break to be honest. I agree it needs to be edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigLammo    0

This new rule seems like a huge breach in NVFL. If you are being attacked it should be every instinct of an armed and prepared individual to react with force in kind to attempt to assure his well being. The camp is inviting hostility by making hostility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rifleman    14

IMO

I think this was brought up at the last meeting. This is also another iffy subject as well in the settlement rules, if you could fire back then you'd have multiple cases of baiting cropping up - as some clans could literally bait in order to get shot at in order to give rights to attack the settlement.

However I can say that Cases of being shot on sight from the settlement should be reserved unless clans have been fighting for 6 months or more. And should always be used as a last resort - similar to execution rights.

But - this is based on a hypothetical scenario. Until it becomes a problem I don't see the need to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example which happened recently:

SVR move up to Solace, about 70m away from the gate. We do some roleplay with a FANGS hostage we have, and then execute him. We wait around roleplaying for sometime, and then are opened fire on by the camp (presumably CR's).

All we could do, is hit the deck and run/hide. To me and my team, this was outrageous. Because we couldn't attack them in at least self-defence. Of course, it could be seen as baiting with the current rules, but this was before the provoking rule was added.

I hate to bring up the real-life argument, but IRL, you'd fire back.

You gave them KoS rights on you. The camp itself cannot give you KoS rights for reacting to something you did in such a fashion. 70m from the gate? Inside the 100m zone for CR rights to take effect.

You guys should use it as a valid reason to attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigLammo    0

Would a rule that involved front facing retreat (fire and retreat) help this situation? Baiting seems odd, and I do not know why groups would want to do it at all, but it's been some time since I was on the server, to know the reality of this scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

No need to attack if they can KOS me when I´m near.

I have to be near to initiate on the camp even I declared hostilities, do I? Or can I just open fire aswell after I declared hostilities on the camp like the rules say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samaritan    344

There is a big gray area here. While I do believe that people should be able to shoot back if a CR fires at them it is massively open to abuse. It can be used in a way to make a 'declaration of hostilities' a pointless rule. For example:

BWR move within 100m of Solace. We tell you to do one. You say no. Therefore none compliance. We again tell you to leave or you will be shot. You say no. We give you a final warning. You say no. We open fire. You open fire then no need for the 'declaration of hostilities'.

Biglammo you say the camp would be inviting hostilities. In this situtaion i think it is the other way round. I would say it would be defined as baiting.

What ever happens regarding the rules. They cannot please everyone. The key is finding a balance and that is very difficult.

(On my phone) I hope that made sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too many rules chocking the realistic aspect of firefights, yet it's all because of people abusing the rules and trying to use them in their favor. I think settlement rules need a rework as a whole because right now it just feels like a patchwork of duct tape over a crumbling shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

-snip-

If I declared hostilities and we would, after we´ve waited the time requiered like the rules says, come near the camp to get into positions, you would be allowed to kill us without warning. Right?

We are not allowed to shoot back, as we would have to initiate on the camp, right? Just because we declared hostilities does not mean we are allowed to just open fire, we would still have to initiate, right?

Why even declare hostilities? Just make it to a rule that it is not attackable. This is basically what it is?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rick    19

snip

I agree that it is widely open for abuse of hostilities declarations. What I would suggest, is to use it more on an individual basis. For Example:

Six SVR go to Solace. Three hide in the trees and three walk up to the front gate. The three at the front gate are told to leave, they don't, you initiate. I think those three should be able to fire back (assuming the intentions of going to the front gate weren't just to pick a fight), however the three in the trees should not be able to. It should be restricted to only those directly involved with the initiation.

I also think that, once this happens, whoever was initiated on should try to leave the area as quickly as possible. This shouldn't be used as a way to bait the right to attack a camp, or to try to kill all the CR's in and around the camp. It should be used as a means of escape in order to avoid capture or death.

The CR's of the camp also have a responsibility to not abuse this rule as well though imo. A group setting up for an attack, or a bunch of people arguing at the front gate are two largely different things. If it is clear a group is about to attack, it can't be expected that they will leave or back down because you guys managed to initiate first.

This is something that really boils down to the situation at hand. I think in practice, it would be quite clear if the group, or individual, purpose of approaching solace was to bait an initiation to attack, or defend himself and flee as a result of a hostile situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samaritan    344

-snip-

-SNIP-

Actually I believe in all the times that we have been attacked. We waited for the actual initiation for the benefit of those in Solace (RP purposes). So no we wouldnt shoot without an initiation and/or interaction first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

This is something that really boils down to the situation at hand. I think in practice, it would be quite clear if the group, or individual, was trying to bait an initiation to attack, or defend himself and flee a hostile situation.

But I can see this abused aswell:

SVR declares hostilities. SVR goes near the area to get into positions. CR´s could say "THIS IS SVR! THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK!" and start shooting without warning, because it is allowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't executing someone outside of Solace to get them to shoot at you so you could fire back be an attempt to bait, or go around the system as it is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

-snip-

-SNIP-

Actually I believe in all the times that we have been attacked. We waited for the actual initiation for the benefit of those in Solace (RP purposes). So no we wouldnt shoot without an initiation and/or interaction first.

While I know that, it is abuseable. And a rule should be clear. For now it isnt.

And just because it did never happen before does not mean it could not happen. You have a lot of CR´s now and you can´t control them all if you know what I mean.


Wouldn't executing someone outside of Solace to get them to shoot at you so you could fire back be an attempt to bait, or go around the system as it is?

I dont understand what you mean SumoS. Can you explain please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't executing someone outside of Solace to get them to shoot at you so you could fire back be an attempt to bait, or go around the system as it is?

I dont understand what you mean SumoS. Can you explain please?

Mush said it pretty clearly:

An example which happened recently:

SVR move up to Solace, about 70m away from the gate. We do some roleplay with a FANGS hostage we have, and then execute him. We wait around roleplaying for sometime, and then are opened fire on by the camp (presumably CR's).

All we could do, is hit the deck and run/hide. To me and my team, this was outrageous. Because we couldn't attack them in at least self-defence. Of course, it could be seen as baiting with the current rules, but this was before the provoking rule was added.

I hate to bring up the real-life argument, but IRL, you'd fire back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mush    2

Wouldn't executing someone outside of Solace to get them to shoot at you so you could fire back be an attempt to bait, or go around the system as it is?

I dont understand what you mean SumoS. Can you explain please?

Mush said it pretty clearly:

An example which happened recently:

SVR move up to Solace, about 70m away from the gate. We do some roleplay with a FANGS hostage we have, and then execute him. We wait around roleplaying for sometime, and then are opened fire on by the camp (presumably CR's).

All we could do, is hit the deck and run/hide. To me and my team, this was outrageous. Because we couldn't attack them in at least self-defence. Of course, it could be seen as baiting with the current rules, but this was before the provoking rule was added.

I hate to bring up the real-life argument, but IRL, you'd fire back.

No, we didn't want to attack or anything as such. We'd roleplayed with someone for 30 minutes, and wanted to send a message. We did the deed, and planned on leaving but were held up by some civs who began to RP. Shortly after that, we took shots. We didn't want any sort of attack.

Only reason we wanted to shoot back, was for self-defense. Our men were being hit - it needed to stop. The plan was, execute and leave. No attack was planned nor did we want to do one.

The reason we wanted to fireback was to save our friends and civilians outside from being injured/killed. But, we couldn't. So we ran away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terra    1449

Wouldn't executing someone outside of Solace to get them to shoot at you so you could fire back be an attempt to bait, or go around the system as it is?

I dont understand what you mean SumoS. Can you explain please?

Mush said it pretty clearly:

An example which happened recently:

SVR move up to Solace, about 70m away from the gate. We do some roleplay with a FANGS hostage we have, and then execute him. We wait around roleplaying for sometime, and then are opened fire on by the camp (presumably CR's).

All we could do, is hit the deck and run/hide. To me and my team, this was outrageous. Because we couldn't attack them in at least self-defence. Of course, it could be seen as baiting with the current rules, but this was before the provoking rule was added.

I hate to bring up the real-life argument, but IRL, you'd fire back.

Ah. I dont know. I was not there. I can not judge this situation. But Mush is not part of SVR for a few days now and this whole "CR´s are allowed to shoot you on site" was not there yet, I believe.

However, I agree with you that is baiting.

I still need my other questions to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest johnygt7   
Guest johnygt7

Another bad rule which basicly needs to go.

If you get fired upon by a cr, you should get kos on everyone who is Cring the place at the time imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moxy    19

What this does not consider, is the baiting and antagonize of hostile groups to try and pull KOS rights out of the CR's. Meaning, yes it is better to get the aggressor to leave, but if he refuses and starts threatening the CR's then they will fire; at that point all of his buddies will open up and now the SM is a blood bath. This will happen endlessly. If we allow anyone to fire on CR's who have to react to someone else's hostile actions inside their own camp, we might as well do away with settlements as a whole because they will be baited non stop.

That said, CR's should not just shoot people on sight. At least a warning should always be given and they should be told to leave, or [insert consequence] will happen.

As happens with SM's many times, there will only be a few CR's on at times, and a place full of people. The way the rule is set now; those CR's can successfully manage the whole SM by themselves with the CR rights they have. This simulates that in theory there would likely be MANY more of them around and people would not act up in their base.

Tl;Dr: Is this rule perfect? No. Does it need re-working? Probably. For the SM to work as intended it is a necessary evil to give them more rights. That said if CR's just fire on someone it should be as a last resort, and always place RP and interacting with others before killing them.

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.

×