Jump to content
Server time: 2019-04-22, 01:17
Sign in to follow this  
YellowChilli

unrealistic rule "Do not kill any hostages immediately when an attack starts."

Recommended Posts

I'd have to say no to this. My main reason being that I feel that if someone was to initiate, began being shot at with them instantly gunning down the hostage it would effectively end all RP.

no because the sniper stops the RP first, not the bandits ;)

How would you know the sniper is actually with the person you have take hostage though? 

 

I’ll put this scenario forward to explain my first point. Group A is initiated on by group B, group A’s overwatch then opens fire with group B then telling the hostage that unless they stop shooting they will kill them. This then allows RP to continue as group B can then make demands for the safe return of the hostage.

 

If group B started getting shot at and instantly gunned down the hostage it would pretty much end all RP with group B either running for it or engaging in a fire fight.

Share this post


Link to post

I remember when JMS got a ban for this at the time I didn't see a problem with the execution of hostages but I feel if we changed it to what is written in the op that it would encourage more robbers to just execute their victims rather than try and RP there way out of the situation. And also this could cause confusion as say if group a and b had a fight and then both retreat group a takes a hostage from group c and then group b turns up to act on there previous kos rights and the hostage get executed it's not the hostage or group c's fault as group b may not have known.

Share this post


Link to post

Just like other people have stated, it should be up to the so called "bandits" to make sure they are safe and have a back-up plan in case things go wrong. Just because people are now shooting at you as soon as that initiation dropped should not give you any rights to kill the hostages. Initiations should be well planned and should take time, making things much more realistic.

Also, the hostages are complying to everything you said. If you were to kill them, they would have no say in it. You don't even know if the people shooting are with the hostage or not. I get the point that it may be more realistic to kill them but you are ruining someone's fun by just executing them without even being their fault.

TL;DR: No.

Share this post


Link to post

Too often have I seen people act in the following way.

*Sees a person*

"GASSSSP! He has a bigger gun! PUTCHURHANDSUPORISHOOTYOU!!!!!"

At which point they're happy to just go through gear, standing in the open, no care given. Then they get sniped and proceed to cry. "I got KOS'd bro, fucking bullshit!". If this type of bandit is you, go outside and play in that reality some more.

Bandits are needed, yes, but gear oriented? Things like food, medical supplies and weapons should be more valued than shiny boots or say an M65 jacket. And if you managed to gain a hostage, remember you started it. It's up to you how to use that hostage.

I want to make something clear though to a lot of newcomers like myself. When you join a community you agree to it's rules. The second you hit 'send' on that application, that is a contract of conduct on how you play. If you cannot abide by such and are in violation of said contract, then you should be thankful to only be given a time out. There's other DayZ servers. I know, I have like 1200's logged on other RP servers. I've never even played public, but I can guarantee they wouldn't tolerate the trigger happy either.

Share this post


Link to post

I've always found it weird that people usually play around the hostage rule, since the hostage isn't a threat he can't be killed yet the people in his team have the rights to do as they please which in all fairness is unfair and unjust as if you were to kill the hostage you are then reported for killing a compliant hostage but same can not be said about the people that started the fight as they were not really risking the life of the hostage since he was tucked in safe in the rules on *complying*

Note:

At the same time tho if you're doing it in obvious spots like you said in open fields or open plain areas then no its your own fault I was more off less touching on the point of when it's done just because they can not when it's an easy fix such as this one by just going in better spots before doing an initiation.

+1, rule needs to be changed. I should be able to hand my hostage a radio and say "tell your friends, they try to pull a heroic rescue, you die the second they try it" Makes things so much more tense and exciting. But nope, the hostage's friends get to exploit the hostage hiding behind ruleplay.

Share this post


Link to post

Chernov, the rule to my understanding at the moment is that you can do that, the issue that people have with the proposed rule change is when there is a threat that appears before you hand the hostage a radio to do that. At the moment, the rule is fine to me, as it is not right for the hostage to be able to just immediately fire when someone fires at the hostage taker. For reference, the rule states: When attempting to rescue a hostage, you must be able to contact the hostage in teamspeak for negotiations. Hostages may be killed if rescuers don't stop shooting after demands have been made and a reasonable time has elapsed.

Share this post


Link to post

Initiation is a risk. Without risk, it becomes more prevalent. You initiate, you better be prepared and have everything ready.

Rules are fine, no support.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't like the latter, TBH. I didn't force you to initiate on me, so it's your responsibility to reap what you sow. If you initiate me in an open-ass area and get sniped by a Navy SEAL super sniper, that isn't my fault even if I'm complying. I didn't pull the trigger, I can't do anything about it. You just need to know when and where to initiate at that point. In real life, it would make sense, but this is for RolePlaying purposes in a video-game.

However, once you've made reasonable demands, and they ignore and or willingly disregard them and proceed to do whatever after multiple warnings (Generally 2-3), an execution of the hostage would be acceptable because they neglected to follow demands. But an outright execution prior to any chance of RP is just wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

Key to not getting shot during an initiation is to keep moving and have people in the area watching for the marks overwatch. Rule seems fine as it is.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this rule extremely unrealistic because in a real scenario if a hostage has been taken and then you have someone with a gun ready at the hostage then you are attacked, then it is obvious that the hostage will be killed because that is what happens in a hostage negotiation. If you are going to tr to save the hostage you better kill the people posing a threat. Also if someone is taken hostage with the current rule in place it will just reduce the RP and cause shooting because its much easier to just attack the hostage takers than to negotiate which would add a lot of good RP which we are really missing out on.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it should be okay to kill the hostage immediately if the following have been met:

1) "When the victim is initiated on, he/she is forced to cut radio communication, and then state that if anybody tries to save him/her at any given time, the kidnappers have permission to execute the hostage"

2) "The teammates of the victim then reply with either "Ok, we wont." or "We'll get you out" etc, either way the victim's friends' knowledge of the situation is confirmed."

3) "Despite the previous warning, the victim's friends still attempt to rescue the hostage, despite being warned. This is when the hostage would be killed"

-Thoughts?-

Share this post


Link to post

-snip-

I believe it's very similar to the current set of rules but the problem is as follows, if you have someone as your hostage, you are virtually cutting everyone else from the hostage group since any attempts to rescue the hostage will result in his/her death. If you issue realistic demands that are not met after a reasonable amount of time, it's a different story; I'm afraid your idea gives too much power in a situation like "let us torture your buddy in peace or we'll kill him". For the RP to be enjoyable the balance of power between captors and rescuers should be even with a real a chance of survival for everyone, your solution gives too much power to the captors in my eye.

Share this post


Link to post

snippy snip snip

My idea would definitely be in certain circumstances. I completely agree, too much power ruins it. When I wrote it I meant it as in smaller situations, where torturing probably wouldn't be carried out and the character being held hostage is still able to enjoy RP.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometimes I think rules need to be more focused on the fairness of all people involved, and less on what would actually be realistic. This is one of those instances.

Share this post


Link to post

I am usually a big fan of realism, but if a group goes out there and starts massacring people as soon as initiations go south, there is going to be a lot of upset people who didn't get a decent RP and got spawned miles across the map. I could see the rage on the forums now (=

Share this post


Link to post

the hostage has no control over what there group or dynamic group are going to do, therefore they should be no need for them to die. However if you obtain there radio and can clearly specify that the hostage will die fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post

It kind of defeats the purpose of the hostage.

Reason being because if I have a hostage my terms are "Do what I say or he dies."

If they don't do what I say by attacking me and I still can't kill him, then what's the point of a hostage?

Share this post


Link to post

Looks likes it's been addressed, but flat out killing a hostage in my books is disgusting RP, once you kill that hostage it breaks the RP for them and for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

so how u can see here http://www.dayzrp.com/t-S1-Killing-of-Compliant-Hostage-North-of-Sinistok-01-05-2016-5-35pm why this rule is not fine and give the snipers and the possible hostages a big advantage.

the possible hostages are not handcuffed and they are armed, the sniper(who destroys the RP in this situation) shot the hostage takers instantly, if one died and the other try to hide, the possible hostages have the change to shot him in the back. and u really think that is fair for both parties, i guess its not. and its not a realistic thing.

point 1: the snipers shows no value for his friends life because they dont kill every hostage taker at the same time

and point 2: the hostage takers have absolutly no time to handle this situation within the rules.

Share this post


Link to post

I have to say it. Chilliconcarne has a point. Instead of a rule being rectified, couldn't we make another for counter initiation? NVFL is fine, but how about no value for friends lives?

Share this post


Link to post

so how u can see here http://www.dayzrp.com/t-S1-Killing-of-Compliant-Hostage-North-of-Sinistok-01-05-2016-5-35pm why this rule is not fine and give the snipers and the possible hostages a big advantage.

the possible hostages are not handcuffed and they are armed, the sniper(who destroys the RP in this situation) shot the hostage takers instantly, if one died and the other try to hide, the possible hostages have the change to shot him in the back. and u really think that is fair for both parties, i guess its not. and its not a realistic thing.

point 1: the snipers shows no value for his friends life because they dont kill every hostage taker at the same time

and point 2: the hostage takers have absolutly no time to handle this situation within the rules.

Well since I was in that situation I have to agree we didn't have much time to do anything with the "hostages" and me getting killed really made it hard for the other guy that was with me he could fall back and probably get shot down by the ones we iniated on or kill the hostages and get to saftey which made a lot more sense to me. I understand what he did was a rulebreak but I think this rule could be changed to that they become hostages when they pose no threat to you, for example they are tied up or have no weapons. And yes he could have put his hands up and surrendered but in the heat of the moment thats not the first thing you think off.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...