Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-17, 21:36

Sign in to follow this  
Guest

This Community #NotAll

Recommended Posts

Guest   
Guest

First off, the levels of angst and salt that permeates this community has gotten out of hand, and I believe a lot of others share this sentiment. For example, (I won't name names) groups that report every *fair* firefight they lose in hopes of maybe getting the other party banned. Sorry to break it to those in question but just because you lost doesn't mean the other party is breaking the rules, it's because sometimes in life you just get beat. You have to have one hell of an ego to think the only way someone can beat you is to break rules.

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already. It doesn't matter if that staff member is the only one online at the time, they shouldn't have any involvement with the report beyond giving their POV if they were in game and took part in the reported event. Let me make it clear that don't think I have blatantly witnessed this or been a victim of this, it just crossed my mind when I saw someone submit a report and then had one of his good friends, a staff member, be handling his report. It would be so easy to influence the verdict, and it doesn't have even have to be a conscious bias.

Third, it has recently come to my attention that there are quite a few rules that are still being enforced that do not appear on the rule page. I won't blame anyone for this, as I know the transition from the old website could have meddled with it, but for the love of god either put them back on the rule page or don't enforce them.

That's my rant for now. There are quite a few issues with some in this community, and I'm sure I'm guilty of some myself, but these things need to be rectified. I really tried to keep this rant as civil as I could, because I feel quite strongly about some of these things and have a few choice words for certain people but in the interest of being taken seriously I was professional as I could be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brickity    2
5 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already. 

This is already a 'thing'.

Edited by Brickity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
5 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

First off, the levels of angst and salt that permeates this community has gotten out of hand, and I believe a lot of others share this sentiment. For example, (I won't name names) groups that report every *fair* firefight they lose in hopes of maybe getting the other party banned. Sorry to break it to those in question but just because you lost doesn't mean the other party is breaking the rules, it's because sometimes in life you just get beat. You have to have one hell of an ego to think the only way someone can beat you is to break rules.

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already. It doesn't matter if that staff member is the only one online at the time, they shouldn't have any involvement with the report beyond giving their POV if they were in game and took part in the reported event. Let me make it clear that don't think I have blatantly witnessed this or been a victim of this, it just crossed my mind when I saw someone submit a report and then had one of his good friends, a staff member, be handling his report. It would be so easy to influence the verdict, and it doesn't have even have to be a conscious bias.

Third, it has recently come to my attention that there are quite a few rules that are still being enforced that do not appear on the rule page. I won't blame anyone for this, as I know the transition from the old website could have meddled with it, but for the love of god either put them back on the rule page or don't enforce them.

That's my rant for now. There are quite a few issues with some in this community, and I'm sure I'm guilty of some myself, but these things need to be rectified. I really tried to keep this rant as civil as I could, because I feel quite strongly about some of these things and have a few choice words for certain people but in the interest of being taken seriously I was professional as I could be.

Cool man, until people learn to separate IC from OOC, salt will always be around here. These rants are just getting annoying at this point, you have said the same exact thing as a lot of other people around here. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
8 minutes ago, Brickity said:

This is already a 'thing'.

I said appear, because I saw an admin handling at least part of his BFFs report. Not saying he had a bias in it, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
9 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already. It doesn't matter if that staff member is the only one online at the time, they shouldn't have any involvement with the report beyond giving their POV if they were in game and took part in the reported event. Let me make it clear that don't think I have blatantly witnessed this or been a victim of this, it just crossed my mind when I saw someone submit a report and then had one of his good friends, a staff member, be handling his report. It would be so easy to influence the verdict, and it doesn't have even have to be a conscious bias.

This already exists. It may not be explicitly stated anywhere outside of the staff forums, but trust me, it does exist. That's definitely one thing we used to cover when we made anyone a new staff member, as we always wanted new CHes (and whatever position they may go to afterwards) to distance themselves from anything that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. If there's a conflict of interest, a staff member cannot touch a report anymore than a normal community member.

i.e. they cannot pull logs, deal with thread notes, etc. Basically they cannot do anything that would influence the outcome of a report or influence the decisions of those who actually do handle the report. They can only post a POV and nothing more. If you ever do see that there is a conflict of interest in a report, then contact the admins directly. If an admin is involved, contact Rolle directly. I know things that are blatantly disallowed are being in the same group, being involved in the situation itself even if they're not in the group, or being a spouse, brother, etc. as someone involved. Being a "friend" is a bit more tricky as, well, a lot of people are friends in this community in some respect, some closer than others. So proving there's a direct COI, you'd need some sort of evidence.

Quote

Third, it has recently come to my attention that there are quite a few rules that are still being enforced that do not appear on the rule page. I won't blame anyone for this, as I know the transition from the old website could have meddled with it, but for the love of god either put them back on the rule page or don't enforce them.

I sense this is regarding your recent ban for combat logging. Server restarts, to my knowledge, were never covered on the rule page. It was simply something that was understood. I don't feel it needs to be stated on the rules page, as it's self-explanatory. Wait 30 minutes after the hostile action/line of sight, unless you receive OOC permission otherwise. Black and white in my eyes.

Edited by Tosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pussy    311

Yeah... Staff members aren't allowed to touch reports if they are involved in a group with someone in the report, or if they are good enough friends for there to be a level of bias. As a staff member, there were people whose reports I just straight up wouldn't touch because I was good friends with the people.

If someone has been involved in a verdict for a good friend of theirs, then that should be brought to an admin's attention immediately for them to investigate.

Apart from that, everything here has already been said kind of a million times. We get it, everyone get's shit on, and everyone thinks their shit doesn't stink. Truth be told, no matter how many posts go up like this, you're never gonna get rid of the "salt". No-one likes getting told they did something wrong, or that their RP blew. Best to just swallow this fact and move on.

Edited by Meowtica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
APureGamer    55
1 minute ago, Meowtica said:

Yeah... Staff members aren't allowed to touch reports if they are involved in a group with someone in the report, or if they are good enough friends for there to be a level of bias. As a staff member, there were people whose reports I just straight up wouldn't touch because I was good friends with the people.

If someone has been involved in a verdict for a good friend of theirs, then that should be brought to an admin's attention immediately for them to investigate.

Exactly what Meow said. ALSO if you disagree with something talk to the admins or a staff member. Its always better to talk out your anger then post it on the forums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadows    994
56 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

First off, the levels of angst and salt that permeates this community has gotten out of hand, and I believe a lot of others share this sentiment. For example, (I won't name names) groups that report every *fair* firefight they lose in hopes of maybe getting the other party banned. Sorry to break it to those in question but just because you lost doesn't mean the other party is breaking the rules, it's because sometimes in life you just get beat. You have to have one hell of an ego to think the only way someone can beat you is to break rules.

If the GM team deems a report was made with no substance and clearly just out of "Salt" or to get somebody banned, that's why there are false report verdicts. They're just what they sound like.

56 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already. It doesn't matter if that staff member is the only one online at the time, they shouldn't have any involvement with the report beyond giving their POV if they were in game and took part in the reported event. Let me make it clear that don't think I have blatantly witnessed this or been a victim of this, it just crossed my mind when I saw someone submit a report and then had one of his good friends, a staff member, be handling his report. It would be so easy to influence the verdict, and it doesn't have even have to be a conscious bias.

This doesn't happen. As stated above, you are not allowed to get involved in a report where they feel like there made be some kind of bias due to friendship, being in a group, or what ever. It's not allowed to happen.

56 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Third, it has recently come to my attention that there are quite a few rules that are still being enforced that do not appear on the rule page. I won't blame anyone for this, as I know the transition from the old website could have meddled with it, but for the love of god either put them back on the rule page or don't enforce them.

If you have specific rules that need to be added, contact a member of staff. If this is regarding what you got banned for and your combat logging, I recommend you read what Tosh said here:

48 minutes ago, Tosh said:

Server restarts, to my knowledge, were never covered on the rule page. It was simply something that was understood. I don't feel it needs to be stated on the rules page, as it's self-explanatory. Wait 30 minutes after the hostile action/line of sight, unless you receive OOC permission otherwise. Black and white in my eyes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
9 minutes ago, APureGamer. said:

Exactly what Meow said. ALSO if you disagree with something talk to the admins or a staff member. Its always better to talk out your anger then post it on the forums. 

I don't think I just "posted my anger on the forums", I was genuinely trying to give my 2 cents. I understand that it may seem that way, but I'd rather try and have something good come out of this post than have a giant dick measuring contest in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
APureGamer    55
2 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

I don't think I just "posted my anger on the forums", I was genuinely trying to give my 2 cents. I understand that it may seem that way, but I'd rather try and have something good come out of this post than have a giant dick measuring contest in the thread.

If you feel that way.

Edited by APureGamer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zero    276
56 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

First off, the levels of angst and salt that permeates this community has gotten out of hand, and I believe a lot of others share this sentiment. For example, (I won't name names) groups that report every *fair* firefight they lose in hopes of maybe getting the other party banned. Sorry to break it to those in question but just because you lost doesn't mean the other party is breaking the rules, it's because sometimes in life you just get beat. You have to have one hell of an ego to think the only way someone can beat you is to break rules.

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already. It doesn't matter if that staff member is the only one online at the time, they shouldn't have any involvement with the report beyond giving their POV if they were in game and took part in the reported event. Let me make it clear that don't think I have blatantly witnessed this or been a victim of this, it just crossed my mind when I saw someone submit a report and then had one of his good friends, a staff member, be handling his report. It would be so easy to influence the verdict, and it doesn't have even have to be a conscious bias.

Third, it has recently come to my attention that there are quite a few rules that are still being enforced that do not appear on the rule page. I won't blame anyone for this, as I know the transition from the old website could have meddled with it, but for the love of god either put them back on the rule page or don't enforce them.

That's my rant for now. There are quite a few issues with some in this community, and I'm sure I'm guilty of some myself, but these things need to be rectified. I really tried to keep this rant as civil as I could, because I feel quite strongly about some of these things and have a few choice words for certain people but in the interest of being taken seriously I was professional as I could be.

There are a lot of problems wrong with the community, but no one wants to admit it and they aren't willing to attempt to fix said problems. The last thing we need though is more asinine rules, that won't fix problems, just make them worse. There's lots of people that have something against other community members and they themselves turn the forums into a toxic place, how they are allowed to stay, is beyond me.

However, just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you are toxic or full of salt, there are certain people here I dislike because of what they do, like lying, breaking rules, etc. I just don't let their actions affect my attitude OOC or IC, I keep it professional.

On the second note, I don't think there is staff bias, that is absurd, I think there is staff incompetence though *sorry, not sorry, that's just my opinion based on personal experiences*.

Third, a lot of people are unaware of new rules because it wasn't really a huge bulletin about it, apparently they are still enforcing rules that aren't even on the page though, at least they were as of recently. 

Quote

If the GM team deems a report was made with no substance and clearly just out of "Salt" or to get somebody banned, that's why there are false report verdicts. They're just what they sound like.

@Shadows simply not true, in-fact, there was a report very recently were someone reported another party and they admitted on the forums  OPENLY that they wanted said person gone (because they didn't like them), they were successful in their endeavor as well. Even if the GM team found one party guilty, they made the report because they didn't like the person, which in my opinion would be a "salt" report. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

This community has too many rules. When people lose, they use rules to take revenge out of spite. Most people really don't do it because it really killed their immersion or feel that it was shitty. They just didn't like how in-character events played out OOCly, and will find an OOC reason to get revenge. Happens all the time. Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
22 minutes ago, Zero said:

simply not true, in-fact, there was a report very recently were someone reported another party and they admitted on the forums  OPENLY that they wanted said person gone (because they didn't like them), they were successful in their endeavor as well. Even if the GM team found one party guilty, they made the report because they didn't like the person, which in my opinion would be a "salt" report. 

I think that's why he said "a report with no substance". If a rule break occurred, doesn't really matter what the reason behind making the report is. If there's no substance, that's when it goes into the avenue of a false report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shadows    994
9 minutes ago, Tosh said:

I think that's why he said "a report with no substance". If a rule break occurred, doesn't really matter what the reason behind making the report is. If there's no substance, that's when it goes into the avenue of a false report.

^ this.

If the GM team can think "Hmm... if someone casually showed me this video was there a rule break?" and the answer is no, then it could end as a false report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
1 hour ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Secondly, Staff members who are affiliated with a party in a report should be barred from having anything to do with the evaluation. This is so simple and easy a rule to have that I am in awe that it doesn't appear to be a thing already.

This is, has been and always will be a thing, what gives you the impression that it's not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
1 hour ago, Mental said:

This is, has been and always will be a thing, what gives you the impression that it's not?

Well lets refer back to what has been said about the staff bias thing I brought up. One, I was not aware that it was a thing, obviously I don't have access to some sort of "staff rules" page because I am not staff. If you want to know what I am talking about, look at this solved report:

Then look at this screenshot I took of a message I got from a staff member. It may seem as if he's just giving me an informal warning, but if you check his post history you will see that he is good friends with the guy who reported my group. Maybe everyone else sees this differently, but I got a sort of coercive vibe from it.

vFOHzxE.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
9 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Well lets refer back to what has been said about the staff bias thing I brought up. One, I was not aware that it was a thing, obviously I don't have access to some sort of "staff rules" page because I am not staff. If you want to know what I am talking about, look at this solved report:

Then look at this screenshot I took of a message I got from a staff member. It may seem as if he's just giving me an informal warning, but if you check his post history you will see that he is good friends with the guy who reported my group. Maybe everyone else sees this differently, but I got a sort of coercive vibe from it.

vFOHzxE.png

Then that's a mistake on his part. Either way, he would have had the green light from some other staff members, but he shouldn't have been the one to tell you.

That being said, there is a strict enforcement when it comes to GM's and admins posting on reports and ban appeals they shouldn't be. An informal warning PM is hardly anything to make a big deal about.

Edited by Mental

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
13 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

-snip-

Well, luckily he can't actually issue points, ban anyone, etc. However, I get that same vibe from the PM you received and it definitely is phrased poorly. I don't even understand why he felt the need to send it at all; however, I think that's something that is best handled privately. Tbh, I'd shoot that to an admin.

Edited by Tosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
2 hours ago, Zero said:

There are a lot of problems wrong with the community, but no one wants to admit it and they aren't willing to attempt to fix said problems. The last thing we need though is more asinine rules, that won't fix problems, just make them worse. There's lots of people that have something against other community members and they themselves turn the forums into a toxic place, how they are allowed to stay, is beyond me.

However, just because you dislike someone doesn't mean you are toxic or full of salt, there are certain people here I dislike because of what they do, like lying, breaking rules, etc. I just don't let their actions affect my attitude OOC or IC, I keep it professional.

On the second note, I don't think there is staff bias, that is absurd, I think there is staff incompetence though *sorry, not sorry, that's just my opinion based on personal experiences*.

Third, a lot of people are unaware of new rules because it wasn't really a huge bulletin about it, apparently they are still enforcing rules that aren't even on the page though, at least they were as of recently. 

@Shadows simply not true, in-fact, there was a report very recently were someone reported another party and they admitted on the forums  OPENLY that they wanted said person gone (because they didn't like them), they were successful in their endeavor as well. Even if the GM team found one party guilty, they made the report because they didn't like the person, which in my opinion would be a "salt" report. 

This is kind of how I feel. Nobody wants to talk about the issues, they'd rather pretend everything is just peachy and hope the elephant in the room is ignored. I've got a couple bones to pick with some of the rules here, and I think most people do as well. However, were they to voice their opinions, they would be bombarded by people just saying "if you don't like it, leave", when all they are trying to do is make DayZRP better. I feel like it's at the point where the people who genuinely think DayZRP is perfect have created an echo chamber because they are the only ones who feel confident enough to voice their opinions.

On the topic of opinions, I may as well throw in what I think would improve DayZRP:

  • Add to the Combat Logging section that states if everyone in one group dies in a firefight with another group, the victorious group should be able to log out. Once again, ONLY IF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ENEMY GROUP IS DEAD.
  • An addendum that makes individual group members actions reflect on the group as a whole. For example, if you initiate on a group of 3 and 2 immediately decide to fight back, the actions of the 2 who fight should affect the 3rd man, meaning you may kill him as well. To me, that seems completely reasonable.
  • A feature where if 2 groups are arch enemies IC, the members of the groups may KoS each other BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PID'd THE OTHER GROUP. This may be more trouble than it's worth, as I'm sure people would misidentify others often, but it's something I thought would be cool and make the game more realistic, because who the hell just robs their ultimate rival?
  • KOS zones. This isn't so much of a rule as a cathartic measure for the players. Maybe it's just my group but if we don't get into combat and either die or win, we will have to blow off steam by going to play Arma 3 or SA public just to get some action. Again, maybe just me.

That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure y'all will give me like 73 reasons each of these things won't work but whatever.

Edited by LuckyMcHatchet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
18 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

This is kind of how I feel. Nobody wants to talk about the issues, they'd rather pretend everything is just peachy and hope the elephant in the room is ignored. I've got a couple bones to pick with some of the rules here, and I think most people do as well.

Oh no you're dead wrong a lot of people want to and do talk about the horrible blaring issues that this place has. However they are ignored constantly or pushed aside and for pointing out said issues they are threatened with points or given them or these days flat out permabanned. People act like everything is Peachy and "ignore" the elephant in the room because they will be facing punishment if they don't.

Il make a brief comment on your idea that 2 waring groups can KOS each other though. They literally can if you organised it between both of the groups OOC its not KOS/RDM unless you report it after all so if you agree to it its fine. Im sure some staff member will chime in about how thats wrong however and ban people anyway. Just make sure you are 110% getting the correct targets.

Also yes the combat logging rule where you still have to wait 30 minutes when its 110% confirmed that all possible retaliation is dead.....is retarded that is all I understand why its there but its enforced way to freely within reports when in certain instances it shouldnt even be brought up.

Edited by Valkerion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    278
16 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

This is kind of how I feel. Nobody wants to talk about the issues, they'd rather pretend everything is just peachy and hope the elephant in the room is ignored. I've got a couple bones to pick with some of the rules here as well, and I think most people do as well. However, were they to voice their opinions, they would be bombarded by people just saying "if you don't like it, leave", when all they are trying to do is make DayZRP better. It's at the point where the people who genuinely think DayZRP is perfect have created an echo chamber because they are the only ones who feel confident enough to voice their opinions.

On the topic of opinions, I may as well throw in what I think would improve DayZRP:

  • Add to the Combat Logging section that states if everyone in one group dies in a firefight with another group, the victorious group should be able to log out. Once again, ONLY IF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ENEMY GROUP IS DEAD. How IC do you know they are all dead? its an assumption, and as of such all combat must have a standard timer. We are allowed to msg them "is it alright to log out?" if you know OOC the people that have KOS rights on you. they say yes and its ok. However if multiple parties have KOS this becomes tricky, as one party giving permission doesn't cover the 2nd party with KOS rights on you.
  • An addendum that makes individual group members actions reflect on the group as a whole. For example, if you initiate on a group of 3 and 2 immediately decide to fight back, the actions of the 2 who fight should affect the 3rd man, meaning you may kill him as well. To me, that seems completely reasonable. You would think that to be reasonable, but what if there are 12 people and 4 don't comply?  this is why we removed this rule. We have dynamic groups now, and the man you just met, his actions should not affect you. (at least in most cases anyhow)
  • A feature where if 2 groups are arch enemies IC, the members of the groups may KoS each other BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PID'd THE OTHER GROUP. This may be more trouble than it's worth, as I'm sure people would misidentify others often, but it's something I thought would be cool and make the game more realistic, because who the hell just robs their ultimate rival?  You even state that this would be more trouble than its worth. This undoes the foundation of the server to be fair. most people come here to play BECAUSE you have to initiate and not kill on sight. (honestly, you shoot at me and ill run because of NVFL, remove the MVFL and ill just charge and kill you or die trying. DGAF)
  • KOS zones. This isn't so much of a rule as a cathartic measure for the players. Maybe it's just my group but if we don't get into combat and either die or win, we will have to blow off steam by going to play Arma 3 or SA public just to get some action. Again, maybe just me.  Would be nice but makes no sense on a RP server, Nor does the no-KOS rule, but we need to remember its a game and were trying to do story telling on a quasi-military shooter platform.  but Mostly people would end up forgetting where the area is and accidents will happen, or they will avoid the area completely. A few people will guille out and snipe all day and others will try to trick people over there just so they can shoot them in the head.  Only way KOS zones work is if you pick a city like NOVO or Cherno, make a server based Faction of badguys, and have them dedicated to playing people who live in city and kill all outsiders...but never leave the city. ---that kind of play is restrictive and people get bored playing like that.

 

That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure y'all will give me like 73 reasons each of these things won't work but whatever.

Feeling lazy.  I agree with the highlighted Green.  Red responses mean I am disagreeing with you.

 

A man I know voiced his opinion once and didn't break server rules once while doing it...where is he Today?  Strike he is gone because of it Strike

Edited by Winslow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438
14 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

Add to the Combat Logging section that states if everyone in one group dies in a firefight with another group, the victorious group should be able to log out. Once again, ONLY IF THE ENTIRETY OF THE ENEMY GROUP IS DEAD.

Nope. This will lead to people "accidentally" combat logging. Avoid combat if you do not want to stay logged in for 30 minutes thereafter.

 

15 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

An addendum that makes individual group members actions reflect on the group as a whole. For example, if you initiate on a group of 3 and 2 immediately decide to fight back, the actions of the 2 who fight should affect the 3rd man, meaning you may kill him as well. To me, that seems completely reasonable.

Already a thing if my understanding of how KoS rights is now applied is correct.

 

15 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

A feature where if 2 groups are arch enemies IC, the members of the groups may KoS each other BUT ONLY IF THEY HAVE PID'd THE OTHER GROUP. This may be more trouble than it's worth, as I'm sure people would misidentify others often, but it's something I thought would be cool and make the game more realistic, because who the hell just robs their ultimate rival?

No. The amount of bad kills that would result is not a good idea. Also KoS is not a major focus of this server.

16 minutes ago, LuckyMcHatchet said:

KOS zones. This isn't so much of a rule as a cathartic measure for the players. Maybe it's just my group but if we don't get into combat and either die or win, we will have to blow off steam by going to play Arma 3 or SA public just to get some action. Again, maybe just me.

100% of this server is RP. not 75%, 85% or 90%.

It seems to me you want this server to be something that it simply is not.

I would write more, but gotta go to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    278
2 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Nope. This will lead to people "accidentally" combat logging. Avoid combat if you do not want to stay logged in for 30 minutes thereafter.

 

Already a thing if my understanding of how KoS rights is now applied is correct.

 

No. The amount of bad kills that would result is not a good idea. Also KoS is not a major focus of this server.

100% of this server is RP. not 75%, 85% or 90%.

It seems to me you want this server to be something that it simply is not.

I would write more, but gotta go to work.

way to repeat me. <3 ya sweetie.  and btw you need to brush up on KOS rights.

Edited by Winslow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
3 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Already a thing if my understanding of how KoS rights is now applied is correct.

I think you misunderstood this point. He's saying if you initiate on a group of three, one surrenders but the other two choose to fight back and die, that the man who surrendered and is a complying hostage should be able to be killed, which is not how it works from anything I've personally seen in reports. If he complies, then unless you have some execution rights, he should make it out of the situation alive.

Edited by Tosh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweetJoe    278
7 minutes ago, Tosh said:

I think you misunderstood this point. He's saying if you initiate on a group of three, one surrenders but the other two choose to fight back and die, that the man who surrendered and is a complying hostage should be able to be killed, which is not how it works from anything I've personally seen in reports. If he complies, then unless you have some execution rights, he should make it out of the situation alive.

Tosh...I just re-read the rules...and I am tired mind you, but I did not see "You may not kill a complying hostage." or anything similar. seriously they re-worded it to make taking a hostage seem...optional.

 

Remind me again why they seem to change the rules every few weeks to every few months?

 

#Mod rules were better worded even while written by people who have English as a 3rd language.

Edited by Winslow

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.

×