Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-20, 16:18
Safe Zone: OPEN

Sign in to follow this  
Mass04

Displaying your initiation with gunfire.

Recommended Posts

Mass04    4

Please read this before you comment, I'll try not to make it as long-winded as my last thread.

The scenario: A small group of people have been strong-armed/harassed by a larger group, so they leave the area. After a minute or so, the larger group begins following the smaller group and they notice. The smaller group begins running and the larger group chases after them. The smaller group can't make an ambush because nobody has actually initiated and they would need to let the larger group get into VoIP range, which gives up the range advantage they had.

I already know you can't start a gunfight without an initiation and you can't injure someone without initiation based on your assumptions about them.

I propose that, if a group is stalking another and the victim group doesn't like that, they can turn around and fire a few shots at the ground or walls near their stalkers to signify that they will kill them if they keep coming after them.

After that, it's up to the stalkers to turn around and walk off, keep approaching or fire back, starting a gunfight.

This is a suggestion of an unconventional initiation in a particular circumstance where it would make sense in reality.

Of course the smaller group can't actually hit their stalkers on the first volley as that's the initiation.

 

I want to hear about people's thoughts on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Actually I would like clarification on this situation.

In cases of sustained following (essentially stalking) is it still the case that you can open fire? Previously this was always a little hit and miss. I haven't checked recent reports for clarification.

Now, gunshots can never be consider an initiation. But warning shots do give the opposing party KoS rights on you. 

Warning shots are by their definition nonspecific in a game like this. They could mean many things in many different circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty    1585

Nah, what you're suggesting is straight up attempted KOS. We don't allow warning shots on people you don't already have KOS rights on. This is something that just isn't needed. The criteria for this rule (you must be a smaller group being chased by a larger group for it to be legit) leaves too much room for error or mistakes to be made. What if the group that is supposedly following your group just happens to be going the same way? What if you mistake a different group for the people chasing you? 

The rules are mostly fine how they are now, so -1 from me.

4 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Now, gunshots can never be consider an initiation. But warning shots do give the opposing party KoS rights on you. 

Warning shots are by their definition nonspecific in a game like this. They could mean many things in many different circumstances.

Warning shots (on people you don't have KOS rights on) are considered invalid initiation/attempted KOS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Yes, and as they are consider an "invalid initiation/Attempted KoS" they give you KoS against the person using the warning shots. I apologise if I confused, that's what I meant.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty    1585

Also, @Caesar, regarding the question of whether or not stalking grants kos rights, it could potentially be considered baiting (if you tell them to stop following you multiple times over an extended period of time). This recent-ish controversial verdict gave an answer (quoted below), although in this situation, the person had to have been told to stop following multiple times. Based on the part of the verdict below, you cannot kill someone who you have not told to stop following you multiple times:

Quote

 

Several times during the journey from the Polana area to Gorka, Katja Bailey was told to leave, to fuck off, to stop following. In the video here https://youtu.be/BSBb1Bv-i-k we count at least 9 times where Stanley Mossberg tells Katja Bailey to leave the area and stop following. In this video from Katja’s perspective, we count at minimum 5 times. Your actions in the video, the dialog when you get told to leave Gorka of

 

20:26:04 | Chat("Katja Bailey"(id=)): what the fuck is this
20:26:10 | Chat("Katja Bailey"(id=)): why?
20:26:16 | Chat("Katja Bailey"(id=)): why should i?

 

and the intentions of you and your allies that we can hear occurring in your TeamSpeak comms blatantly points to baiting.

Katja had the ability to leave Stanley alone as he asked repeatedly but rather chose not to and to continue to follow. He was granted the rights to kill Katja in Gorka, so we find him not guilty of RDM. Due to your allies clearly being aware of the demands to not follow Stanley but them as well choosing to do so, the kills on them are also considered legitimate in Gorka.

 

 

Edited by Dusty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
54 minutes ago, Caesar said:

Actually I would like clarification on this situation.

I don't know about the current rules, but this suggestion outlines that if they kept coming towards you after the `gunfire initiation,` that would indicate their willingness to fight back.

50 minutes ago, Dusty said:

The criteria for this rule (you must be a smaller group being chased by a larger group for it to be legit) leaves too much room for error or mistakes to be made. What if the group that is supposedly following your group just happens to be going the same way? What if you mistake a different group for the people chasing you? 

I get that concern, but I did already state a clear scenario:

 

1 hour ago, Mass04 said:

A small group of people have been strong-armed/harassed by a larger group, so they leave the area. After a minute or so, the larger group begins following the smaller group and they notice. The smaller group begins running and the larger group chases after them.

In my mind, people being followed by those who were hostile to them earlier would realistically assume these people are out to get them. My suggestion was just to give warning shots to indicate to your stalkers that you'll fight if they keep coming after you. It's fine if you don't like that, it's just when I've talked about this before, people omitted information I'd already wrote to tell me what the current rules, despite this being a suggestion to change those rules. But you understand that, so it's fine.

There's also the thing where if you were different people following this smaller group and, out of nowhere, they fire shots landing near you but not on any of your people, you'd assume they're paranoid and want to be left alone, since no amount of talking or whatever you wanted to achieve is more important than your lives, which from your perspective, you could lose to a bunch of crazy idiots.

Edited by Mass04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodoo    488

Na its a terrible idea and will just lead to reports and firefights. Warning shots have never been a thing and shouldnt.

If your groups being chased then break away and fool them or confront them. Fact is if you are in a large group then you get the advantage like in real life. 

I also would like it clarified fully by staff if KoS rights are gained if you tell someone to stop following on multiple occasions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   62

What about being chased for 5-10 minutes and I mean obvious chasing, I'd say should give you KoS. They abuse the fact that you can't shoot them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
3 minutes ago, Misty said:

They abuse the fact that you can't shoot them.

Yeah, part of the reason why I posted it, since as I described in the OP, if you're being chased by a larger group and you turned around to confront them, it would likely be NVFL because there's no range advantage and and they outnumber you, so right now you're only way to get away is to run or get more people for an ambush. This suggestion just provides a third option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

I am fine with you having to tell them "stop following me" in a way that does not give KoS rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
3 minutes ago, Caesar said:

I am fine with you having to tell them "stop following me" in a way that does not give KoS rights.

Fan of that, wouldn't be useful in this scenario because by the time you can tell them that, they can initiate on you with the numbers advantage.

Still though, if that comes up in another suggestion, +1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   62
57 minutes ago, Caesar said:

I am fine with you having to tell them "stop following me" in a way that does not give KoS rights.

Thing is, if you're solo and a group of 2, 3 or more players starts to obviously follow you through the forests, waiting for them to come in voice range is suicide.  But they can follow you as long as they want because its not a hostile act to follow people. If it was, they would roleplay it out a bit more realistic, as a real survivor being chased would most likely hide or ambush them with gunfire, and real survivors chasing someone for a long time would not do that to ask if they need help or food.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

I get that. But I don't love the idea of just lighting people up. I don't think there is a perfect answer. I think having to tell them first is the best compromise. Solo players may have the option of meeting up with others first.

Edited by Caesar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
29 minutes ago, Caesar said:

I get that. But I don't love the idea of just lighting people up. I don't think there is a perfect answer. I think having to tell them first is the best compromise. Solo players may have the option of meeting up with others first.

Personally I see a difference between firing a two or three bullets at a tree your stalkers are passing and `lighting people up` since that makes me imagine unloading your mag in their direction, trying to hit them. I don't know if that's^ just me but I'd imagine it isn't, you know?

The distinction I made if the first post is, as I described, firing a few shots at an object near the approaching players, not explicitly at the players themselves, since the indication you're trying to convey is that you will shoot them if they keep coming.

Edited by Mass04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skinner    505

Well intended suggestion and I applaud you for thinking outside the box and making suggestions that could improve RP, but yeah for the reasons @Caesar and @Dusty pointed out above this is a pretty terrible idea, no offense.  

1 minute ago, Mass04 said:

Personally I see a difference between firing a two or three bullets at a tree your stalkers are passing and `lighting people up` since that makes me imagine unloading your mag in their direction, trying to hit them. I don't know if that's^ just me but I'd imagine it isn't.

 

It might be easy for YOU to see that difference, but where you are the one being shot at it's pretty hard to distinguish warning shots from attempted RDM. The ambiguous nature of warning shots is the whole reason they're not allowed. Initiations, in order to be valid, MUST be "clear and unambiguous" which is something warning shots simply can not accomplish by their very nature. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
1 minute ago, TheMatt924 said:

Initiations, in order to be valid, MUST be "clear and unambiguous" which is something warning shots simply can not accomplish by their very nature. 

Fair enough, I get that. This suggestion obviously needs a lot of work and talking about if it were to be refined into anything rule-worthy at all, which is why I was hoping for people to discuss it, maybe give ways that it could potentially work if they had any ideas themselves.

Thanks for the reply, your pointing out of the reasoning behind the current initiation rules is definitely a valid counterpoint and I'll take that into account if I keep thinking about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jared    9

So basically, if you get approached by a group of people just throw your shit on the ground. The rules don't support self defense as much as they  protect the attackers. If you fight back you will get reported for NVFL, if you run you are avoiding RP. We are all aware how far from actual reality the rules force us to play from. 

 

Any rules that get put in place to help the solo survivor help the groups of aggro players just as much. There is no fear of retaliation because like I said before, they will argue you don't value your life. 

 

Maybe put the follow rule back into effect? If someone is obviously following you, and you fear you are in danger I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed to preemptively defend yourself. Roleplay over ruleplay right? If you are wanting the community to record everything anyway why would this be different from anything else? Oh yeah, it doesn't help the bandits!

Edited by Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skinner    505

I don't really know what would have to be done to make it refined enough to be even considered rule-worthy. I know it would have to be pretty damn specific. Like for example maybe if it was limited to exactly 1 single shot from 1 person only. If any more than 1 shot was even heard in the area, it would immediately be a rule break and it would be the responsibility of the shooting group to coordinate who is shooting so that miscommunication don't occur where two people shoot at the same time and they both say "I thought I was going to shoot the warning shot" or something.

Even with that level of specificness, I still wouldn't agree with it at all. Just trying to offer some possible suggestions to help improve your idea instead of just shitting all over it and not offering any advice. Anyway good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacquel    4

This is a double edge sword. While I agree that it is kind of silly to wait for VOIP range to become into play, I do feel that firing warning shots is going to simply cause the other side to shoot to kill thus starting an RDM. It is a very gray area in my mind, but as the admins have already ruled in on a simliar subject and found it KOS and poor initiation then that is how it goes. 

Perhaps leave a fall back cover team to warn the followers that if they follow further it could end in a gun fight. Have one or two guys stay back while the rest of your group keeps retreating, allow them to get the kill rights by warning with thorough RP and then engage. This is MY opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
3 minutes ago, Jared said:

The rules don't support self defense as much as they  protect the attackers. If you fight back you will get reported for NVFL, if you run you are avoiding RP. We are all aware how far from actual reality the rules force us to play from. 

Another reason, similarly to Misty's, why I posted this. In a realistic situation, a smaller group can use hiding, cover and ambush to level the playing field against a larger group, just as you could in regular DayZ too but, due to the need for valid initiation and the lack of ways to initiate, the smaller group would end up giving away their advantage by letting the enemy get close and giving away their position by initiating. Without these two advantages, it can be argued that the smaller group would have NVFL due to initiating at a severe disadvantage.

Pretty much most of the reason I suggested this. There could be other ways but `warning shot initiation` was just the first thing I came up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jared    9
7 minutes ago, Mass04 said:

Another reason, similarly to Misty's, why I posted this. In a realistic situation, a smaller group can use hiding, cover and ambush to level the playing field against a larger group, just as you could in regular DayZ too but, due to the need for valid initiation and the lack of ways to initiate, the smaller group would end up giving away their advantage by letting the enemy get close and giving away their position by initiating. Without these two advantages, it can be argued that the smaller group would have NVFL due to initiating at a severe disadvantage.

Pretty much most of the reason I suggested this. There could be other ways but `warning shot initiation` was just the first thing I came up with.

Real simple and I don't know why it's an issue. If people are following you and you don't like it and choose to fire upon them, you give them KoS but you are shooting at them so what does that matter anyway. If they want to engage, they will. If they get scared, they run. Situation handled, no reports needed. Don't follow someone for miles and not expect to get shot. Don't shoot in a town and not expect to get swarmed. Seems like common sense, this community needs to stop holding hands and let the players actually face the consequences in game without removing them from the community alltogether. I am not sure if anyone has seen the numbers of players lately but its laughable. Give people a way to defend themselves accurately and people won't rage quit. 

Would hate for people to get fed up and start shooting people who ride that shitty ruleplay line when in ANY kind of actual reality they could have easily just ended the situation. We already are starting down the Bambi Bubble pathway again with these settlement rules. Come on!

Edited by Jared

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
1 minute ago, Jacquel said:

This is a double edge sword. While I agree that it is kind of silly to wait for VOIP range to become into play, I do feel that firing warning shots is going to simply cause the other side to shoot to kill thus starting an RDM. It is a very gray area in my mind, but as the admins have already ruled in on a simliar subject and found it KOS and poor initiation then that is how it goes. 

Perhaps leave a fall back cover team to warn the followers that if they follow further it could end in a gun fight. Have one or two guys stay back while the rest of your group keeps retreating, allow them to get the kill rights by warning with thorough RP and then engage. This is MY opinion.

VoIP was another reason I suggested this. If it were to be implemented in this way, the attempted KOS rule would need a clause detailing `warning shots` as initiation. Plus this should only be attempted if you have valid cover and range from the stalking party, so if you were to be immediately killed after firing warning shots, it could be argued you were either unlucky in cover or had NVFL if out of cover (I'd be alright with this, personally). 

The fall back team, I do and don't like that idea because obviously it leaves at least part of your team in a difficult position and, again, it could be argued NVFL to put yourself in that position. Don't remember where it was but a report resolution recently stated that its really up to you to look after your character and not put yourself in disadvantageous situations even if you have trusted group members suitably covering you from a different position but that's just a snippet from memory that seems applicable here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacquel    4
17 minutes ago, Jared said:

So basically, if you get approached by a group of people just throw your shit on the ground. The rules don't support self defense as much as they  protect the attackers. If you fight back you will get reported for NVFL, if you run you are avoiding RP. We are all aware how far from actual reality the rules force us to play from. 

 

Any rules that get put in place to help the solo survivor help the groups of aggro players just as much. There is no fear of retaliation because like I said before, they will argue you don't value your life. 

 

Maybe put the follow rule back into effect? If someone is obviously following you, and you fear you are in danger I don't see why it wouldn't be allowed to preemptively defend yourself. Roleplay over ruleplay right? If you are wanting the community to record everything anyway why would this be different from anything else? Oh yeah, it doesn't help the bandits!

 

You need to RP your escape, if you are approached for a hold up and you see a chance to escape that isn't just turning and sprinting down an open street thus putting your life in serious danger then do it. If you RP your escape and you are being held up by good RP'ers you won't just get RDM'd in the back. If your robbers aren't looking or are distracted and their is an alley way right beside you, try to escape down it after a bit of RP. As I said good RP'ers shouldn't just one shot you in the back instead give chase.

Just now, Mass04 said:

VoIP was another reason I suggested this. If it were to be implemented in this way, the attempted KOS rule would need a clause detailing `warning shots` as initiation. Plus this should only be attempted if you have valid cover and range from the stalking party, so if you were to be immediately killed after firing warning shots, it could be argued you were either unlucky in cover or had NVFL if out of cover (I'd be alright with this, personally). 

The fall back team, I do and don't like that idea because obviously it leaves at least part of your team in a difficult position and, again, it could be argued NVFL to put yourself in that position. Don't remember where it was but a report resolution recently stated that its really up to you to look after your character and not put yourself in disadvantageous situations even if you have trusted group members suitably covering you from a different position but that's just a snippet from memory that seems applicable here.

I don't feel that it would fall under NVFL, if a team of two or three people hold position and get into cover and warn from cover that a fire fight may happen if they continue then that would be in my opinion a real and safer way to do it. Once the team feels like they have fairly warned the aggressors they can begin to fall back to the rest of the team lying in wait. It is a bit military BUT people are now deep into the apocolypse and have gained basic tactical skill by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jared    9
1 minute ago, Jacquel said:

 

You need to RP your escape, if you are approached for a hold up and you see a chance to escape that isn't just turning and sprinting down an open street thus putting your life in serious danger then do it. If you RP your escape and you are being held up by good RP'ers you won't just get RDM'd in the back. If your robbers aren't looking or are distracted and their is an alley way right beside you, try to escape down it after a bit of RP. As I said good RP'ers shouldn't just one shot you in the back instead give chase.

So running is bad now? Do we need to *Starts to run away* before running? We should make an announcement that it is against the rules to not get held up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
6 minutes ago, Jacquel said:

As I said good RP'ers shouldn't just one shot you in the back instead give chase.

There is a prevalent fear in the community that you will be shot in the circumstances provided.

I personally don't know how valid of a fear that is in this community but I can assume it is if I apply common knowledge of this game to the fact that people have brought it up before.

 

That and the reports. Just a little humor in that some reports don't give you much hope in your expectations when playing this game.

3 minutes ago, Jared said:

So running is bad now? Do we need to *Starts to run away* before running? We should make an announcement that it is against the rules to not get held up!

Hey man, I respected your other posts and the points you've brought up, I appreciate you commenting your opinion and I also fully understand your frustration, but do calm down, please.

Edited by Mass04

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.

×