Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-22, 17:35
Safe Zone: CLOSED

Sign in to follow this  
Mass04

Ways of Initiation?

Recommended Posts

Mass04    4

Was going to post two different suggestions in one thread but I thought I'd keep them separate so people can clearly indicate their like/dislike with the rating system. Please keep an eye out for my second suggestion.

Posted other threads in this light, but we need ways of initiating at range, due to the VoIP letting us down and our lack of ways to initiate. Here's the scenario: a smaller group has received hostilities from a larger group and have then found the larger group to be stalking them, actively following them but at a distance that VoIP doesn't reach. They have three options: Run away, call for back-up or surrender. The fourth option, turn around and warn them not to follow, isn't possible because as soon as you do, they can initiate and, being utterly outnumbered, you have to give up, since fighting back would be NVFL.

I've compiled some ideas, each with their own advantages and disadvantages, that can remedy this situation and give the fourth option to smaller groups:

 

_________________________________________________________________IGNORE THIS SECTION___________________________________________________________________

a) Firing bullets at the ground or objects near the stalkers as an indication that you will shoot them if they continue to follow. Then they can keep following, turn around and leave or begin to fire back, starting a gunfight. 
 

(I've been made aware that bullets richochet so that makes this suggestion moot but I'll leave it in so people know what it was.)


PRO: When written into the rules, can be considered a clear indication of your intentions, since firing a specific amount of bullets (1 or 2) close to the people stalking you is difficult to do accidentally.
PRO: Allows the smaller group to initiate at range, allowing them an engagement distance they can take advantage of, evening the odds between them and their pursuers.

CON: If the group members are unco-ordinated, multiple participants could fire at once or fire too many times, possibly leading to confusion.
CON: This is currently considered Attempted KOS as it's seen as attempting to shoot someone without initiating (A rule change would need to be made).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

b) Leaving a person behind to initiate on behalf of the group.

PRO: Allows the other members of the group to gain an advantageous position incase a fight starts.
PRO: Is an unambiguous initiation perfectly inline with the current initiation rules.

CON: The person left will likely be initiated on and it would be probably considered NVFL for them to fight back.
CON: A solved report I read a while ago talked about `looking after yourself even if you have friends overwatching you` and putting yourself in that dangerous situation and initiating on them can be considered NVFL.

 

c) Setting up an ambush. 

PRO: You get the element of surprise (until you initiate) and the ability to surround your foes from an advantageous position.
PRO: You become a legitimate threat to the larger group, as you'd have a better capability of killing them if they didn't comply.

CON: So far I've labelled this as NVFL and nobody has corrected me on this, since the idea is that if the group largely outnumbers you, it's NVFL to initiate at that close range, even with advantage.
CON: Difficult to consider what consists of good ambush positions. It could be disputed as NVFL if the cover the ambushers use isn't good enough.

 

___________________________________________________________________IGNORE THIS SECTION_____________________________________________________________________

d) Initiating over radio chatter (TeamSpeak).

(I've been made aware that this isn't possible due to needing the frequency the other group uses but I'll leave it in so people know what it was.)

PRO: Negates the short-range portion of initiation.
PRO: Can be used to give initiation from a safe distance and hiding place without alerting the stalkers to your positions.

CON: Currently not allowed, as initiations over TS need to be agreed to by the other party, who may not even be on TeamSpeak to begin with.
CON: Requires someone in the group to stop and alt+tab to TS, find the stalking party (if the group even knows who they are specifically) and message the leader.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Please give your opinions on each of these, ask any questions you might have and post any other suggestions you might have aswell. There was also the idea of throwing something like a smoke grenade as an initiation but that requires the item to begin with. 

 

AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT ALL OF THIS IS IN THE CONTEXT OF A LARGER GROUP OF PLAYERS STALKING A SMALLER GROUP WITH WHOM THEY HAVE HAD PREVIOUS HOSTILITIES, MAKING THE SMALLER GROUP CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY.

 

You're also completely able to disagree with all of this because "you should comply to create RP" but that doesn't really help the smaller group in this situation, so please refrain from making your post just that.

 

Edited by Mass04

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dustup    125
1 hour ago, Mass04 said:

a) Firing bullets at the ground or objects near the stalkers as an indication that you will shoot them if they continue to follow. Then they can keep following, turn around and leave or begin to fire back, starting a gunfight.

Bullets can ricochet, and I have personally seen situations where someone has shot near a persons feet and the bullet has hit someone else and broken their leg, so there is a very good chance that you may end up actually hitting someone, which fits into RDM/KOS.   Anything that involves firing a weapon at someone as part of an initiation is never really a good idea and the moment you pop shots off you can expect them to be returned.
 

b) Leaving a person behind to initiate on behalf of the group.

I can see some ways in which this could in theory work, but they will probably forfeit their life as soon as they drop an initiation, and I doubt that the group following will stay clumped up if they know there are more people around.  Chances are they will spread out and start trying to spot potential shooters.

 

c) Setting up an ambush. 

This isn't necessarily NVFL just because they have greater numbers, there have been many gunfights where those with lesser numbers have come out on top.  If you can lure them into a position that favours you tactically, then drop an initiation on them there is nothing wrong with that, but are you realistically going to have time enough to set something up if they are that close to you?

 

d) Initiating over radio chatter (TeamSpeak).

I don't see this working for many reasons.  If you haven't acquired their frequency IC then the only way to do this is via metagaming.  If you have IC knowledge then (lets assume its an official group with its own TS channel) the practicality of it is that you need to jump in the groups open channel, poke someone and asked to be pulled up into their IC channel (which they will likely be in) and initiate on the people in the channel if and when they pull you up.  Now what happens if not everyone is in TS?  Do you expect the others in the TS to initiate on those not in TS on your behalf?  As the party initiating, it is your responsibility to make sure everyone gets the initiation properly.

my responses to your suggestions are in red.  I have some of my own suggestions for you here:

  1. The smaller group could try and call in help from allies (this is a reason to make friends IG).  They could then try and met each other to increase their numbers and discourage the larger group, or their allies could set up an ambush and the smaller group could lead the larger (a variation of our suggestion).
  2. Learn the lay of the land and know the map well (go exploring IG), there are several areas which you can easily lose people in, so you could head towards one of those areas and try to lose the following group.
  3. Every man/woman for themselves, split and run, maybe one or two get captured but if the rest get away then wasn't their sacrifice worth it?
  4. Have someone go and try and negotiate with the larger group (instead of initiate), this could allow the rest to get away and could actually create some decent RP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
2 minutes ago, Dustup said:

my responses to your suggestions are in red.  I have some of my own suggestions for you here:

  1. The smaller group could try and call in help from allies (this is a reason to make friends IG).  They could then try and met each other to increase their numbers and discourage the larger group, or their allies could set up an ambush and the smaller group could lead the larger (a variation of our suggestion).
  2. Learn the lay of the land and know the map well (go exploring IG), there are several areas which you can easily lose people in, so you could head towards one of those areas and try to lose the following group.
  3. Every man/woman for themselves, split and run, maybe one or two get captured but if the rest get away then wasn't their sacrifice worth it?
  4. Have someone go and try and negotiate with the larger group (instead of initiate), this could allow the rest to get away and could actually create some decent RP.

In regards to option c, I've had people repeatedly tell me that it would be NVFL in such a situation. If this IS the case, then I'd want to focus on that more, see if it can be changed. If not, then more people need to know. I'm guessing it's entirely situational though :P

Other than that I understand your rebuttals to my other three options (I forgot about needing a frequency to contact people on TS). I have had the first three of your suggestions said before but the 4th is new, could be an option. Again though, the person would have to willingly comply and could easily be giving themselves up for capture, which is what we're trying to avoid right now.

Thank you for your input, the 4th idea is new and definitely something practical. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post    0

Here's short and sweet.

a) Not allowed, invalid initiation. Can't intentionally shoot near people as a warning.

b) If one person initiates on 10+, it's NVFL. That one person if initiating should be in proper cover.

c) Good.

d) Stick to in-game. Not sure TS initiations are allowed, I think not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mass04    4
13 hours ago, Post said:

Here's short and sweet.

You can probably infer from my post that I prefer more detail but this is fine all the same.

13 hours ago, Post said:

a) Not allowed, invalid initiation. Can't intentionally shoot near people as a warning.

I'd ask you to explain but I already know about bullet richochet.

13 hours ago, Post said:

b) If one person initiates on 10+, it's NVFL. That one person if initiating should be in proper cover.

Could you expand your thoughts on this more, please? It would definitely need some specific guidelines on what constitutes as an okay situation to initiate on behalf of the group.

13 hours ago, Post said:

c) Good.

As far as I'm aware, it's not allowed though. Could you correct me with some references or tell me why you agree?

13 hours ago, Post said:

d) Stick to in-game. Not sure TS initiations are allowed, I think not. 

Yeah, I edited d) to point this out, I'll leave it in there so people know what you were talking about, though. 

 

Thanks for your reply, I hope you post again to expand on b) and c). :) 

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.

×