Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-11-22, 06:25
Sign in to follow this  
Jm Von Cat

Settlement rule suggestion.

Recommended Posts

Back in mod (Yes I know, ancient history) the last settlement around was Solace, for the Grey Fangs. The rules then were you could initiate without retaliation, basically they had to comply and their mates could do nothing. (Which can sound OP, so let me explain how that ended up going).

There was an area all new entrants were told they could not go into, there was also someone checking identities to make sure only neutral people or friends actually entered the settlement. If they were a hostile group member or we had reason not to let them in, we did not let them in, simple enough. Right?

If anyone pushed the matter? Disarm them and send them away. It worked because they could not use it as a baiting technique, and so were dissuaded unless trying to infiltrate. At the same time, we could have shot people, but we had an option that was there to allow for roleplay.

Getting to the actual suggestion, why not return the rule of initiation within a settlement and put it in writing. It could go a long way to helping avoid outright KOS within settlements, thus increasing roleplay opportunities. That and I personally see no reason for it to be left out, but that's just me :Shrug:  

I also can not see anything within the present rule set specifically regarding what I am proposing, yet it is worded as if this could potentially already be done. I may be mistaken and if so staff clarification on the matter would be needed.

*NOTE* When I mention being unable to retaliate I do mean being unable to outright start shooting everyone at that exact moment. Making a strike against the settlement was aloud (albeit after certain requirements were met) and I think rightly so, and that is already covered within the rules. Though I do personally feel that a group should also be able to attack a settlement and not just other factions. 

Edited by Jm Von Cat
Added a note

Share this post


Link to post

I'd rather have the tradepost back than offer the same kind of system but giving all the power to a group.
I definetely don't want the tradepost back.

Currently, nothing is forcing someone to comply to an initiation inside a settlement, everyone has, and should have, a choice in the matter. The rules listed on the settlements page allows a lot more liberties for the host faction in how to deal with that, for good and bad, and I don't want to turn this into yet another get rid of the settlement rules however much I don't think a group that doesn;t have the actul capability to defend itself on equal ground should have access to training wheels and a handicap I will have to say that I don't think going another extra mile into pudding a padded bubble around them is going to do any good.

Edited by Sasha

Share this post


Link to post

Even though I do remember how retaliation would work I feel you should add it to the thread as you left it out as without it you make it sound like we should have a safezone with zero retaliation options Mr. Vlad ;)



 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Husky said:

Even though I do remember how retaliation would work I feel you should add it to the thread as you left it out as without it you make it sound like we should have a safezone with zero retaliation options Mr. Vlad ;)



 

Good point Mr. Strokenoff, I did kinda overlook that detail and will update the original post appropriately.

Edited by Jm Von Cat

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Sasha said:

~Snips~

So as not to ignore you, ( I had a small issue with quoting multiple people just then)

From what I have presently seen and frankly from what I expect at this point is people to simply walk up and bait the settlement group into action, them simply lighting them up. That is what I see a potential issue with, not attacking the settlement itself, which if you recall the only people who could attack the trade post were the council. :Shurg: Its not perfect but nothing really is. 

Also when you say "A lot more liberties" most if what I have noticed is 'Lets shoot the guy and be done with it'. Not really that fun of an experience as far as RP goes.

Share this post


Link to post

I think if someone is abusive to the point where hosts consider using their permanent KoS rights, they're way past an initiation. If the hosts want to initiate, they can, but they shouldn't be forced to do so as that severely limits their options when defending their settlement. A good example being situation where the hostile or abusive group outnumbers the hosts and it's not possible for the hosts to successfully initiate and control such a large group. Which would in term mean they are powerless within their own settlement.

I think as the current rules are pretty effective deterrent against baiting and constant attacks and they also prevent abuse from the hosts since they can only be used on players or groups who are hostile or abusive and refuse to listen to the hosts. Therefore it is always the hostile players visiting a settlement that make it possible for hosts to pull the trigger, aka you're responsible for your own death.

I did like the no retaliation rule though, although we only introduced it because we had a problem with extensive baiting done at settlements. I don't think we have such a problem right now. My 2c :)

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...