Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-18, 01:12

Sign in to follow this  
Rolle

Make DayZRP great again

Recommended Posts

Peaches    26
Posted (edited)

I am somewhat opposed to some of these things, but I'm more than willing to at least try out all these new things together. It should be an interesting new experience, and I feel like it could be a good attempt to test out and see how it goes in the meantime. Being flexible is always a good way to act, and this may encourage a lot more rp interactions among groups and individuals as a whole. +1

Edited by Peaches

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr Willsky    153
Posted (edited)

Those are some great Ideas Rolle!!

We should try them out with lore wipe and maybe have a community meeting after a week/two to three weeks or a month and bring forth Feedback or possible tweaks about them. We'll never know if they're worth it, if we never try following the motto : A No you already have BUT a yes you can get!! (translated from the Flemish motto : Een Nee hebde maar een Ja kunde krijgen ;) )

Edited by Dr Willsky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Abu Muhammad    89

Good ideas, I like the IC radio thing as long as it doesn't mean I have to use an in game radio for firefights. You have to take the radio into your hand, speak, then put it away and pull out your gun again. But all other ideas are +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PCJames    152

I agree with almost all the points above except for point 7. This idea has been proposed repeatedly and while it was a thing in the mod. I just don't see enough radios lying around. Also this would be extremely hard to enforce and I believe that this rule would just largely be ignored and not enforced because it can't be. Unless the Devs make the radio an item that spawn with then I just don't think this rule would actually work. Regardless I like all the other points and I do believe they are what the server needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doc Holiday    154

I feel like there are some good and bad things that you are trying to introduce with these changes. Firstly, how are you going to enforce the no-dynamic group rule. I don't see what can stop two or three people using either the public rooms or a private channel and going around together. Secondly, the idea of balanced groups doesn't seem to make any sense. You make a group and right off the bat you have to choose either Hostile or Peaceful? Again, what can enforce this IG and why can there be no middle ground?

As for the other points, I believe they are good additions as they should make the LW more realistic and allow for better character development, and going back to both a group approval and the removal of dynamics should in theory improve the quality of RP on the server seeing as they will only be able to join approved groups.

As I said though, both good and bad, could just do with some more community input as we are the ones that will be living and RPing in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Connvexus    36
Posted (edited)

With Point 3, how can every single character be part of a group? Groups would have 100s+? With people that never play together?

And the balanced groups idea is a no from me. What if IC events shape your group from Peaceful to hostile? Like you get attacked, abused and robbed constantly. Would you have to stay peaceful if you said you were peaceful from the start no matter what? 

 

Edited by Connvexus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boston    645

I'm very happy to see that the Lorewipe will make such a heavy difference on not only the roleplay, but the way the server is run. This is exciting! :)

I think some of these are good, some are bad, and some need to be worked on, so I'm going to put my opinion on each one of them.

Quote

Remove dynamic groups
-snip-

I really don't agree with this one simply because if I'm a casual player just wanting to play with a small group of say two or three, I'd have to get a few more people rounded up to make a group on the site. It's just a headache and I can see it driving people away when they just want to log in and chill out a bit. You'll probably make the argument that re-initiations lead to more RP, but in reality gunfights can lead to roleplay aswell. If one of my people gets shot, then we could do medical roleplay, potentially leading to a permadeath, etc. I would honestly say that the possibilities are endless. -1 for removing dynamics.

Quote

Require a character page for all characters
-snip-

I've always been in favor of this one in particular, simply because it will help with the problem of alts, and people's characters will be more well thought out. Not to mention, the RP Name problem aswell. +1 on this.

Quote

Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction
-snip-

I don't like this one because it's similar to the dynamic group thing. Once again, what if I want to be just with my buds for a relaxing afternoon of roleplay? I don't want to have to become part of a CP or anything like that. Very restrictive and once again limits roleplay to groups on groups, and could also drive people away. -1.

Quote

Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now)
-snip-

Absolutely in favor of this one. Robberies would require IC development this way, what we're here for. +1

Quote

All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP
-snip-

Right around when we got rid of the group approval system was when the quality of the server declined. Absolutely in favor of putting it back in. +1

Quote

Categorize and balance groups
-snip-

I'm kind of iffy on this one, really. The problem is, it's really restrictive when it comes to allowing people to do what they want, at the same time, it balances what you'll see on the server, which is really good. I'd honestly be down for either or with this. +-1.

Quote

Get rid of TS metagaming
-snip-

Would lead to more Internal RP, alongside no more (or atleast less of) moving hostages from the South to the North in every which direction while still being followed because they can communicate telepathically. It would also add an element of realism, not like being able to scream into the radio that you're being robbed while directly in-front of the people. At the same time, it's fun to banter with your friends in TS, and this is really difficult to enforce. Either or for this. +-1.

Quote

Make dying actually matter
-snip-

I could get down with this. I don't see anything wrong with it, and it adds an extra element of fear to dying, as if DayZ didn't have enough of those. +1 to this.

I really think that with a few changes to balance everything out, this place can go back to what it once was. Just remember that in either event, not everyone will be satisfied unfortunately, so don't construct anything new skewed towards one side. Still, definitely looking forward to the lorewipe. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolle    2444
1 minute ago, Doc Holiday said:

Firstly, how are you going to enforce the no-dynamic group rule. I don't see what can stop two or three people using either the public rooms or a private channel and going around together.

People can still play together. Dynamic groups is all about sharing kill rights. The idea is to allow sharing of kill rights for approved groups only, thus getting rid of dynamic groups. That doesn't mean people can't play together.

 

4 minutes ago, Doc Holiday said:

Secondly, the idea of balanced groups doesn't seem to make any sense. You make a group and right off the bat you have to choose either Hostile or Peaceful? Again, what can enforce this IG and why can there be no middle ground?

Nothing would enforce this in game, it would be something that would determine the approval of your group and whether or not is stays approved or gets archived. The middle ground would mean that there is no way for us to categorize the group into one or the other and balance things, which is the whole point of the idea.

 

1 minute ago, Connvexus said:

With Point 3, how can every single character be part of a group? Groups would have 100s+? With people that never play together?

Yep, just like in EVE Online which I took the inspiration from. The Lore factions would have hundreds of members. It would make sense since the lore factions are kind of supposed to be a big deal, but in the past they never really had the "backing".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
William    398

Hmmmmmmmmm

Ok, I like that you're taking an initiative, but I have a few concerns. (Numbers are based on your # idea)

1.) I agree with this. +1

2.) I dont think this is necessary at all, and It may discourage people from joining. To many people it's already a colossal pain in the ass to go through the whole whitelist process, and it would just be more busy work to require a character. If they are someone who wants to stay in this community, they will make a character page. It's not that hard to call users into reports as their steam ID's are easily accesible for staff members. As with invalid RP names, most people who do this forget to change their name from a pub server. The few that seriously struggle are those who don't speak english. (Personal experience).

3.) No no no. This is forcing people to RP with a bunch of people they don't know. This seems more OOC than IC. Let them progress their characters on their own, then they can decide to join a group. The beauty of this server is that you can RP almost anything, let them do that.

4.) Sure, but I still think robbing for gear is acceptable with good RP. Its an apocalyptic world, survival of the fittest. If you have more people, you have the advantage, so the fuck what if that traveler is caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

5.) Pretty dope idea. +1

6.) Im not a fan of this. This again is forcing people to RP a certain way. 

7.) Dudddde. This is a fun RP server, not some zombie military simulator. Im really not tryna find a radio so I can talk with my friends on TS while im in game. This would ruin the server for me and other casual RP'rs.

8.) What? This is uneeded work on the GM/Admin team to temp ban people if you die. This idea is absurd. It already takes a long ass time to get off the coast. Im not sure how this temp ban would make people stop suiciding. If someone gets a shit spawn they're going to kill themselves. No one wants to spend their day running up from the coast. Maybe its a good idea for people who dedicate their lives to this server (which some do), but for the majority, I don't think this would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grimnir    584
Just now, Rolle said:

Nothing would enforce this in game, it would be something that would determine the approval of your group and whether or not is stays approved or gets archived. The middle ground would mean that there is no way for us to categorize the group into one or the other and balance things, which is the whole point of the idea.

1

Could you help me and define hostile for me? Does it mean to be an asshole to everyone?

If I plan on playing in a realistic crime organization we won't go around robbing people, we will only get hostile if they give us disrespect and so on. Is that hostile or peaceful? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peaches    26

This just came to my mind, but forcing people to join groups. And having these 100 man group situations, doesn't this mean that those 100 people that barely affiliate with each other are automatically in a dynamic? Thus having a situation where people that have never met each-other, but under technical terms are in a dynamic...can shoot anybody that one of their "group" members are initiating on upon non compliance? I feel like this is more abused more then dynamic groups were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Para    175
22 hours ago, Rolle said:

-snip-

So, I will address each of these 8 changes you've brought up. Those that are in Green i agree with, those in Red i disagree with.

1. Remove dynamic groups:

This is the only one i disagree with out of your suggestion, and it is one i do not wish to be implemented to even try on it's own. I feel like this would hinder roleplay far too much for potentially new players. There are too many IC interactions that make little sense if this were to happen, like watching a friend get robbed and tortured but not being able to help them because rules. 

2. Require a character page for all characters:

Yes. The amount of throwaway or new characters is ridiculous. Effort needs to be put into characters. This would fix problems like people making a new character to avoid hostility caused by their previous one. I am more on board with this if these people actually have to create a character.

3. Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction:

This one is odd. After a second thought, this isn't a good idea. Forcing people into roleplaying with people seems a little... well forced. It's inorganic and won't help boost RP IMO.

4. Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now):

Yes. Yes. Yes. Please, stop this bullshit robbing for the sake of robbing crap that people are doing these days. Stop this fighting for the sake of PVP OOC. This constant fighting makes little sense and none of the current drawbacks are actually being RPed out (like injuries sustained in a fight).

5. All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP:

Yes, please. This is 100% needed. Been saying this for a while but group quality has gone down the shitter overall. So many groups do not identify as a group, just a group of friends "trying to get by" and it's killing the quality of RP overall. Groups need and image, they need to put themselves out there otherwise why are you identifying as a group? A group is supposed to be a symbol of their goals and try to accomplish something... it is not just a group of friends IMO.

6. Categorize and balance groups:

I am on board with this idea simply because i feel like at any one time there are too many groups doing the same thing. As well as this, instead of actually joining the existing groups people are just creating their own circle of friends and doing their own thing. Many groups do the exact same thing but do not do it together, they just form their own little group of friends which is hugely detrimental to the quality of RP.

7. Get rid of TS metagaming:

I am willing to give this idea a go to be honest. A radio would be a valuable item naturally. My only issue that i can see with this idea is the potential for some groups to hoard all of the radios in their private stash. This would be a piss take if all of the radios on the server you have to get by fighting, instead of finding.

8. Make dying actually matter

I don't actually think this idea is a good one. 5 minutes is a very poor drawback unless people have to queue for a while due to the server being full. I can only see this rule frustrating the player base and not actually accomplishing anything.

 

Some Brilliant ideas Rolle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shane    350
Spoiler

1. Remove dynamic groups
Dynamic group is a group of random people who meet up in game world and play together, then part ways after a short while. While they are playing together they are allowed to share kill rights between each other. This is so that should one person be attacked, the others can help him and do not have to initiate on the attackers (which would put them at a significant disadvantage). Problem with this is that this dynamic group ability is not used only by the intended end-users (random people meeting each other and playing once, never to meet again), but it is used by official group members who go on alts to escape repercussions to their main characters or group and by groups of friends who play together all the time, but do not wish to go through the quality assurance step of creating an official group.
Now, to prevent this I believe that dynamic groups should be removed to prevent this kind of abuse. This would mean that every person who is not in an official, approved group would be playing as an individual. What this will accomplish is two things. One, it will prevent the kind of abuse that I outlined above and two, it will create a large incentive to create quality official groups and reward people who do it with ability to share kill rights with each other.
I know that this may create situations where a random you met in game and befriended gets initiated on and you can do nothing about it but to initiate back, however I believe that this is the lesser evil than keeping the dynamic groups as they are.

I really don't think we should get rid of dynamic groups there's loads of people who could not be arsed with joining an official group and would rather just roam around themselves I use to do this when I first joined when I didn't really know how everything worked. I really do not think dynamic groups should be removed just leave them as they are now, they work fine imo.

Spoiler

2. Require a character page for all characters
In order to join the game a character would have to have a character page with at least minimal details about him/her. That way we can easily track who is who on the website and in the reports, we get rid of the "invalid RP name" problem in game and we create more quality content on the website with back stories and be able to relate to other peoples characters.

I do agree that all characters should require a character page and like you said it will get rid of the "Invalid RP Name" problem.

Spoiler

3. Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction
I got this idea from EVE Online. Those who haven't played it, it's an MMO and almost every character is a part of a corporation (guild basically). Even newly created characters are members of a starting NPC corporation that allows them to work with other players in that corp. Players are of course free to join any other corporation, but you always fall back to one of the standard NPC corporations meaning you can never really be without an affiliation in the game (there is a way, but it's not that common). So in our case these NPC corporations could be replaced with lore factions, so a new character could choose between several starting factions depending on their background (for example UN, CDF, AFR, Chkdkz) or pick a player created group if they want to.
What this would accomplish is to give new and undecided players and characters some kind of identity, a feeling of belonging somewhere, being a part of something bigger, an out of the box group to join and play with others. This would also streamline the mentor programme, where one of the factions would be especially aimed at people new to role play.

The problem I have with this is that not everyone will accepted into a group and forcing people onto a group can be daunting imo so -1 to this.

Spoiler

4. Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now)
We already have a rule about this:
6.1 You must always have a valid in character reason which would justify a hostile situation.
... but it's not being followed or enforced very much. People are getting robbed, taken hostage and killed for silly and shitty reasons all over the place and nothing is being done about it. I think we should really start enforcing this rule (it doesn't really need a change) and limit initiating of hostilities to 3 things: hostile behavior (you talk shit, you get hit), better supplies/gear (so no robbing someone with an AK when you have M4) or previous hostilities. This would protect the peaceful random players who are most vulnerable to those pointless hostilities and it would put more focus for groups to fight in between each other instead of picking easy targets of randoms with a shotgun.

I think I should be allowed rob people for their gear it is an apocalypse and like a wise @Joffrey once said "Gear RP can be fun" survival of the fittest and all that.

Spoiler

5. All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP
That's right, we should start approving groups again to make sure they have at least decent background and goals that do not conflict with any rules (see point above - robbing because "that's what my group does" would not be a valid goal). Also a group approval system idea made by LMs have brought up an interesting incentive to keep your group in good shape and have your members provide good RP. Player groups would have levels now, those levels would increase as the group ages, matures and receives positive feedback from other players. This group level would change a color badge and icon given to the group as well as give extra customization for the group page (new group system coming on new website, remember?) or even extra in game stuff (what about ability to send IC radio messages through RCON to all players on the server?). The decision to level up a group would be taken by the admin team I suppose, to keep it as fair as it can get (you certainly don't want me to do it personally).

Yes pls +1.

Spoiler

6. Categorize and balance groups
I don't want to have another PvP fest with hostile groups dominating everyone else because the others are not enough in numbers to fight back. Let's balance the groups instead. When creating a group you must pick whether the group is peaceful or hostile. No in-between, no neutrals, either one or the other. You are then expected to play like the group you've chosen. The number of groups of each type would be balanced, so you wouldn't be able to create a new hostile group if we already have 7 hostile groups and only 3 peaceful ones. It could also be based on member numbers, so for example all hostile groups have 230 active players in them, but peaceful ones only 150 then creation of additional groups would be disabled until a certain balance is reached.

I don't think we should be forcing people to RP in a certain way if they don't want to I say scrap this idea and just leave the way it is and implement the group approval system and let the LMs decide if a group is good enough or not. I feel like this ideas also limits creativity when it comes to groups maybe I am wrong but thats how I feel on this.

Spoiler

7. Get rid of TS metagaming
I know for a fact that the loot tables aren't as bad as they used to be and both in game radios and batteries spawn quite frequently. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem anymore to do as we did in the DayZRP mod days - if you don't have a radio item on your character you may not exchange any IC information without using the in game radio. This will bring focus to the in game radio item and once again you will be able to properly remove someones radio instead of just emote it. And it will get rid of silly situations where people are alerting their team mates through the radio about something through the teamspeak while they stay completely silent in game.

If this is enforced imo it will ruin the server making people search for radios is unnecessary tbh I can't be bothered to search for a radio just so I can go on ts to the boys the way it is now is fine imo.

Spoiler

8. Make dying actually matter
Again, we didn't have this previously mostly because how buggy DayZ used to be and everyone was dying left and right from trees, rocks and stairs. It doesn't happen nearly as often AFAIK (I know is still happens sometimes). We should make it so that people value their life again. If you die you will be kicked from the server and not allowed to re-enter for perhaps 5 minutes (a tempban). 10 minutes might be too long and discourage people from re-joining again. Those few minutes alone would get rid of problems like people not valuing their life very much as they know they can respawn instantly, people who suicide on shores trying to get a better spawn and it would also prevent any gear focused NLR breaks, since you can't immediately run back to the place where you died.

No pls this is so so unnecessary and more work on Admins and GMs just scrap this one especially if everyone is in game then it requires people to tab out and kick/tempban people I think it's pointless and will only hurt the server more.

I agree with some of your suggestions but some of them are unnecessary but its good to see you taking initiative ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saradomin    343

I agree with everything except for 

Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction

me personally hate this idea... I feel like it would restric where you can come from and how you came here. For example, my current char, Pekko, walked from finland to chernarus just to see the town where it all started... I always roam alone and sing to myself, joining up with whoever I meet...

 

Would this still be possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Voodoo    357

1. Fucking yes please. It would mean groups get worked on properly and actually last for a long period of time (such as mod groups lasting 6 months).

2. We have the system in place why not use it right? So yes on this.

3. Na i dont think we need a starting faction, maybe on arma 3 with it being more mili sim based but dayz is a different game.

4. Not sure how this can be enforced TBH. I mean if i like a gun then im robbing it, what classes as a making sense hostile action?

5. Yes yes yes..

6. Not sure on this id say no. I mean all groups should be catogrised as survivor anyway with actions made building them towards good or evil.

7. Yea why not. Id say keep TS as it stands but have it so radios need to be in inventory. Would make taking it off of someone easier knowing its an actual object. Would  also add to RP (asking to borrow someones when a fresh spawn for instance so would mean more interaction).

8. Hell fucking no to being kicked. If you want death to matter again get rid of this poxy new NLR rule that allows you to remember how you died. Would mean people need to value their life otherwise they cant get revenge due to not knowing what happened. The current NLR rule is terrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oliv    1542

 

 

Quote

Remove dynamic groups
Dynamic group is a group of random people who meet up in game world and play together, then part ways after a short while. While they are playing together they are allowed to share kill rights between each other. This is so that should one person be attacked, the others can help him and do not have to initiate on the attackers (which would put them at a significant disadvantage). Problem with this is that this dynamic group ability is not used only by the intended end-users (random people meeting each other and playing once, never to meet again), but it is used by official group members who go on alts to escape repercussions to their main characters or group and by groups of friends who play together all the time, but do not wish to go through the quality assurance step of creating an official group.
Now, to prevent this I believe that dynamic groups should be removed to prevent this kind of abuse. This would mean that every person who is not in an official, approved group would be playing as an individual. What this will accomplish is two things. One, it will prevent the kind of abuse that I outlined above and two, it will create a large incentive to create quality official groups and reward people who do it with ability to share kill rights with each other.
I know that this may create situations where a random you met in game and befriended gets initiated on and you can do nothing about it but to initiate back, however I believe that this is the lesser evil than keeping the dynamic groups as they are.


I've explained to you how I feel about this. I do not think it will solve anything but make people go through the extra step of initiating on those that initiated on on their newly found friends. But, I don't see any other way around this, so I'm up for giving it a try. Thanks goes out to all those who abused dynamic groups, the real MVPs.
 

Quote

Require a character page for all characters
In order to join the game a character would have to have a character page with at least minimal details about him/her. That way we can easily track who is who on the website and in the reports, we get rid of the "invalid RP name" problem in game and we create more quality content on the website with back stories and be able to relate to other peoples characters.

Easily done, but do we have a way to enforce this other than sifting through RCON? It takes 5-10 minutes to whip up a basic character page, so this really shouldn't be a point of contention for anyone.
 

Quote

Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction
I got this idea from EVE Online. Those who haven't played it, it's an MMO and almost every character is a part of a corporation (guild basically). Even newly created characters are members of a starting NPC corporation that allows them to work with other players in that corp. Players are of course free to join any other corporation, but you always fall back to one of the standard NPC corporations meaning you can never really be without an affiliation in the game (there is a way, but it's not that common). So in our case these NPC corporations could be replaced with lore factions, so a new character could choose between several starting factions depending on their background (for example UN, CDF, AFR, Chkdkz) or pick a player created group if they want to.
What this would accomplish is to give new and undecided players and characters some kind of identity, a feeling of belonging somewhere, being a part of something bigger, an out of the box group to join and play with others. This would also streamline the mentor programme, where one of the factions would be especially aimed at people new to role play.

Eh, not a huge fan of this. Some of these lore groups are going to need to be played out a certain way, for example all members of the CDF, Chkdkz would likely be Chernarussian. We don't need some one not thinking it through all the way and making an Argentinean CDF soldier. I also don't see the benefit, other than what could assist newplayers and the mentors from connecting perhaps a bit easier.
 

Quote

Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now)
We already have a rule about this:
6.1 You must always have a valid in character reason which would justify a hostile situation.
... but it's not being followed or enforced very much. People are getting robbed, taken hostage and killed for silly and shitty reasons all over the place and nothing is being done about it. I think we should really start enforcing this rule (it doesn't really need a change) and limit initiating of hostilities to 3 things: hostile behavior (you talk shit, you get hit), better supplies/gear (so no robbing someone with an AK when you have M4) or previous hostilities. This would protect the peaceful random players who are most vulnerable to those pointless hostilities and it would put more focus for groups to fight in between each other instead of picking easy targets consisting of randoms with a pistol.

Let's make it happen! I think some tweaks need to be made here and there, but yes, valid reason should always be given. I do feel that we should also take the RP given into account. Perhaps the reason is shaky but the RP was superb, I feel the RP should always carry the most weight.
 

Quote

All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP
That's right, we should start approving groups again to make sure they have at least decent background and goals that do not conflict with any rules (see point above - robbing because "that's what my group does" would not be a valid goal). Also a group approval system idea made by LMs have brought up an interesting incentive to keep your group in good shape and have your members provide good RP. Player groups would have levels now, those levels would increase as the group ages, matures and receives positive feedback from other players. This group level would change a color badge and icon given to the group as well as give extra customization for the group page (new group system coming on new website, remember?) or even extra in game stuff (what about ability to send IC radio messages through RCON to all players on the server?). The decision to level up a group would be taken by the admin team I suppose, to keep it as fair as it can get (you certainly don't want me to do it personally :D ).

Make it so, number one.
 

Quote

Categorize and balance groups
I don't want to have another PvP fest with hostile groups dominating everyone else because the others are not enough in numbers to fight back. Let's balance the groups instead. When creating a group you must pick whether the group is peaceful or hostile. No in-between, no neutrals, either one or the other. You are then expected to play like the group you've chosen. The number of groups of each type would be balanced, so you wouldn't be able to create a new hostile group if we already have 7 hostile groups and only 3 peaceful ones. It could also be based on member numbers, so for example all hostile groups have 230 active players in them, but peaceful ones only 150 then creation of additional hostile groups would be disabled until a certain balance is reached.

I am not in full agreement here. I don't think outside rules should be put into play on this.

Firstly, I believe in neutral survivor groups and feel that they are needed. A group the truly does not give a fuck about group A or group B's squabbles and only wants to ensure that they live another day I feel is perfectly fine. It needs to be done right, but it's fine. We can work with the new group approval system to make improvements here.

As for "team balancing" the groups, I again do not agree. People will do what they need to do to survive. For some, that is to be big because strength in numbers. for others that will be to remain small so they can stick to the shadows and remain unnoticed. What I think needs to have a better balance though is group alliances. I'm not sure what to do here yet, but I'm sure we will figure something out.

In the end, this isn't Star Wars, there is no simple light and dark side of the force here.
 

Quote

Get rid of TS metagaming
I know for a fact that the loot tables aren't as bad as they used to be and both in game radios and batteries spawn quite frequently. Therefore it shouldn't be a problem anymore to do as we did in the DayZRP mod days - if you don't have a radio item on your character you may not exchange any IC information without using the in game radio. This will bring focus to the in game radio item and once again you will be able to properly remove someones radio instead of just emote it. And it will get rid of silly situations where people are alerting their team mates through the radio about something through the teamspeak while they stay completely silent in game.

I don't know how I feel about this. I don't think metagaming is as big an issue as it seems. However, I do like how this purposes to get rid of those neural FM transmitters that people seem to be able to use to talk to everyone with. It's a shitty solution to us not having Task Force Radio in DayZ. I want to get rid of that problem, but I also don't like the solutions.
 

Quote

Make dying actually matter
Again, we didn't have this previously mostly because how buggy DayZ used to be and everyone was dying left and right from trees, rocks and stairs. It doesn't happen nearly as often AFAIK (I know is still happens sometimes). We should make it so that people value their life again. If you die you will be kicked from the server and not allowed to re-enter for perhaps 5 minutes (a tempban). 10 minutes might be too long and discourage people from re-joining again. Those few minutes alone would get rid of problems like people not valuing their life very much as they know they can respawn instantly, people who suicide on shores trying to get a better spawn and it would also prevent any gear focused NLR breaks, since you can't immediately run back to the place where you died.

If we can make this happen, let's do it. This would need to be an automated script though. Manual control over this is going to be a pain in the ass. 5 minutes is an easy price to pay for your death and I think this can be fair.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dusty    1031
  1. Remove dynamic groups
    -1 for me here. As I said in the staff discussion thread: 

    I don't think we should get rid of dynamic groups. There are a lot of people who play casually that just want to get on and play every once and a while with their friends, that don't want to go through the effort of making or joining a group. Not only that, but if we remove dynamic groups, we remove the ability for some organic RP to happen. For example:

     I get robbed by a group of people, but don't have any friends to help me out. They let me go, and I go to Kabanino and recruit some people to help me take revenge. They agree, give me a gun, and we look for the people. We find them, and I initiate. They don't comply, and we kill them. 

    If we removed dynamic groups, it would remove the possibility to create cool and interesting situations that create bonds between characters. I don't think we should remove dynamic groups at all.

  2. Require a character page for all characters
    +1 I don't see why not tbh. Not sure how it would be enforced, but ye I'm down. Although it would potentially push away some more casual players.
     
  3. Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction
    -1 here. No. This would be cancer. There'd be huge groups with 100s of people that don't even know each other, or people could use the fact that their in a huge group to technically be in a dynamic group with their friends, so it basically negates #1.
     
  4. Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now)
    +1 Yeah, I'm down. We already require this. I am kind of against the whole 'take someone captive, and torture them for absolutely no reason at all' RP, but as long as the RP given for a robbery is good, then there is not and should not be a problem.
     
  5. All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP
    +1. Make people actually put forth more effort and enthusiasm into their groups.
     
  6. Categorize and balance groups
    -100000000. No. This is just limiting people's RP that they can do. There's mostly only an abundance of bandit groups because there's nothing else to do in the game right now if you've played for a long time.
     
  7. Get rid of TS metagaming
    -1 for what you've described. I think it'd be lit if you needed an in game radio to be able to use teamspeak ICly. But I want to be able to hang out and chill with my boys, I don't want to be forced into using an in game radio all the time, especially when they do not spawn often enough for every single person to find one.
     
  8. Make dying actually matter
    -1 for what you've described. Unless you can make the server do this automatically without the need of GM's watching logs 24/7, then I say no to this. If anything, I would suggest a permadeath rule. Something like "If you get executed 3 times, your character must be permadeathed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jade    176

These ideas seem pretty cool, but there's a couple that kinda seem meh. Specifically #3,7,8 :< 

3. I get that people can just join the lore factions as like a place holder for the beginning group, but I myself would feel uncomfortable just being apart of a group I probably wouldn't play with often. If this were more so an option and people weren't forced to join a group I would be ok with that but no forcing that's no fun.

7. This is a really cool idea but if you were to actually enforce it you might want to make it clear that just because people don't have a radio doesn't mean they can't borrow one from a friend or rob someone for it. It should probably also clarify that people can still chatter OOC on TS just not relay important things IC like they've been initiated on etc etc.

8.

4 minutes ago, Will said:

8.) What? This is uneeded work on the GM/Admin team to temp ban people if you die. This idea is absurd. It already takes a long ass time to get off the coast. Im not sure how this temp ban would make people stop suiciding. If someone gets a shit spawn they're going to kill themselves. No one wants to spend their day running up from the coast. Maybe its a good idea for people who dedicate their lives to this server (which some do), but for the majority, I don't think this would help.

Pretty much what Will said here would be my argument for this rule... as interesting and cool as it is it's just a lot more work for GMs and Admins and if at any point things get busy on the forums (reports/appeals) then the idea would probably get pushed to the side. If someone were really dedicated to it then maybe but what happens when there's no GM or Admins around to watch? People will probably begin to get upset that they got kicked out but billy-bob joe just got shot up 5 minutes ago and he's still in game. Possibly if there is an automated system but still people will get pissed having to wait in queue again. It's something that has to be thought out more.

 

Other than that everything else I pretty much agree with or like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brayces    164

I like the ideas! My only questions are, for the Radios they're hard to find WITH a working battery... And I like to be able to chat to people in TS while I'm walking around and trying to do stuff. (Specially since I'm still leanin' some stuff IG like how to do things or even for this Server like rules/behavior/etc.) :( But for IC, I like to do IC radio calls such as "Hello so and so! I've meet this person and we're here" while hot mic'ing in TS and VOIP IG so it appears I'm on the Radio IG to the people around me. If we can spawn with or increase Radios some how I'd be willing to try this for sure! (Not sure how that all works though) plus I'm not even sure how the Radios are supposed to work correctly, when I press . I don't see the messages telling me I've switched VOIP channels IG. Dunno if that's a bug or not so I've only ever gotten Radios to work once and that was before this recent patch. Also, the temp. ban for dying. I can get behind this if it's for valid death reasons. I don't wanna get temp. banned because I side stepped a rock, and slid to my death or popped off of a ladder the wrong way and now I have to wait 5-10 mins to log back in when all I wanna do at that point is get back I can see myself playing less and less and feeling discouraged because the game IS very buggy still and there are all sorts of issues that can cause someone to die that's not IC/PVP related. 

Also, I play a Char. that doesn't fight/use guns or PvP with other players. So, if I'm rolling around with people I've met I rely on them to keep me save from others. IC if someone were to roll up to me and a rando/group who I have met who has also offered to keep me safe (It has happened before) and the aggressor person attempts to take me with them by force I would not have a reasonable way to defend myself (as I would not carry a gun/etc) and would hope the person I was with would attempt to keep me safe, you know? But if they can't help me out because of a dynamic group function which would be removed/not exist then how can I handle this situation? In RL if this were to happen in front of MOST people they would try to keep the other person safe by force as well. Typically. So that's a curious thought, I plan to play a younger char. Post LW so saying "man up, carry a gun, etc" would not make IC sense to me. Does the other group I'm traveling with for a short while then need to re-initiate on the aggressor ...? Bah, if someone could explain that for me that would be awesome since I'm confused here. Can I only be protected if I join a group? Can someone even try to take me hostage for IC/RP reasons or is that not going to be allowed? I don't mind being a hostage at all, and I think it can add to the RP when someone you care about it taken by another person.

Another point is if I'm playing a char that is younger I won't be associated to any default NPC group unless there's some sort of Citizen group for normal people? I suppose?

When you have a group and you have to list if you're hostile or not how is that going to work if the group is peaceful UNLESS someone attacks them then they get hostile? Can a group switch from Peaceful to Hostile at some point with enough RP like suddenly the Peaceful group is like "We're sick of being picked on! Let's go get those guys who have been attacking us for so long!" I feel like those Peaceful Groups will be a dwindling number because they can't fight back? Or can they? Are they even allowed to be hostile if they get attacked? What classifies them as Peaceful exactly? They don't roam and rob/kill? 

/Rambling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Majoo    642
37 minutes ago, Rolle said:
  1. Remove dynamic groups
     
  2. Require a character page for all characters
     
  3. Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction
     
  4. Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now)
     
  5. All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP
     
  6. Categorize and balance groups
     
  7. Get rid of TS metagaming
     
  8. Make dying actually matter

1. NO simply because of exactly what Para said, don't think I would say it different

1 minute ago, Para said:

This is the only one i disagree with out of your suggestion, and it is one i do not wish to be implemented to even try on it's own. I feel like this would hinder roleplay far too much for potentially new players. There are too many IC interactions that make little sense if this were to happen, like watching a friend get robbed and tortured but not being able to help them because rules. 

2. YES I think that if somebody is willing enough to go through the whitelist process just to be able to play on our servers I think they should not have any issues with creating their own character page that contains at least some base for the character.

3. NO I don't like this, forcing people to chose one and join it just for the sake of being able to play. What is I want to play but am not interested in joining any gorup and want to just roll around alone (possibly with some random people i run into) and don't want to be part of group CP? I just think it's not a good idea to force people to join one if they are not interested in it.

4. Definitely YES no need to add anything from my POV on this.

5. YES yes and again yes. In my opinion the RP on the servers dropped down quite a bit ever since the group approval process was removed from it's place. Also the OOC group leveling thing sounds interesting to say the least.

6. MAYBE I don't really know what to think about this one, I have concerns about this idea. For example, what right now in this moment lets say there's way too many hostile groups and I don't want to join either of them but want to create new one with different people. Or the other way around with hero groups. Does it mean I can't create my group just because there are too many hostile gorups right now? If so I really have to say I don't like that. I don't want to change and go play hero char/group just because of the high numbers of hostile chars/groups atm. 
Also to add to this I also don't like the fact to force either peaceful or hostile, I have never been playing character that is focused mainly on either one of those two. I've always been fan of playing middle ground char and have/be part of groups that are on the middle ground as well.

7. Definitely YES from me on this I like the idea. + in my opinion it would make sense for not everyone to have radio IG as the matter of fact let's be honest how many people own actual radios that allow you to contact somebody on really long range? Hell man I don't and nobody I know IRL does either. So in my opinion it makes perfect sense even if radios don't spawn that much IG.

+all those who are gonna go around complaining about the idea of "ruining the game for you" NO it is not ruining anything. You can sit and "banter" on ts with your friends anyway as per the quote below 

55 minutes ago, Rolle said:

if you don't have a radio item on your character you may not exchange any IC information without using the in game radio.

As long as you are not exchanging IC info if you don't have radio you can chit-chat on ts.

8. YES, but only in case it will be made somehow automatic. We don't want to waste anyones time by GMs having to check logs all the time to tempban people after dying. And I'm not sure if automatic tempban like this upon dying is possible with dayz right now but if it is then im down for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolle    2444

Point 2 and 8 would be completely automated of course. Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hebee    2216
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Rolle said:

 

  1. Remove dynamic groups

     
  2. Require a character page for all characters
     
  3. Require all characters to be a part of a group or starting faction

     
  4. Require all hostile actions to make sense (for real now)
     
  5. All groups must be approved (again) and award those groups that make a change and have positive influence on RP

     
  6. Categorize and balance groups
     
  7. Get rid of TS metagaming

     
  8. Make dying actually matter

1- Yeah okay, if you put it that way I can get on board, although it will put those who roll solo or like to group up with randoms at a dis advantage it could lead to more groups being made and progress roleplay. 

2- Fine , not a massive deal

3- Eh, this is a bit to far I think. Not everyone wants to be in a group or a faction. 

4- Fine. however there are very easy ways around this, I.e. stashing your good loot away and rolling around sub par gear just for the initiations. I do believe this is a step in the right direction, however maybe clear up the stipulations on it.

5- Sure, why not - worked in the past should work now.

6-  I think this is fine kinda - could work but hear me out.

Maybe you could just pay more attention to the bandit groups and particular people in them. Maybe make it so if you want to play a bandit group you have to get approved and make it so if you are not being an appropriate bandit or hostile role player or whatever you can be disallowed from joining these groups for a certain period of time. Because 9/10 times it's not entire groups that are the problem it is a select few people in the groups themselves causing the issues. And limiting the number of bandit groups seems weird like it is limiting ones ability to role play what they want.

7 - No, I don't know I just do not like this, while radios are not impossible to find they are not common enough. Not only this but also they are still glitchy in some aspects. 

8- This would require a GM / Admin presence that simply you do not have, unless you can make some sort of script for it which iunno. I have no ideas for this other than a forced perma death rule which no one would agree to so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Side note: You should impliment a rule such as how SVR and CRA had that massive groups or factions can only initiate on each other once a day. I currently do not play because there is so many initiations going on between groups that there is literally no role play happening. This would probably actually help your peaceful people out as well, allow me to demonstrate how with a flow chart.

large group a initiates on large group b -> one of them is wiped -> the wiped group now respawns and gets low tier weapons -> this group now rolls around robbing everything for fat loot to get gear to fight the other large group again -> another initiation between large group happens -> return to go and start over.

This shit happens like 4-5 times a day and is cancer as fuck.

With a rule such as this it would promote role play instead of PvP between big groups - in conjunction with the removal of dynamic groups for alts. Also it would stop the random robberies just for any gear, for your peaceful people.

Just a thought.

As for your requested flame you are such a bucket hed lookn boi' Rolle. 

Edited by Hebee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Static    227
1 hour ago, Rolle said:

-snip-

Make DayZRP great again.

Feel free to flame me now :D 

  1. Remove dynamic groups: Wholeheartedly agree!  I am greatly frustrated by the alt-character phenomenon and fully support this!
  2. Require a character page: Again, wholly agree.  I think it should be part of the whitelisting process for new members from this point forward.
  3. Require characters to be in a faction: I disagree with this one.  It largely eliminates an underlying purpose of point one, and not everyone would be affiliated with a group/faction.  A regular civilian Chernarussian wouldn't be "affiliated" with the Chernarussian government, they would just be a citizen.  Unless you were to create a civilian faction...
  4. Require all hostile actions to make sense: YES, and also increase the threshold for what counts as an initiation, so hostile RP does not immediately lead to KOS rights.  If I point a gun at someone because they startle me or I'm not sure if they're infected, they shouldn't be able to just shoot me (or have their friends shoot me).  It's ruleplay over roleplay and bad RP in my opinion.
  5. Group approval/awards: That sound like an awesome idea, can't wait to see the new group features on the site!
  6. Categorize/balance groups: Yes, but... Can a group be peaceful but still hostile to outsiders?  I think peaceful and hostile are kind of reductionist.  There should be three groups categories in my opinion: Hero, Survivor, and Bandit.  Heroes can't go after anyone but bandits or people that cross them, Survivors are peaceful/neutral but allows for hostile RP, and Bandits are the bandit RP, torture RP, hostage RP, I guess cannibal RP.  I think it should be clear that Hostile RP doesn't automatically mean Bandit RP, and I feel like that's been forgotten.
  7. No TS metagaming: Fucking, YES.
  8. Dying matters: I like the concept.  Might say something like 3 minutes though.  Idk, the timing can be played with.

That's 5 "fuck yeahs," two "meh yeses," and only one "no."  Hope that's a good flame rate for ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roach    1516
Posted (edited)

I am just gonna say, I do not wanna be forced into a group. Don't need the drama that can sometimes (a lot of times) come with groups.
EDIT: And do not need to be labeled for other people's actions either.
That is all.

Edited by Roach

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.

×