Jump to content
Server time: 2018-12-11, 10:13
Roland

Upcoming community changes - February 2018

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, RogueSolace said:

that makes absolutely no sense in game.... @Rolle...seriously, what? 

 

5 minutes ago, RogueSolace said:

I mean... if it was just me versus 2 people against my friend, I wouldn't fucking say a word to them, I'd just shoot. Because giving myself away = screwed. It makes no sense to have to turn and initiate on both of them instead of hearing the threat, being in the required distance, and being able to initiate. 

Im sure you would complain when  you are killed by a guy in a bush a way away for not complying or if you were gunned down when someone you were next to was initiated on and didn't comply. Both shitty scenarios that this change fixes.

Let it play out in game and see how it goes, there are really easy ways to counter the fact that you can no longer just gun someone down as @Spartan has mentioned. Not to mention that said reasons are more ROLEPLAY orientated.

It is on a TRIAL period, people can complain on the forums all you want but what really matters is how it affects gameplay. The outcome of that will dictate whether the rule stays or not.

Share this post


Link to post

Makes no sense? It's unrealistic? Did you guys think having to tell people to drop their weapons before you shoot them (initiations), not being able to shoot others from far away when it makes IC sense (KoS rule), asking others for permission to scar them or not being able to help a friend because he is more than 500m away (current kill right sharing) makes sense or is realistic?

None of it makes sense or is realistic when you look at it from IC perspective. But we still do have these rules.

The only thing this will change is that if you're a lone wolf you will have to talk to other players first (initiate) before you can shoot them in the face. Oh the agony, you will actually have to role play, or even worse - create a group for people you regularly play with. 

Share this post


Link to post

Well at least you're entirely clear about it not being up for debate. Which is a shame, I might add.

Share this post


Link to post

And again people just refuses to think outside of the small box. 

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Rolle said:

1. Player list on the server statistics have been removed

 

This is to prevent easy access to metagaming players that are in game. While we know that there are alternative ways of acquiring this information, you are no longer handed it on a platter where you can check identity of someone on the server in matter of seconds. It may come back, depending on player feedback.

 

 

Aaaw.. I really like this feature but I understand why it's gone.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Rolle said:

snip

I gotta say it's weird agreeing with new rules and shit for once and having other people on the other side not liking the rules . But yea your not wrong at all. If we were all playing realistically bandits would shoot you from a hill and come take your shit. There's plenty of times where players have to sacrifice some realism for the sake of enjoyment in the video game. I don't get why people are taking it so negatively but whateva .

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Thoros said:

Seems like in that situation the best option is to text initiate and tell them to let your friend go so they can't tell what direction you're coming from. And we all know how shitty text initiations are...

That would get you a ban for abuse of game mechanics fyi.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Spartan said:

That would get you a ban for abuse of game mechanics fyi.

Except you play a character of the other gender, correct?

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Malet said:

Except you play a character of the other gender, correct?

I assume Spartan is referring to you hiding yourself and using text to initiate as to gain an almost unbeatable advantage, hence the abuse.

Edited by Harvey

Share this post


Link to post

@Spartan

I'm actually a lot more supportive of sharing defensive rights but not offensive. But what does that mean? Say I'm stood with my friend and they initiate on a guy, do they not gain KOS rights on me if I don't initiate? I'm all for this idea but it could get confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post

In real life situation if someone came round a corner and aimed a gun at your best friend who was standing next to you and told them to put their hands up or they die and you had the means of stopping them you wouldn't take out your gun and go "No sir you put your hands up!" you would just shoot them to protect instead straight of the bat because a) you are protecting your friend and b) if you had to make a massive dialogue about it before you shot your friends attacker they know that you are about defend sed friend and they will just shoot you straight away. 

Also @Rolle i can understand the non secure frequencies not being allowed anymore with civies but surely on some circumstances secure frequencies should be allowed like with elements of a military organisation like CDF, UN or Nato still kicking around as they would still have the military equipment to secure their radio frequency? 

Edited by SgtSmithy

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Harvey said:

I assume Spartan is referring to you hiding yourself and using text to initiate as to gain an almost unbeatable advantage, hence the abuse.

Before you didn't even have to text initiate and nobody complained about that being unbeatable. I get why it would be classed as abuse though.

A lot of shitty groups are gonna pop up as a result of this rule change. The staff are gonna have to do a lot more of this "manual work". 

We'll see how it goes, I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong here but I think this will do more harm to the player base than it will do good. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Thoros said:

We'll see how it goes, I'm perfectly happy to be proven wrong here but I think this will do more harm to the player base than it will do good. 

The rule is fine, but people will resist change always, as Rolle said there is nothing suggesting the rule is unrealistic as the initiation rule, and almost every other role play orientated rule is unrealistic.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, Spartan said:

That would get you a ban for abuse of game mechanics fyi.

not if you are a text RPer and there are some on here and we all know that some group will use text RPers to their advantage and so if this true then let get rid of all text Rp then too 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Harvey said:

The rule is fine, but people will resist change always, as Rolle said there is nothing suggesting the rule is unrealistic as the initiation rule, and almost every other role play orientated rule is unrealistic.

It always seemed to me that the way in which the rules operated was to minimise the number of rules that lead to lack of realism. The KoS rule is necessary, and just because there is a more unrealistic rule it doesn't mean that we shouldn't think long and hard about further unrealistic rules being implemented. Only have what is absolutely necessary and maximise freedom. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Reaper said:

not if you are a text RPer and there are some on here and we all know that some group will use text RPers to their advantage and so if this true then let get rid of all text Rp then too 

 

40 minutes ago, Malet said:

Except you play a character of the other gender, correct?

An example. As a textRPer myself, I always peek around the corner/make myself visible when initiating over text but if I have voip allies nearby I normally let them initiate. 

 

35 minutes ago, Thoros said:

@Spartan

I'm actually a lot more supportive of sharing defensive rights but not offensive. But what does that mean? Say I'm stood with my friend and they initiate on a guy, do they not gain KOS rights on me if I don't initiate? I'm all for this idea but it could get confusing. 

If you don't want to be involved when your friends initiate, best thing to do is to put your gun on your back and just walk away while stating you don't want any part of this. We've had this problem with the current rule occure multiple times already.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, Rolle said:

This is a trial and we will review the general feedback and effect this will have on game play, role play and player experience in a 1-3 months and decide what to do about it then.

Keep this in mind guys. If it turns out to be a bad move I'm sure something will be done about it in the future. I personally don't mind the changes at all. Some of you make it sound like you get robbed on the daily. In my experience hostilities are far and few between at the moment and giving groups a bit of a carrot is something I'm all for.

Share this post


Link to post

Some clarification on these new rules would be nice, since it seems alot of people (including me) are confused as fuck.

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, SgtSmithy said:

In real life situation if someone came round a corner and aimed a gun at your best friend who was standing next to you and told them to put their hands up or they die and you had the means of stopping them you wouldn't take out your gun and go "No sir you put your hands up!" you would just shoot them to protect instead straight of the bat because a) you are protecting your friend and b) if you had to make a massive dialogue about it before you shot your friends attacker they know that you are about defend sed friend and they will just shoot you straight away. 

Also @Rolle i can understand the non secure frequencies not being allowed anymore with civies but surely on some circumstances secure frequencies should be allowed like with elements of a military organisation like CDF, UN or Nato still kicking around as they would still have the military equipment to secure their radio frequency? 

In real life there would be no intiations. if a guy wants your stuff you dont have a chance if he has the upper hand.

Stop pulling of the "reality" excuse on game roleplay server, first of all there is rules which doesnt make any sense on realism. if you want realism go play on official server, even they are more realistic than this.

Now this rule is implemented, if it doesnt work it will probably be changed later on. take a good example on the SMART goals in the very same thread.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Itsmez said:

In real life there would be no intiations. if a guy wants your stuff you dont have a chance if he has the upper hand

well that not true at all, not every person just runs up a robs people without initiating of some sort yes some may run up Kosh you the take your shit and run and some will tell you to give up your shit or whatever they want and even some will do it without you even knowing but all I know is if I was with a group of friends and one of my friends was getting robbed or attacked I would not just stand there and do nothing would you.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Reaper said:

well that not true at all, not every person just runs up a robs people without initiating of some sort yes some may run up Kosh you the take your shit and run and some will tell you to give up your shit or whatever they want and even some will do it without you even knowing but all I know is if I was with a group of friends and one of my friends was getting robbed or attacked I would not just stand there and do nothing would you.

My point was that there is no rules. If he wants to shoot you he can do that before you even know about it, they dont have to intiate if they dont want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Itsmez said:

My point was that there is no rules. If he wants to shoot you he can do that before you even know about it, they dont have to intiate if they dont want to. 

yes true but now there will be a rule so a dynamic group will not be able to help each other out which does not make any sense like if what @Thoros said about lowing to say 3 so players can try to get a group going or better yet make it so you can have a group of 3 and have a group thread but some limataions like keep the defence but no offence no ts room just a temp one or just use the rooms already made and then maybe or if you get anyone else to join and you get 5 or more you then become an offical group with all the perks

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Reaper said:

yes true but now there will be a rule so a dynamic group will not be able to help each other out which does not make any sense like if what @Thoros said about lowing to say 3 so players can try to get a group going or better yet make it so you can have a group of 3 and have a group thread but some limataions like keep the defence but no offence no ts room just a temp one or just use the rooms already made and then maybe or if you get anyone else to join and you get 5 or more you then become an offical group with all the perks

One bad thing VS multiple good things. I dont like the idea not being table to defend my friend, but i think about the good things of it. and i rather give it a try rather than throw it on wall, as i said if it doesnt work out, later on it will be fixed. 

But the reason "realism" against this rule is the worst argument, and sounds like its the only argument people can make up against it

Share this post


Link to post

The group requirement should be lowered to two players it’s the way to keep this fair to the people who role around with just a friend or two — group pages should be like character pages in that sense and should show the dynamic between the characters and why these characters would be willing to fight and lay their lives on the line for eachother

 

Edited by GaryCash

Share this post


Link to post

These rules are alright i guess so long as they don’t make the lives of casual players that don’t have large networks of other people they can play with impossible to have a fair playing field when it comes to the rules in game.  For lone wolves these rules are bad enough because now they can’t dynamically meet new players in game and efficiently work with them without writing about it first on the site, but just because someone only generally plays with a friend or two and 2 or 3 people is all they have in their ‘group’ they shouldn’t be barred now from having an official group just because they are smaller in numbers or a couple short or 5 total players.  Once they take the time to write up their groups story whether it’s a duo or 4 people they should be allotted the same rights as any group now has that has 5 plus

 

 

edit: written on my phone fonts are acting strange

Edited by GaryCash

Share this post


Link to post

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×