Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-06-18, 05:47
Sign in to follow this  
Roland

Upcoming community changes - February 2018

Recommended Posts

I have to agree with a lot of people here.

We claim to try and have realistic roleplay on the server and now we take away the most realistic behaviour that I could think of (besides fear) - My friend gets initiated on, most likely has a weapon raised to her/his face. I now need to re-initiate in order to help him/her, most likely standing right next to my friend. As soon as I would raise my gun my friend and I would be dead. (Obviously if outnumbered I would not even bother to try anything) However, if I would be in a house and my friend would be on the street and my chance of helping him/her would be bigger, I could not do shit, which in my very own opinion is unrealistic.

As @Mademoiselle wrote, this will cause more hostile actions as people know that their friends cannot do anything unless they would re-initiate - which most people will not do/or die.

I am all for hostile RP, dont get me wrong, but it should be fair for every player (group or not) and this new trial-rule is just not if you consider that on top of this, group members share now kill-rights all over the map.

Not a fan.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Shazzzam said:

I am in no way impersonating that person as he is LOOOONG dead. On top of that my character has nothing saying that he is a sniper fighting for the fascists and so on and so on. Moreover many people have pictures of numerous celebrities as their character picture...? Also why do you judge a book by its cover. What does matter more, how my profile looks or how I deliver roleplay in-game? So if you have a fancy looking and fun profile you are labeled as a good roleplayer? 

Hans Wilhelm Konig wasn't a sniper... what..?

So hes dead, that makes it acceptable to use his name? Its still using a famous persons name.

And also not at all, I like my profile to look nice but it doesn't mean by YOUR standards that I'm a good roleplayer, I'm just saying, might wanna change it.

Using a famous celebrities picture is fine, but the name is not.

Edited by KyleRP

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Darra said:

So, if me and my friends are walking down a road and a small group approaches us and says, “Anna, put your hands up or we’ll kill you!,”  each of my friends has to say, “no, you put you hands up or I’ll kill you!” before they can act in my defense? 

Is that how it will work?  Or can they still defend me without first initiating?  

From the looks of it, they draw on you and say "Put 'em up, Anna," your buddies can draw on them and say "Drop your weapons" at the same time. That's a valid initiation and a quick one, to boot.

Concerned with people all talking at the same time though. That is not conducive to "clear demands" if everyone has to initiate at the same time. And is other people initiating on your attacker grounds to attack you? I don't think it is. Would they have to initiate on the whole group so they can take one person without risk of getting return-initiated?
This is a bit of a can of worms, thinking about it.

After a few weeks, people will probably find Dynamics having defence-orientated kill rights, or Protection Rights, would be best.

Edited by Mass

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Darra said:

So, if me and my friends are walking down a road and a small group approaches us and says, “Anna, put your hands up or we’ll kill you!,”  each of my friends has to say, “no, you put you hands up or I’ll kill you!” before they can act in my defense? 

Is that how it will work?  Or can they still defend me without first initiating?  

If you and your friends are in an official group, your friends can shoot the initiators without initiating themselves.

If you are not in an official group, your friends would have to initiate on your initiators before they can shoot them (if they don't comply).

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Para said:

B) In a way I can see where you're coming from, but on the other hand it promotes the gun over RP means of finding shit out. Like, if you don't have kill rights you have to initiate. You can punish me through RP means (i.e: torture, questioning) should I comply (if i don't fair game). But with this rule it means the punishment for somebody initiating, or even resisting and initiation and defending themselves, is that everybody in the group 'can be killed'. And my point exactly was that doctors weren't a threat, but there would be those people who would argue "they're enemies of my group, I have reason to kill them." thus creating this cyclical back and forth of 'it's ruleplay because X' & 'it's not ruleplay because Y'. The issue with those arguments is neither side really defeats the other (because it is a grey-zone) and so people feel 'their view is wrong'. 

Edit: anyway @KyleRP we should probably take this to DMs, this discussion is off on a tangent now.

5

Thats fair, I understand where you're coming from and I've illustrated my opinion for you, so I don't see any reason for this to continue in PM's, thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Spartan said:

If you and your friends are in an official group, your friends can shoot the initiators without initiating themselves.

If you are not in an official group, your friends would have to initiate on your initiators before they can shoot them (if they don't comply).

But you know how it would go, right? In that scenario described, the second I would try to say anything, trying to re-initiate, I would be shot dead. That's fact and everyone knows it. How is that fair?

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Spartan said:

If you and your friends are in an official group, your friends can shoot the initiators without initiating themselves.

If you are not in an official group, your friends would have to initiate on your initiators before they can shoot them (if they don't comply).

So I take it that people in a group idea will not be able to use kill rights? just need confirmation :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Terra said:

But you know how it would go, right? In that scenario described, the second I would try to say anything, trying to re-initiate, I would be shot dead. That's fact and everyone knows it. How is that fair?

 

Yeah, bit of a can of worms. Considering hostage rights and stuff, as long as you comply while your buddies initiate on your attackers, you can't get killed yourself. If they Mass(heh)-initiate though, then...

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Terra said:

But you know how it would go, right? In that scenario described, the second I would try to say anything, trying to re-initiate, I would be shot dead. That's fact and everyone knows it. How is that fair?

That's why I prefered to keep the defending sharing rights how they are and just get rid of the offensive ones. There are some scenario's where getting rid of both will promote the RP > PVP but as with every rule there are also exceptions. Keep in mind that this is a trial and that the features are subject to change if deemed necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Terra said:

But you know how it would go, right? In that scenario described, the second I would try to say anything, trying to re-initiate, I would be shot dead. That's fact and everyone knows it. How is that fair?

Short answer: it isn't. Groups need an incentive though, as not a lot of people are really making groups right now (lack of basebuilding, no uniforms, no in-game symbols), and everybody likes kill rights. I'm of a mind with yung Spraytan that we should be allowed keep defensive rights, but offensive rights should be reserved for official groups. That would be a good compromise.

Share this post


Link to post

It seems like the admin team is becoming more and more disconnected from the actual community every day. 

Share this post


Link to post

Hey it' something new.  Plus one from me. Like they said.. it' a trial. If it don't work.. they'll fix it. It's all good in the good.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Elmo said:

Short answer: it isn't. Groups need an incentive though, as not a lot of people are really making groups right now (lack of basebuilding, no uniforms, no in-game symbols), and everybody likes kill rights. I'm of a mind with yung Spraytan that we should be allowed keep defensive rights, but offensive rights should be reserved for official groups. That would be a good compromise.

Absolutely agreeing with you.

Share this post


Link to post

The thought process of having people re-initiate after they've been initiated on is honestly nothing short of ridiculous. 

The average member of this community is sadly in the mentality that when after the initiator initiates, ANYONE who opts to pull out or raise a weapon against them will be dropped before they'e even abe to finish the physical animation or say something; and if they DO somehow get that far then it would instantly turn into a shootout blood bath and everyone will DIE.

I understand the need for incentives to create official groups, I really do. But not at the cost of me having to stand there with my thumb up my ass while my friend is deep throating a gun barrel. 

This will honestly deter me from playing at all rather than give me any incentive to be a part of a group, just saying.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Elmo said:

 I'm of a mind with yung Spraytan that we should be allowed keep defensive rights, but offensive rights should be reserved for official groups. That would be a good compromise.

Agreed with the above.

2 minutes ago, Spanners said:

It seems like the admin team is becoming more and more disconnected from the actual community every day. 

No it doesn't at all considering all of what has been changed has had a thread on it, they're all also community members too but they invest more of their own time. 'actual community' lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Terra said:

But you know how it would go, right? In that scenario described, the second I would try to say anything, trying to re-initiate, I would be shot dead. That's fact and everyone knows it. How is that fair?

 

Personally I think different. Everyone knows that if you initiate on someone from a meter away the chances of them spraying you down are a lot greater. This is why most people initiate from say a house window or peak a corner and initiate. 

I don't get in game much anymore but giving this a shot wouldn't be such a bad idea. People should see how it works in game before coming to the conclusion whether or not it functions properly in game.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Mexi said:

Agreed with the above.

No it doesn't at all considering all of what has been changed has had a thread on it, they're all also community members too but they invest more of their own time. 'actual community' lmao.

I'm fairly sure the consensus on the removal of dynamic groups was a resounding no. lmao

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Elmo said:

Short answer: it isn't. Groups need an incentive though, as not a lot of people are really making groups right now (lack of basebuilding, no uniforms, no in-game symbols), and everybody likes kill rights. I'm of a mind with yung Spraytan that we should be allowed keep defensive rights, but offensive rights should be reserved for official groups. That would be a good compromise.

I agree that would be a good compromise.  It’s also something we’ve been espousing since Rolle first started talking about doing away with dynamic groups.  I sure hope the majority opinion wasn’t just ignored.

 

Share this post


Link to post

Dynamic groups if I'm getting this correctly

Non hostile RPer in non official group:

  • Gets initiated on
  • Friends have to re initiate 
  • More than likely death
  1. Be forced to hide to avoid certain situations which will cause complaints by other RPers
  2. Most likely be reported for avoiding roleplay
  3. Salt reports

Hostile RPer in non official group:

Group of 3 hostile rpers.

  • One of the three initiates on 5 people
  • His/her two friends point guns but haven't really said anything to initiate and tag along
  • Person(s) who has been initiated on only have kill rights on that one out of three people
  1. Doesn't have consequences to actions
  2. Other people can get away with this situation if they have not vocally intiated
Edited by Mademoiselle

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Spanners said:

I'm fairly sure the consensus on the removal of dynamic groups was a resounding no. lmao

You said they were disconnected from the 'actual community' and nothing specific was in your post. Whether things go through or not is both the Admins and Rolles decision. Just like all things that get added in they need tweaking instead of just shunning them immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post

3. Dynamic groups will be removed

[snip]

 

So if somebody isn't in an official group and they get initiated on, will the be fucked? Because that is what it sounds like to me...

 

 

 

This is what will be happening in the report section: 

 

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor salt bae

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, Oliv said:

The changes to kill rights for official groups is a carrot to dangle to get people to actually put the time in and create groups.

So the bait used to push people to create groups is... an incentive to PvP... in a roleplaying community... Seems legit ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post

So if im sitting in pulkovo wearing military gear with a few friends (for the example we'll say gabby and alex) and an anarchists walks up and holds me up for the gear, my friends would have to say "No, back off or die" before they can engage? Because the way I see it, there is no way I can get out of that situation alive. If someone draws on me, my allies who arent officially group mates should be permitted to draw and fire if they so choose but if they arent initiated on, they can leave the area safely. An ideal situation would say im being held up and say gabby goes behind the anarchist with a magnum to his head and tells him to drop his gun, it would promote RP and turn it from a basic robbery into an actual situation where friends outside groups can initiate. Problem being that with this rule set, I don't see that as proper initiation.

 

This could also force people to take a play style they greatly dislike. I myself find that I avoid large groups of people. For example, if in pulkovo and a group ends up building there, I decide its time to leave. So losing the help of my friends in a group robbing me is going to force me to join or make a group which ruins my play style.

Edited by BSJasonGames

Share this post


Link to post

well the removal of dynamic groups is really not that realistic is it I mean here it goes 

Offical group initiates on two guys and there no alone they have three in the trees who have overwatch and the official group has said five. That being said the ones that are in overwatch  has to reinitiate on the five who have initiated on the two guys in their dynamic mmmm sorry but that does not make sense and not realistic at all because if I was or anyone here probably would help there friends out if they were getting attacked or robbed they would not just sit back and do nothing you would run in without saying anything and just  Kosh the shit out of them. 

as for the rest of the changes, 1 it's not going to stop metagaming TBH  2 pointless 4 whatever 5 Fairplay

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, KyleRP said:

So I take it that people in a group idea will not be able to use kill rights? just need confirmation :)

It is still being discussed but personally I would like to see group ideas get the sharing kill rights aswell. I dont think it will be abused as the LM team already removes the low effort & WIP groups anyways so someone can't quickly throw together a group simply for the rights.

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...