Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-10-26, 04:32
Sign in to follow this  
Tony

Community standards: A critical discussion

Recommended Posts

I agree with possibly changing the rules to release restrictions in roleplay and uphold the quality of said roleplay to the best possible standard, if the rule does any of the above I don't really care how strict it is.

We are all mature enough to appreciate that actions have consequences, why would this be any different in a completely realistic game world?

Share this post


Link to post

I think a lot of these rule changes are reasonable, however I think there are issues with the "Powerplay/Powergaming" and Permadeath suggestions. 

Like Harvey said, I'm sure everyone in this community is mature enough to accept that actions have consequences, however after RPing for aslong as I have I also know that some RP'ers don't like to accept those consequences. Is this annoying? Massively. Do I think people should be forced to accept consequences that could permanently alter their character? Not at all. Its all about enjoyment, as I'm sure we're all here to RP and enjoy ourselves, and forcing somebody to accept something they don't want for their character is putting your enjoyment before somebody elses, which I don't think is right. Again, I'm sure we're all mature enough that as RP'ers that if two people have beef they can talk OOC and come to a decision on a chain of events that is suitable to both parties. Of course, if somebody is being totally unreasonable and refusing to accept any consequences, then I do think someone on the Staff team should step in and sort it out. 

Then you also have to consider the flipside of the rules aswell, the people the are intended to protect. I've met RP'ers that would like be disturbed/distressed if they were forced to sit and watch their character getting tortured because not everyone has a strong enough stomach for it, and as RP'ers theres a lot of creativity flowing around so I'm sure the torture methods get more and more inventive everytime. On this, someone shouldn't be forced to RP something that makes them uncomfortable OOC, that flies in the opposite direction as to what people are here for, to enjoy themselves. Personally, I'd much rather RP giving someone a beating or "blackscreening*" any torture scenes so that both parties can walk away happy. Yes, I'm sure there are people that abuse this rule to save their character or save time, but still, I'm sure there are people that the Consent rule genuinely protects and I don't think they should have to suffer because of a few unreasonable people that don't want their characters harmed. 

You're right when you say torturing someone with handscuffs, realistically, isn't powergaming. However, its more of an OOC consideration thing and the moment you start to forego people's enjoyment for realism is the moment things will start going very bad, very quickly.

Edited by Queerios

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Queerios said:

 

I don't disagree. That's the other side of the coin. What's important is finding that balance and unfortunately we keep not doing that. It's either one side or the other, never in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post

So it's 5 in the morning for me and I may not entirely make sense here, but for the most part I do agree with you. That said there's a couple things I don't agree with. 

Powergaming: This was a bigger issue before and isn't so much something I have run into now, but in the old lore there were a few times where I got captured and almost right off the bat they asked for rights to remove a body part. I am talking first time meeting these people never had interaction with them in the past and they wanted to cut off my arm I think it was or something along those lines. I told them no and don't regret doing so because it is a major change to my character and just seems excessive on FIRST meeting. Usually I will agree to perma scars depending on the situation and if the RP build up is good but removal of a limb 5 minutes into the first encounter no. I've also had people ask for permadeath rights on the first meeting and again I told them no because it made no sense imo. I am all for allowing someone to be tortured within reason without having to give perms maybe but it should still be up to them if it scars or not, so they have the choice on if it is a major thing they have to change about their character.

Impersonating other groups: This one is tricky because I do half agree agree with it but at the same time see the issue with allowing it. The issue with allowing people like this is it can confuse execution rights and if someone breaks a rule then it opens a whole new can of drama. There are other ways to slander someone IG without pretending to be them, spread lies and slander about them, make a post on radio chatter claiming that they did something or just tell people IG that the group you want to slander. There are plenty of other ways to go about it.

 

I do however 100% agree with what you said about the supersoldier characters, nothing drives me mad more than seeing a character with a unrealistic amount of skills. Especially when those skills are literally impossible/extremely unlikely based on the characters age. It's not hard to make a realistic character if you try, and it ruins the fun for everyone if your character magically knows how to do every single thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Totally agree with the Super Soldier character. Browsing through the characters you will see people that can speak every language that can come to their head (the language aspect is really the part that annoys me) or people with the copious amounts of PHD's.

I feel like like people need to tone it down a notch or even just be monolingual.

Edited by Tander

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Tander said:

Totally agree with the Super Soldier character. Browsing through the characters you will see people that can speak every language that can come to their head (the language aspect is really the part that annoys me) or people with the copious amounts of PHD's.

I feel like like people need to tone it down a notch or even just be monolingual.

IMO at least the languages can be explained, some people learn languages very easily compared to others. That said knowing every single one does get incredibly annoying. The PHD thing will never stop bothering me.

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Karma said:

 

On the subject of the power thing, you're not really disagreeing with me. My heavy emphasis is on people who have warranted punishment due, denying it. Like I said, I don't want a cock carved into my forehead from some random. I am not disagreeing with your statement here, after all there are kill happy people out there and people who are excessive on the edge scale. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to consent to losing a limb on a first meeting just because someone wants to be edgy. What I am saying is with the way the rules are, realism suffers. On the whim amputation from some random guy isn't realistic at all, it's cheap and cheesy. I would never support people doing this at all, more so because it makes playing on that character very difficult. 

No what irks me is calling it powergaming. To me it follows under bad RP conduct. 

Share this post


Link to post

The answer to most of your questions about existing rules is simple:

Because realism is not the priority here. Priority is first and foremost role play, followed closely by preventing abuse, non-fair play and PvP mindset that is present in the vanilla game. Role play doesn't automatically mean ultra realism, people role play D&D and SciFi and don't care about realism there. We role play a zombie post-apocalyptic scenario in a fictional country which isn't very realistic either.

So for best realism, you need to play on a public server. This is because things like kill on sight and lack of morals or ethics is a very realistic human attribute that you will find in excess on those servers. On our server, these things are not as important, we focus on a different kind of gameplay that may or may not involve realism. We usually try to keep things somewhat realistic, to not break immersion too much, but making the experience enjoyable and free from abuse from players who play unfair always takes priority, no matter what. That's why the rules are how they are.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Tony said:

On the subject of the power thing, you're not really disagreeing with me. My heavy emphasis is on people who have warranted punishment due, denying it. Like I said, I don't want a cock carved into my forehead from some random. I am not disagreeing with your statement here, after all there are kill happy people out there and people who are excessive on the edge scale. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to consent to losing a limb on a first meeting just because someone wants to be edgy. What I am saying is with the way the rules are, realism suffers. On the whim amputation from some random guy isn't realistic at all, it's cheap and cheesy. I would never support people doing this at all, more so because it makes playing on that character very difficult. 

No what irks me is calling it powergaming. To me it follows under bad RP conduct. 

Ah okay fair enough, like I said 5AM and haven't slept yet. Also I think it kinda falls under both, because it IS bad RP but it does also fit under powergaming because not asking permission would be forcing a permanent effect on someone.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Rolle said:

The answer to most of your questions about existing rules is simple:

Because realism is not the priority here. Priority is first and foremost role play, followed closely by preventing abuse, non-fair play and PvP mindset that is present in the vanilla game. Role play doesn't automatically mean ultra realism, people role play D&D and SciFi and don't care about realism there. We role play a zombie post-apocalyptic scenario in a fictional country which isn't very realistic either.

So for best realism, you need to play on a public server. This is because things like kill on sight and lack of morals or ethics is a very realistic human attribute that you will find in excess on those servers. On our server, these things are not as important, we focus on a different kind of gameplay that may or may not involve realism. We usually try to keep things somewhat realistic, to not break immersion too much, but making the experience enjoyable and free from abuse from players who play unfair always takes priority, no matter what. That's why the rules are how they are.

I get it. I can't argue the enjoyment vs realism factor because I both understand and agree with what you're saying, however what I am arguing is that without a degree of realism, the immersive world suffers for it.

There are people who will go out there and commit all sorts of horrible acts and when caught, deny the karma owed to them, leading to not only a lack of enjoyment on the victims they took, but those avenging them. It's a form of rule play. The problem is we have that many rules that it can be honestly very difficult to keep track of. There will be moments in a scene where people will pause, confused and scared whether they're risking breaking a rule or violating the integrity of the scene itself.

I both understand and agree with why the rules have developed the way they are, but we have as a result went from one extreme to another, where one play style benefits greatly, as another is buried so far into the ground that no one wants to play it, leading to imbalance, onward to stagnation, boredom and inevitably a drop in player activity.

You're focused on player enjoyment, which I respect immensely, but favouring one side over another will kill all in time. There's only so much people can do without a source of conflict in their story, which people are becoming very hesitant in providing due to a fear of repercussions for their actions. Nothing irks me more than seeing someone report over OOC salt, when it could have easily been avoided and someone gets punished for it on a technicality. It sucks the will out of playing for a lot of these people. I myself have personally never been in this situation, however I've seen it happen over the years. 

 

Edited by Tony

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Rolle said:

The answer to most of your questions about existing rules is simple:

Because realism is not the priority here. Priority is first and foremost role play, followed closely by preventing abuse, non-fair play and PvP mindset that is present in the vanilla game. Role play doesn't automatically mean ultra realism, people role play D&D and SciFi and don't care about realism there. We role play a zombie post-apocalyptic scenario in a fictional country which isn't very realistic either.

So for best realism, you need to play on a public server. This is because things like kill on sight and lack of morals or ethics is a very realistic human attribute that you will find in excess on those servers. On our server, these things are not as important, we focus on a different kind of gameplay that may or may not involve realism. We usually try to keep things somewhat realistic, to not break immersion too much, but making the experience enjoyable and free from abuse from players who play unfair always takes priority, no matter what. That's why the rules are how they are.

A level of realism is essential in order to be immersed in a role-play environment that depicts a universe similar today. We roleplay a zombie post-apocalyptic scenario in a fictional country, but it is still in the realistic gritty lore that Bohemia interactive created for the Arma 2 and Arma 2 OA games.

Realism shouldn't be the issue, it should be believability. Without providing examples, we have characters that are ex-military action men that have the ability to do unhuman, unrealistic and unbelievable things. We have people role-playing teenage girls who are diagnosed with every mental disorder under the sun, and yet are still super-soldiers in the eyes of most people.

As you probably know, role-play relies on the maturity and initiative of other players. But if there is no restriction and set guidelines on how peoples characters are created, it only allows for people to continue with the immersion breaking characters and story-lines. The problem regarding fairness is that in most post-apocalyptic lore things really aren't fair for anyone. I understand it's important for the rules not to facilitate PvP, gear, and other bullshit RP, but adding more rules that restrict the general player-base might fix it, but it's gonna cause deterioration on the overall quality of role-play on the server.

Instead of adding/changing rules, give administration more authority to cherry pick and decide which groups/players aren't adding to the overall lore of the player. Open the issues up to debate in the community.

edit: didnt mean to chuck another paragraph ontop of tony's sorry big big read

Edited by Stannis

Share this post


Link to post
57 minutes ago, Stannis said:

 

Nah man, I feel you argued the case a little better than I did with replacing realism for believably. It's just some words get stuck in your head more than others. 

Share this post


Link to post

A few things I think that would help are just simple enforcers that need to be enacted to make community members lives easier. Granted it'll be a bit more taxing on the staff, but I think it'll benefit everyone down the line...

- Retconning: Add that shit into the rules... If someone is power-gamed in a  scenario make it crystal clear who's in the right and who's in the wrong in that situation, have the staff force the two involved to come up with some middle ground. Or just have the staff decide X person no longers has that dick shaped scar in their forehead. That sorta thing.

- Make people follow a type of template for their character, similar to a DnD character sheet maybe, but something that essential to realism and enjoyment is that people are not a fucking god in RP. It's no fun for the person playing it after a while, and its cringy and annoying for those who have to put up with that sorta shit, the example I read was the 12 year old super soldier... Like come on...
That sorta thing should be monitored by LM's if anything... Yeah given the current setup we have now it'd be cancerous to sort, but I am sure we can come up with a simple way to make it easier on them.

-  Adjust the rules for realism... Everything Tony has stated so far is essential in terms of rules, and I have witnessed at least each and everyone of these reasonings in person, that is the reasons for why these rules are here now.
It's awful, its just when committing hostilities is the only thing that can really warrant a proper upset out of someone. Meaning its the only form of RP that will be punished. If I meta game someone then fuck me I will receive a PM on the forums asking me to change that radio chatter thread or something because I didn't know that persons name. Now if I take someones gear and kill them with proper reason (or atm improper reason cause gear whoring is against the rules, but just a moral code), and say they're a gear whore and report me, the most minute fuck up I committed can be held against me in a higher light because that person wants to wrought the wrath of got to smote me down for taking that fellas 5.56...

Yes these rules make sense to have, but tone them down for the sake of balance... It's just gone on too much for that reason and many more I haven't listed...

TL;DR: Add some shit and balance some shit rule wise, its gonna be work on the staff and community members part, but it'll be worth it in the long haul. 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MeenMuginLovin said:

 

Out of Beanz, but yeah man... essentially that. The retcon thing is vital, not only for preserving realism on consent abuse (I killed 100000 people but don't consent to death), but on some of the things that can happen to ya which is way over the top. Like @Lyca told me once, there was a dude literally trying to carve a fuckin pizza on peoples heads.

Edited by Tony

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly what I've been crying about for a while, less rules, MORE hostile RP. I looked through a lot of those "Bad RP" reports a while back, nearly all were false in my eyes. A lot of people say they are for the roleplay but when they get headshot and spawn at the coast they feel entitled to find something wrong with whoever just done them in.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tony said:

-snip snap snude-

I'll do a just a quick rundown of my opinion here.

For your pre-rules argument, I'm more or less on board with you. If someone has chosen to roleplay a character in a sense that has given other people a very, very good reason to exterminate them, the fact that they can choose to refuse consent is entirely off-putting to me. If you murder half my group and I catch you a week later, I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to make sure that character doesn't exist anymore. That said, I also know that it would be futile, because it seems to me that most players who play these types of characters will just make a copy/paste of them and, if they're in a group, go straight back to their old position.

Retconning is hard sell, I think. Some people will want to, if they get away from a group with "//no consent," walk straight back to their friends and brag about it, because God forbid that they seemed to have taken a loss, right? This isn't everyone, of course, but the DayZRP community really does seem to have a lot of these types in it.

Twinking is lame and everyone who does it should be autobahn'd, in my mind. I don't really have much to add to that. Same with internal metagaming.

 

Now, as for the specific rules you mention, along with some of the things you said about power playing, I do find myself on the other side of the fence. As a whole I see where you're coming from, and I understand your logic behind it. If I had more faith in the RP "ethics" of this community, I would probably agree to everything proposed, even. As it stands, though, most of those rules need to exist simply because this server wants to be an RP server. Not RP lite, not PvE, but RP. Heavy RP perhaps, even. And sure, robbing people for no other reason than them having that sweet, sexy M4 would be perfectly standard if this was the real world, but it's not, and we (should) all primarily come here for RP, not 1-minute robberies that bring zero RP to one side of the incident.

I think my opinion on kill rights and such should be clear from the top bit of my response, but there is one piece I'd like to just quote here, in big, fat, bold letters:

4 hours ago, Tony said:
  • 8.3 If the player who gains kill rights is a member of an approved group, kill rights are shared with all members of that group. Kill rights cannot be shared between players who are not a part of an approved group.

 

So, we can’t protect friends of allied groups in fire fights, we can’t even defend our closest friends unless we’re in an OOC approved group. Some people don’t want to be in groups. Some people run two-character dynamics. By restricting people this much you persecute non-grouped people, especially newer community members who have not been accepted into a group, yet have friends. Yet Joe Smith can murder someone because a friend of a friend whose group he just joined was held up? What… even… is this?

I'll never stop agreeing with this. It's complete, utter bullshit.

 

I think that I can say, in short, that my stance when it comes to a lot of the rules on this server, is that they're necessary because a whole heap of the community thinks of this server as a playground for themselves and their characters, rather than thinking of themselves and their characters as just another small piece of it all. The day I feel like I can trust the majority of this server to deliver the level of RP that I would like to see around me all the time, is the day I'll rally with you against rules that shouldn't be needed (but are at the moment).

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Tony said:

 

  • 8.3 If the player who gains kill rights is a member of an approved group, kill rights are shared with all members of that group. Kill rights cannot be shared between players who are not a part of an approved group.

 

So, we can’t protect friends of allied groups in fire fights, we can’t even defend our closest friends unless we’re in an OOC approved group.

I actually have an idea that may solve this (or may just complicate the fuck out of it). 

Regarding the 2 person dynamics that you stated (e.g, best friend/travel companion, sibling, spouse, offspring, etc), a "companion" system could be inputted which would essentially be a group with a max roster of 2 people. These two people could share KOS rights and protect each other. The idea would be that you pick someone who your character would defend at all costs and become a companion to them. You could be in separate groups or not in a group and could still save each other. 

Only a quick idea that popped into my head 5 minutes ago so I'm sure there are a shit ton of problems to be raised. A "companionship" wouldn't sport all the rights/perks that a group does- but would allow for characters to save their dearest travelling companion when they're in peril.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Sam Fields said:

 

That isn’t actually a bad idea. Maybe expand upon it? I mean you can have more than one close friend right? I’d advise removing the rule regarding persecution of dynamic groups were it not for the fact there would be cluster fucks the minute shit goes down in populated areas, but if we could document smaller parties in a way that doesn’t brand them as a named group then we could avoid that. Hmm solid idea, I support it.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Tony said:

How do you even achieve this previous history that could lead to hostility without wearing the equivalent of an ‘I WILL INITIATE LATER’ sign around your neck?

Now I might be mistaken, but I think that everyone is thinking about this rule in a much longer term setting. Hell from reading it and through my own interpretation, I bet you could find someone on the coast, run around with them for a bit, and then initiate because they seem like a good target. I believe this rule was put in place to prevent randomly being initiated on by some silly boy looking for an easy M4. 

 

6 hours ago, Tony said:

Now whilst it’s unfair to the victim in this situation, what stops people demanding that their enemy comes and gives themselves up or you’ll kill the victim? You do not HAVE to kill the victim, but why can’t you threaten to?

This right here is interesting for a few reasons. Mainly because I understand the exact point of view you're coming from, but at the same time I disagree. I think the reason that you cannot threaten to kill the person, is because what if the person being commanded doesn't comply? Then realistically you would probably execute the hostage, and the person you wanted rides into the distance. But since you cannot execute that hostage, they might not comply and the aggressor is left with that feeling of retardation because they can't actually execute the hostage.
I think this ties in with the idea of letting everyone have fun in roleplay scenarios. 

 

6 hours ago, Tony said:

If someone takes you and cuts off your balls, you are not going to forgive and forget after a 2 hour span.

Like @Rolle said up there, not everything is going to be this realistic. How would you feel if after cutting off someones balls, you are sitting in Severograd two days after the fact, and someone recognizes you. The man who you cut the balls off of, steps up to you, draws a twelve gauge and blows your head off in the middle of some pleasant campfire RP. Now there is a sour taste in your mouth and it would lead to further OOC salt imo. 

Edited by N-Tox

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, N-Tox said:

 

Like @Rolle said up there, not everything is going to be this realistic. How would you feel if after cutting off someones balls, you are sitting in Severograd two days after the fact, and someone recognizes you. The man who you cut the balls off of, steps up to you, draws a twelve gauge and blows your head off in the middle of some pleasant campfire RP. Now there is a sour taste in your mouth and it would lead to further OOC salt imo. 

I feel like if this were to happen it would be done in some sort of way rather than just "Hey guy. *BLAMO*" Even still though, this would seem warranted, sure the guy's just sustained incredible injuries to his face but he should've taken that into account when cutting someone's sack off.

Share this post


Link to post

After reading through the rules recently I can't help but agree with Tony.

Nothing puts me off wanting to create unique hostile RP than the fear off getting into a report with someone who isn't happy with how the situation ended from them. For as long as I've been doing hostile RP I've only been reported once and that guy got banned for putting up a false report. But with the way things are now I got a make myself obvious IC just to avoid pissing off someone OOC and potentially getting into a report. I can't up an initiate on folks because people jump to the conclusion that it's gearRP.

So are crazy characters just not allowed anymore? Will I get banned for torturing other people's characters because my character enjoys it? How is anyone supposed to hostile RP with the limited options given to us? These are the questions that popped into my head with re-reading the rules.

The way I see it I need to find people OOC who are looking for hostile RP and plan it out with them. Which takes a lot of the fun out of it for me.

Edited by Hellspawn

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Hellspawn said:

After reading through the rules recently I can't help but agree with Tony.

Nothing puts me off wanting to create unique hostile RP than the fear off getting into a report with someone who isn't happy with how the situation ended from them. For as long as I've been doing hostile RP I've only been reported once and that guy got banned for putting up a false report. But with the way things are now I got a make myself obvious IC just to avoid pissing off someone OOC and potentially getting into a report. I can up an initiate on folks because people jump to the conclusion that it's gearRP.

So are crazy characters just not allowed anymore? Will I get banned for torturing other people's characters because my character enjoys it? How is anyone supposed to hostile RP with the limited options given to us? These are the questions that popped into my head with re-reading the rules.

The way I see it I need to find people OOC who are looking for hostile RP and plan it out with them. Which takes a lot of the fun out of it for me.

I personally would like to see hostileRP born out of friction. Having a crazy character who tortures for fun is boring (overdone). I would rather like to see political friction over ideas. After which conflicts and torture are manifested after countless interactions between characters or groups.

Edited by Shanoby

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Shanoby said:

Having a crazy character who tortures for fun is boring (overdone).

It was overdone a while ago, but the tides have changed. Now everyone you meet is either a cookie cutter standard survivor guy or some boring soldier who wants to regroup.

Say what you will, but what you want can't happen that easily. The sheer amount of luck that is necessary to meet people like that multiple times will drag any hostile rp out for months and I am not talking about the positive kind of dragging out. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Grimnir said:

It was overdone a while ago, but the tides have changed. Now everyone you meet is either a cookie cutter standard survivor guy or some boring soldier who wants to regroup.

Say what you will, but what you want can't happen that easily. The sheer amount of luck that is necessary to meet people like that multiple times will drag any hostile rp out for months and I am not talking about the positive kind of dragging out. 

I do not disagree, it takes lot of dedication and work... which for some people, it will put them off sadly. Can not think of a solution though...

Cos sadly sometimes people try to rush into conflict and torture and thats when some other people might get salty (like myself), that for them it feels rushed and might end up making reports.

But I mean, that comes down to every individual, do they have time and patiences do drag it out that long... lot of the times this place does feel like second workplace after actual work/school IRL.

Same goes for some other issues...

Edited by Shanoby

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...