Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2021-09-24 05:41

New Group Size Rule.


JoffreyRP

Add these new "Conditions" to groups as a trial run?  

97 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Hello fellow people. I have a suggestion: Group size limits in regards to "Committing hostile actions." 

 

You've all been there.. rolling with 1, or two people down the middle of Stay Sobor, when suddenly.. WHAM! A group of 12 or more come barreling down the road, surround you and your friend.. and initiate on you. 

Problem:  You can't do shit, or RP Stagnates.

 

With the influx of newer members, and anyone really.. unless you yourself join a super group, you are more or less fucked. Little to no option to defend yourself, and at best.. you can try to talk your way out of it.. which rarely works.  Dealing with these groups (of which there have been many in the past) have limited options.. its either, surrender, hide, or die. Lets assume you take the RP route and "Surrender". Now you are a vassal of this group, and you can snake out locations of  their enemies and all that jargon. However.. if enough smaller groups "Surrender" the RP becomes stale for the super group, and RP stagnates server wide.. as it's too boring because you find no new conflict. 

Okay, lets say you choose the "Die Option". You die, and die again, and die again because "Die die, never comply." amirite?  Then.. uhh.. you lose.. cuz most of the time its 3-6 vs 9-23. You're gunna get gatted. You'll get salty, lose interest.. and hence.. less players online and RP stagnates.

Finally, you can choose.. "Do not surrender but hide deep in the woods". Now this is obvious RP stagnation. The server is now just keeping to itself while the super group hunts for hours across the map to finally find the "enemy" 2 hours up north in a bush. As soon as you are found, you make up an excuse to go to bed, and log off for the night. RP Stagnation. 

These scenarios are truth. they have happened over and over again over the years.. and it's time we try to bring something new to RP!

Solution: Limit the amount of people allowed to be involved in a "Hostile Action".

No more than say 5 or 6 people can be allowed to commit a "crime" or "hostile action". This will not limit how many people are in a group. You can still have all your buds playing together. But instead of all 20 of you pouncing on 5 or 6 people.. now you must fight with 6 of your people. the other 20 can break into groups of 5 or 6 and create new situations on their own in other parts of the map. But not enact a situation with more then 5 or 6 people involved. Any more than 6 people involved would be considered "Powergaming". 

This rule would be similar to kill rights. It's only used in situations where you are the "Offenders". IF you are peacefully RP-ing  and there are 20 of you, and a group of 5 initiates on you then you gain the right to defend yourself, reguardless of the size of group is around said campfire.

 

This new system would encourage more RP, and help against RP stagnation that has happened in the past. I think we should give it a trial run, how about you?

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

I like the idea and give a +1 but it seems kinda hard to enforce

Link to comment
  • Diamond

While I think this is a good suggestion, I think a better one would be to limit how many people are allowed in one group. Putting a cap on the rosters or dynamics even would promote people making their own groups. 

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

What about dynamic? You make a limit on group size so people just dont put others on the roster?

 

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

I see where you're coming from. But I have to hard disagree. Especially when it only applies to the initiating party. 
This coming from a group that while having many members, rarely have many online at the same time. Usually fighting twice the number.

Won't work, will cause a bunch of logistical issues and is generally just.. Eh. I'm not a fan of it.

Edited by Sasha
Link to comment
  • MVP

I'd be all for giving it a trial run.  I've seen these kinds of rules implemented on other servers, and it personally doesn't seem like a bad idea to spread people out in groups without limiting group size.  It also brings more risk to hostile actions, which I like.  Especially with groups running in sizes of 15-20 people.  I think there could even be an exception made for settlement-based hostile actions, so we can keep attacks on settlements a thing, instead of completely killing that concept.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

I dont think it'd work tbh... can still be abused by multiple groups commiting hostile actions at hte same time conveniently. 

People find loopholes around limits.. always have, always will. 

 

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, STAN said:

What about dynamic? You make a limit on group size so people just dont put others on the roster?

 

It would affect any crime. only a group of 5-6 can commit any crime. Dynamic, or not.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

Big fights are fun 

nah wont work seems boring 

not a fan -1

Link to comment
  • Emerald

Don't have a strong opinion either way tbh. Sounds interesting so i'd be down for a trial.

Link to comment
  • Sapphire

Played on QRP where there’s a group limit of 10 players. Unfortunately this rule doesn’t really work in practice and is extremely hard to enforce. There are so many loopholes, and being someone who used these loopholes on a different server, implementation of a rule limiting groups only restricts the staff team and creates more barriers for development.

I say larger groups should focus more on creating some sort of foundations(which I plan to do with some other group leaders soon) rather than being a horde of bandits, that way the large numbers can be used to focus on the development of server lore.

Link to comment
  • Diamond

Yea I think it'd be a good idea

Edit: Instead of 5-6 how about 10

Edited by Quill
Link to comment
  • MVP

Too many loop holes, those in mega groups can just say 'Oh yeah, we RP'd a lot and now we're allied with them' even though it's rather clear what the cause of the so called alliance is.

 

It'd be a good idea but won't work because people can't stand to lose or further other peoples stories as it is.

Link to comment
  • Emerald

Main question is: How are you going to enforce this?

 

Link to comment
  • Diamond

I find myself agreeing that running across a massive group of goons while playing solo is a massive pain. Even a neutral type of group that finds itself with a vast numbers advantage will get cocky and bully the smaller groups or singular players. However, thats just how the apocalypse is, if you are alone, you are not safe and need to always watch your back. Even small groups dont have it so easy, but at least you can put up a fight if you can outplay the larger groups. 

Gonna have to -1 this one unfortunetly.

Link to comment
  • Emerald

A great idea, enforcement might be difficult but if people actually play by the rules it would work out better for everyone. +1

Link to comment

Oh shit I see how it is. Mega groups are a problem, but yet mega hubs are toats mcgoats fine. Where these cells of 4/6 players gonna go if 90% of the server is 1km from grishino at best !?! ??

 

But seriously, as I have strong opinions that large numbers of people doing he exact same thing in general stagnated RP and dissuaded new story lines,  I like the idea.

However there are too many loop holes to enforce this I'm afraid. 

So -1 the idea BUT + 1 the ideology behind it.

So to bring more discussion to the table I'll add my two cents in and say I reckon there are 3 major issues that stagnate RP that are in the same veins as joff's proposed issue.

-Most people in the same town / area doing the same shit

- 10% chunks.of the server doing the same thing at the same time (e.g being this huge group robbing a small group o duders).

-Groups trying to do hostilities with each other to maybe further story lines, but both sides refusing to back down OOC / figure out where + when us the best point to decide who has won or lost is. Hence the war turning into who gets bored first or who rage quits first.

All of the above related to large groups o' people doing the same shit over and over, the same grevience as joffery had.

 

Whilst jof's solution may not be practical, it certainly is an overarching problem that needs adressing.

P.S: @JoffreyRP your suggestion was a huge wall of text dude... wtf. That's my job! ?

Edited by The Traveler
Link to comment
  • MVP

I've played on Arma 3 communities that have enforced a rule that allowed only 8 members from a group to be rolling together at a time, if more than 8 were on you would have to split parties. This was to prevent mega groups from forming and stomping on the PD, I wouldn't mind giving this idea a trial run just to see how it would go. Who knows what it could lead to, but I would like the number to be raised from 6 to maybe like 8. 8 seemed to work well on the Arma 3 servers that were usually 100-120 man servers. If it works out for the better we keep it, if not then we simply get rid of it and go on how we already are.

Edited by Dew
Link to comment

Difficult to enforce and very easy to circumvent

Groups could just work together, claiming to be separate, they could use unaffliated randos to help with those mass initiations. In theory, could be good if everyone is on board and is of the same mind, but I don't think it's gonna work man, and if I were in a group, I'd like to have some of my pals with me anyways.

Also what about overwatch? They're not directly involved, but they are a part of the situation. And what if someone invites more of their pals over to where a hostage situation is going on as additional security. Hard limiting to 5 or 6 seems a little, ennnhh.  This is all well and good for the solo people or duos, small numbers you get me. But I don't think it solves the problem of RP going stale. RP gets stale all the time, and then it has a resurgence, ups and downs. Really it's up to the individual to try and keep things interesting for themselves and others around them. Feel like shits getting slow, switch it up. But I mean we all know that's not gonna happen, but if you want change start doing it in game.

I see where this is coming from, but I mean people will flock to where their pals are and find ways around it. Doesn't seem great.  

--1

Link to comment
  • Emerald

The idea is interesting. However as some have mentioned it will be very hard to enforce. For example, you have 5 people infront of you robbing you and your mates. You break up and try to fight back, now you start hearing shots from an m4 in the distance. Unless they shoot 30 shots, and then instantly shot more, it is almost impossible to tell if it is 2 people or just 1... or once 1 person dies another just takes their place. I see a lot of people abusing the rule against those who are willing to abide by it.

I will +1 as I think it would be cool, however I do not see it able to be enforced.

Link to comment

no please. ive played fivem servers with this same rule and its absolute cancer. although the point about super groups is valid, it allows for the basic removal of "outnumbering" and for the most part, removal of most ambushes, as why would you initiate without outnumbering them at least to some extent.

heavy -1 from me fam

Edited by N-ToxRP
Link to comment

I think it's good, but would take out of some realism. I would however agree to limit group numbers, not have supergroups. +1

Link to comment
  • Diamond

Personally I don't think that limiting hostile actions to 5-6 people is a good idea. I agree that the 20 vs 2 scenario is boring, and it leads to all the things you mentioned. But by limiting ALL hostile actions to a certain number you are eliminating situations where it makes sense for such a large group to initiate. EX; two large groups have had a continued hostile relationship with a certain person or group. There would be no reason to stop these groups from working together to initiate on a smaller group of enemies. There's safety in numbers after all. As @Mouse & @N-ToxRP said it's simply unrealistic to limit hostile actions to such a small number.

On the other hand I agree with all of the problems you have mentioned. Super-groups have created stagnant RP in the past, and I expect it to happen again. More often than not, at least in my experience, when a large group of people initiates, the RP is put on the back burner, since most of the people will be more concerned about a gunfight. With that many people talking, and the chance of reinforcements coming, inevitably the hostages will be told to "keep quiet or die" which in my opinion is the worst, since there is no back and forth between the people being initiated on, and the people taking the hostile action.

If I had to decide, I would add a limit to the number of people in a group. Maybe 15 people. It's not the best solution by any means, but it's all I've got ?

Edited by dawsonpark
Link to comment
  • Diamond

Nah, people just need to remember the northern alliance, made of multiple groups bound together to defend from bandit groups. 

Also people would just make groups and ally with each other and basically be the same group.

And if you are complaining about stagnant rp, why don't you try and put effort into changing stuff up. Like regardless if theres super groups, rp will get stagnant if you let it become stagnant

Link to comment
  • Brayces locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...