Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-12-11, 23:21 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Apollo

Current State of Rule(s)

Current state of Rules  

89 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

4 minutes ago, NozzyRP said:

-snip-

The issue with surveys and polls is that the majority of players do not participate in them.

When was the last time you answered a survey from a website?

 

35 votes does not represent a community vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Ducky said:

The issue with surveys and polls is that the majority of players do not participate in them.

When was the last time you answered a survey from a website?

 

35 votes does not represent a community vote.

That's exactly what i was talking about, the people who care about the problem and wants to fix it are the ones here discussing it. If things were as problem free and fine as some make it out to be then there would be more people here saying we should keep the rules the same. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, NozzyRP said:

That's exactly what i was talking about, the people who care about the problem and wants to fix it are the ones here discussing it. If things were as problem free and fine as some make it out to be then there would be more people here saying we should keep the rules the same. 

 

Typically it is human nature for the people that want something changed to be loud about it. Rarely do the people happy with something leap up to praise it until its changed away from what they wanted, then they will demand for it to be changed back.

 

There is a very loud and very vocal minority that feels directly targeted by the recent verdict that is raising most of this protest. Justifiably mind you, if they have been doing it for so long and didn't realize that your target not being aware of your presence prior to the initiation was a rule break. 

 

But a poll, especially one worded as the one that was in that thread, not covering any of the nuance and serving as nothing other then a bandwagon gathering point, doesn't do itself any service in trying to justify the communities opinion, as it was a strawman of the actual incident in question.

Share this post


Link to post

Roland already stated he is not changing the way the rules are or how they will be. So there's no point is going off about how vague or undefined they are. That's what Roland wants, and that's how they're going to be. The only new things added being clarification when new mechanics or items are added into the core game/mod. 

And I agree with him to a degree. Having a rule stating every little thing is too much to handle, and too much to wade through both Staff and Player wise. Just focus on the Role Play for everyone involved and you should be fine. Don't focus on PVP, don't focus on winning, don't be toxic IG, on the forums, or in TS/Discord and ask yourself if the RP you're doing is enjoyable for EVERYONE and not just you and your friends. There will be times the GMs mess up, and that's where Appeals come in. You've seen Roland or the Admins go in and overturn a Appeal or a Report Verdict because of the outcome, so it's not uncommon. GMs are humans too, and as humans they also can make mistakes.

If you're unsure about anything you're wanting to do, run it by a Staff Member (who will likely check with the rest of Staff) or run it by the people who you will be engaging with. If it's on the fly, act in the best interest of RP for EVERYONE and typically that can pan out in your favor rule wise. You mess up? Approach the person respectfully and explain your side of things then, and this is highly important, let them explain their side to you as well. Calmly, respectfully. Not everyone will see eye to eye and there will be times where rules are broken, but we learn from these experiences and move forward. If you're constantly finding yourself in Reports breaking rules, then re-evaluate how you're engaging in RP, and how you're approaching others both IC/IG and OOC then adjust yourself accordingly. If you can't, are not willing to, or don't see yourself as doing any wrong, then feel free to leave. This is obviously not the place for you.

Share this post


Link to post
On 9/2/2019 at 7:02 PM, Jackfish said:

The rules have been changed a couple of times in the last couple of years and people will never be happy with them.

Changing the rules won't fix all your problems because people will always find something else to bitch about.

I feel like it's mostly the hostile RPers compaining about the rules. Especially the initiation rules.

Maybe it's time to be original and find different ways to be hostile instead of "All of you put your hands up or you are dead". And if you want to kill some people without having to RP with them then join a public server and shoot some people.

 

This attitude, more than any rule, is exactly why myself and many people I know don't bother to get on. Yourself and people like yourself want to turn DayZ into something it isn't when all I want to do is grill get online and get into some hostilities (while following rules) without people crying.

Share this post


Link to post

I personally believe that the rules should be as close to black and white as we can make it. Stuff like "recently role played" in the defensive rights category go left completely undefined, outside of select reports no doubt, which leave both the community members and returning members quite confused. Sometimes, I wish we had no defensive rights (or defensive dynamic) capabilities due to this (tbh, I am still quite a fan of no dynamics but I'm always open to suitable middle ground). At least defining very basic things in these circumstances would make the rules 10x clearer as they are.

Do they need a revamp? I think so, get rid of the ones that don't work and then replace with solutions we think might. This has, and should, always been the case with a lot of stuff here. But, there are a lot of rules such as kill rights and NLR (I know we tried this before but still, didn't really work both ways in my opinion). Maybe a return to a simpler rule set might be beneficial as a whole and then we add on from there.

I can also agree with Rolle here, a lot of the bans that occur is because people do not respect the ideals of fair play. I remember as a GM all those times that I wrote combat logging, KOS, RDM and powergaming verdicts for people that completely know the rules (and people who didn't give a fuck to read) but simply just do not care. But there are always exceptions to this, for example, punching someone is not, and never has been, an initiation. To start a hostile encounter, you do not need to initiate. An initiation is when I want to take the people captive to do what I want. When you hostile RP it does come with a certain risk, something might go wrong. This risk here is not worth mitigating from a rules standpoint, this is to hands on. This isn't a daycare, I do not need a hand guiding me through every situation, I need to be told what must not happen and work from there. Some grey are might be fine, but not so much it causes so much confusion in the playerbase.

Edited by Hebirura

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hebirura said:

I personally believe that the rules should be as close to black and white as we can make it. Stuff like "recently role played" in the defensive rights category go left completely undefined, outside of select reports no doubt, which leave both the community members and returning members quite confused. Sometimes, I wish we had no defensive rights (or defensive dynamic) capabilities due to this (tbh, I am still quite a fan of no dynamics but I'm always open to suitable middle ground). At least defining very basic things in these circumstances would make the rules 10x clearer as they are.

Do they need a revamp? I think so, get rid of the ones that don't work and then replace with solutions we think might. This has, and should, always been the case with a lot of stuff here. But, there are a lot of rules such as kill rights and NLR (I know we tried this before but still, didn't really work both ways in my opinion). Maybe a return to a simpler rule set might be beneficial as a whole and then we add on from there.

I can also agree with Rolle here, a lot of the bans that occur is because people do not respect the ideals of fair play. I remember as a GM all those times that I wrote combat logging, KOS, RDM and powergaming verdicts for people that completely know the rules (and people who didn't give a fuck to read) but simply just do not care. But there are always exceptions to this, for example, punching someone is, and never has been, an initiation. To start a hostile encounter, you do not need to initiate. An initiation is when I want to take the people captive to do what I want. When you hostile RP it does come with a certain risk, something might go wrong. This risk here is not worth mitigating from a rules standpoint, this is to hands on. This isn't a daycare, I do not need a hand guiding me through every situation, I need to be told what must not happen and work from there. Some grey are might be fine, but not so much it causes so much confusion in the playerbase.

Very thoughtful and respectable idea you have here. I can get behind most of it. But im a bit confused. You said at the start that you wanted more black & white rules but end with accepting grey rules more. Are you saying the rules should be more black and white? OR if we cant have that, the rules should be more grey and more directional and less dictatorial? Like a guide to assist players to healthy RP? 

Either way, very well said sir. 

Share this post


Link to post

If you are going to shit talk behind a wall when it's like 3 of y'all against maybe 18 and shit talk over the radio, then you deserve what's coming to ya. But if the attacking force is here just to wipe out the entire group just because or because of an incident that happened weeks or months ago, then do not expect them to surrender. That attacking group is clearly there for PvP. Now if your group is seeking revenge and there is good RP to go with the attack, then go for it. I've always believed that there should be no resentment to each other in OOC. Hell I encourage players to discuss RP events among themselves. Like a big attack with a discussed possible outcome or what ever. I say if you are killed during an attack, then the IC resentment and hatred to the group needs to end! And as for executions, that tough for me. People will just execute anyone for anything just because but at the same time, I've seen a player get executed, by being shot, beheaded, and shot again and that player STILL shit talks and comes back with resentment. That has to stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Crimson_Tiger said:

Very thoughtful and respectable idea you have here. I can get behind most of it. But im a bit confused. You said at the start that you wanted more black & white rules but end with accepting grey rules more. Are you saying the rules should be more black and white? OR if we cant have that, the rules should be more grey and more directional and less dictatorial? Like a guide to assist players to healthy RP? 

Either way, very well said sir. 

When it comes to rulesets, they should be as black and white as they possibly can be. However, there will always be some grey area so it is important to limit what we actually have as much as we can. some grey area is fine, a lot isn't

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, APositiveElmo said:

All I'd change about the current ruleset is the scope of 2.3. I'd widen it to include not just anti-dogbraining measures, but also anti-stonewalling measures too. Too often have decent hostile RPers been stonewalled by people shit talking behind their walls, radio warriors who refuse to die after being beaten in fights multiple times, people who snap themselves back into existence after an execution, causing a neverending storyline that just leads to resentment on both sides. Stamping out both cancerous behaviours is the only way to move forward imo.

Also change 4.5 back so victims of hostile situations can log without a timer.

giphy.gif

Wouldn't it be amazing if the groups that shit talk and lose had actual consequences to acting like nothing happened. Elmo is definitely a visionary 😄

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, APositiveElmo said:

All I'd change about the current ruleset is the scope of 2.3. I'd widen it to include not just anti-dogbraining measures, but also anti-stonewalling measures too. Too often have decent hostile RPers been stonewalled by people shit talking behind their walls, radio warriors who refuse to die after being beaten in fights multiple times, people who snap themselves back into existence after an execution, causing a neverending storyline that just leads to resentment on both sides. Stamping out both cancerous behaviours is the only way to move forward imo.

Also change 4.5 back so victims of hostile situations can log without a timer.

image.png.456229fac1d143b4701a010f2572230c.png

Hitting the nail on the head right here. If only 2.3 actually took into consideraction other IC actions besides shooting and initiating The House wouldn't have been 2.3'd and force archived and the rule would work for both sides of the debate

Edited by NozzyRP

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, NozzyRP said:

Hitting the nail on the head right here. If only 2.3 actually took into consideraction other IC actions besides shooting and initiating The House wouldn't have been 2.3'd and force archived and the rule would work for both sides of the debate

Maybe it would be different, maybe not, all I know is that its not an inclusive rule right now and that needs to change 🙏

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to see rules on assaulting people's bases change... by applying a cool down timer (That includes an attacking group's Allies) would prevent groups from being constantly attacked every five minutes because they are getting rolled every time they look up... this would force groups to consider their attacks more carefully and it would give the people inside these bases a chance to actively roleplay (which is what they were here to do in the first place)  resentment comes from being constantly attacked, resentment comes from not being given chances to recover and do it better next time. When it comes to defensive rights, there needs to be change so it's not constant harassment. 
Just me own person view. 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Pepper said:

-snip-

How about no

If some group fucks up and I want to raid them as a result, i'm not waiting some clueless "timer" to attack them. If they want a way out that doesn't involve us attacking them, then that group needs to do some serious repenting / appealing. All of the current groups have means to stop them attacking that actually involve roleplay and not a silly rule. Especially considering how often groups sit in their base, talk shit and then pikachu-face when they get attacked for it. 

If somebody is constantly attacking you for no reason so you can't get anything done, it's time to leave feedback on their group page or make a glorious 2.3 report. 

Also, fuck the amount of shit people horde inside their bases. Bring back the monthly wipes pls @Roland. There's 100s of entities inside each base and we wonder why the server performance is questionable, given we can't actually despawn any of it without getting banned.

Edited by APositivePara

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Pepper said:

- ✂️ -

No.
There should be no in game "timer" rule to hide behind when getting attacked.
If someone is attacking you constantly, perhaps its time to relocate, go into hiding, hire some defenders, or try negotiate with the attackers... yknow... roleplay.

I also agree with @APositivePara PLEASE bring back monthly wipes I beg you... 

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, APositivePara said:

- snip- 

I did mention that it's my own personal view, ultimately a very grain of salt one. alternatively in response to Fae, another really great idea is roam around (you get attacked a hell of a lot less)  NOT DISAGREEING HERE ^^^  

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Pepper said:

-snip-

There used to be a rule like this that applied to faction bases in early 2017. I quite liked it, even if it was a headache to enforce. A cooling off period seems like a no-brainer for base attacks, we have it for deaths, why not attacks too?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Pepper said:

I did mention that it's my own personal view, ultimately a very grain of salt one. alternatively in response to Fae, another really great idea is roam around (you get attacked a hell of a lot less)  NOT DISAGREEING HERE ^^^  

Prior to bases, people would be forced to roam around, or claim a small town as their own for a little while, if the attacks got too constant they can try to work something out with their attackers or if they are still attacked staying in a town was not too big of an investment, it was mainly a few tents and maybe some barrels. There were no walls, gates and time poured into a base that people feel extremely invested to stay in, which will attract those to want to attack the base(s) because for whatever reason, with no bases people walk around sporadically throughout the map and you would run into people all around, its unfortunate that base building has forced people to hide wherever they put up the 4 stack walls and feel like they can trash talk people outside because they feel invincible. 

Possible rule improvement : No bases to be built with higher than 2 stack walls, its unrealistic that a regular ass guy is able to carry a shit ton of wood up above 2 stack walls and place the third one down with precision, also creates a restriction and help reduce lag created from monster bases.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Apollo said:

Possible rule improvement : No bases to be built with higher than 2 stack walls, its unrealistic that a regular ass guy is able to carry a shit ton of wood up above 2 stack walls and place the third one down with precision, also creates a restriction and help reduce lag created from monster bases.

I can agree to that. Maybe bases can't take up an entire town either unless it's an RP hub, in which case, the gate need to be opened unless under attack. Like how they had it in Cherno before they started locking up the place. It was great to come and go as you please. And for there to be a guard present. That was a good place to hang out. There is a great Suggestion Thread that has brought up the discussion of base building as well as wipes. I'd refer to here:

 

Share this post


Link to post

<redacted>

Edited by Camo

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...