Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2019-11-22, 16:44 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Camo

Suggestion: Forced Armbands

Public Poll: When should Official Groups be required to wear their custom armbands to identify themselves?  

86 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

Posted (edited)

I wanted to see how the community stands on forcing official groups to wear their custom armband, whenever and where-ever they go, but more so specifically when they've been involved or committed a hostile action towards another official group or player(s).

There was a discussion about this here:

Spoiler

 

 

I personally expect right off the bat that a majority of the community will vote "No", and even I myself vote "No" to the idea, but i think it wouldn't be right if we didn't see what others have to say after I outweigh the list of Pros vs Cons that I came up with.

Feel free to share your own list, so that I may edit it into the Original Post.

Note: This is a Public Poll, so your vote will be visible to others. I usually don't do Public Polls, but I want to reach out to any Council who's group majority votes one way, without leaving input.

 

 

Pros

  • "Mis-ID" occurrences will less likely occur, especially when firefights are drawn out for a long-period of time of silence.
  • Firefights will be more fair, especially since players can login, almost at any time to join into the firefight
  • New players can now voice their thoughts easier, and learn to submit a report moreso effectively, and can understand why they were killed in the crossfire. Thus getting a better understanding of the rules.

 

Cons

  • If the armband wearer offended another party in the past, he can now be spotted by anyone, who may be out to get them. Especially when traveling alone.
  • A "dynamically" connected player(s) with an official group who has Defender Rights, technically wouldn't need an armband, and could run around the town shooting his now easily identifiable opponents.
  • Offical group members have to pay €9 for custom-group armbands.
  • All players must wait a 3-hour cooldown before they can spawn a new armband, and get involved in a new hostile encounter.
Edited by Camo

Share this post


Link to post

The main reason I voted no is that when somebody sees another person, his plans or mentality will change straight away, when he recognizes the armband. First example: some people will straight run away from an armband they recognize. Second example: Some people will go straight hostile towards a random person they've recognized thanks to the armband. It makes no IC sense for a person to wear an armband so he can be recognized by every single person on the road. Reference: I loved the scene that was in show called Jericho, where an agent gave an advice to cover the city name on the car and remove plates from police vehicles (after multiple nuclear explosion were seen) before sending them on scouting missions, so if somebody spots them, they wouldn't even know where they came from.

Being incognito is a strong chip in hostilities and in my opinion all corners are covered by the current ruleset. If you want to pvp then make sure it's a valid target you're shooting at. If you want to run into an active firefight to loot or "uhmm let's see what's what" - you can be slapped with NVFL.

Think twice before pulling the trigger, think twice before aproaching gun shots. It's just common sense...

Share this post


Link to post

No.
Just, no.

I dont wanna be forced to identify myself to a group 24/7, it makes no IC sense for people to just parade around in armbands that instantly give away who/what they are so people can either run away or instantly get hostile with me.

Share this post


Link to post

This community and armbands are not in the best of terms.

I see the pros but the cons are just too many.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok so I get the point your trying to make but it's a no. The people above me cover the points on why it's a no but one big thing I see is that you'll have to PAY for the custom armbands. Some people don't really buy things on the item shop so this would be a way to force them to buy something. Just my thought tho.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Inferno said:

Ok so I get the point your trying to make but it's a no. The people above me cover the points on why it's a no but one big thing I see is that you'll have to PAY for the custom armbands. Some people don't really buy things on the item shop so this would be a way to force them to buy something. Just my thought tho.

Yeah, thinking of it. I question if Roland would make it mandatory to be purchased. I once suggested this quotation (in spoiler) in reply to a couple threads I saw back in June.

Spoiler
On 6/28/2019 at 12:49 AM, Camo said:

To be honest. I think Roland should just charge 10 euros to the group creator, of any official group requesting a custom armband, and then charge 3 euros to every member that would like to purchase the direct access to their group's insigna armband with a the cooldown of 1 hour (NLR timer).

With that being said, having group insigna armbands as a purchaseable option for ANY person to spawn is a likely cause for players to violate Rule 3.9 (impersonation).

 

Share this post


Link to post

In the past we used to have the XML Logo appear on our clothes, as to distinguish groups, so yeah technically it wouldn't make a difference for me.

But I am gonna say no, mainly because most of the groups around are not even structured the way the mod groups were... It could be a choice of the group leader to use them, but it should not be an obbligation by a written rule.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted but just wanted to write my thoughts on it.

I think less rules lead to more organic roleplay and in this context, don't think people should have forced armbands. That being said,

In a perfect world it would be nice to know who is part of a group and who isn't, especially for those heated roleplay sessions or gunfights. I've seen enough reports where guessing who to shoot doesn't always work out. However I like the idea that players can change their outfits to hid from someone they've wronged. The bigger groups don't really care and usually stay in uniform from what I've seen and the smaller groups who do change are often doing it for their own safety or because they don't have the numbers to run into players they've wronged.

So I don't want a new rule. I wish groups could make it more clear who is and is not a part of them during hostile or non hostile situations but that's just a personal preference and it happens the vast majority of times anyways from my experience. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Meh. I don't think this should be forced. You wouldn't know who were part of a group/organization IRL either, and being in an official group (say a spy group or anything trying to lay low) shouldn't immediately expose your identity.

Share this post


Link to post

Big no from me because:

  • Having an inside man is used a lot and is an acceptable thing to do within the rules.  This would just take the ability away from official groups to have an inside man which makes no sense and will just add to peoples confusion about what they can and cant do as official or dynamic groups.
  • This takes away the ability of a person to try and lie their way out of a situation and deny who they are or who they are with.  No matter how convincing the lie it wont matter as they have a visual reference to know you are lying, being the armband (seems like a subtle form of meta-gaming without it actually being meta-gaming).
  • Even if it is only for combat, let's say you have an inside man, once their group initiates, they will be forced to put on their armband.  Doing this while inside a building full of people who have been initiated on is basically NVFL as the chances of making it out if they decide to not comply may be slim to none.
  • This will just be another petty thing for salty people to report on in terms of rule breaks if they "lose" a firefight, we all know that sometimes the "real battle" is fought in the report section and not IG cause some people/groups cant keep IC and OOC seperated.
  • If you are in an official group and run into an active firefight then chances are you already have rights and people have rights on you anyway.  The only real confusion I see is where people run into an active firefight who are not in an official group and don't have any rights cause they are using their sweet sweet rule-armour to either loot dead bodies and/or try and insert themselves into the firefight.  If they die trying to do this, even if it is technically a rule-break, they should get NVFL and/or ruleplay and/or false report and the person that shot them should get a pat on the back, three cheers and a parade through Kabanino.  I should clarify that the context is important here as if there has been no shooting for a while and they wander into a town, see a dead body sitting there and go loot it, or approach people in town (who, in my experience are more than likely tell them there's a firefight and they need to leave) then this is different.  If there hasn't been shooting for a while people should be more hesitant in pulling the trigger and should probably tell them to get out of town and explain there is a firefight gong on.  If they still stay then it's their own fault.  Armbands won't change peoples own stupidity though.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're in a fight yeah, everything else no.

Share this post


Link to post

It should be the group's choice on whether they wish to wear their armband or not. I don't agree with being forced to wear one, because people aren't ID'ing their enemies correctly, or people are running into active firefights.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Nope nope nope, 

1. You’ll kill the player base 

2. You’ll ruin any RP - group a in yellow is beefing with group b red, group a are chilling in cherno and group b send a scout in and find out they are there without ANY RP

3. I won’t be forced to wear something that gives anyone an advantage over me that is not skilled based 

4. They look terrible 

5. Just no 

6. People will just play on dynamics to skirt around the arm band (so would I) 

 

with Janniks thing if you are dumb enough to run into or you see dead people and gun shots ring past you then you deserve to get clapped and should be punished for even risking your life 

Edited by ne_om

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don't agree with this nor do I want it. Ever. This pretty much eliminates any type of inside man tactic, spying, or infiltration RP that can take place. If it's put in place I would never join or make an official group.

Edited by Zero

Share this post


Link to post

Forcing official groups to identify themselves with an armband puts them at a dis-advantage compared to dynamic groups.

It's a no from me.

Share this post


Link to post

I vote no, it's just not natural. 

It takes away what is an individuals anonymity and assigning that to a group they  might not be completely alinde to. 

I wouldn't want someone to judge my character by the armband I wear.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

During fights is the only reason I could see them having to use them since 10-20 ppl get rights just by logging in.

Edited by Eagle

Share this post


Link to post

During Hostile interactions, I agree with that. Makes killing the enemy easier and avoiding innocent by standers better. Also if some players are unarmed medics (I haven't seen) then it can prevent killing people who are there to help. If only. 

Share this post


Link to post

I've been wondering if anyone was ever going to bring this topic up.

I voted for the hostile interaction, just because i'm sitting on maybe for it. I think that it would be a good thing to implement ONLY for hostile action taken so that it takes away the Mis IDs however I do not believe that groups should be forced to wear them 24/7. 

However, the reason i'm on the whole 'maybe' vibe is that what if group a attacks a group of friends who aren't an official group. After leaving the situation, obviously there are still active rights. The advantage now is that the official group would have an identifier on them while the group of friends wouldn't. I also think this would be hard to enforce as well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I vaguely recall the "group war KOS rule" - in such a scenario it might make sense to force armbands on if group A and B didn't have clear identifying marks beyond that, but 24/7? No, mostly for aforementioned reasons.

Edited by Combine

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...