Jump to content

Server time (UTC): 2022-01-22 04:52

Rover

Legend

"Red Rover Red Rover....."

  • Posts

    2055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Rover last won the day on October 23 2021

Rover had the most liked content!

TIME PLAYED

653 h 5.56 Collector

Account information

  • Whitelisted YES
  • Last played 2 months ago

Recent Profile Visitors

13061 profile views
  • Jim Smokes

  • Jared

  • Kontro

  • Maxchen

  • TheFalx

Rover's Achievements

Beanz Farmer

Beanz Farmer (13/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • One Year In
  • One Month Later
  • Week One Done
  • Reacting Well

Recent Badges

1.7k

Reputation

  1. About time, good luck

  2. My valve index arrived today.

     

    time for some Vee Arr.

     

    200.gif

    1. Kermit

      Kermit

      Could recommend Beat Saber. Very nice game, especially when you have custom songs with mods.

  3. Griefing is not about the contents of your base, its about your base. Raiding it is allowed. Razing it to the ground isn't. IE: You have a compound of walls surrounding a single building. They are allowed to break whatever required to reasonably get to your precious precious pixelated items, and take off with them. Thats it. If they destroy every wall, that is griefing. If they don't /take/ your items, but instead dump them on the ground so you can't have them, thats griefing. Its incredibly situational, and usually has to be looked at through the lens of the specific scenario. But stealing items isn't griefing in almost all cases. It used to be a common occurrence for base owners to just leave their base unlocked, since people won't destroy your walls unless they have to. Traders are currently disabled, may be back at a later point. I'm retired
  4. There are ways for Gamemasters to figure this out. One of the issues surrounding NLR is it’s on a timer. I believe a player body despawns around 30 minutes after death if not interacted with? In order for the above to work we would need GM coverage available. Part of the reasons why in the past this idea was shot down was players with Gamemaster Friends would likely have a higher chance of success at getting service, compared to someone that doesn’t have one on speed dial. Additionally, players playing in the ‘off’ time would be shit out of luck unless one of the GMs/Admins is sleep deprived and doing an all-nighter. Im personally indifferent on it. The last time I died to a glitch was 2019, when a car sent me to the moon with three other people. If there was an easy way to do it that is consistently fair to all involved, I don’t really care if people get a poof back. I know it happens already during events, or when staff are the cause of accidental deaths.
  5. Thank you, Orthodox sinner, for taking the time to make a suggested rule change. I can understand the sentiment you have, but here is a question for you: How do you the player know there wasn't anyone around? I bring this up as an example every time someone mentions glitches/players not being around. I was once trying to roleplay with a man, who was doing a good job getting away from me. (He was looting, didn't see me). I eventually saw him, just as he seemed to die to nothing. I assume he got the glitched zombies long-arming him. After clearing out the zombies, I went up and looted his corpse, and since he was loaded down and double-carrying backpacks of guns and ammo, it was taking me a while. Within about 10 minutes or so, a freshspawn runs up to me and tells me it was his stuff, give it back. The dude respawned and ran back. In his eyes, there wasn't anyone there, cause he never saw me. But I saw him. In terms of Chernarus, the place this happened would be considered 'remote' and 'isolated'. "isolated area" is not defined. Nyheim, for example, is all isolated areas other then the major cities. And with the population what it is, everything is isolated. So you can't really use a subjective term. Normally when players die with no one around them, they continue their story as if they never died. This generally won't be a problem unless someone who happened to watch you go down wants to be a dick about it, and call you out, but that would be silly and that person would get slapped if they got called to HD and tried to claim you were dead. No different then the times people die in firefights yet are later alive to yell at the same people that killed them another day.
  6. This is another topic that has come up and gone down repeatedly this year. So to reiterate the same point for the umpteenth time. A complete unban wave is never going to happen. Some people that got banned got banned for some utterly reprehensible, degenerate shit. Stuff that in many countries is illegal. Other people got banned cause former staff were biased and just wanted them gone. Other people got banned for a series of minor things that build up to them getting permed. The latter two I'd want to come back, but through the amnesty process. Amnesty exists, at the lowest price its ever been, and final warnings were tweaked so that people are not likely to get tossed for a single UP or other such thing. Its the most generous its been, and has resulted in many people coming back. If you give it away, you'll get back the people who don't give a shit, and just see a free chance to be their old selves that got them banned again. We've seen similar behavior in the past from people that got banned, applied for amnesty and failed, then tried to 'sneak in' only to mass KOS and be twats about it.
  7. 100% tires should be added to loot. If people can remove them to save their items, good on them. Its not really AOGM. People could really feasibly take a tire or sparkplug out of their car. Hell, I remove the firing pins from my real life firearms just in case they ever get stolen, I store them somewhere else. But in our game, if you can't find them other then on the spawned vehicle, they should be made available in game to counter that. I don't think it should be deemed AOGM though, as its kinda hard to track that. There are no logs for someone logging out with/without a tire on their person, short of staff hovering over where they last logged out and hoping they log back in.
  8. andrey pls Might need a revisit to step #1 and step #2, rules typically follow the punishment guides laid out here. I will consider writing a new guide for how to ask for punishments to be changed for you
  9. You are waking up, you grab your cup of coffee, and you log onto the forum to see the 50th iteration of a community member you don't recognize asking for the same rules everyone always asks for to be changed. You open the thread, and the conversation is exactly what it is every time. Drama, memes, backhanded flame, and zero productive results from the thread before staff swoop in and close it before it devolves into a flame-fest and results in strikes through names. So how do you propose a rule? In this thread, I'll give my two cents on it. I'm Rover, former Administrator, irrelevant Canadian, etc. There are something like 7 or 8 rules I directly wrote, helped to write, or helped to have added/revised/changed on the current rules list of DayZRP. The process I use in pushing through a rules change will be detailed below, and hopefully it'll give people that want to effect an actual change on the community some ammunition to prepare themselves a thread that will be taken seriously. For the purposes of this thread, I will use changing the current base raiding rules as an example. (Please do not respond to argue about base raiding, if you want to push for it to be changed take what you learn here and make a suggestion thread.) Step #1: Identify the Problem Sounds straightforwards, right? Well, its not. There are many elements to be considered, and the more specific and pointed you manage to get yourself the better. Specifically regarding Base Raiding rules, and the abundance of hostilities towards anything held together with nails and ropes. Are you unhappy with.... being raided? Being raided while offline? That people do it without interacting you? You need to sit down, look over the actual situation not only from your own corner, but open your mind a bit and look at it from both the opposition parties corner, and from the staff corner. Some options below: Being raided while offline Having my base being taken over by someone else My stashes completely emptied and stolen Being raided without any prior roleplay The problem I will elect to specifically claim as an issue, is being raided with zero prior interaction. I will make that the issue I am trying to resolve; not the offline aspect, but the fact that I am getting raided by people whom have never met me, never seen me, never roleplayed with me, yet will break into my base when I am either not present, or when I am in another location on the map. Step #2: Identify the Sticking Points. This requires a person to be able to look at a situation objectively. You must be able to understand the opposing sides parties, the way the opposing side will abuse your rule proposal, and the way /your own/ side will abuse your rule proposal. Finally, you must look at it from a staff perspective of how the staff team will view the rule. All rules need to have two basic criteria in my eyes, in some form or other. Players must be able to abide by the rules Staff must be able to track, enforce, and act on infractions. Right off the bat, bullet point number 1 is quite easy here. The Raiding party must know who lives at a place they are going to raid, and must have interacted with them. Easy, right? (As a quick aside: Had I chosen offline raiding, this would be a no-go. Players have no way to tell when you are offline/online, or when you are online but not at your base, and its rife for abuse with people just logging out to avoid getting raided the moment they suspect a raid may be coming) The issue is when you look at it from a point of abuse. That means that stashes/bases built in the middle of nowhere where you don't spend any time become 'immune' to raiding. If I'm never around the base, other then when I'm stashing gear or using it, then its incredibly unlikely that anyone could ever possibly identify it as being mine. That puts base owners at a potential point of abuse, around stashes. For major hubs/camps in well populated areas it would work just fine, but we need a succinct, easy to read, easy to process rule that covers all situations in the best light. That sticking point would make the first proposal quite difficult to enforce. (See how I 'work around' that in step#3) Finally, it becomes nearly impossible for staff to conclusively act on this. Staff have no real way to know and prove whenever someone finds something out ICly. Its difficult to run down the rumor-mill. Someone can just say "I heard from a friend its owned by <x>". One counterpoint to that would be requiring that people have proof they learned it ICly. Another concern around this specific approach would be... What if someone lies to you? You ask if they live there, they say yes, you raid it later, turns out they lied and someone else did? This sort of nuanced thing can make for a noodly spiderweb of complications and confusions, making the first proposal difficult to follow through. So at this point, you have three choices. Return to Step#1 and change your problem, if you came to realize that the problem you elected is one that can't easily be fixed. Get help trying to figure out the sticking points, and keep working over and mulling the idea in your head until you come up with something that works. Be happy that you overcame the sticking points, and move to Step #3. Step #3: Write the rule. We have all seen the threads with the polls asking if people want new rules, if they agree with rules, if they want change. I can count on one hand the number of times people actually presented a rule change. Taking the time to formulate your thoughts and write a rule addendum out with your own hands will put your suggestion leaps and bounds above other threads, and give people something of substance to actually look at. (for the record I don't think the below will work in practice) For this specific example, I will steal the griefing rule and attempt to draft an example of how you could try to rephrase it. Your goal here when you do this is to use as few words as possible. It should be brief, clear, and not easy to misconstrue. Unfortunately for most of these more nuanced issues that community members wish to change, most rules fixes would result in giant walls of texts with examples, splits, and situational specifics, none of which are conducive to natural organic roleplay. Existing Rule 4.8 Proposed Change: Step 4: Write the Proposal This is where you go and write the thread, and pitch your rule change. I encourage you explaining the reasoning behind it in depth and detail, and more importantly explain exactly why you feel the change is necessary. This is always better steeped in personal experiences, not 'I heard' or 'People say'. People say a lot of shit they pull from no where, its critical you try to make clear you considered both sides. For most people pushing a rule change, they don't think about anything other then the pro's of their proposal, not the downsides. Example: As you can see in the above rule change, I largely left rule 4.8 as it existed. I specifically removed STRUCTURE from the first line, and added a second line to identify player built structures as bases. The reasoning for why I did this is I don't want random player stashes (tents, barrels, etc) in the woods in the middle of no where to have protection. That is just gear RP. So what my proposal would do is protect fenced in compounds, as well as buildings that were taken over by players, from randomly being raided into the ground for no reason. It leaves raiders open to go after stashes and other things, but would force roleplay around dedicated player hubs and structures. The downside of my example, is people can still slap a door on a cabin and make a stash in the middle of no where. I'm not sure how to address this. This above blurb would be where I'd get stuck, if I was trying to fix the raiding thing. Hopefully during the discussion in the thread, people that want the change to happen would come forwards with suggestions for how to stop people from abusing 'stash-bases' that they don't use as RP hubs. Conclusion To reiterate. Please don't argue about base raiding. This thread is for people to understand the process I'd use if I wanted to meaningfully suggest a change. If someone reading this goes 'Pshaw, its not my job to figure out the rule, I just want to complain and have them fix it' you are part of the problem. I've always believed if community members want to make a change in the community, you have to shoulder some of that burden yourself. The process above should serve two purposes. If you follow it, it will hopefully open your eyes to the issues the staff team faces any time they try to adjust or change or add a rule. The above is basically how internal discussions go, with the majority of time spent between Step #2 & #3 trying to figure out how not to have something be abused by one side or another. It should also help your suggestions be taken more seriously by both the community and the staff team. Its far better to come to a discussion armed with a suggestion then just throwing up a 'I'm not happy!' and having a suggestion of 'fix it'.
  10. It’s hard to prove it obviously, but doing that used to be under ghosting/some other rule I can’t be bothered to go dig up. IIRC, the character swap thing wasn’t a bad idea but caused more problems then it solved. You can STILL dodge consequences (if that’s the concern) if you just do it and then play the other character for a day/week/whatever the limit is. it’s a solution that doesn’t fix the issue and just has other restrictions. Ideally a cultural change in community members playing out issues would be better then more rules/restrictions.
  11. You are never going to get a 100% clean slate ban. If people won't pay 25 euros to come back, they can't be terribly motivated to come back. There is something to be said about a different return then final warning, but oh wait, that was already added. People go on 25 points now, meaning they won't get done in for anything other then flaming, or an in game rulebreak, instead of the pain of someone getting permed on UPs.
  12. Staff have and do make exceptions, usually when staff are involved. The times I've seen it happen: - Event Accidents - We know you got killed during someone committing a mass rule break. But the reason you can't return to your body due to glitches/accidents/etc, is because you don't know if someone was watching. I've had it happen. Someone got stuck in a door, died, and I found their body. A few minutes later, a freshspawn naked runs up to me, standing over his body, and tells me its his stuff and his body. It doesn't work too well in RP. Thats why its been that way. As for how/why it could be changed, many options have been presented, none that really fix the issues behind why the rule is there. The rule is primarily there to stop people from snowballing an event by constantly running back in and dying again and again. Its far, far FAR easier to have a 'blanket rule' then have a rule with 55 exceptions for what situations you can go back in. Its why its been boiled down to this: "Don't go back for 1 hour."
  13. As others have said, it doesn't work well. It caused many people to experience issues around gunfights, including myself, and I am largely for some reason generally immune to 'PC problems' when it comes to issues in DayZ, but this mod did fuck with my ability to play. Additionally, the bloodsplatters aren't even that good. They also have a tendency to land on weird as fuck things, like a chainlink fence with a solid blood splatter on it, and it looks... bad.
  14. The amount of caustic bitching and whining over dead horses being brought back to life to beat again sure as heck does not make the website more inviting. It makes it look like a toxic community to be avoided.
  15. Please follow the guide I wrote here, it should sort you out. The reason it likely signed you in on the old discord was because it was the one logged into the browser you used to click the button.
×
×
  • Create New...