Jump to content
Server time: 2017-10-17, 15:25
Safe Zone: OPENING SOON

BellTronZ

Donor
  • Content count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Noobie

Account information

  • Whitelisted YES

About BellTronZ

  • Birthday 02/07/85
  1. Suggestion to increase the quality of the server

    I literally just finishing my Re-Whitelisting after a long break away from the community. I can't attest to the amount of rule-breaking occurring. But I do prefer the old white-list method.
  2. Greetings to the community. My name is Gareth. (GT BellTronZ). Hello to you all. I was a fairly frequent player on the DayZRP servers in the months leading up to switch to Stand Alone. At the time, DayZSA was a glitchy and unplayable mess for me, so I took a long break from the game. With the release of the .60 patch and some nice PC upgrades, the game is now finally getting close to where it should be. I'm really excited to return to DayZRP. I'm likely going to be playing solo until I settle in again. I look forward to some quality encounters in Chernarus. Peace
  3. (Dead) [OFC] Order From Chaos [Archive]

    Looking great so far man! Good job. Love the emblem.
  4. Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!

    I see your point. I don't think Parley is a "monster of a rule" however. Both parties agree not to shoot each other for a set period. It's like a half time break... but for a firefight. By "gaining ground" I simply meant that people could not take advantage of the cease fire by running through the defensive line during the parley period. You could even remove that bit and just have the rule be "an agreed suspension of KoS for the duration of parley" I have been in situations like this before and I have NEVER managed to arrange successful talks beyond shouting across a wall... After a long engagement, neither side wants to back down and every invite to "talk it out is" is viewed as a ploy. And as I previously stated... people in gun fights have their mind in the gun fight... not in RP mode. This is why IMO their needs to be an option for people to meet face to face and RP out there options. Their is yes, but IMO arranging an exit strategy for civs in the compound is extremely chaotic during an active engagement. You're basically trying to take cover and shoot at each other, while at the same time shouting over a wall to try and figure out what the hell is going on. Talks under a parley period would give both sides a chance to make this clear to all parties involved. Exactly Fenris! LOL. All Parleys will be equally as epic! Guarenteed.
  5. Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!

    Nothing I am proposing alters the way initiations are handled whatsoever. You can still launch surprise attacks same as always. Parley is designed to fit somewhere in middle of a fight to allow for role play and to clear up matters that may not be clear, and ONLY if both sides agree to it... perhaps when the battle has gotten stale or something needs clearing up ...or for a number of other reasons I listed in the OP. Heck, maybe Parley could be used directly after initiation and could potentially avoid a long drawn out battle. Addressing your point though Nightmare... An attacking force can come in and steamroll a settlement just like the good ol' days. The defenders could be begging for a parley all day... but the attackers can just refuse and fight until everyone is dead if they wish. Take this example: Bandit clan has a camp, they are caught in a surprise assault by Hero clan who really want a member of Bandit clan for murdering their buddy. Camp also has civilians inside. Heroes don't want to kill civs, but they really want to get the murdering bandit! The civs want nothing to do with a firefight... they just wanted to chill by a fireplace and share stories. Bandit clan wants to fight to the death to defend their camp and their man. It all kicks off. Shots are exchanged. A few people die on each side. Eventually after some time, the battle dies down until it is just a couple of guys on each side. The fight becomes a slow grind as the two sides wait for the other group to make a move. No progress is made... typical stalemate. The civs get bored sitting in a shipping crate. Bandits are getting bored staring down a barrel towards a doorway. Heros are getting bored banging their head against a brick wall trying to breach the unbreachable or maybe they just don't want to risk running in guns blazing and risking a RDM report. Parley is called by one side... the others agree. A rep from each team meets at the fence of the camp. They both agree that neither will surrender in an awesome display of role play. But in this time it is negotiated that the non-combatants who have been sat there doing nothing for the past 45 mins may leave by the back gate without incident. The civs are free to go about their day. And the two groups get to resume their engagement without making everyone else wait for them to finish. OR MAYBE they decide to come to terms... or arrange a bribe for the attackers to stop the assault... or agree to give up a man the attackers are after in an awesome display of cowardice and betrayal... or agree to a hatchet fight to see who takes all the mar-balls... or **insert own awesome role-play idea here**!! ...Or maybe they refuse parley and take another 45 mins before someone makes a mistake, is picked off and the engagement is finally brought to an end... boring for everyone involved except the last man standing. My point is; Parley would encouraging interaction between the two sides offering alternatives to simply trying to trying to pick each other off over the course of a 2 hour stalemate. Parley offers more RP opportunities and also helps the two sides know the stakes and potential consequences their actions have towards others who just happened to be in the camp.
  6. Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!

    This is the entire point. It gives everyone room to breathe for a few minutes where people can fully focus on RP instead of being distracted by the fire fight and would only be in affect if both parties agreed. People could role-play without the paranoia of being shafted. I think anything that encourages discussion and RP should be encouraged. If attackers of a camp are hell bent on taking everyone inside the camp then the rule wont affect them... because they won't ask for/accept parley. That's another benefit of this rule. It's an "opt in" policy.
  7. Realistic Looting

    I like the idea in theory. Logically it makes sense that loot would be rarer over time and that supermarket and hosptial would have indeed been picked clean... but there are the limitations of he game to think about. In a city you would have more houses than you could count... all potentially having loot. Also there would be far more cars to salvage stuff from. Instead of taking wheels of car wrecks I go to an "industrial spawn" because I'm unable to remove bits from cars that I need. With the limitations of the game, putting all the loot in the supermarkets, hospital industrial is just shorthand for looting an area. This is why I voted no. I LOVE the random camps idea though. Sounds awesome. Maybe change the loot spawn chances for specific important items like a matches, compass, map, hunting knife, hatchet, canteen rarer. The more people have to work for food and drink, the better. The freedom of a canteen and the hunting knife are a blessing. Without them people would have to work to find basic food and drink. That would be a compromise I'd fully welcome.
  8. Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!

    The negations would be held at the camp in full view or hearing distance of both groups. For example both parties would meet in the gatehouse at Altar or the Walled off area at the back gate of Desal. With respect... there IS something stopping people talk it out, the fear of betrayal and getting murdered. Why risk it? I was in a situation the other day where some guy was shouting over the wall that he wanted to "just talk" but I was 95% certain it was a baiting tactic to get me to lower my weapon. So... back to the stale fire fight it was... as we both attempted to peek each other... it was a missed opportunity to role play. We all know how it goes. The adrenaline starts flowing when you're in a fight... it's him or me. It can even get to a point where RPing would give you the disadvantage, to the point where you get killed because your thoughts are on RPing and not watching your back. I believe this is why attacks don't see much role play... people are too busy trying not to die. If there is a set procedure in place I could see a lot more people talking it out, getting better roleplay or at the very least clearing up confusion before resuming a fire fight.
  9. Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!

    Glad you brought that up. I forgot to include that bit. Once parley is concluded there is a verbal acknowledgement from both parties (possibly in text). Then after 30 second count down hostilities resume. Both parties walk away with their guns lowered until back in cover. During this walk they are still under the cease fire terms. The cease fire is called off the moment 30 seconds is over, or the rep turns and raises his/her weapon. The whole point of the Parley would be to put KoS rights "on hold" in an attempt to talk it out/ allow role play. I'll add this to the OP. Thanks for your input!
  10. Simple Change To End Settlement Attack Chaos!

    Thanks. I added the poll but struggled to word question that was completely unbiased. We'll see how it goes.
  11. Hi guys. I had a big paragraph here listing the major issues with camp attacks. In the interest of not boring you to death I edited the OP to put this at the bottom. The TL;DR version is... Settlement attacks are often chaotic, confusing and have little-to-no role play element after the initiation period. For these reasons I think there needs to be something in place to negate all this crap. So I am suggesting "The Parley Rule". During an attack on a designated settlement a representative from each side can open an invitation to parley. This invitation can be accepted or declined. If accepted there would be an immediate cease fire from both sides, punishable if broken. During parley each side must not attempt to gain ground on the enemy. No entering or exiting the camp during this time. If attackers are already inside then that must be made clear when asking for a parley so a new boundary limit can be agreed on. In this time, representatives from each side can meet at a designated area with their weapons lowered to Roleplay terms, negotiations or to straighten out any confusing elements. (EDIT: Additional paragraph) Concluding Parley: Parley is concluded when there is a verbal acknowledgement from both parties (possibly in text). Then after a 30 second (minimum) countdown hostilities may resume. Both parties walk away with their guns lowered until back in cover. During this walk they are still under the cease fire terms. The cease fire is called off the moment 30 seconds are up, or the representative turns and raises his/her weapon. Parley is used expressly on the grounds that there is a code of honour. It is designed to break stalemates and to clear up confusion. It is NOT to be used as a distraction or to stall for time until your flanking party gets into position. If you cannot live up to this code, then do not invite or accept parley IMO if something like this were implemented we'd see less confusion during attacks, a lot less collateral damage and far fewer reports as a result. It would also add a huge amount of roleplay options. Negotiator roles, alpha male show downs between leaders, more interesting bandit demands, single man fights to the death on behalf of each side, arranging ransoms or bribe to halt the assault, shouting banter across the walls without worrying about strategical issues, etc etc etc. What do you guys think? I'm sure I haven't thought of some variables or issues with this idea so I'd love to hear feedback and input from you guys. I really think it could add something, and hopefully be a remedy to some of these settlement attack problems. P.S Problems with camp assualts (ignore if you already get it): I have been involved in settlement attacks/defenses and have seen countless more on Youtube. IMO the initiation and following assault are frustrating many reasons. Civilians, innocents or disinterested parties are left stuck on the inside. Hostages often are simply told to sit and wait it out. Attacks can last a long time and often become stalemated after a while, leaving uninterested parties stuck in the middle twiddling their thumbs. Often there are random factors that cause chaos eg. a civilian wants to join in, which adds confusion as to who exactly you are fighting. Sometimes both forces are whittled down to just a couple of men per side. Both just want to end it and 'call it a draw' but neither side thinks they can give up arms. I've been in assaults where people have said they wan't to talk it out instead of fight but you simply can't trust their intentions... which leads to further delays and often leads back to a stalemate situation. Enough rambling... You all get my point... assaults are a pain in the ass are very rarely clear cut.
  12. Jed Bridger meets ODA-153

    Hey Marlboro! Talking with you the other day reminded me of Jedd Bridger (I said as much in game) and when i come to this post I find you asking a question in August. Huh Funny how that works
  13. Throwing items at people, hostile action?

    This. Throwing a bottle is a good way to enhance the tension during an RPed argument. I would likely take great offense to it and RP it out... I definitely wouldn't go all trigger happy though.
  14. Scott "Smoke" Thompson

    Thanks for the help Sabees. Hope you're right
×