Jump to content
Server time: 2019-02-18, 21:34 WE ARE RECRUITING

Dustup

Silver
  • Content Count

    481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    Fiji

TIME PLAYED

241 h Bean Bandit

Community Reputation

153 Relevant

Account information

  • Whitelisted YES
  • Last played 1 week ago

Recent Profile Visitors

  1. These types of threads pop up every once in a while and usually end up with a clear division with people going "hell yeah the hostile RP sucks they only want gear" on one end of the spectrum, people going "they must be talking about us so we better get super defensive" on the other extreme, and some good reasoned arguments in between which can sometimes get drowned out. You are entitled to your opinion, and in some respects I agree with you from what I have seen in the last month, however, as a suggestion, be the change, don't just sit there and demand it without any suggestions on how this could be fixed. What I mean by this is do something more productive than start a rant that (from what I have seen in the past) will probably turn into a low-key flame war between some people. Here are some suggestions on some things that could prove more productive: write a guide - I had issues with what I saw from hostile RPers and hostages alike so I had written two guides here and here a while back to maybe help people who were new to hostile RP and also for those who didn't know what to do when getting taken hostage (although I need to update them and will get on that soon), maybe you have some better ideas of your own that would help people. leave some feedback (if its too negative try PM it to a group- leader) - make it constructive though and perhaps let them know what you disliked, liked and how maybe they could improve. Admittedly some people can't take constructive criticism or any criticism at all though and think that they are just amazing, which could in some cases also include the person giving the initial feedback. As others have said report it if necessary. I personally prefer to do this only as a last resort but some people need a light tap on the head with the mighty swedes ban hammer (not a perma smack) to get them to realise what they are doing is not as amazing as they think it is and they need to up their game. Ask yourself/the person complaining to you, if there was anything better that they could have done as a hostage to elicit more RP from their captors. This doesn't always work but there are ways to force them to RP with you in a way that isn't deemed NVFL. RP is always a 2 way street, although if someone is taken for an hour, the captors better be giving some solid RP for that hour, firefight or not there are things that can be done/said by the captors. I do note though that from what was described, the whole keeping them while a firefight was ongoing might have been to ensure they didn't get mis-ID'd and killed accidently. Have a think on how you think hostile RP could be improved and start a thread which possibly offers solutions with suggestions and/or tips on how Hostile RPers could possibly make hostile RP better, with people able to put their own ideas in. It might not necessarily get read by those who it would most benefit but at least it's something.
  2. In practice this would be a terrible idea that would get abused and used as a weapon of sorts by some to mess with people whom they have OOC issues with and would just lead to a cycle of OOC hate and revenge. This community would need a kidney transplant to deal with the increase in salt levels that this would potentially create.
  3. Dustup

    New meds

    So I noticed a bunch of new meds are IG at the moment, do these have any actual practical use yet?
  4. As has been said it depends on the circumstances. There is a big difference in perceived intent/threat if a group happens to be casually jogging in your direction vs a group with weapons out that is running in the distance, sees you and then immediately does a 90 degree turn and makes a sprinting beeline right at you. Some will also just avoid large groups as IC it makes sense given that a larger group is generally more likely to use their numbers to rob or strongarm you. Although if they are within VOIP range or very close, they should always stop imo. your group obviously needs to put more meat shields in front of their leader! But yeah that's some bullshit. At least they werent running away screaming, "what's that, I can't hear you" as I have seen happen before.
  5. Does it really matter anyway from an RP perspective? I mean you should know from experience that chances are that you and everyone else at the execution are just gonna run into them the next day for some semi to fully awkward RP. I would be curious to see if the use of a shotgun at close range would solve the damage/hitpoint problem.
  6. the option is there in the keybinds options right after the zoom optics out keybind. It is just in a strange place and would probably make more sense if it was with the gestures keybinds.
  7. I can see this being used to bait an initiation, but at the same time wouldn't a potential work around be something like: Sick person: *Cough, splutter,sneeze* (as they move closer) Person A: stay the fuck away from me, I don't want whatever the hell you have, (possibly said multiple times) Sick person: continues to get closer and/or run after Person A Person A: "I don't want to hurt you, keep your distance and we wont have any issue but if you keep getting closer I will shoot you" To me it seems like if they keep running at you after having been told to stay away multiple times then it is baiting, especially if you get dropped the moment you technically initiate, but at the same time it looks like it would be rule play if they or their friends actually shoot you after you are forced to drop an initiation as you clearly have no intention of actually causing them any harm and simply want them to stop following you/give you a wide berth. We should probably be more worried about the unseen actions of the infected as it seems like this thing spreads like cholera used to (e.g. leaving water bottles they have partially drunk from lying around for unsuspecting victims). I think shooting people right off the bat is only going to take away from numerous RP situations that this might encourage, and it would essentially be giving people a license to kos the sick which would more than likely get abused.
  8. Some feedback from one of the hostages at the kab barn earlier today : Im not sure if there was actually people killing your guys (if not then great job making me believe this was actually happening) but if there was, you guys did an awesome keeping your shit together in what could have turned into a clusterfuck with the firefight that seemed to break out shortly after you grabbed us all (and the confusion as to whether one of the hostages was the cause), and it was nice to see people who can keep roleplaying with their hostages even when they have such a situation go down.
  9. I see the intent behind this and I think that while it appears to be coming from a good place and may seem like a good idea in theory, in practice it is going to be a nightmare. There have been reports in the past where people have taken a gamble and lied, then video has turned up showing that they have clearly lied, but this has come from both people making the report and also from people who are reported, but I would think that this is a very small minority of reports. Are there times when someone makes a report and the person responding who always has video of every little thing is suddenly without any video? YEP, and its highly suspicious, but better to not assume because you could be wrong, hence why there is already a "we won't find a rulebreak if its only word for word" practice. Adding this is only going to overburden and add something unnecessary to hostile RPers, who arguably have to be far more familiar with the rules and, the good ones at least, know how to straddle the rule line and make someone think they might cross it without actually crossing it. Admittedly, there are bugs that come into play for initiations at the moment (e.g. the voip bug) and people who are probably taking advantage of that, but at the same time there isn't really much difference to when there are only word for word reports. I mean if someone initiates and the other person doesn't hear and the person initiated on has video, it falls back on the initiator to front up with evidence anyway to prove their claim of "voip bug" doesn't it? And then what happens if theres a word vs word situation where a person claims to have been initiated on then the other person denies it and says the person who made the report was the one that initiated? How are you really going to know who is telling the truth here if both parties don't have video? Would you just word vs word the report anyway, or issue points and some time off to both parties even though one of them is clearly lying but you don't know who? Also, what happens if your recording craps out or your software doesn't work. People keep mentioning shadowplay, but there have been times when this simply hasn't worked for me, and it would seem a bit stupid to suddenly find myself in a position where through no fault of my own, I can't produce a recording, especially in light of the fact I have never been reported but have taken many hostages and robbed many people (although admittedly, not for a while). Reports at times have been, or at least appear to have been used as "weapons" to try and get people banned (not just against hostile rpers and not just by non-hostile rpers) when the salt levels inevitably reach their peaks from time to time, and I think you could possible be adding another weapon to the arsenal of salty players and/or players that want to get others banned and out of the community for whatever reason. I also don't see the logic in denying people a whole branch/style of RP to those without adequate recording software and/or hardware and limit them to only non-hostile (at least from an initiating point of view) RP, as that is what you will be doing, giving priviges to people based on their hardware, software and/or internet connection. I am sure with more tools (if you don't already have them) it will make it easaier for staff to monitor people and/or groups who keep getting reports made against them and keep using the same excuse, and if you don't have the numbers why not recruit more staff? If worst comes to worst (although even then I don't think it's the greatest idea) if the same person or group were constantly getting reported (and a few guilty verdicts in reports) for the same or similar things and there was a staff decision that the group was pushing their luck, then maybe you could implement this for a set period of time against that group/person, but even then I think my above comments still stand, especially with regards to reports being used as weapons.
  10. pretty sure that there is something in the rules which now officially allows you to roleplay a fallen angel and to legitimately power game people (e.g. *makes your head explode with his thoughts* //you now have to kill yourself or I will report you for bad RP)
  11. I think that the shared kill rights probably don't come into play in what you have described, especially if you look at the rules as a whole. To start with, if an "attacking group" (i.e. the hostile/initiating party) initiates on say 3 people who may or may not be in the same group and two comply but one doesn't, then it has always been seen as a rule break if the hostile party kills the two compliant hostages. Looking at the very first sentence of rule 4.3 it states " If you are attacking other players and subjected to a hostile action you are allowed to defend yourself by gaining KILL RIGHTS on the defenders. " Now my interpretation of that is that the only people who are deemed to be "Defenders" are the ones who have been initiated on. The initiating party has not and cannot initiate on an entire group whose members are spread across the map unless they actually initiate on each and every person simultaneously, say in a situation where the whole group is together. The rule doesn't seem to suggest that every member of your group becomes a "Defender", what is suggested in rule 4.2 is that your group members do however gain "Defenders Rights" to kill the attackers involved in the hostile act. Rule 4.3 then goes on to state " Kill rights can be only be shared with your approved group members." Unless I have missed something which says otherwise, it seems to me that the rule is saying that all the hostile parties approved group members get kill rights on only those who didn't comply, not on the whole of the non-complying members group. So for example, lets saying the situation you had managed to kill one and then sprint off and get away, the entire roster of new moon could have killed you on the spot without initiating any further for the allocated time, no matter where those new moon members where on the map at the time (and arguably regardless of whether they were even online). Now in that case, a kill against you and only you, as the only non-complying party would seem well within the rules. I think also that when you read rule 4.3 with rules 2.3 and 3.3, it suggests that the particular situation you described was "Number One Bullshit" and even if I am incorrect about my interpretation of rule 4.3, the described situation can hardly be seen as "prioritizing role play."
  12. Will forward this on to the team, someone should message you in a day or two.
  13. If it is getting to be that much of an issue then why don't you try getting a few of your members to keep some space in their backpacks and when they log out, have them take a few items as well as logging out with a tent in their hands. This would simulate them "packing up" for the day much like a market vendor. At least this way you are going to still have a few tents and some things to trade when you log back in, and won't have to worry as much about the tents etc being taken which, like it or not, is going to keep happening over and over.
  14. I have run into people who weren't too confident with accents and have talked in their normal accent but emoted "*speaks with a _________ accent*" You could always try something like this.
×
×
  • Create New...