Rule Suggestion (5.3 Raiding and Terminology)

[Creepis]

Suggestion Topic: 5.3 Raiding
Suggestion Description: This is a proposed change to the terminology that defines 5.3 Raiding and what should count as a (un)successful raid as it could be interpreted in different ways for each player and staff member. Right now only successful raids are defined but not clearly outlined what makes it successful or not. If a raid is not successful this means you can raid the same property twice in an hour if your raid was not successful as it does not count as a raid. This is also not described in 5.3 Raiding and just described as "raids" which should also clearly define which raid should count or not so this also needs to be changed.

For example, attempting to break into a Tidal's apartment. If the crowbar breaks and/or you die to a wall bang the raid does not count as being successful. You also did not trespass on any property boundaries and were outside of the door. This counts as a unsuccessful raid.

I'm all for making the rules and other terminologies as short as possible so everyone can understand them easily but this is something that should be properly defined.

Current terminology for raids:
"Trespassing on or successfully breaking into an occupied property with the intention of stealing from it or its occupants or killing the players inside."

Proposed change(s) marked in red:
"Trespassing on property boundaries or starting an attempt to break into an occupied property with crowbars, bobby pins, bombs, gun pointing, keys with the intention of stealing from it or its occupants or killing the players inside."

or if you want to make it shorter and less detailed/easier to understand as per @northnortheast :
"Trespassing on property boundaries or starting an attempt to break into an occupied property with with the intention of stealing from it or its occupants or killing the players inside."

I realize this proposed change may not be perfect so please discuss changes or other possible wordings that might contradict anything.

Property boundaries probably need to be defined as well. For example you would already be trespassing if you were to step on the gravel of Southgate as that is within the boundaries of the property that are defined via the walls and chain link fencing.

Why should this be added?:
-Prevents double raids on the same property when your first attempt was not successful.
-Clearly defines what counts as a successful or unsuccessful raid.

What negatives could this have?:
-Less stuff for raiders to do as unsuccessful raids now also count towards your raid timer if this is included in 5.3 Raiding.

 

[Tinky]

As a person who primarily raids on the server, I assumed it has always been like that, however clearly it wasn't or at least it wasn't defined properly. I totally support changing the wording to make it clear to everyone

 

[Headline]

The wording in question was in fact designed to work in such way as to help more casual players that would often die to doorbangs or even flanks before managing to step on the property.

This obviously makes it that if something wasn't counted as raid, ie. you broke in, found drugs and left while the occupants were not on the premises you could come back 10 minutes later and profit from more.

In my opinion, the previous rule change had a clear benefit on raiding, this however creates a clear exploit that in order to be fixed, would have to be returned to the previous iteration of the rule or further add to the complexity of confirming and/ord dealing with separate timers. As such, I do believe this is the best iteration of the raiding rule we could have.

 

[northnortheast]

Are you saying that the official definition of 'Raid' should be extended to instances where the raiders attempt to but fail to successfully get the door open? If so, then I'd suggest changing your proposed re-definition from:

"Civilians trespassing on property boundaries or starting an attempt to break into an occupied property with crowbars, bobby pins, bombs, gun pointing, keys with the intention of stealing from it or its occupants or killing the players inside."

to

Trespassing on or attempting to break into an occupied property with the intention of stealing from it or its occupants or killing the players inside.

As 'civilians' is redundant, since Government employees do not raid with the intention to kill the people inside; 'Trespassing on property boundaries or [...] an occupied property' is the same as 'Trespassing on [...] an occupied property'; and specifying the tools to break into a property such as 'crowbars, bobby pins, bombs, gun pointing, keys' is unnecessary since those are already various methods of 'breaking in' - provided we define breaking in as forcefully entering a property.

Unless I'm missing something, this extra info isn't needed to meet your suggestion's goal of preventing pre-entry wallbangs from being excluded from the raid timer.

 

[Creepis]

Are you saying that the official definition of 'Raid' should be extended to instances where the raiders attempt to but fail to successfully get the door open? If so, then I'd suggest changing your proposed re-definition from:

to

As 'civilians' is redundant, since Government employees do not raid with the intention to kill the people inside; 'Trespassing on property boundaries or [...] an occupied property' is the same as 'Trespassing on [...] an occupied property'; and specifying the tools to break into a property such as 'crowbars, bobby pins, bombs, gun pointing, keys' is unnecessary since those are already various methods of 'breaking in' - provided we define breaking in as forcefully entering a property.

Unless I'm missing something, this extra info isn't needed to meet your suggestion's goal of preventing pre-entry wallbangs from being excluded from the raid timer.

I'll change this back, this is one I forgot to remove while re-writing this.

The tools are listed for now but it will be up to whoever rewrites the terminology. I wanted to make sure I did not miss anything what clearly defines a raid attempt but you're correct.

Edit: Added a second suggestion for a new terminology that follows this advice.