Community Suggestion Hostage Situations

[Rowley]

Suggestion Title: Hostage Situations
Suggestion Description: I think it's time some sort of rule structure is put in play for hostage situations...

The amount of hostage situations i've taken part in as PD and Civillian and they've just ended with the most random situations is crazy.

I've included a link to a clip from a hostage situation earlier, feel free to watch this and see what I mean.

I think it's mental how every other aspect of PERP is pretty serious when it comes to roleplay but one of the most intense situations where roleplay is actually put into effect is completely neglected?

A rule even as simple as: "Unless negotiations are "called off" no gun fire can be exchanged" could improve it so much I feel.

As you can see in the below clip, we met his first demand and he just instantly shot me in the head, no thought about the 5-10 cops that we're there too.

As far as I am aware that's not a rule break, which is crazy to me?

Why should this be added?:
This should be put in place as it will improve hostage situations from both sides, PD and Civillian. It will increase everyones overall enjoyment out of these situations. The amount of times I have heard community friends complain about this and even to the point where people genuinely get frustrated when hostage situations take place is crazy!

What negatives could this have?:
I genuinely cannot see any negative backlash from this being implemented.

What problem would this suggestion solve?: It would solve meaningless shootouts and unrealistic shootouts occuring from hostage situations.

Useful Images: https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/lVr2CrSZGvEGbbKT4?invite=cr-MSxZVWgsNDUwNzU5NjM2&v=11

 

[Rowley]

The whole purpsoe of holding a hostage is that you SHOULD'VE taken that hostage for a reason, wether that be to get your friends out of jail or get some form of ransom. Whatever it may be there should be a reason, not just because you 'Want a shootout'.

 

[Allen Kennedy]

If you can look at the clip linked in my original post and see nothing wrong with it then somethings gone wrong somewhere.

What's wrong is that, depending on how many officers you have, and how many shooters they have, it could be 3.4 to shoot a cop whilst standing directly next to three others. Generally speaking, if there's no reasonable chance of winning a gunfight, you shouldn't engage in it. Then again, it looks like a 3v3 once you're killed, so probably not in this case.

 

[Allen Kennedy]

The whole purpsoe of holding a hostage is that you SHOULD'VE taken that hostage for a reason, wether that be to get your friends out of jail or get some form of ransom. Whatever it may be there should be a reason, not just because you 'Want a shootout'.

5.6 Kidnapping​

Players may only be kidnapped where the benefits outweigh the risks and it is absolutely necessary, such as taking a hostage so as to substantially increase one’s chances of escaping police. Kidnapping players who are visible from outside a muggable zone so as to mug or raid them is not allowed. Rule 3.4 should be referred to when deciding whether taking a hostage is beneficial.

 

[joey]

Players don’t fear their life as deeply as they used to because over the years enforcement has slowly moved towards a slightly more relaxed stance.

I believe that how 3.4 is enforced genuinely separates PERP from most other servers, it’s why it’s one of the most popular servers (aside from the amazing development that has gone into pushing the boundaries of GMOD)

I say “people don’t fear their life as much as they used to” in a negative way, but I think perp is overall in a better place with how rules are enforced currently, I think it promotes a wider playerbase.

Hostage situations are usually just a stalling tactic because people know the cops are scared of getting an IA if they handle it wrong. We already have 5.6 for kidnapping; enforcing rules around how you can and when you can take a hostage - further than when you can kidnap someone - would not improve anything much, it would likely just be a combination of rules like 3.4, 2.5 and 5.6

Handling hostage situations from a police perspective could do with some adjustment: I have shot a hostage taker if they look away from a hostage, I think it’s pretty shitty RP to do that, somewhat an abuse of game mechanics that don’t allow players to look without aiming. Most officers are awful at dealing with hostage situations.

Maybe a good step to improving hostage sits would be to first start with a better take on standard police response. After better hostage sit responses are planned and deployed, problems that persist should be better covered by staff team on ensuring hostage taking is reasonable and within the rules

PERP has generally avoiding putting roleplay on rails that have to follow the same outcome, not allowing gunfire to be exchanged until “negotiations are called off” removes some dynamic roleplay. PERP is built from unpredictable and different experiences, doing anything to change or threaten this wouldn’t be in the best interests of the game, or be in standard with the rest of the rules.

TL;DR for the ADHD kids:
3.4 not as harshly enforced as it used to be so people do more shooty shooty bang bang
5.6, 2.5 and 3.4 already exist
Cops are bad at dealing with hostage sits
Fix cops response
Your suggestion to not allow gunfire really puts the roleplay on rails, something perp tries to avoid

 

[Rowley]

Players don’t fear their life as deeply as they used to because over the years enforcement has slowly moved towards a slightly more relaxed stance.

I believe that how 3.4 is enforced genuinely separates PERP from most other servers, it’s why it’s one of the most popular servers (aside from the amazing development that has gone into pushing the boundaries of GMOD)

I say “people don’t fear their life as much as they used to” in a negative way, but I think perp is overall in a better place with how rules are enforced currently, I think it promotes a wider playerbase.

Hostage situations are usually just a stalling tactic because people know the cops are scared of getting an IA if they handle it wrong. We already have 5.6 for kidnapping; enforcing rules around how you can and when you can take a hostage - further than when you can kidnap someone - would not improve anything much, it would likely just be a combination of rules like 3.4, 2.5 and 5.6

Handling hostage situations from a police perspective could do with some adjustment: I have shot a hostage taker if they look away from a hostage, I think it’s pretty shitty RP to do that, somewhat an abuse of game mechanics that don’t allow players to look without aiming. Most officers are awful at dealing with hostage situations.

Maybe a good step to improving hostage sits would be to first start with a better take on standard police response. After better hostage sit responses are planned and deployed, problems that persist should be better covered by staff team on ensuring hostage taking is reasonable and within the rules

PERP has generally avoiding putting roleplay on rails that have to follow the same outcome, not allowing gunfire to be exchanged until “negotiations are called off” removes some dynamic roleplay. PERP is built from unpredictable and different experiences, doing anything to change or threaten this wouldn’t be in the best interests of the game, or be in standard with the rest of the rules.

TL;DR for the ADHD kids:
3.4 not as harshly enforced as it used to be so people do more shooty shooty bang bang
5.6, 2.5 and 3.4 already exist
Cops are bad at dealing with hostage sits
Fix cops response
Your suggestion to not allow gunfire really puts the roleplay on rails, something perp tries to avoid

Once again, my suggestion has nothing to do with “not allowing gun fire”.

And based on your last couple of comments you are saying the PD are the majority issue for why hostage situations go wrong?

What’s your thoughts on the clip linked in this original post then?

 

[Ryan Lucas]

What’s your thoughts on the clip linked in this original post then?

one exit, and they have to get past multiple police officers that could be hiding anywhere in pd ready to shoot them as they walk out, that was pretty much their only option

 

[MalekIsWeird]

I've said this before.

An honor system where the quality of roleplay is expected to be held to a higher standard and a level of courtesy is required from both sides to justify any violence in these hostage scenarios would probably help fix the issue.

I take inspiration in my approach from FiveM serious rp communities that exercise LQRP punishments without necessarily cookie-cutting either side from calling negotiations off.

The bottom line is that if either side wishes to open fire and reduce what could have been a longer roleplay scenario into a final showdown, there should be a justifiable and intentional narrative to that decision relative to the way that character would reasonably think leading up to the decision. Staff should be more strict on both sides in regards to facilitating a less trigger-happy result from both sides, and I think that takes priority over even evidential justification if it is in good faith.

For example, if a gang is honestly holding a hostage and there was a body outside the base. Officer John should not go crying to Sergeant Jane about why the negotiations should be called off. Neither should Michael, the raider, tell his gang that the body and the lack of getaway vehicle means we must kill slaughter officers.

Personally, I feel that the better approach from both sides would be for Sergeant Jane to facilitate the provision of a getaway vehicle by an affiliate of Michael if possible or allow Michael to escape with a warrant even if Michael is alone. Michael would avoid shooting, even after realizing the bluff of 10 cops outside was only that and the reality is that it is only two cops which can easily be headshot. Michael then simply exercises his demand by safely passing to escape with the honored promise being upheld and the criminal feeling more trusting that the Police are showing integrity in preserving all life by not shooting first. Both sides are happy and the officers are protected under general rule of the PLPD handbook 6D Peaceful Policies.

Often it feels like the former example happens in the form of on one hand, Officer John or even TFU will find a way to justify opening fire. On the other hand, Michael will lure some officers who arrive to facilitate the negotiations in good faith. When the officers let their guard down, Michael would seize this chance to kill as much as possible then retreat to cover.

Neither of these offensive strategies are inherently "bad". My disagreement is if such strategies are used against any side that is proposing a genuine approach by offering a peaceful trade without a high quality roleplay reason to necessitate devolving a peaceful offer into an execution, then the offensive side in this case transgresses by responding to peace with lackluster effort and Low Quality Role Play in the form of violence. This is the point it may be appropriate and even necessary for staff to step in to correct the neglect shown towards upholding a higher quality of roleplay.