3.3 Description changed to prevent confusion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
2,236
Reaction score
7,882
Points
645
Location
Birmingham, United Kingdom
What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: Changing the description of rule 3.3

Your version of the rule: All actions a player makes must be done as realistically as possible; for example, when jumping up-to, or down-from somewhere, it must be done so slowly, carefully, and without resulting in injury to the player. Another specific example is that players must always move in a realistic fashion, especially during combat.
(Just removing last line)

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited: (Be extensive and descriptive)


3.3 Realistic Actions
- All actions a player makes must be done as realistically as possible; for example, when jumping up-to, or down-from somewhere, it must be done so slowly, carefully, and without resulting in injury to the player. Another specific example is that players must always move in a realistic fashion, especially during combat; excessively crouching, jumping( take jumping out the equation for a few minutes), etc, is likely to be deemed unacceptable.

"3.6 Stay Alive - Typically, players must, at all times, do everything in their power to prevent and/or avoid their own death.''

To me you need to crouch either to bandage or to take cover to prevent your death but unfortunately in the rules your either going to have to crouch and pop up or stay crouched to prevent you being hit and then you opening fire on random times upon when enemies are reloading or looking away.

But to me new players would get confused and not crouch to take cover in the situation which could possible cause them to get a warning for 3.6 if an admin is over-watching the situation.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to point out.
 
Yeah I think its easy to confuse this rule as it's not completely self explanatory especially to younger audiences and even new players. I think there's a bit of a blur between excessively crouching and crouching in this case. What harm could it do to explain it?

+ Support
 
Last edited:
I understand how some confusion can arise and as this part of the rule doesn't contribute much to the rule itself I'll look at cutting it out. Thanks for the suggestion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top