Rule Changes and 3.4 poll - 28/07/2024

[chopperr]

Who cares what type of gun it is. Can 1 tap all 3 of you and still have 4 bullets left.

Absurd and completely egotistical opinion, it's almost like you're joking.
You can't shoot 3 people before they realize you're retaliating, once you up your gun or try to run you'll be faced with 3 people opening fire on you at close range.
It risks your in-character life and that's what matters; Your skill does not matter in this situation

I believe 3 people pointing a gun at you should be enough to make you surrender, no matter what gun you have.
The personal benefits of being able to fight back are:

- Saving your loot and drugs/money.
- Potentially securing the mugger's guns.
- You still keep your stuff if you die, so it's always a win if you fight back.

The negatives of being able to fight back are:

- Worse serious roleplay
- Potentially dying, then being revived and arrested then getting your drugs confiscated.
- If the person who retaliates while being mugged dies, they keep all their drugs and only lose their gun.

This opens up ideas like:

People who die at the drug dealer ( or anywhere ) should drop their illegal items.

If said idea was to be implemented, Would the gunpoint rule still be in place? And who would it benefit?

Muggers who killed someone who tried to up their gun? Or cops killing someone in a drug house or near the drug dealer?

 

[MalekIsWeird]

My opinion is a 4th opinion.

If there is no cover and your weapon is lowered, especially if it’s a shitty pistol, against multiple (2+) armed individuals who snuck up on you from behind you should surrender. Surrender isn’t the coolest but preserving your life is necessary. I always found it ridiculous how one can have 0 realistic chance of winning when two people ambush a pistol wielding unaware player yet the player can practically suicide by raising a weapon at 2 automatics at point blank knowing there’s no chance of survival but being happy that they don’t drop drugs on death.

I don’t want the rule to be dumbed down to a minimum assailant count, id much rather it being a likelihood standard. If someone is on guard and has cover nearby, it’s valuing life if they retaliate. If they’re caught off guard, especially by multiple people, turning around to surrender is the smartest.

Cause if I say “turn around and you die, put your hands up” to a guy selling drugs, the guy is cooked in that situation. He doesn’t know where I am but he knows I caught him off guard and I’m most likely armed. So to value his life, he should surrender in any situation where resistance is extremely unlikely or futile.

 

[SomeUser]

I feel like when it comes too gameplay, and the other peoples sanity's i think if there's 3 muggers in a property you should comply with orders, if your in passive stance and you have 1 person trying too mug you, Sure go for it shoot them, 2 people A little more risky but you can kill them both. but three people ur basically fucked at that point, Regardless of how fast or how good you are.

Looking at the reply's jimmy's right it preferable too die then too get mugged, but that does not save the headache for people that want too mug and they pull a gun when there outnumbered. I feel like partly its because there's this sentiment when it comes too drugs that rules don't apply in a way. For example

Nah, I'm full autoing their asses regardless of this outcome

Idiots like this person hear would rather die then admit they should have caved and gave the people that mugged the drugs, just say there outnumbered 4 too 1 no matter how good someone is you will get downed like instantly but after 10 mins they can retry again, there is no real stakes, and in that time the people that want too mug have the police after them because 9 / 10 times they have a scar that people can hear on the far side of Jamaica.

TLDR: personally I feel like if there's three people plus gun pointing you comply and your not going too win that gunfight

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Don't fix what isn't broken.

Not broken? Ignorance is bliss

i thought it’s common sense that the game is broken if there is no mechanical punishment for breaking 3.4 in a mug situation. Instead, most of the time like you said, the mugger(s) have to F6/AR which is a pain and then hope the staff member is willing to force transfer the drugs; money and items you’re entitled to.

 

[pain]

nahh i ain't going to let muggers take my shit due to the fact they got more numbers than me at the drug dealer, im going out like pablo Escobar.

 

[steelo]

>Ignorance is bliss

>i thought it’s common sense that the game is broken if there is no mechanical punishment for breaking 3.4 in a mug situation.

'Ignorance is bliss' here is very midwit and seemingly baseless coming from the 3.4 breaker himself, but okay(?)

I thought it's common sense that the mechanical punishment for breaking 3.4 in a mug situation is being shot and killed and then banned from the server(?)

I'm not sure what your message is trying to achieve but it's clearly in bad faith. You clearly haven't considered all of the negatives that would come along with implementing such a change. You've clearly taken something at face value and assumed it would be well implemented as many others have.

The fact is that this would simply not be well implemented, for reasons I outlined and more. Mugging should not be some numbers game, it should be a rare happenstance that benefits a wise user. Mugging someone for everything they've got should not be an option simply because you are roaming the forest with 4 other players and see a guy with a pistol out. Additionally, players can argue in their report that they weren't sure if there were 3 or 4 players gunpointing them, and that the adrenaline of the situation caused them to react and point their gun, leading to a shootout. These are mere examples of what would inevitably come, hence "if it is not broken, don't fix it." Now if you want to talk solutions, present one, but don't just passively insult me like you've got some greater understanding of this, which I can assure you do not.

Many of you who think this should be implemented, consider you tier your car into a pylon under the highway in the forest, now you've got to jog a mile with a handgun in passive, hoping you don't stumble across a group of 3 or more, because they can now assume your inventory. Furthermore, let's assume you've raided a Wood Cabin, but your car's tires are shot out. You've not got to run a long distance and hopefully not encounter a group of [x] players, otherwise you're forced to surrender.

Gameplay preservation should be a priority when considering meta-shifting changes like this.

 

[SomeUser]

'Ignorance is bliss' here is very midwit and seemingly baseless coming from the 3.4 breaker himself, but okay(?)

I thought it's common sense that the mechanical punishment for breaking 3.4 in a mug situation is being shot and killed and then banned from the server(?)

I'm not sure what your message is trying to achieve but it's clearly in bad faith. You clearly haven't considered all of the negatives that would come along with implementing such a change. You've clearly taken something at face value and assumed it would be well implemented as many others have.

The fact is that this would simply not be well implemented, for reasons I outlined and more. Mugging should not be some numbers game, it should be a rare happenstance that benefits a wise user. Mugging someone for everything they've got should not be an option simply because you are roaming the forest with 4 other players and see a guy with a pistol out. Additionally, players can argue in their report that they weren't sure if there were 3 or 4 players gunpointing them, and that the adrenaline of the situation caused them to react and point their gun, leading to a shootout. These are mere examples of what would inevitably come, hence "if it is not broken, don't fix it." Now if you want to talk solutions, present one, but don't just passively insult me like you've got some greater understanding of this, which I can assure you do not.

Many of you who think this should be implemented, consider you tier your car into a pylon under the highway in the forest, now you've got to jog a mile with a handgun in passive, hoping you don't stumble across a group of 3 or more, because they can now assume your inventory. Furthermore, let's assume you've raided a Wood Cabin, but your car's tires are shot out. You've not got to run a long distance and hopefully not encounter a group of [x] players, otherwise you're forced to surrender.

Gameplay preservation should be a priority when considering meta-shifting changes like this.

I think i get what your saying, key word is I think, as well too add onto that with a change in meta there be people that would do things like go in groups of three, for example CMMM three org members come and GP you it would be fuckin annoying and quite frankly rage inducing, However there needs too be some sort of baseline, For example just say the scenario above three members of CMMM come up too you at forest, Lets say for example your not in a open plane, maybe you can open fire and try too escape in the woods, but idk if that good or bad too enforce as I'm not a staff member, and in all honest my original point still stands maybe in different ways maybe you can get away with it, for example closed off space no chance, Open space yes feel free too shoot and run but u might get downed but it would not be a rule break.

 

[Akeno Himejima]

If it is a situation you couldn't escape irl, then it shouldn't be one you can't escape here, regardless of skill and only if your name is James mother fucking bond and you roll a 15.

 

[ALOO89]

this means that even empty properties being defended from the outside are now to be considered raids.

and how can i know if its defended or counter !!!!

 

[ALOO89]

Everyone wants to fight back because there are no consequences of death. You lose a gun, that's it. Had a situation the other day where 4 players decided to sell 1k drugs each at underpass and were jumped by toilet muggers. They were all shot down, cops showed up, killed the muggers and revived three of the victims. The luckiest guy was the one who died as he got to keep his drugs, everyone else got them confiscated and got taken to jail.

Death is preferable to being mugged.
Death is preferable to being arrested.
Death is preferable to having your illegal items confiscated.

This has always been an issue with perp and always will be, death is not punishing enough and players would rather suicide on a mugger than lose their weed.

cant imagen growing for 24h then lose all my drugs to 3 or 4 people bc they gp me !

 

[A1L]

cant imagen growing for 24h then lose all my drugs to 3 or 4 people bc they gp me !

You don’t have to imagine you’re banned, jokes aside if someone does counter you and it ends up in a shootout, it should still be considered a raid (in my opinion)

 

[MalekIsWeird]

'Ignorance is bliss' here is very midwit and seemingly baseless coming from the 3.4 breaker himself, but okay(?)

Miserable attempt at an Ad-hom, Didn't mean to strike a nerve but your comeback makes no sense.

I thought it's common sense that the mechanical punishment for breaking 3.4 in a mug situation is being shot and killed and then banned from the server(?)

I used the term mechanical to represent in-game mechanics. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I don't find having to go through a F6/AR process almost every mugging enjoyable. Especially when the payout in the end isn't even guaranteed because "ban is enough."

I'm not sure what your message is trying to achieve but it's clearly in bad faith. You clearly haven't considered all of the negatives that would come along with implementing such a change. You've clearly taken something at face value and assumed it would be well implemented as many others have.

The fact is that this would simply not be well implemented, for reasons I outlined and more. Mugging should not be some numbers game, it should be a rare happenstance that benefits a wise user. Mugging someone for everything they've got should not be an option simply because you are roaming the forest with 4 other players and see a guy with a pistol out. Additionally, players can argue in their report that they weren't sure if there were 3 or 4 players gunpointing them, and that the adrenaline of the situation caused them to react and point their gun, leading to a shootout. These are mere examples of what would inevitably come, hence "if it is not broken, don't fix it." Now if you want to talk solutions, present one, but don't just passively insult me like you've got some greater understanding of this, which I can assure you do not

Again, this isn't an ego-battle. I didn't insult you, I said the point you made is ignorant by saying "ignorance is bliss," You ask me to present a solution? You reacted to the solution I presented and reacted to it negatively without ever actually addressing it or at least remembering it.

Furthermore, Your example isn't actually that hard to address, There is mugs that take place while roaming and mugs that take place at DD.

DD mugs are extremely easy to go about because you can turn around, assess the level of danger and then choose to retaliate or surrender (granted they don't warn you to not turn around). When you realize "oh shit 4 people have me at gunpoint while holding automatics and I am armed with a pistol," then obviously you should surrender to Stay Alive because resistance is futile.

Mugs that happen while roaming with or without this rule will be unclear anyway. Even if it's a 1 on 1 interaction, the victim can still claim "oh I didn't know I was being gunpointed" then draw a weapon. This is why it's a staff's job to investigate and if they deem it was truly unclear then they're innocent or if they deem it was clear enough then they're guilty.

Many of you who think this should be implemented, consider you tier your car into a pylon under the highway in the forest, now you've got to jog a mile with a handgun in passive, hoping you don't stumble across a group of 3 or more, because they can now assume your inventory. Furthermore, let's assume you've raided a Wood Cabin, but your car's tires are shot out. You've not got to run a long distance and hopefully not encounter a group of [x] players, otherwise you're forced to surrender.

Gameplay preservation should be a priority when considering meta-shifting changes like this.

Many of you who think this shouldn't be implemented, consider you total your car due to your own reckless driving under high way in forest, now you've got to jog a mile with a handgun in passive (for whatever reason), Hoping you don't stumble across a group of 3 or more, because they can and will punish you for making the strange decision to reckless drive into a dark forest mug-zone only armed with a pistol holding valuables you don't wish to lose with your guard down so badly that 3 people can sneak up close enough to talk to you.

Furthermore, let's assume you've raided a Wood Cabin, but your car's tires are shot out. You've now got to run a long distance and hopefully not encounter any player, otherwise if you're gunpointed with your guard down for (after a raid for whatever reason) by even a single player, you must surrender.

Ok joke's aside, this last part is absolutely a non-argument. There is a clear balance that you seem to refuse to acknowledge when talking about this rule. Nobody leaving a raid scene should have their guard down so low that 3 people can get a gunpoint and order surrender before he raises his weapon on one then shoots. even if it was 1 person gunpointing the raider with their guard down, then that raider has to surrender. Lastly, If you're reckless driving into forest and you crash then in the extreme circumstance that you stumble upon 3 people who all ambush you into a gunpoint. At that point, who's fault is it really? This exact scenario can and will happen with or without the rule because its immensely more of a risk to resist in this circumstance as a victim then it is to attempt to mug the victim as a perpetrator.

 

[Dave]

Miserable attempt at an Ad-hom, Didn't mean to strike a nerve but your comeback makes no sense.

I used the term mechanical to represent in-game mechanics. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I don't find having to go through a F6/AR process almost every mugging enjoyable. Especially when the payout in the end isn't even guaranteed because "ban is enough."


Again, this isn't an ego-battle. I didn't insult you, I said the point you made is ignorant by saying "ignorance is bliss," You ask me to present a solution? You reacted to the solution I presented and reacted to it negatively without ever actually addressing it or at least remembering it.

Furthermore, Your example isn't actually that hard to address, There is mugs that take place while roaming and mugs that take place at DD.

DD mugs are extremely easy to go about because you can turn around, assess the level of danger and then choose to retaliate or surrender (granted they don't warn you to not turn around). When you realize "oh shit 4 people have me at gunpoint while holding automatics and I am armed with a pistol," then obviously you should surrender to Stay Alive because resistance is futile.

Mugs that happen while roaming with or without this rule will be unclear anyway. Even if it's a 1 on 1 interaction, the victim can still claim "oh I didn't know I was being gunpointed" then draw a weapon. This is why it's a staff's job to investigate and if they deem it was truly unclear then they're innocent or if they deem it was clear enough then they're guilty.


Many of you who think this shouldn't be implemented, consider you total your car due to your own reckless driving under high way in forest, now you've got to jog a mile with a handgun in passive, Hoping you don't stumble across a group of 3 or more, because they can and will punish you for making the strange decision to reckless drive into a dark forest mug-zone only armed with a pistol holding valuables you don't wish to lose.

Furthermore, let's assume you've raided a Wood Cabin, but your car's tires are shot out. You've now got to run a long distance and hopefully not encounter any player, otherwise if you're gunpointed with your guard down for whatever reason by even a single player, you must surrender.

Ok joke's aside, this last part is absolutely a non-argument. There is a clear balance that you seem to refuse to acknowledge when talking about this rule. Nobody leaving a raid scene should have their guard down so low that 3 people can get a gunpoint and order surrender before he raises his weapon on one then shoots. Lastly, If you're reckless driving into forest and you crash then in the extreme circumstance that you stumble upon 3 people who all ambush you into a gunpoint. At that point, who's fault is it really? This exact scenario can and will happen with or without the rule because its immensely more of a risk to resist in this circumstance as a victim then it is to attempt to mug the victim as a perpetrator.

tl;dr?

 

[MaverickRat]

Miserable attempt at an Ad-hom, Didn't mean to strike a nerve but your comeback makes no sense.

I used the term mechanical to represent in-game mechanics. I can't speak for anyone else, but personally I don't find having to go through a F6/AR process almost every mugging enjoyable. Especially when the payout in the end isn't even guaranteed because "ban is enough."


Again, this isn't an ego-battle. I didn't insult you, I said the point you made is ignorant by saying "ignorance is bliss," You ask me to present a solution? You reacted to the solution I presented and reacted to it negatively without ever actually addressing it or at least remembering it.

Furthermore, Your example isn't actually that hard to address, There is mugs that take place while roaming and mugs that take place at DD.

DD mugs are extremely easy to go about because you can turn around, assess the level of danger and then choose to retaliate or surrender (granted they don't warn you to not turn around). When you realize "oh shit 4 people have me at gunpoint while holding automatics and I am armed with a pistol," then obviously you should surrender to Stay Alive because resistance is futile.

Mugs that happen while roaming with or without this rule will be unclear anyway. Even if it's a 1 on 1 interaction, the victim can still claim "oh I didn't know I was being gunpointed" then draw a weapon. This is why it's a staff's job to investigate and if they deem it was truly unclear then they're innocent or if they deem it was clear enough then they're guilty.


Many of you who think this shouldn't be implemented, consider you total your car due to your own reckless driving under high way in forest, now you've got to jog a mile with a handgun in passive (for whatever reason), Hoping you don't stumble across a group of 3 or more, because they can and will punish you for making the strange decision to reckless drive into a dark forest mug-zone only armed with a pistol holding valuables you don't wish to lose with your guard down so badly that 3 people can sneak up close enough to talk to you.

Furthermore, let's assume you've raided a Wood Cabin, but your car's tires are shot out. You've now got to run a long distance and hopefully not encounter any player, otherwise if you're gunpointed with your guard down for (after a raid for whatever reason) by even a single player, you must surrender.

Ok joke's aside, this last part is absolutely a non-argument. There is a clear balance that you seem to refuse to acknowledge when talking about this rule. Nobody leaving a raid scene should have their guard down so low that 3 people can get a gunpoint and order surrender before he raises his weapon on one then shoots. even if it was 1 person gunpointing the raider with their guard down, then that raider has to surrender. Lastly, If you're reckless driving into forest and you crash then in the extreme circumstance that you stumble upon 3 people who all ambush you into a gunpoint. At that point, who's fault is it really? This exact scenario can and will happen with or without the rule because its immensely more of a risk to resist in this circumstance as a victim then it is to attempt to mug the victim as a perpetrator.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

tl;dr?

View attachment 22945

ask him, I didn't start the argumentative essay writing.

 

[Efan]

Just so you know, I’m not reading anything that has more than 1 paragraph.

 

[Matthew]

does this apply to gunpoint by police because realistically police should be less likely to shoot u if u run than muggers would be

 

[Akeno Himejima]

does this apply to gunpoint by police because realistically police should be less likely to shoot u if u run than muggers would be

That don't matter, 3.4 is 3.4 and you are likely to get warned if you do so. Trees provide little to no cover so this is obsolete.

 

[mimeyy]

You don’t have to imagine you’re banned, jokes aside if someone does counter you and it ends up in a shootout, it should still be considered a raid (in my opinion)

If PLPD show up to an unoccupied raid and a shootout happens, is it a raid?

 

[A1L]

If PLPD show up to an unoccupied raid and a shootout happens, is it a raid?

I believe that is what we discussed, yes it should count as one