Rule Changes and 3.4 poll - 28/07/2024

[GSOLAR]

Only reason peeps want to be able to not get mugged when gpd by 3 dudes is cuz they too butthurt to lose 2 bandages, 2 mags, a pistol and 5k cash…

Shouldnt even be a discussion imo. If I get gpd irl even when having gun in passive hell yeah Im turning my stuff over

 

[Mohamed jalalibil]

Only reason peeps want to be able to not get mugged when gpd by 3 dudes is cuz they too butthurt to lose 2 bandages, 2 mags, a pistol and 5k cash…

Shouldnt even be a discussion imo. If I get gpd irl even when having gun in passive hell yeah Im turning my stuff over

Bro last time i got mugged they took everything even my phone and fucking life alert

 

[GP]

Bro last time i got mugged they took everything even my phone and fucking life alert

So you can't call the Police right away or give out the location if you end up dying due to some stupid action from your part... of course they're going to take that

 

[Bnjemann]

Only reason peeps want to be able to not get mugged when gpd by 3 dudes is cuz they too butthurt to lose 2 bandages, 2 mags, a pistol and 5k cash…

Shouldnt even be a discussion imo. If I get gpd irl even when having gun in passive hell yeah Im turning my stuff over

This change will only be applicable to drug dealer muggings as that’s the most common circumstance this is done under, meaning people will just Zerg drug dealer to mug mostly new players who are relatively unaware of the threat posed by the area.

 

[littleevi]

This change will only be applicable to drug dealer muggings as that’s the most common circumstance this is done under, meaning people will just Zerg drug dealer to mug mostly new players who are relatively unaware of the threat posed by the area.

Zerging DD is based af tho…..

 

[chopperr]

 

[Mohamed jalalibil]

So you can't call the Police right away or give out the location if you end up dying due to some stupid action from your part... of course they're going to take that

im just saying thats why people dont wanna be mugegd

 

[MrAaron]

Allot of these new rules is which makes the game boring, loads of bombs is fun, being risky and putting pressure on other players to upset them is what makes the game as it creates war

It just makes it boring having it predominately police based

 

[rxsm]

Allot of these new rules is which makes the game boring, loads of bombs is fun, being risky and putting pressure on other players to upset them is what makes the game as it creates war

It just makes it boring having it predominately police based

yes but womp womp i die to 1shot sniper

 

[The White Glove Society]

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks when 3 people with guns are pointing at you alone in the forest with your ppk by your side is a good idea to fight back, needs to seek mental help.

Well, they are obviously gonna die but if that's enforced in the rules then big organizations can go around bulling people with pistols all day long.

 

[HuskyD0G]

Well, they are obviously gonna die but if that's enforced in the rules then big organizations can go around bulling people with pistols all day long.

Fair point

 

[MalekIsWeird]

How people think fighting back is gonna go:

 

[Eistee von Aldi]

How people think fighting back is gonna go:

 

[rat]

The issue with pretty much anything that tries to have a roleplaying element to it is that it's simply not possible to explicitly account for every situation that players may run into. This typically means players need to approach such spaces with enough goodwill and understanding to be able to resolve disputes.

Any actions taken by a player that may put their In-Character life, freedom from imprisonment or general well being at risk must be done so in a realistic fashion and for beneficial reasons.

Let's take cigarettes, for example. Ingame, if you smoke, cigarettes damage you slightly and provide no real benefit. Thus, it may be fairly argued if taken at face value, that this is an infringement of rule 3.4. Obviously, the consensus in the group is that smoking cigarettes is fine, and the ability to use them is implicit permission in itself.

Now, let's draw a hypothetical. If there existed a civil war style musket within the game, a firearm with one shot and a roughly 30-60 second reload time, would it be realistic to argue that any person who raises such a weapon in self defence whilst gunpointed by 2 people standing far enough apart would be an act comensurate with rule 3.4? Obviously not, there is no way that you, as a person who does not respawn and only has one life could take down both attackers with such a weapon.

However, if you have a fully automatic rifle capable of firing 600 RPM, maybe you have a chance.

A lot of the rules in PERP, at least when I used to play, were not rules that described in-detail each and every scenario in which that rule may have been applied, instead they were guidelines, roleplay ideas that you would use to think from your characters perspective to help influence your actions in a realistic way.

Basically it's vibes based idk, case by case basis and stuff.

From a roleplay perspective there are definitely sitautions where you can have a gun in your hand and should comply with attackers, but from a gameplay balance perspective I can't really judge because I haven't played PERP in a hot minute.

PS. polls are bad for coming up with solutions to complicated issues such as this

 

[Sorle]

The issue with pretty much anything that tries to have a roleplaying element to it is that it's simply not possible to explicitly account for every situation that players may run into. This typically means players need to approach such spaces with enough goodwill and understanding to be able to resolve disputes.



Let's take cigarettes, for example. Ingame, if you smoke, cigarettes damage you slightly and provide no real benefit. Thus, it may be fairly argued if taken at face value, that this is an infringement of rule 3.4. Obviously, the consensus in the group is that smoking cigarettes is fine, and the ability to use them is implicit permission in itself.

Now, let's draw a hypothetical. If there existed a civil war style musket within the game, a firearm with one shot and a roughly 30-60 second reload time, would it be realistic to argue that any person who raises such a weapon in self defence whilst gunpointed by 2 people standing far enough apart would be an act comensurate with rule 3.4? Obviously not, there is no way that you, as a person who does not respawn and only has one life could take down both attackers with such a weapon.

However, if you have a fully automatic rifle capable of firing 600 RPM, maybe you have a chance.

A lot of the rules in PERP, at least when I used to play, were not rules that described in-detail each and every scenario in which that rule may have been applied, instead they were guidelines, roleplay ideas that you would use to think from your characters perspective to help influence your actions in a realistic way.

Basically it's vibes based idk, case by case basis and stuff.

From a roleplay perspective there are definitely sitautions where you can have a gun in your hand and should comply with attackers, but from a gameplay balance perspective I can't really judge because I haven't played PERP in a hot minute.

PS. polls are bad for coming up with solutions to complicated issues such as this

basically completely agree, there's nuance and complexity to this situation which isn't addressed in a format of "do you agree yes or no", as it stands the nuance is accurately represented and common sense should be applied to scenarios when considering whether or not your chances of survival are realistic, by making this change you remove the nuance and only work to make things more restrictive

for example, i think the use of /me's to indicate gunpoint when someone has their back turned should result in immediate compliance, even if you have a gun in passive, as you are unable to realistically turn around and then fight back with any decent chance of survival - this does place a level of trust in the person performing a /me to be truthful in accordance with the rules but the system of gunpoint already puts that element of trust in players to actually follow along - by making changes like the ones in this thread you only work to make avenues of criminal roleplay more restrictive & cut-and-dry, following more of a flowchart of "if this happens i do this" instead of allowing for some creativity to work through situations or approach situations in the first place

 

[MalekIsWeird]

This change will only be applicable to drug dealer muggings

Do people do force withdrawals? Yes.

do people get mugged in silent raids? Yes

Do people get caught lacking in forest or behind car dealer? Yes

Do people get caught lacking when they go for drill location? Yes

Sorry, your statement is false

as that’s the most common circumstance this is done under, meaning people will just Zerg drug dealer to mug mostly new players who are relatively unaware of the threat posed by the area.

who would’ve thought a gang would want to control a hot spot where drugs are being moved in high quantity?!

More importantly, new players don’t know DD locations. And if they do go, and theyre not stupid, they don’t go alone. If they do, they deserve to receive a learning experience as they currently already do.

New players aren’t an untouchable caste. They can be raided and mugged like anyone else even now.

 

[Seshwan]

3.4 is quite literally the most rigged rule in the world, it has hardly any clarity other than / comply or die.

for example, the literal rule is "preserve your life".

so if a cop gun points you, and you're complying unarmed.
and you refuse to listen (breaking the law) and request a sup, even letting them cuff you.
You can still be banned/punished.

(Tho cops not supposed to randomly shoot you as you are a citizen, so where is the reason to be scared?)

it destroys RP situations.
For example with mugging, if I have a gun in my hand, i can shoot that gun.
therefore shouldn't need to comply.

or

if i was gun pointed but I KNOW that 2-3 people around me were pointing guns/coming to back me, should I have a reason to comply?

IF i could persuade someone to put a gun down, before the commit an act, that would serve for better RP
and that's something IRL speaking, i would try and do.

but because of 3.4

you get banned for not doing it in 1.2 seconds
that's the reality of it, you guys are harsh as F with this rule.
and i know for a fact a lot of the community hates this 3.4 rule


like we completely forget this is some "city/gang/crime" RP.
No scene can be met because you have someone who would break character to just have to explain to an unarmed person you've got to put your hands up.

The rule "preserve your life" is really stupid and very strict.
personally ihd scrap the whole "preserve your life" and change it to "not complying with no preservation" meaning if a person doesn't have a reason not to comply, then they would be breaking rules. instead of "You don't comply u banned for not rping their way".

stuff like running away, or evading in a car, = not cool
but trying to RP a solution to a gun problem, is more real RP than you guys force the rule to be.

 

[Goonsberg]

3.4 is quite literally the most rigged rule in the world, it has hardly any clarity other than / comply or die.

for example, the literal rule is "preserve your life".

so if a cop gun points you, and you're complying unarmed.
and you refuse to listen (breaking the law) and request a sup, even letting them cuff you.
You can still be banned/punished.

(Tho cops not supposed to randomly shoot you as you are a citizen, so where is the reason to be scared?)

it destroys RP situations.
For example with mugging, if I have a gun in my hand, i can shoot that gun.
therefore shouldn't need to comply.

or

if i was gun pointed but I KNOW that 2-3 people around me were pointing guns/coming to back me, should I have a reason to comply?

IF i could persuade someone to put a gun down, before the commit an act, that would serve for better RP
and that's something IRL speaking, i would try and do.

but because of 3.4

you get banned for not doing it in 1.2 seconds
that's the reality of it, you guys are harsh as F with this rule.
and i know for a fact a lot of the community hates this 3.4 rule


like we completely forget this is some "city/gang/crime" RP.
No scene can be met because you have someone who would break character to just have to explain to an unarmed person you've got to put your hands up.

The rule "preserve your life" is really stupid and very strict.
personally ihd scrap the whole "preserve your life" and change it to "not complying with no preservation" meaning if a person doesn't have a reason not to comply, then they would be breaking rules. instead of "You don't comply u banned for not rping their way".

stuff like running away, or evading in a car, = not cool
but trying to RP a solution to a gun problem, is more real RP than you guys force the rule to be.

3.4 is the most essential and necessary rule in PERP. Without it, the game mode would fail.

Don’t try and blame the rules for your incompetence to follow them.

 

[ASRox]

3.4 is quite literally the most rigged rule in the world, it has hardly any clarity other than / comply or die.

for example, the literal rule is "preserve your life".

so if a cop gun points you, and you're complying unarmed.
and you refuse to listen (breaking the law) and request a sup, even letting them cuff you.
You can still be banned/punished.

(Tho cops not supposed to randomly shoot you as you are a citizen, so where is the reason to be scared?)

it destroys RP situations.
For example with mugging, if I have a gun in my hand, i can shoot that gun.
therefore shouldn't need to comply.

or

if i was gun pointed but I KNOW that 2-3 people around me were pointing guns/coming to back me, should I have a reason to comply?

IF i could persuade someone to put a gun down, before the commit an act, that would serve for better RP
and that's something IRL speaking, i would try and do.

but because of 3.4

you get banned for not doing it in 1.2 seconds
that's the reality of it, you guys are harsh as F with this rule.
and i know for a fact a lot of the community hates this 3.4 rule


like we completely forget this is some "city/gang/crime" RP.
No scene can be met because you have someone who would break character to just have to explain to an unarmed person you've got to put your hands up.

The rule "preserve your life" is really stupid and very strict.
personally ihd scrap the whole "preserve your life" and change it to "not complying with no preservation" meaning if a person doesn't have a reason not to comply, then they would be breaking rules. instead of "You don't comply u banned for not rping their way".

stuff like running away, or evading in a car, = not cool
but trying to RP a solution to a gun problem, is more real RP than you guys force the rule to be.

That's a whole lotta text to ultimately boil down to you just complaining about your ban. The whole "Oh I let him cuff me" cop out doesn't work when 9/10 the moment the cuffs come out, the player who didn't want to comply just starts blasting, which is obviously not exactly stellar RP.

In an ideal world yeah, there would be more roleplay surrounding gunpointing, but given that everyone and their nan plays almost exclusively to inflate their ego, any amount of "negotiation" will be to get some kind of competitive advantage. It has gotten to a point where gunpointing somoene is a mechanic more than anything else, because people would just go nuts doing whatever they want just for the chance of getting a kill or not losing a weapon.

It's all well and good to write all of this, but you know exactly how frustrating it is when people don't comply with you. Giving control to the person with the gun makes these situations fair across the board. It is when people decide they don't want to yield control that they don't comply. This whole reply reads as someone not wanting to get the short end of the stick rather than someone actually advocating for proper roleplay. It seems to me that you just don't want to RP on someone else's terms other than yours, which isn't exactly fun for everyone else.

Your 3.4 record would seem to support this...

 

[Seshwan]

3.4 is the most essential and necessary rule in PERP. Without it, the game mode would fail.

Don’t try and blame the rules for your incompetence to follow them.

No understanding of the random hostility
My explanation is that the fear RP is quite an undescribed, low-effort rule, 3.4.
You say it has the most essential and necessary foot-hold on the game.
that perp would fail without it, but i can't see why it would do so, AND i also see no reasoning from the people who defend the rule.
Other than : Get my own way RP.

The whole point in fear is that nobody is the same when it comes to reacting to that.

Within actual decision-making that can change the whole situation, reactions can be passed from fast to slow.
the reaction also comes into play with how you instantly respond as, one person's motive is to gunpoint and the other is to understand, assess, process, plan, and react., a person's natural reaction reason with someone, or move back, or try to understand before acting.

If there is a situation where you can avoid gunpoint (Without running, and driving away ofc) limitations. then that route should be allowed to be played out.

This rule in my personal statistics ruins roleplay, its OOC's scenes 24/7 there is no roleplay, because this rule lacks of detail.
I've had more people say "hands up hands up your breaking 3.4" more then "hands up hands up you are being robbed".

This is why I suggest that the rule has more of an in-depth description of certain situations instead of just assuming it is incompetence when its more a person's own interpretation of the rules.

as that is what people have to go off.

I see fear RP 3.4 as an ok don't get killed, this is how i first interpated the ruling.

In my opinion, v
Mugging = Make it obvious, use 3.4 for this.
but gunpoint by a citizen, more in-depth description
gun point by police = no 3.4 reasoning is because of criminal activity. (Dissobaying police is a crime, why can't i commit that crime)

for example, you say 3.4 conserve your life, ok i won't grow drugs in the game at all then, because if i do, I'm likely to get raided and shot to death, I'm not conserving my life.

Like if you think that its a clear rule, and that it doesn't need any improvement go ahead, but personally this is a joke rule in my opinion.