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.