[Suggestion] Reversing recent 2.5. update

[Husky]

What rule do you wish to Edit/Add: 2.5. Excessive negativity

Your version of the rule:

2.5 Excessive Negativity
Players may not excessively impact the experience of others in a negative manner, unless the actions are a proportionate escalation of negative actions that have been performed against the original player.

For example, it is not acceptable to:

• Intentionally mug and target new players.
• Destroy valuable items due to basic distaste such as product prices.
• Killing a player over verbal insults, minor or accidental actions.
• Killing a player after mugging them because they’ve seen your identity.
• Intentionally steal a car to wreck it without any valid reason.

Why do you believe this rule should be Added/Edited:

Currently,the rule states the following in addition:

Players may not excessively impact the experience of others in a negative manner, unless the actions are a proportionate escalation of negative actions that have been performed against the original player.

When participating in raids, players carrying visible weaponry are considered to be significant enough threats to be killed justifiably without prior verbal commands or interaction.

Whilst this rule has been interesting I believe it has only led to pointless shootouts and led to the server going in the opposite direction of the Owner's intentions (serious roleplay). This rule is a joke and extremely easy to exploit, please fix.

 

[flugs]

I feel like in raids people just get very trigger-happy. I've done countless reports from people saying they got shot unarmed in raids or shot when they had a gun on their back. I feel like unless someone is pointing the gun at you, you should always try to make verbal commands before just killing them and this part of the rule just gives raiders a reason to KOS people and its pretty toxic if you ask me, especially if they aren't actually posing an immediate threat.

+Support

 

[Double J]

I agree with flugs here.
I've noticed that people walk past shootouts completely unaware that there is an active one happening and get shot.
If they are walking around with one and loitering, fair enough, but if they just walk past and don't pose a threat then they shouldn't be shot.

 

[.....]

Shooting people with guns on their back has always been a thing, in the rule its just a clarification that it's allowed.
If you are in a base that's being raided and you have a gun on your back you should be shot without a warning. Makes no sense to leave someone who is a threat to your life alive.
Also the argument that this rule brings the oposite of serious roleplay makes no sense to me. If it was roleplay that serious you wouldn't leave anyone in the base alive including unarmed people.

-Support

 

[Josef Stalin]

If you walk around with a big gun on your back in the middle of a shootout, then thats your own problem. If it gets you killed you probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. Also when you walk around with a gun on your back, you probably choose the path of a criminal and guess what, thats dangerous and might gets you killed.

 

[nutrient10]

This isn't true. It was a change to the rule, not a clarification.

 

[Husky]

That's not the complaint at all, if theres a shootout and you're armed you are then fair game to shoot.

My point is people shooting armed people outside of or on their properties (essentially rdm'ing them) and then raiding with no prior initiation involved.

 

[.....]

I really think you should resign. It was said in an AR before the clarification was implemented in the rules.

the no russian one

Your Steam/In-game Name: John King His/Her Steam/In-game Name: Jarred Donerino - https://steamcommunity.com/id/J_A_R_R_E_D Curtis Stewart - https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheMood1 Mario Alardin - https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198133223424 random sweater that I dont know His/Her...

perpheads.com

 

[Husky]

Perhaps you misunderstood the post. The complaint is regarding this addition:

" When participating in raids, players carrying visible weaponry are considered to be significant enough threats to be killed justifiably without prior verbal commands or interaction. "

This has literally led to people being kos'd outside of slums, projex, office etc for them to bobby pin one door and run away. It's quite literally a shit fest, and after speaking with an owner (who voted on this poll) I believe he feels the same way.

 

[.....]

Its common sense that you shouldn't shoot people not involved in the raid, but if the person is from a rival organization that you are raiding I think it makes sense to KOS.

 

[Husky]

@thehomelessdude To me it seems unnecessary and lacks any RP, some sort of initiation needs to take place.

Kinda bored of walking outside of slums to get flat RDM'd isn't fun, never used to be allowed and just unsure on when it changed.

 

[Lelios1]

Isn't this still not allowed though? Afaik shooting an owner before initiating the raid is 2.5. Maybe just clarifying it on the rule will be better?

 

[Husky]

@Lelios1 I've been told by every staff member so far its allowed due to it being "beneficial" to the raid. Seems like flat rdm to me

 

[CensoredExe]

While its annoying if you're shot unarmed, I believe if you're unarmed in a raid you should be doing everything in your power to make yourself known as harmless.
Be verbal and have your hands up the entire time.

I dont think its too much of an issue currently, however maybe more clarity on the rule is good.

neutral

 

[Husky]

This isn't about during a raid, perhaps I miss worded this post as quite a few people have said this now.

This is purely about being shot BEFORE A RAID has been initiated in any form, in fact, the shooting of an owner is now deemed valid as an initiation to a raid.

 

[CensoredExe]

Ahhh I see.
I kind of agree with this; however its often a tactical choice that benefits the raiders massively to be able to initiate a raid by shooting an occupant looking through a window etc; especially if its a huge base.

Personally, im not sure if its anything about being negative, more a decision made to preserve your life and the other raiders lives?

However, the amount of times im the one being shot at the start of the raid is annoying, so I kind of see your point. Still going to stay neutral as I'd like to hear more peoples opinions.

 

[Deleted member 6228]

If you are purely talking about getting shot before any initiation, which it seems you are, I am all for that change. If you want to raid an apartment you should have to initiate the engagement somehow, such as lockpicking, crowbarring or bombing, it's such an unfair advantage to just gun someone down the second they try to leave for burgers or something

 

[Husky]

what this man said

 

[Lelios1]

@Husky I agree, it's pretty much rdm.

 

[Bnjemann]

Hello I am the person that suggested this change. I did not make the suggestion with intentions of allowing people being sprayed down outside a property before a raid. Let me elaborate:

I feel as though the point I was trying to make was misinterpreted a bit, Probably largely my fault. The point was, if you go inside a base, and see defences up, and / or if someone inside is shooting and you push in to see someone with a rifle on their back, or someone crouched behind a barricade and you shot said people for said reasons, you would have been violating rules and I felt as though that was stupid.

Shooting someone before a raid is initiated was never the plan except for in the context of if you're sniping and see someone armed step up in the open inside the property, The idea was you were allowed to take the shot. Albeit, that's an incredibly rare occurrence thanks to wooden boards and the likes.

What I've witnessed with my own eyes and heard stories of however was people being sprayed down outside of bases for being in their cars.

I will remain arrogantly certain on my viewpoint that having defences inside a property when you're getting raided does in fact justify shooting someone who's inside the base as a raider if you have sense that they are armed. However, people shouldn't be getting shot outside of properties as defenders under normal circumstances.

Tl;Dr: Shooting people who are inside a base = Good, shooting them outside a base = bad.