Server Suggestion Unarmed defenders must surrender to avoid being shot

[Dahweeble]

Suggestion Title: Unarmed defenders must surrender to avoid being shot
Suggestion Description: Make unarmed people in bases have to surrender to avoid being shot by raiders. You should still be punished if you shoot someone unarmed, however only if they did surrender and you still shoot them.

Why should this be added?:
- Right now you can get punished for shooting unarmed people, but sometimes it gets you killed because it's literally impossible to know if they're armed or not as they're hiding behind things or their gun is camouflaged.

Almost every player is armed when basing so this would make it a lot easier for the raiders to deal with unarmed players.

In the clip provided you see me not being able to see if the person in front of me is armed or the guy behind the barrier. The pistol is completely camouflaged on her chest and the other dude I can only see the top of his head of.
https://medal.tv/games/garrys-mod/clips/kp9V1PsIBk2934HA7?invite=cr-MSxkZEssMjc4NTIxOTU3

What negatives could this have?:
- Unarmed AFK people might get shot without a good enough reason sometimes.

What problem would this suggestion solve?: I would've killed 1-2 people in the raid if I didn't have to wait for them to shoot first, possibly saving my life.

 

[exrobite]

Unarmed people in a shootout should seek to leave that shootout immediately, or, if not possible, take shelter in a way that maximizes the chance that they survive. Anyone running around unarmed in the middle of the shootout is breaking 3.4 anyway. Surrendering is also an option, but railroading people into it isn't a great idea imo.

 

[Dahweeble]

Unarmed people in a shootout should seek to leave that shootout immediately, or, if not possible, take shelter in a way that maximizes the chance that they survive. Anyone running around unarmed in the middle of the shootout is breaking 3.4 anyway. Surrendering is also an option, but railroading people into it isn't a great idea imo.

Correct, but sometimes you're stuck in a corner because of a bomb for example and then you only see their head, which means you won't be able to see if they're armed or not. And many unarmed people peek behind barriers, which also conceal any gun they might have in their hands.

 

[Allen Kennedy]

Bro you got killed cause you got 2v1d, not cause of some bs where you couldn't see his head.

ngl I agree with the suggestion tho. If you don't have your hands up in a situation like this then you ought to be fair game.

 

[Dahweeble]

Bro you got killed cause you got 2v1d, not cause of some bs where you couldn't see his head.

ngl I agree with the suggestion tho. If you don't have your hands up in a situation like this then you ought to be fair game.

My reaction time is about 130-140 ms, I had to wait for them to shoot before I could shoot myself. I did have a good chance to headshot the first one if I didn't have to wait for them to shoot first. I literally thought in my brain that I had to wait to see if they were shooting at me or not

But yeah, I'm definitely not the only one that has experienced dying to someone that you can't see if is armed or not.

 

[Allen Kennedy]

My reaction time is about 130-140 ms, I had to wait for them to shoot before I could shoot myself. I did have a good chance to headshot the first one if I didn't have to wait for them to shoot first. I literally thought in my brain that I had to wait to see if they were shooting at me or not

You were dead before you aimed down sights my brother. And you could have shot the moment you saw the guy's pistol.

 

[Dahweeble]

You were dead before you aimed down sights my brother. And you could have shot the moment you saw the guy's pistol.

You actually start shooting before you aim down the sights in case you weren't aware. He was running so his arms were going up and down, hard to see it when it's constantly moving and you only have a split second.

 

[Inchs]

in my opinion, if you're in an apartment doing legal activities and not armed, it's your own fault and should be fair game to be shot

 

[Allen Kennedy]

You actually start shooting before you aim down the sights in case you weren't aware. He was running so his arms were going up and down, hard to see it when it's constantly moving and you only have a split second.

Nah mate I agree with the substance of the suggestion, but I don't think this suggestion would've helped you here. They had you dead to rights I reckon.

 

[iiTzWasParsnip]

Honestly if they don't have their hands up or aren't trying to hide I would just shoot on sight, exception of them standing still out in the open (to show they're not a threat so they can avoid being shot). If anyone you're raiding is doing anything in the slightest suspicion, it makes sense to shoot them. I.e. an unarmed, and non-threatening person will not be running towards the door you just blew up.

 

[mimeyy]

Not a rule suggestion so I will understand it as a suggestion to increase enforcing of 3.4 in the situation described, to which I think is already enforced for experienced players.

Most unarmed defenders are going to be new players with minimal props to obstruct their stance or weapon. Experienced players should not be using defenses while unarmed in an active situation, the staff are able to discern between obvious baiting and accidental/meandering behind a defense, which could and likely has been a 3.4 warning at least.

In the case of your clip, you bombed their apartment and seemingly had no shots fired from the occupants, which could be a strategic decision by them to not invite wallbangs/prefires.

It is always the case that surrendering is the only option to stay alive if there is no viable retreat or ability to fight back, and failing to do so will fall under 3.4 already.

 

[Goonsberg]

in my opinion, if you're in an apartment doing legal activities and not armed, it's your own fault and should be fair game to be shot

You mean illegal right?

 

[Inchs]

You mean illegal right?

yeah that one