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.

 

[Max Bradford]

Wild take but I favour an even more extreme option.

If you are in a property that is obviously a base for the purposes of committing criminal activity, and you are unarmed, you accept that you will be killed during a raid and that the onus of responsibility is on you as the occupant to arm yourself to keep yourself safe, not on the raider to ensure that he has the right to kill you.

I've always found the way we do things where you have to be certain that the person you are about to shoot and kill in a raid is armed as unnecessary complexity for the Rules. It adds a ridiculous burden on raiders in what is a fast-moving situation. It basically forces raiders to hand over any advantage they may have to defenders, when for all intents and purposes, the defenders almost always already have an advantage over raiders.

This issue is also the source of so many reports, warnings, and bans, and makes the whole activity of raiding stupidly convoluted for new players.

I don't think that you being unarmed in a base should be a golden ticket to not being shot and killed. You should accept that you are putting yourself at risk of death by being inside a property that is clearly being used for criminal purposes.

I've bolded those two portions because I do think there is still a distinction to be made when people raid properties or try to mug people in properties that have been very obviously set up for passive roleplay reasons, i.e. not concrete barricades, metal fences, metal detectors, and spotlights everywhere.

acerius makes some very valid points which I don't think many people are going to disagree with.

 

[Dahweeble]

Wild take but I favour an even more extreme option.

If you are in a property that is obviously a base for the purposes of committing criminal activity, and you are unarmed, you accept that you will be killed during a raid and that the onus of responsibility is on you as the occupant to arm yourself to keep yourself safe, not on the raider to ensure that he has the right to kill you.

I've always found the way we do things where you have to be certain that the person you are about to shoot and kill in a raid is armed as unnecessary complexity for the Rules. It adds a ridiculous burden on raiders in what is a fast-moving situation. It basically forces raiders to hand over any advantage they may have to defenders, when for all intents and purposes, the defenders almost always already have an advantage over raiders.

This issue is also the source of so many reports, warnings, and bans, and makes the whole activity of raiding stupidly convoluted for new players.

I don't think that you being unarmed in a base should be a golden ticket to not being shot and killed. You should accept that you are putting yourself at risk of death by being inside a property that is clearly being used for criminal purposes.

I've bolded those two portions because I do think there is still a distinction to be made when people raid properties or try to mug people in properties that have been very obviously set up for passive roleplay reasons, i.e. not concrete barricades, metal fences, metal detectors, and spotlights everywhere.

I totally agree. Something must be done, it's just the question of what. And no one really cares if they die unarmed... In many ways it's better than being mugged, or just stuck in base as a hostage when you're most likely just gonna get killed in the end anyway.

 

[SomeUser]

Wild take but I favour an even more extreme option.

If you are in a property that is obviously a base for the purposes of committing criminal activity, and you are unarmed, you accept that you will be killed during a raid and that the onus of responsibility is on you as the occupant to arm yourself to keep yourself safe, not on the raider to ensure that he has the right to kill you.

I've always found the way we do things where you have to be certain that the person you are about to shoot and kill in a raid is armed as unnecessary complexity for the Rules. It adds a ridiculous burden on raiders in what is a fast-moving situation. It basically forces raiders to hand over any advantage they may have to defenders, when for all intents and purposes, the defenders almost always already have an advantage over raiders.

This issue is also the source of so many reports, warnings, and bans, and makes the whole activity of raiding stupidly convoluted for new players.

I don't think that you being unarmed in a base should be a golden ticket to not being shot and killed. You should accept that you are putting yourself at risk of death by being inside a property that is clearly being used for criminal purposes.

I've bolded those two portions because I do think there is still a distinction to be made when people raid properties or try to mug people in properties that have been very obviously set up for passive roleplay reasons, i.e. not concrete barricades, metal fences, metal detectors, and spotlights everywhere.

I agree, However i have a couple of thoughts, lets say crafting would you count that as passive, if your lets say doing a VC order and you then get raided, would that be classed as passive and what about when a property is like a passive RP situation, Like i know some people like to make there base look nice and not actully do anything with the base just have it there to look nice, which then cause a shootout with the cops when raiding, what would you do then? (not disagreeing just having a few thoughts about the idea thats all)

 

[Collier]

I have, for many years, vehemently disliked forcing raiders to yield their advantage, or to have some kind of trigger discipline when raiding a base. In a similar vein, I absolutely hate when I read a report saying "I was AFK in my base, I came back and I am dead!". AFK people in bases can't follow 3.4, so killing them seems entirely reasonable to me.

Subsequently, I strongly believe that if you are in a base of some kind, and have not armed yourself, you're doing it wrong, and should suffer the consequences of being at the mercy of your raider.

I have posted this suggestion in the admin channel of the Discord for voting. We will try to come up with a satisfactory solution soon. Thank you for creating this suggestion.

 

[Collier]

I agree, However i have a couple of thoughts, lets say crafting would you count that as passive, if your lets say doing a VC order and you then get raided, would that be classed as passive and what about when a property is like a passive RP situation, Like i know some people like to make there base look nice and not actully do anything with the base just have it there to look nice, which then cause a shootout with the cops when raiding, what would you do then? (not disagreeing just having a few thoughts about the idea thats all)

To add to this, I believe that having any kind of defensive structure, or even boarded windows, signifies to your raider that you are hiding something, and should make you vulnerable to being shot. If we do go with @Acerius' version (which I have already suggested myself internally), that is probably the threshold one would have to clear

 

[SomeUser]

To add to this, I believe that having any kind of defensive structure, or even boarded windows, signifies to your raider that you are hiding something, and should make you vulnerable to being shot. If we do go with @Acerius' version (which I have already suggested myself internally), that is probably the threshold one would have to clear

Ok so my question was a good one for a change lmao, But that makes total sence, Again it probs wont help me win raids because i am kinda shit but it will help me a bit if this was impimented in all honesty, as in all honesty it rn I could kill someone thats there and it be a whole backwards and forwards with admins and shit and it just takes it out of the expierance if im being honest