Modify Deathmatch Rules

[Copperhorse]

Current:

• If they are not in compliance with demands, attempt to escape, or call other players for help in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.

New:

• If they are not in compliance with demands or attempt to escape while at gunpoint.

• If they call other players for help in a situation where they are required to display fear under fear roleplay rules.

Basis:

If you pull a gun on a vehicle and they can clearly hear your demands because they are stationary, but the engine is on, they technically aren't under Fear RP because of the engine being on. However I believe the fact that they refused to follow your demands whilst being at gunpoint should be enough to attempt shoot at them or their vehicle for failure to follow your demands. It just doesn't make sense that being in a vehicle with the engine on would make some sort of magical barrier that a criminal would decide not to shoot at you when in reality they likely would. The rule should be changed so that the player in the vehicle CAN make that decision to drive off, but that if the player who gave demands shoots at him for deciding to do so there would be no DM punishment towards that player.

 

Also on a separate note, I believe that another rule should be added:

New:

• If you are clearly associated with an individual who commits an offense that would allow the victim and/or his associates to attack your friend then you are able to be attacked as well.

Basis:

Lets say that I was getting robbed a group of 3 individuals. One of them was aiming a weapon at me and two of them are scouting to make sure everything goes smoothly. A couple of my friends drive by and see me getting robbed. They get out of the car and attack the guy pointing a weapon at me. Under the current rules, they are at an inherent disadvantage because the two people scouting are not allowed to be attacked by my friends, so even if they are facing them with an AK-47 in hand, my friends would receive a deathmatching punishment for shooting them. The only way my friends would be allowed to attack the associates is if they opened up fire on my friends for attacking the robber. I don't think having to trade deathmatching rights on an individual basis is fair nor does it make any sense. If a group of individuals initiates an attack on another group of individuals, I believe deathmatching rights should be granted for everyone in both groups as long as there is a clear association.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Copperhorse

[Kolt45Chambers]

-1

If there is a person aiming a gun at you while you are stationary, your natural instinct is to drive forward either hitting the person or escaping which then allows further rp by initiating a chase etc etc.

[Copperhorse]

10 minutes ago, Kolt45Chambers said:

-1

If there is a person aiming a gun at you while you are stationary, your natural instinct is to drive forward either hitting the person or escaping which then allows further rp by initiating a chase etc etc.

Right and if you attempt to escape while a gun is being pointed at you then the player should be able to attack you for not following his demands. Being in a car gives you the opportunity to attempt an escape, but it shouldn't prevent the shooter from trying to stop you from escaping.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Copperhorse

[Kolt45Chambers]

1 hour ago, Copperhorse said:

Right and if you attempt to escape while a gun is being pointed at you then the player should be able to attack you for not following his demands. Being in a car gives you the opportunity to attempt an escape, but it shouldn't prevent the shooter from trying to stop you from escaping.

you are right but there should be a time limit on how long the attacker can wait before they attack

[CaesarSeizure]

I think that could work, but the problem now is that vehicles get stalled way too easily. 

But i also dont want to get constantly robbed, imagine you stop at a red light, someone comes up with a motorcycle and a guy on the back with a gun, they yell demands, you drive away, and then they start chasing and shooting you.

[TreMetal]

You need to define what "at gun point" means.  Technically I could have someone 50 feet away "at gunpoint", but I don't think that should be reason for DM rights. 

Also, if this were ever to happen car stalling needs to be completely reworked at least in terms of melee/weapon stalling cars.  

Anyways, I'll always throw a -1 for any suggestion that pushes the server closer to GTA:O and further from RP.  I don't think we need a convoluted rule in general for this situation.. if you feel the user is doing NonRP by baiting/taunting using their car as a NCZ then you should report them for such.  It is the first bullet point under NonRP: "Actions that are unrealistic or promote poor quality roleplay are considered as non-roleplay."  This would cover general baiting and what not, but still allow someone to simply drive away to escape a situation. 

[Phantas]

Not everything needs to be solved with shooting.

[Jasmine]

I don't agree with the recommendation because making it easier to fire off shots in not something the server needs.

That is all.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Jasmine

[Tomvd682]

8 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

I have to agree with this. Even in the civilian side, people are constantly instigating and threatening looking for any reason to fire off shots.
I would be against any changes that make it easier for players to instigate and create DM situations.

I completely understand the frustration gangs could have (against a group such as the Daniels Brothers) where the RP seems to give a completely valid reason to attack people. And players using DM rules to create ridiculous situations, but guns can't be used.

But the server isn't full of only Daniels Brothers type RP. And I would like to keep it that way.....
It is already fairly easy to corner a civilian into a FearRP situation, often resulting what feels like a Power-Gaming type scenario, since rarely can a civilian control the outcome. I am not in support of things that take even more control away from the few civilians we have on the server.

Cheers

[MEGN]

8 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

I have to agree with this. Even in the civilian side, people are constantly instigating and threatening looking for any reason to fire off shots.
I would be against any changes that make it easier for players to instigate and create DM situations.

I completely understand the frustration gangs could have (against a group such as the Daniels Brothers) where the RP seems to give a completely valid reason to attack people. And players using DM rules to create ridiculous situations, but guns can't be used.

But the server isn't full of only Daniels Brothers type RP. And I would like to keep it that way.....
It is already fairly easy to corner a civilian into a FearRP situation, often resulting what feels like a Power-Gaming type scenario, since rarely can a civilian control the outcome. I am not in support of things that take even more control away from the few civilians we have on the server.

Why are you personally attacking them like that? 

[alexalex303]

10 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

It is already fairly easy to corner a civilian into a FearRP situation, often resulting what feels like a Power-Gaming type scenario, since rarely can a civilian control the outcome. I am not in support of things that take even more control away from the few civilians we have on the server.

It's not power-gaming that the person with a group of armed friends can overpower the single civilian. It's just life and realism. It seems that instead you would rather have an OOC protection bubble around civilians.

[Wessel]

10 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

I have to agree with this. Even in the civilian side, people are constantly instigating and threatening looking for any reason to fire off shots.
I would be against any changes that make it easier for players to instigate and create DM situations.

I completely understand the frustration gangs could have (against a group such as the Daniels Brothers) where the RP seems to give a completely valid reason to attack people. And players using DM rules to create ridiculous situations, but guns can't be used.

But the server isn't full of only Daniels Brothers type RP. And I would like to keep it that way.....
It is already fairly easy to corner a civilian into a FearRP situation, often resulting what feels like a Power-Gaming type scenario, since rarely can a civilian control the outcome. I am not in support of things that take even more control away from the few civilians we have on the server.

[Revy]

11 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

I completely understand the frustration gangs could have (against a group such as the Daniels Brothers) where the RP seems to give a completely valid reason to attack people. And players using DM rules to create ridiculous situations, but guns can't be used.

[Jasmine]

11 minutes ago, Meggs_56 said:

Why are you personally attacking them like that? 

I am not actually. I think they are a unique group, with unique RP style. 

I know several of the people in this group, and never had issues with their RP.

Edited September 30, 2019 by Jasmine

[Chrisy]

13 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

I have to agree with this. Even in the civilian side, people are constantly instigating and threatening looking for any reason to fire off shots.
I would be against any changes that make it easier for players to instigate and create DM situations.

I completely understand the frustration gangs could have (against a group such as the Daniels Brothers) where the RP seems to give a completely valid reason to attack people. And players using DM rules to create ridiculous situations, but guns can't be used.

But the server isn't full of only Daniels Brothers type RP. And I would like to keep it that way.....
It is already fairly easy to corner a civilian into a FearRP situation, often resulting what feels like a Power-Gaming type scenario, since rarely can a civilian control the outcome. I am not in support of things that take even more control away from the few civilians we have on the server.

So you're here talking about this but you hire the Russian mafia who have a very low standard of roleplay and DM'd a Daniels Brother at your party the other night. They were complete dickheads to me and him for stopping someone who was causing problems but in the end they started shooting at us. You can't complain about a group of players whenever you use a group of low tier roleplayers to protect your "civilian" parties and such. 

[HaminLord]

3 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

I am not actually. I think they are a unique group, with unique RP style. 

I simply don't think we want the entire server acting that way. 

[Tagor]

13 minutes ago, Jasmine said:

 

But the server isn't full of only Daniels Brothers type RP. And I would like to keep it that way.....
 

[Jasmine]

1 minute ago, Chrisy said:

So you're here talking about this but you hire the Russian mafia who have a very low standard of roleplay and DM'd a Daniels Brother at your party the other night. They were complete dickheads to me and him for stopping someone who was causing problems but in the end they started shooting at us. You can't complain about a group of players whenever you use a group of low tier roleplayers to protect your "civilian" parties and such. 

Not getting in an argument with anyone.

I don't agree with the recommendation. I am not interested in a forum war.

I will delete the comment to appease you. Sorry to offend. 

[MrSilky]

This has derailed, take it back to the original topic or it will be locked and archived.

No names should be dropped singling out specific groups to describe an argument so once again, back to OP's topic please.

[Copperhorse]

Is this the case? Because that's what I want. If somebody is holding a gun and they're affiliated with the people you're shooting at you should be able to shoot them. As far as I'm aware DM rights are on an individual basis and I wouldn't have the right to shoot at that person unless they attack one of us.

[alexalex303]

27 minutes ago, Copperhorse said:

Is this the case? Because that's what I want. If somebody is holding a gun and they're affiliated with the people you're shooting at you should be able to shoot them. As far as I'm aware DM rights are on an individual basis and I wouldn't have the right to shoot at that person unless they attack one of us.

There is precedent for it.

 

[Dreamz]

DM should be changed and it will be the reason I decide to leave the server.  Whether people believe it or not gangs and people abuse the Fear Rp rule and DM rule greatly for their advantage.  Especially in gangs it provides the bubble hey i got my sick car which you can't touch cya.  It provides bad RP and is super boring and causes ooc conflict for rule breaks. 

[Cyrus Raven]

I had a similar thread up like other users, but as of right now it's a neutral from me. 

I want change, but I think it has to be very well thought out and from what I've heard it's in the works. 

Having said this I will mention something that I dislike from the current DM rules, citing a recent report made.
 

In this report the reported party was punished with DM for shooting at a vehicle that was owned by him when someone decided to walk into a very active mechanic shop in the middle of the day and yoink a car.

This really bothers me from an RP stand point. How is it possible that someone shooting at his own car after someone had no regard whatsoever for his own safety and decided to walk into a mechanic shop with a bunch of players standing around, gets a DM offence. 

I would speculate that the ruling was given to not create a bad precedent where players instantly open fire if someone gets into someone's car by accident or for any other reason. However, if this is the case then the focus should be on individual cases, allowing for some sort of leeway and deviation from 'the letter of the law''. In this case, the guy shooting at his own car should be able to do this, it is his property, he is shooting at the vehicle and he is only doing so because the other player chose to try and rob a car in these specific circumstances, yet it seems that the owner of the vehicle is the one being punished.

Even if it was technically DM why is the reporting party not getting any sort of ruling for FearRP or Non-RP ? Since when is the standard for this server to walk up to a fairly busy LSC and steal cars in broad daylight ? Maybe it's because these players know that they can instantly [/b DM reported] as soon as they get shot. In essence, they are abusing the way the rules work to cast a shield that prevents anyone from doing anything besides roll over and deal with it. Which is why there should be a push to individually analyse cases and allow staff to ''bend'' the rules if enough justification is given.


TL:DR The rules could remain as they are because they are a pretty decent guide on how to play on the server. What I think would be a good idea is to revise how reports are handled and make sure to outline to all players that ''precedent'' can be used but isn't the only deciding factor to the point that sometimes staff can quite literally ''ignore'' a broken rule given that enough justification is present to do so.

[TreMetal]

13 minutes ago, Kyle White Raven said:

In this report the reported party was punished with DM for shooting at a vehicle that was owned by him when someone decided to walk into a very active mechanic shop in the middle of the day and yoink a car.

The worst part of that report is that it is contrary to the rules:

14. Deathmatch (DM)

• Examples of valid reasons to attack another player:

             • If they attempt to arrest or hurt you, an ally, or damage your property.

 

 

Edited October 1, 2019 by TreMetal
Forgot to highlight "If they attempt to"

[Chunder]

SUGGESTION DENIED

Thank you for your patience while this suggestion was being reviewed/researched.

After reviewing/researching this suggestion, we have decided to deny it for the following reason(s): 

• The deathmatch rule has changed since then and has been updated.

This decision is final. Unless instructed to, do not post another suggestion pertaining to this topic. You will still be able to submit other suggestions on the forums.

Regards,

Chunder