Disassociate DM rule from FearRP rule.

[Amaim]

My suggestion is simple, disassociate the DM rule from FearRP rule, Deathmatching is defined as attacking/killing another player with no proper roleplay reason however by associating it with FearRP rule you can have very good RP reasons to murder/hit someone and still you can't you have to put him under FearRP.

So my suggestion is to seperate both rules so if you have a proper RP reason to kill someone he doesn't have to be under FearRP be it he is in a vehicle with an engine on (which is dumb to be honest) or not given demands under gunpoint.

 

Current Situation:

- In most criminals/PD situations arrest situations, criminals just drive nearby shouting demands knowing that PD is not gonna comply anyways just to avoid breaking the rule which doesn't fit in the situation, once PD gets demands backup is called however realistically it doesn't make sense that a Mafia/Gang would give Police a headsup before freeing their member but they would use the element of surprise. 

- Extending to the previous point, PD/Criminals stay in their engine on cars knowing they are not under direct FearRP to pick a a location they favor for the shootout/confrontation however realistically if there is a proper RP reason for a criminal to intervene with a PD's convoy for example he should have all the right to block the convoy and attacking it without having ANYONE placed under gunpoint (dumb in this situation) (Didn't know it's a thing now)

- I have seen a situation where gang members (10+ vehicles) and PD/SD (10+ vehicles) were just going around in circles at the same spot for like 10 minutes everybody refusing to get out of the cars to avoid falling under FearRP (both parties) which was very retarded.

- A gang is in war with another gang, they start chasing one of a member of the other gang (10+ vehicles chasing only 1 vehicle, seen it multiple times) however they can't attack him since he is in an engine on car and they will just keep circling around until he stalls by mistake.

- Catching someone snitching in your gang, even if he complies with demands under gun point I find it appropriate to gun him down.

How it would differ:

- FearRP is gonna be enforced seperatley, player has to fear for his life.

- Deathmatch would be attacking another player with no proper RP reason..- that's it, as simple as that.

 

Situations that would go better with these rules modified:

- Two gangs are in war, it's very logical that they would do hits/assassinations on each others (Being a Rival gang is not a proper reason to kill/attack but being in war with a gang is) 

- A mafia member is getting arrested, his faction has the right to attack in an attempt to free him. (Instead of the stupid "Free him or we shoot")

- A Police Cruiser responding to a scene where a gunfight is currently in progress. (Not logical that I should first ask that arriving PD cruiser to get out with their hands up while a massacre is going on behind me knowing that 100% the officers are gonna get out and try to arrest me)

- Someone who got robbed by another then later in few days he finds that person he has the right to retaliate and attack that person not just mercifully hold him at gunpoint and let him go if he is complying or else it's DM.

 

Expected Arguments:

ARG: That way people will go around shooting with no proper roleplay.

ANSWER: Disassociating FearRP with DM doesn't give anyone the right to attack with a PROPER roleplay reason (a strong enough IC reason to kill another player)

ARG: Gangs are just gonna DM each other with the reason they are enemies.

ANSWER: Being an enemy to a gang doesn't give you the right to attack them unless you are in war (I think some regulation and special rules should be added for gang wars)

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by Amaim

[isBrainDed]

10 minutes ago, Amaim said:

- In most criminals/PD situations arrest situations, criminals just drive nearby shouting demands knowing that PD is not gonna comply anyways just to avoid breaking the rule which doesn't fit in the situation, once PD gets demands backup is called however realistically it doesn't make sense that a Mafia/Gang would give Police a headsup before freeing their member but they would use the element of surprise.

- Extending to the previous point, PD/Criminals stay in their engine on cars knowing they are not under direct FearRP to pick a a location they favor for the shootout/confrontation however realistically if there is a proper RP reason for a criminal to intervene with a PD's convoy for example he should have all the right to block the convoy and attacking it without having ANYONE placed under gunpoint (dumb in this situation)

 

10 minutes ago, Amaim said:

- A mafia member is getting arrested, his faction has the right to attack in an attempt to free him. (Instead of the stupid "Free him or we shoot")

That is already a thing though

[SamuelGunn]

I think FearRP rule is retarted as fuck, I have a friend who's in police and he all the time says the worst days are when you pull out a gun on someone since shit gets out of control, they run, they scream they become agressive and so on. Rather I would say there should be a timer where you need to pull out a gun or so on so you would see he's reaching for a gun and could just gun him down. 

The main problem with fearRP now that if someone pulls a gun on you first that's it, you can't do anything else since everything will be considered FearRP.

[Victor Einhart]

5 hours ago, Amaim said:

Being an enemy to a gang doesn't give you the right to attack them unless you are in war

So what's stopping folks rolling as deep as they can and just saying they're at war with anyone who doesn't bend the knee and kill them over and over until they quit?  My understanding is people already rob and chop people's cars over and over if a rival gang doesn't do what they want, are folks going to start putting a bullet in everyone's head too?

Not trying to take a dump on anyone in particular but that's what I see happening with the proposed change.  There would be no reason not to.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Victor Einhart

[Amaim]

10 hours ago, Victor Einhart said:

So what's stopping folks like Zetas rolling deep because they are the most numerous gang and just saying they're at war with all the lesser gangs who don't bend the knee and kill them over and over until they quit?  My understanding is they already rob and chop people's cars over and over if they don't play by their rules, are they going to start putting a bullet in everyone's head too?

Not trying to take a dump on everybody but that's what I see happening here.  There would be no reason not to.

I understand your concern but like I said they should be at war and by war it shouldn't be over pitty stuff maybe make it that there are some sort of official wars where admins decides if it's an all out war or no.

[Aldarine]

While I do think that there should be some rule tweaking (mainly with the car engine part), I do not think this is the way to do it. The Fear RP and Deathmatching rules going hand in hand are very important and I implore you to look at it from an angle of no self interest. One of the biggest issues that arises is, who will determine what is an appropriate roleplay reason to allow for the attacking of another player? One party can argue that their reasoning is valid as per their character backstory, meanwhile the other player doesn't agree with this and thinks it's a stretch. As players cannot pause roleplay, the non-agreeing party will then have to deal with being killed and losing all of their possessions for what may very well be an invalid reason. A player report will be made on the forums, staff will get involved, and a refund request most likely not approved depending on the value of possessions, all because one player thought they had the right to kill somebody else. That is just one thing I can think of off the top of my head yet if I had more time I'm sure I could list so many invalid reasons that somebody may think are okay. Ultimately, players should always have somewhat of a "say" in their getting attacked which is provided by the fear rp rule. There are also exceptions where players can still be attacked when being compliant, as dictated in the Deathmatching rule. At this moment in time I see need to slightly tweak certain parts of the rules, however, no need to separate these two and allow for players to dictate in real time what is a valid roleplay reason to harm somebody else.

Edited November 30, 2019 by Aldarine

[Amaim]

10 hours ago, Aldarine said:

While I do think that there should be some rule tweaking (mainly with the car engine part), I do not think this is the way to do it. The Fear RP and Deathmatching rules going hand in hand are very important and I implore you to look at it from an angle of no self interest. One of the biggest issues that arises is, who will determine what is an appropriate roleplay reason to allow for the attacking of another player? One party can argue that their reasoning is valid as per their character backstory, meanwhile the other player doesn't agree with this and thinks it's a stretch. As players cannot pause roleplay, the non-agreeing party will then have to deal with being killed and losing all of their possessions for what may very well be an invalid reason. A player report will be made on the forums, staff will get involved, and a refund request most likely not approved depending on the value of possessions, all because one player thought they had the right to kill somebody else. That is just one thing I can think of off the top of my head yet if I had more time I'm sure I could list so many invalid reasons that somebody may think are okay. Ultimately, players should always have somewhat of a "say" in their getting attacked which is provided by the fear rp rule. There are also exceptions where players can still be attacked when when being compliant, as dictated in the Deathmatching rule. At this moment in time I see need to slightly tweak certain parts of the rules, however, no need to separate these two and allow for players to dictate in real time what is a valid roleplay reason to harm somebody else.

You make a valid point that everybody will just look at the reason from their own perspective however I feel that whatever is deemed unrealistic can be considered as DM (like would a criminal revert to murder in real life if this or that happened?..- I again understand that this can have many different opinions).. the fear would be from people roleplaying bizarre characters like psychopaths,etc...

However I respect your opinion and understand your concerns. 

[TreMetal]

No offense to anyone on the server, but we can hardly handle the rules when they are strictly defined black and white let alone when you have a nebulous "roleplay reason" for DM rights.  You would have to define what a "roleplay reason" is and it would ultimately circle back to Fear RP, arrest, KOS rights, etc that are already in the rule book. 

[Amaim]

I think this can be archived as this is included in the new rule update.

[Fa1N]

Already implemented in the most recent rule update.