PK and CK

[eTimes]

PKs should stay a thing because not every death needs to be a CK. ICly they shouldn't represent death because of the obvious paradox, though. Instead, a PK should be an injury that incapacitated your character who has then been passively taken to a hospital, the effects of the said injury should be roleplayed for a period of time and they depend on the circumstances of the PK. A memory loss should come along. But your character doesn't die, it doesn't count as murder and so on.

 

To even this out, CKs need to be more dynamic, there should be OOC standards for CKs other than CK applications and faction CKs.

 

For example, fear roleplay rule is enforced OOCly despite being mostly an IC thing.

Instead, if you enforce IC consequences that would be more realistic and severe, less scenes would be voided and players would have an actual reason to roleplay fear, other than fear of a short OOC punishment. Their characters would be at an actual risk other than respawning at a hospital with their inventories reset, and losing a well-developed character into which you've invested hours over an impulsive and stupid decision is far more serious than a 30 minutes admin jail and a voiding of a scene in which you were losing.

 

We're not discussing a rule here, but I'd like to prove my point with the following.

 

 

The underlined rule is simply absurd. This is by no means illegitimate, it happens in real life in confrontations between the police and criminals. You can argue it's powergame, but it's real and some things simply beat fear sometimes. I can find you a couple of real videos where people decide to draw but with zero chances of winning the gunfight. However, they faced death and that should be what happens to the characters that decide to do the same.

Otherwise, this would technically mean that I'd need to be admin-jailed for roleplaying a suicide by cop if my depressed character decides to do so for whatever reason.

On the other side, I understand that this currently needs to be a rule because everyone would disregard their lives but come off with minor losses. This is when CKs come in play and as I said earlier a simulation of real fear, a real concern of your character's life will beat a fear of an admin jail at any time. Furthermore, players should be free to do whatever they want to with their characters, but there will be according consequences. The fact is that this currently lacks is why you need to waste time voiding otherwise correct roleplay and issuing punishments.

 

EDIT:

I've read a few other replies. Harsher OOC punishments and ICly non-explainable monetary fees for deaths are just stupid and avoiding the essence of the problem, thus needlessly complicating and deepening it. That won't make anyone fear it more. Jails would still throw away that bit of good roleplay, people would still have no IC consequences for their actions. Fees lose sense the moment I decide to RP a hobo with zero dollars in his bank account and then do stupid shit and disregard my character's life.

 

If I didn't voice it enough at the beginning, removing PKs entirely is another extreme. They should be present for general shootouts, brawls, and so on, things that wouldn't usually result with a full on death or where it's not justified with these standards.

Shooting back at someone who shoots at you for insulting his mother and dying would be a PK (given there's no accepted CK app on you!), drawing your weapon at a group that's aiming at you to rob you and dying would be a CK.

Edited June 5, 2019 by eTimes

[Queen]

3 hours ago, Gall said:

Then again, the chunk of players you're losing are those who are too fond of their money and assets, over their character development. I don't see that as a bad thing. And how do you suggest we "give them ample time to adjust" to this system? We'll have to start somewhere, no?

But how can you tell from person to person without them stating it first? As was pointed out earlier somewhere in this thread, a lot of people have a tendency to get way too attached to their characters, which is something I can personally sympathize with. I'm not saying it's a good thing or should be encouraged, that's just how it is. As for your question I'm not sure, I don't have all the answers and hopefully that's something that would be hammered out should something like this be implemented.

[1357]

I do not believe that in a perfect world this system would work while otherwise a disaster. I do believe that with a set of automated scripts to further assist staff with CK's.. along with a system integrated into the UCP directly in relation to 'Characters' or better yet a separate section for Character Kills that would inherit 'Characters' for a base and turn it into a separate function entirely on top of other things.. it could most certainly work.

 

We've already had a few admins state that they'd be completely fine compensating less work for more.. for a better role play experience as a whole.

 

One of the problems we face on this server is how incredibly flawed most characters are played or acted out. We have too many die hard thugs that are always ready to pull the trigger on somebody and take their life. We have too many players who are ready to perform solo 007 missions to save their friend who was recently captured by the Mexican cartel. We have too many players who endure a personality of extreme goodwill and perform generous favors for the sake of role play where realistically picking up a hitch hiker for example should be viewed as a potential threat.

 

7 hours ago, eTimes said:

 

 

 

The underlined rule is simply absurd. This is by no means illegitimate, it happens in real life in confrontations between the police and criminals. You can argue it's powergame, but it's real and some things simply beat fear sometimes. I can find you a couple of real videos where people decide to draw but with zero chances of winning the gunfight. However, they faced death and that should be what happens to the characters that decide to do the same.

Otherwise, this would technically mean that I'd need to be admin-jailed for roleplaying a suicide by cop if my depressed character decides to do so for whatever reason.

 

It is real but even you understand why we're limited from role playing something like this. Right now when a player dies for example in a situation like this they have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. They aren't losing their character and they aren't losing anything they can't already get back whereas in real life when you die you can't get that back. 

 

Well if this were to go through.. now your depressed character can suicide if that's what you'd really want? Considering there are real repercussions that follow with such decisions. I'm just not entertained anymore with PK's and the more a system like this that we've been using for a decade now has been used the more apparent how inferior and flawed it is and has become.

 

All PK does is:

• Locks and limits role play in a lot of areas.
• Allows every player to be the biggest baddest honcho.
• Gives all of us a sense of immortality which branches out into other issues.

And while it may not seem like a lot.. those are three major points in my opinion which all branch out into dozens of other issues with what's wrong right now.

[Marcus.]

18 minutes ago, 1357 said:

All PK does is:

• Locks and limits role play in a lot of areas.
• Allows every player to be the biggest baddest honcho.
• Gives all of us a sense of immortality which branches out into other issues.

And while it may not seem like a lot.. those are three major points in my opinion which all branch out into dozens of other issues with what's wrong right now.

Issues related to very certain parts of roleplay, basically the cops vs robbers aspect.

18 minutes ago, 1357 said:

We have too many players who endure a personality of extreme goodwill and perform generous favors for the sake of role play where realistically picking up a hitch hiker for example should be viewed as a potential threat.

You have these sort of people in the real world too, and as a matter of fact 95% of hitch hikers are not psychopaths who will murder you.

 

Reasons why not every death should be a CK:

- Sentimental value of the stories and character that has been created

- This is and will always remain a game (escapism)

- It has been tried on so many platforms GMOD, SA-MP, MTA, even WoW and has never worked properly

- Stupidity of other players

- "I don't give a shit" attitude of other players

- OOC drama

- continue this list with the basic dynamics of online communities

 

18 minutes ago, 1357 said:

We have too many die hard thugs that are always ready to pull the trigger on somebody and take their life. We have too many players who are ready to perform solo 007 missions to save their friend who was recently captured by the Mexican cartel.

Report those then? Clearly there is something going wrong with their interpretation of rules and literally you are contradicting your own statement here in the first sentence. What if your supposed change, doesn't effect them cause they simply put, dont give a shit? Yea, players who might have developed their characters for ages are losing theirs over someone who hasn't. Second sentence, report them if they try to be a superhero.

 

18 minutes ago, 1357 said:

We've already had a few admins state that they'd be completely fine compensating less work for more.. for a better role play experience as a whole.

It will not be a better roleplay experience, yes for the first few weeks, maybe months. Then the honeymoon phase is OVER. People will go figure out ways how to cheat the system in their favor, voiding CKs, or getting CK's with little to no reason other than he/she was allowed and could. At least now people need to think of a somewhat justifiable reason, with your suggestion someone could just come around the corner for no reason and pop your head-off in broad daylight and all progress you have made with your character has been lost because someone felt they'd hold down RMB and press LMB once.

18 minutes ago, 1357 said:

I'm just not entertained anymore with PK's and the more a system like this that we've been using for a decade now has been used the more apparent how inferior and flawed it is and has become.

Whilst ignoring all the flaws your suggested system has and have been brought up by other members of the community.

 

Certain situations should warrant CKs automatically no questions there, but every death? For any stupid reason? No. I come here to relax and get my mind occupied by something else than constantly worrying about a virtual well-being when I do not even come close to areas with high gang activities or avoid hotspots of crime on purpose.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Marcus.

[1357]

1 minute ago, Marcus. said:

Issues related to very certain parts of roleplay, basically the cops vs robbers aspect.

Those points certainly do not only pertain to cops vs robbers. It dives much deeper than that and i've made specific points in my prior posts that elaborate further on it. You are free of course to go back and read my other posts as it will help you better understand what i'm referencing to and it's also why i've said that they branch out into other aspects and issues. Cops vs Robbers is only scraping the surface.

 

3 minutes ago, Marcus. said:

You have these sort of people in the real world too, and as a matter of fact 95% of hitch hikers are not psychopaths who will murder you.

 

Reasons why not every death should not be a CK:

A: Sentimental value of the stories and character that has been created

B: This is and will always remain a game (escapism)

? It has been tried on so many platforms GMOD, SA-MP, MTA, even WoW and has never worked properly

So lets say the human population is 95% pure and only 5% of the human race are evil twisted sick minded psychopathic murderers.. would you still be willing to take that 5% chance and put your life at risk? I certainly wouldn't and that's not to say that the statistic you claim is even true and even if it was it does not change my mind whatsoever.

 

But.. i am not implying that all players should stay away from hitch hikers.. i am merely saying that it's a flaw when players don't think about this possibility nearly as much as they should.

 

For the text in bold:

 

A: The first point is understandable and while it may suck to lose your character that you've put forth so much effort into.. it goes both ways and that's also to say that generally if you do not involve yourself in crime or otherwise areas that would put your life at risk you should be fine and not ever die at least from legitimate causes. Now that isn't to say that if you die from a player that is obviously breaking the rules.. that's entirely different but player reports wouldn't cease to exist so that'd still be a procedure to follow in that circumstance..

 

B: I am not entirely sure what you're insinuating at here in terms of escapism.. unless you're talking about players who choose to take a cowards way out because they would rather shoot at cops, die and revive to avoid other matters at hand.

 

C; I haven't experienced a single server on SA:MP which i've played for a decade now that has ever tried anything similar to this. But i mainly only bothered with a select few servers during that era leading up to now: LS:RP, Valhalla, NG:RP to name a few. WoW or even GMOD aren't exactly the most comparable to servers like this.. WoW is like apples to oranges.

 

And that's not to say that although it's been tried and didn't work in the past should it be the deciding factor. I've proposed quite a few ideas to balance out the issues. I'm not ignoring the faults this system would have, it's evident the issues it can cause but that doesn't mean they cannot be faced..

22 minutes ago, Marcus. said:

Report those then? Clearly there is something going wrong with their interpretation of rules and literally you are contradicting your own statement here in the first sentence. What if your supposed change, doesn't effect them cause they simply put, dont give a shit? Yea, players who might have developed their characters for ages are losing theirs over someone who hasn't. Second sentence, report them if they try to be a superhero.

 

I'm sorry but there's really not a lot to report. If a player entertains gang or criminal role play in general and they want to shoot at someone and it's for a justified reason then that's entirely within the rules. Do you see the problem? Again.. there's faults in every system and not every system is perfect but a properly well thought out system for CK's would lead us in a better direction than what PK can.

[Marcus.]

9 minutes ago, 1357 said:

i am merely saying that it's a flaw when players don't think about this possibility nearly as much as they should.

Please... You are calling something a flaw but seemingly don't understand it's definition.

Quote

Flaw: a mark, blemish, or other imperfection which mars a substance or object.

Every SINGLE human on EARTH has flaws. Some might pick up hitchhikers, others won't. Some make great friends out of these experiences, other's don't it's fine if a player decides they'd pick a random person up on the street, if they get into trouble they'll have to deal with the consequences one way or another. Plus hitchhikers barely ever exist anymore in the era of Uber, car-sharing and such. Uber literally is hitchhiker vers 2.0 and yes I do use that constantly. It's the same thing with Tinder, you match random strangers you have no idea about but accept the risk and still do it. So there goes that.

15 minutes ago, 1357 said:

B: I am not entirely sure what you're insinuating at here in terms of escapism.. unless you're talking about players who choose to take a cowards way out because they would rather shoot at cops, die and revive to avoid other matters at hand.

The majority of people in online communities engaging into any and all activities do so, in order to escape their life at least for some time and occupy their mind with other things than thinking about their life. This is what was meant, and that's why games are great.

17 minutes ago, 1357 said:

C; I haven't experienced a single server on SA:MP which i've played for a decade now that has ever tried anything similar to this.

And I wonder why... (they all either reverted back or ended up closed). And no, comparing GTA:W to other games which offer the opportunity of RP is not apples vs oranges because they run different systems. They all fall back on the classical principles of roleplay.

 

31 minutes ago, 1357 said:

And that's not to say that although it's been tried and didn't work in the past should it be the deciding factor. I've proposed quite a few ideas to balance out the issues. I'm not ignoring the faults this system would have, it's evident the issues it can cause but that doesn't mean they cannot be faced..

Evidently through various games, spanning decades at this point it has not worked, it very well should be a deciding factor especially in a niche section of gaming. The audience for RP, whilst surely it has spiked because of exposure, is still not comparable to factual sales numbers of GTA V, this is mainly voice RP though! Classical text roleplay is an even smaller amount of a very limited audience on GTA V.

17 minutes ago, 1357 said:

I'm sorry but there's really not a lot to report. If a player entertains gang or criminal role play in general and they want to shoot at someone and it's for a justified reason then that's entirely within the rules.

It is not.

Rule 1.0 Common Courtesy

Rule 2.0 Powergaming the drawing a gun against police officer examples would apply here. It would be unrealistic and failure to roleplay fear accordingly if they were to engage a notorious cartel on their own to save their friend. Despite that, I would go so far and argue it is non-RP anyway since one individual lacks resources for such acts to even find out where the kidnappers are, and the whole ordeal.

Rule 4.0 Deathmatch - if someone just shoots someone because they are a hardened ACAB 187 thug for no reason whatsoever this applies.

 

Also the last quote directly contradicts your previous examples, so where exactly do you draw the line of what you think is THE issue, and what you wish to leverage to further your own agenda? First you say there's thugs who'd pull the trigger on a fly that's flying past them the wrong way, then you row back and say it CAN be justified. Sorry but I don't want to follow this logic. Same with the 007 example of the kidnapping and such.

 

I am certainly for easing up on the restrictions surrounding CKs, but I and seemingly many others have no desire to lose a character they've potentially played with for years at this point and not only it created sentimental value but also has monetary value for time (I've know people who've taken time off of work to do the stuff they like such as teach police academy students, lead swat operations, create a fully functional government system, the list goes on) for us. There is much at stake and your suggestion that every death == is a CK is simply put too radical of a change.

 

Death's wouldn't be IC anymore too, they'd become OOC. Not because staff has to administrate that, but due to it fueling hatred, it fueling all sorts of negative emotions and it will lead to a grand shitshow.

 

Going back to my previous example, my character with no affiliation to any faction whatsoever, goes out of his/her apartment and get's shot in the head and he's gone forever. Later through some digging and such, it is revealed this character death was motivated because I, the individual behind the screen, posted something on a topic or in discord or anywhere that didn't fit them well. Is it metagaming? Proof that it was, almost impossible. Was it motivated through emotions on the OOC level? Even harder to proof. The only thing you can do is claim it was deathmatching, which would have some substance to it, though even then it would be a 50/50 depending on which situation the other players make up to save their image.

 

See where this can go? And I will repeat myself, the honeymoon phase will be AMAZING it has always been that, but it will go away, it will go wrong, something inevitable will, all it needs is one player crossed on the wrong side for whatever reason by anyone to set off a chain of events that ultimately can, and has been the, cause of many RP server shutdowns. As soon as that feeling of amazing'ness fades and the old boredom sets in, issues will arise.

[eTimes]

1 hour ago, 1357 said:

It is real but even you understand why we're limited from role playing something like this. Right now when a player dies for example in a situation like this they have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain. They aren't losing their character and they aren't losing anything they can't already get back whereas in real life when you die you can't get that back. 

That's exactly my point. My examples are more-less random, but the core is there, being open to more CKs will cause IC repercussions. The fear rule needs to exist now because currently PKs basically grant immortality so there has to be a point where these Rambo characters need to stop, and you noticed that well.

However, people should indeed be allowed to roleplay a 007 action where they'll try to rescue their mate from a cartel, but there should be a risk that they're aware of that their character will meet an absolute end if they die and that their chances are thin against five heavily armed militants. This will make them play their characters out realistically and fear death, be it OOCly or ICly, and not fear an admin jail OOCly but have not one bit of fear in-character.

 

Essentially, disregard for own character's life should end in a final death for the said character in case they die in the scene. If they win as an underdog, good job, that requires some skills and brains and it's well deserved. Of course, powergame mustn't be tolerated, still.

 

The examples I listed that are regarding suicide are to show that the current rule is crappy and limiting as it forces "fear" OOCly whereas fear would come naturally if there was a real danger for your character. Fear may sometimes be absent, but according to the rules, you would still have to be sanctioned OOCly.

 

Personally, I enjoy the tension and the challenge this sort of risk gives so I can immerse ICly and not fear an admin-jail OOC because I decided to RP a character that's not like the most of the people. (It's a game in which we fantasize within realistic limits!)

From what I can see, half of the community here shares my opinion and the other half prefers the current state and that's absolutely fine. Someone might enjoy just roleplaying a normal person that works a nine to five job and has a family or whatever. They shouldn't be against this CK thing because it doesn't even regard them, it doesn't necessarily put their characters' lives at risk, all they need to do is to play their characters out fully and do what a sane and fearful person would do and there won't be a CK. PKs will still be a thing, if you get killed for just being a bystander you won't get CKd. Call the police instead of taking on a five men crew by yourself, you won't lose anything.

Simply said, this mainly applies to illegal/action roleplay. The only people to oppose this would be the people who are OOCly attached to their characters but the same ones that like to act hard in-character and try to do impossible and get PKd a lot, but then again those people probably get jailed often anyway.

 

This is why a middle-ground needs to be found, the current state has its faults but so does an exclusively-CK system. Both PKs and CKs should complement each other and everyone's play will be easier.

 

A competent team can easily form standards for this system to minimalize faults and loopholes in rules, potential abuse, etc. I'd like to see this seriously thought of one day.

Edited June 5, 2019 by eTimes

[Marcus.]

3 minutes ago, eTimes said:

Essentially, disregard for own character's life should end in a final death for the said character in case they die in the scene. If they win as an underdog, good job, that requires some skills and brains and it's well deserved. Of course, powergame mustn't be tolerated, still.

Basically my previous posts summed up. Thank you. This is why I am advocating the middle ground perse, an every death is a CK scenario won't solve any of the issues we have right now, nor will remaining with the current one. You have two extremes colliding in this topic. Frankly speaking, there is no best way to solve the issue. To give any and all PKs more impact, whilst still retaining the option for permanent death. The solutions I can come up with would be a logistical nightmare for the staff team, and the other would be the "shotgun" method (aka if a player is PK'ed all their stats money, etc, are halved).

[1357]

4 minutes ago, Marcus. said:

Please... You are calling something a flaw but seemingly don't understand it's definition.

The context it was used in is perfectly acceptable, i do understand its definition and quite honestly the more i continue to read your response i feel a sense of hostility and attacking me instead of the subject at hand so i'll just leave it at this.

 

5 minutes ago, eTimes said:

.

 

Yes ? That's what i put 'even you understand' in that sentence as what you say is true but right now is considered a controversial decision to make in terms of playing within the rules and is instead viewed as a way to loop the system to avoid the otherwise inevitable. But yes, i agree..

 

And definitely yes.. deaths don't necessarily have to be restricted to primarily CK but we should be finding ways to augment CK's and make them more prominent.. more commonly used than PK's.

[Marcus.]

3 minutes ago, 1357 said:

i do understand its definition and quite honestly the more i continue to read your response i feel a sense of hostility and attacking me instead of the subject at hand so i'll just leave it at this.

 

I assure you it is not my intention to come across hostile, or even aggressive or attacking towards you. I have merely argued against your points. Though I will apologize if it came across as that, it was not my intention to attack you personally or act in hostility towards you.

 

The only issue I have is with what you declare as a flaw of a player, when this sentiment is within humans to help others who seemingly are in need.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Marcus.