ROE Addendum

[Toyto 79]

Description

As it stands, quick swapping, a few specific scenarios (claims, bases, etc.), and the sniper constraints are the only limitations placed upon AFG in regards to the ROE. My suggestion is to impose an additional limitation, concealment.

Afg must be concealed when pulling out a weapon (not applied to bases, claims, etc.). Concealment in this case meaning that no US can see them pull out the weapon. The  exception to this would be if the AFG is plausibly unaware of the US. 

To clarify, this would be in addition to quick swapping in order to avoid scenarios where AFG just runs around a US to pull out their gun for example.

Reasoning

I believe that this would improve players ability to use the ROE to make interesting scenarios for a few reasons.

For US, it would allow them to interact with AFG without fearing that a firefight is going to break out at any moment which promotes more RP through negotiations and the like. While US could still be scared of a trap, their ability to react would be better than being gunned downed point-blank.

For Afg, players would need to use guerilla tactics in order to attack US which is not only more realistic but also more engaging through the use of strategy. This strategy could something designed to kill US like an ambush or people could experiment with going undercover as civilians.

While these options do already exist, this change would encourage players to make use of them as opposed to the way things are currently going.

As a final note, I already polled on the discord and got a super majority agree.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Toyto

[AnthonyThwompus 74]

I have played on some servers that have a similar rule and it works out very well. +1

[Smity_ 257]

I'll put my input like I did in the discord. Regarding Quickswapping. Most of the time US already have their guns out when they are interacting with tali and when a tali pulls out a gun they have to wait 1 second, and more than likely with the pull out animation they get killed before hand. With this change interactions with tali wouldn't happen as much as Tali would have to hide to kill US during peacetime. Then also the new tali players that are outside of base would get warned because of this cause they should be able to kill whenever.  

Overall this would make tali not want to leave base as cause they lose freedom from what they should have. Theres probably something I'm forgetting in this but yeah. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by SirSmity

[Toyto 79]

1 hour ago, SirSmity said:

Tali would have to hide to kill US during peacetime.

Guerilla tactics != hiding

1 hour ago, SirSmity said:

Then also the new tali players that are outside of base would get warned because of this cause they should be able to kill whenever.  

New players also get warned for breaking quick swapping or for that matter pretty much any rule on the server?

1 hour ago, SirSmity said:

Overall this would make tali not want to leave base as cause they lose freedom from what they should have.

As stated by Anthony, and others whom I've spoken to, this has worked well on other servers. For example acer said, in response to my discord poll.

1 hour ago, SirSmity said:

Most of the time US already have their guns out when they are interacting with tali and when a tali pulls out a gun they have to wait 1 second, and more than likely with the pull out animation they get killed before hand.

In all my interactions with tali, but one, this was not the case. That one exception was when a full squad of SOCOM was ambushed by 2 AFG soc and a bunch of tali. So while SOC may be able to react (sometimes) you cannot expect your average army to not be at a massive disadvantage. While an ambush should give tali the advantage, the current gap is just too much. With concealment ambushes the advantage would be rightfully earned as they would have to execute a strategy, put themselves in danger for having a weapon out, etc.

[Shiesty 35]

this isnt an issue at all and i think the ROE is fine as it is -1  

unless you can persuade me

[Towelieee 167]

-1

Makes the ROE complicated and I see a lot of issues coming if this were added.

[Toyto 79]

19 minutes ago, Towelieee said:

Makes the ROE complicated and I see a lot of issues coming if this were added.

Elaborate? Just saying it's complicated and there are issues without a reason doesn't prove anything.

20 minutes ago, Shiesty said:

unless you can persuade me

You aren't interested in using tactics and strategy over pulling up on US like it's GTA? I mean you have 45 minutes in wartime already to do that. Shouldn't peacetime be more RP focused?

Edited July 13, 2022 by Toyto

[Toyto 79]

16 hours ago, Toyto said:

Reasoning

Adding to this ^

The current interactions aren't enjoyable.

Let's say I want to search a guy for weapons. They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
Let's say I want to negotiate a hostage with an AFG. They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
Let's say I want to talk to AFG during a patrol. They can just pull a gun on me and now we are in a gunfight.
I could go on but I think you get the point.

All of the RP scenarios can just devolve in gunfights at the flick of a wrist. This promotes less RP during peacetime and ends up with more gunfights. If I wanted to have gunfights instead of RP, I would play war. Could this still happen with concealment? Yes, however Tali would have to orchestrate an ambush, call for reinforcements, or something else that is interesting rather than the scroll wheel.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Toyto
Fixed capitalization

[Shiesty 35]

Okay say we have concealed weapons and the ROE you would want is put in place if you want realism every gun should be one hit to the head including pistols because a pistol vs your rifle isn’t fair 

[Horse 350]

I thought one of the rules with the addition of the ROE is that quick-swapping is not allowed. Thats the only reason I +1'd the addition of the ROE when I was GM.

17 hours ago, SirSmity said:

Overall this would make tali not want to leave base as cause they lose freedom from what they should have.

This, doesnt really make sense the only freedom they'd be losing is the freedom of pulling a weapon to instantly get mowed down by any US in the area. The ROE pushes for a more realistic agenda and its really easy for taliban to abuse the ROE unless there are specific rules in place limiting their ability to abuse the ROE.

+1 on the ROE rule change. Taliban should not be in visible view when pulling a weapon or it should be considered quickswapping.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Horseyy

[Toyto 79]

1 hour ago, Shiesty said:

Okay say we have concealed weapons and the ROE you would want is put in place if you want realism every gun should be one hit to the head including pistols because a pistol vs your rifle isn’t fair 

Adding realism in some areas vs others is a decision called game design. You wouldn't want to go the other way and replace the heli with a magic unicorn with a rainbow trail would you? It's a balance between realism and fun.

[Fonza 249]

+1

This was one of the rules on a different server that worked REALLY well and basically forced players to play in a tactical manner.
 

19 hours ago, Shiesty said:

Okay say we have concealed weapons and the ROE you would want is put in place if you want realism every gun should be one hit to the head including pistols because a pistol vs your rifle isn’t fair

you’re also bringing up a totally irrelevant point. We’re talking about the ROE change, not about if someone can be one shot by a 9mm.

[Moabkilr45 28]

On 7/12/2022 at 6:36 PM, Toyto said:

For US, it would allow them to interact with AFG without fearing that a firefight is going to break out at any moment which promotes more RP through negotiations and the like. While US could still be scared of a trap, their ability to react would be better than being gunned downed point-blank.

First of all, whenever US leaves base, they are ALWAYS at risk of being shot at while they are outside of base doing what they do, or making there way to a claimed area, RP or not (Unless GM/Staff Enforced)

Secondly, US always have their weapons out when outside of base for the aforementioned reason, although they may be afraid of traps the quickdraw clause in the rules makes being "gunned downed point-blank" not only unlikely, but also punishable if the scenario you are presenting in the sentence containing the quote were to be if US were talking to Tali face to face and one of them decides to pull out their guns and kill them. Speaking of such scenario being gunned down like that is highly unlikely due to the fact that US always having their weapons out when outside of base. The only case this would really apply to is if a Tali were to ambush them from an area they were looking in, however I doubt the Concealment clause would reasonably cover that.

 

Speaking of which...

On 7/12/2022 at 6:36 PM, Toyto said:

Afg must be concealed when pulling out a weapon (not applied to bases, claims, etc.). Concealment in this case meaning that no US can see them pull out the weapon. The  exception to this would be if the AFG is plausibly unaware of the US. 

To clarify, this would be in addition to quick swapping in order to avoid scenarios where AFG just runs around a US to pull out their gun for example.

We do this anyway. We know the US would immediately kill us if they see us with our weapons out.

As our ROE is "All US outside of Base/Claimed area are KOS" I'd imagine the US ROE are along the lines of "Any Tali observed to be possessing a weapon are KOS, Otherwise they are not KOS.", This concealment clause wouldn't do anything.

See, this clause is made completely unnecessary due to one simple fact: The US are the pray, Taliban are the hunters.

Not only that, this clause would actually restrict roleplay and the following scenarios would not be possible if this were to be implemented.

1. Drug deals gone bad

Some US soldiers wants to sell [Insert Narcotics] to some Taliban soldiers, however they find out the [Insert Narcotics] and this retaliate by starting a shootout.

2. Checkpoint inspection gone base

A US soldier stops a car at a checkpoint, the driver is asked to pop open the trunk however he makes the excuse  that he can't open the trunk from the drivers seat and has to unlock it with his key. He opens the trunk, pulls out a sawed off shotgun and kills the guardsman.

3. Kidnaping

3 US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street, they are approached by 7 guys who split up to surround them and draw their weapons. Hopelessly out gunned, out numbered, and out positioned, They surrender and are captured.

 

This is a Military Roleplay Server featuring insurgents. There are going to be gunfights and there is literally no need to restrict those gunfights outside of the quickdraw rule in anyway whatsoever.

 

 

[Toyto 79]

Adding numbers to this to make it clear when one rebuttal starts and another ends.

1)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

First of all, whenever US leaves base, they are ALWAYS at risk of being shot at while they are outside of base doing what they do, or making there way to a claimed area, RP or not (Unless GM/Staff Enforced)

Correct and concealment will not nor should it change this. However, as Fonza stated:

On 7/14/2022 at 9:34 AM, Fonza said:

on a different server that worked REALLY well and basically forced players to play in a tactical manner.

instead of:

On 7/13/2022 at 12:42 AM, Toyto said:

pulling up on US like it's GTA

2)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

the quickdraw clause in the rules makes being "gunned downed point-blank" not only unlikely, but also punishable if the scenario you are presenting in the sentence containing the quote were to be if US were talking to Tali face to face and one of them decides to pull out their guns and kill them.

Incorrect, the quickdraw rule does not inhibit the distance, nor should it. If you believe that having a single second is enough time for the US to properly react by killing the AFG then that is a different discussion where I would again disagree. Possibly for some T1 SOC members that situation would be easily won but for the vast majority of players, including myself, this isn't the case.

3)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

Speaking of such scenario being gunned down like that is highly unlikely due to the fact that US always having their weapons out when outside of base.

I would bet that the majority of AFG would take gunfights even in perceived disadvantages, especially Taliban under the rank of BMI a.k.a the majority of AFG. The reasoning I often am presented for this is: 

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

This is a Military Roleplay Server featuring insurgents.

For example: My message was responded with. (Insert image doesn't work with streamable for me.)

4)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

The only case this would really apply to is if a Tali were to ambush them from an area they were looking in, however I doubt the Concealment clause would reasonably cover that.

I could be understanding this wrong because the wording is confusing but isn't this exactly the type of scenario that concealment encourages? Ambushes are one of many tactical maneuvers that concealment would encourage.

5)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

We do this anyway. We know the US would immediately kill us if they see us with our weapons out.

So if you're already practicing concealment how would concealment be a bad thing? I guess I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

6)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

The US are the pray, Taliban are the hunters.

I don't hunt so I will turn to @Jake here for confirmation as I know he does. Isn't being hidden (or some would say concealed) a vital part of most hunting? 

 

7)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

1. Drug deals gone bad

Some US soldiers wants to sell [Insert Narcotics] to some Taliban soldiers, however they find out the [Insert Narcotics] and this retaliate by starting a shootout.

2. Checkpoint inspection gone base

A US soldier stops a car at a checkpoint, the driver is asked to pop open the trunk however he makes the excuse  that he can't open the trunk from the drivers seat and has to unlock it with his key. He opens the trunk, pulls out a sawed off shotgun and kills the guardsman.

3. Kidnaping

3 US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street, they are approached by 7 guys who split up to surround them and draw their weapons. Hopelessly out gunned, out numbered, and out positioned, They surrender and are captured.

These are indeed some very interesting scenarios but I have a few ideas on them that I don't think you considered.

7a) Most of these scenarios seem more like things that would happen in a GM event rather than pure happenstance. Such as wording like this: 

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street

In those cases, the GM can change the ROE to better fit these situations which is something they have done and should continue to do.

7b)

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

Some US soldiers wants to sell [Insert Narcotics] to some Taliban soldiers

Oh this is a really cool RP scenario where they could negotiate prices, meeting locations, hiding from the MP, or maybe even...

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

starting a shootout

oh...

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

US soldier stops a car at a checkpoint, the driver is asked to pop open the trunk however he makes the excuse  that he can't open the trunk from the drivers seat and has to unlock it with his key. He opens the trunk

Well this is another really cool scenario where they could try bribery or negotiation to convince them that having some contraband is legit and then...

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

He opens the trunk, pulls out a sawed off shotgun and kills the guardsman.

oh...

So you can see how these RP scenarios are derailed by current state of the ROE here. I'm not saying gunfights shouldn't happen. I am saying however that there are a lot of situations being squandered. Which, if you scroll up, is a point I have already discussed.

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

US Soldiers are on patrol on a busy street, they are approached by 7 guys who split up to surround them and draw their weapons. Hopelessly out gunned, out numbered, and out positioned

Like this third scenario is really cool where a large gunfight could take place...

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

They surrender and are captured.

oh...

So this confuses me. These other two scenarios the AFG might not be outnumbered but if we are talking in RP you said it yourself:

15 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

We know the US would immediately kill us if they see us with our weapons out.

however in this third scenario when the roles are reversed they surrender and are captured.

7c)

The third scenario is an ambush. Which can be done with concealment?

9) Edit: skipping eight because it turns into an emoji and the numbers aren't the point anyway

So what I really think that your discontent is about is the power dynamic changing. Currently AFG has clear advantages that allow them to play in a bombastic GTA style. However, concealment's goal is to go away from that and make peacetime fighting feel more tactical. I am pushing for this because I feel like we get enough of the those types of gunfights during war and with the emphasis on RP during peacetime, so should there be an emphasis on more realistic/tactical gunfights. Again, whenever I say "realistic" people do this:

On 7/13/2022 at 1:42 PM, Shiesty said:

Okay say we have concealed weapons and the ROE you would want is put in place if you want realism every gun should be one hit to the head including pistols because a pistol vs your rifle isn’t fair

Please read my response to that post before commenting on that one word and then instead rebuttal my argument.

Edited July 15, 2022 by Toyto
Forgot to add 7c

[Jake 933]

52 minutes ago, Toyto said:

13 hours ago, Moabkilr45 said:

 

I don't hunt so I will turn to @Jake here for confirmation as I know he does. Isn't being hidden (or some would say concealed) a vital part of most hunting? 

Difficult to hunt if they know you’re there and won’t go anywhere near you