Quote:3.3b You may not interfere with any RP happening inside your NLR zone, even if you are currently outside of it. This includes sniping and informing teammates/friends about the things happening inside your NLR zone.
What if you are walking past, and you are somehow involved in the RP by force, for example, you want to exit the city via the tunnel, but you died there at the checkpoint due to a crash for example, what if the checkpoint-eers want to RP a search, etc?
Terrible example, hopefully makes sense.
(May 10, 2017, 02:29 AM)Coupcake Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:3.3b You may not interfere with any RP happening inside your NLR zone, even if you are currently outside of it. This includes sniping and informing teammates/friends about the things happening inside your NLR zone.
What if you are walking past, and you are somehow involved in the RP by force, for example, you want to exit the city via the tunnel, but you died there at the checkpoint due to a crash for example, what if the checkpoint-eers want to RP a search, etc?
Terrible example, hopefully makes sense.
Normally you'd be able to just run past a checkpoint as checkpoints mostly check cars, and you can't retrieve your car from the NLR zone in your example so you will be on foot, usually won't be an issue as a result.
If you do get forced into RP like that you can try inform the other party via LOOC that you need to get out of your NLR area. If they don't let you go or move to another location with you, you can always just make an @ call informing staff that you tried to run through your NLR zone without stopping but were stopped by FearRP/Checkpoint search and then get out of your NLR zone as soon as possible after the RP.
(May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????
Yes, if communication is still possible between the two parties, as Fearp is based off ordering the disadvantaged. Take this scenario for example:
*Shooter Barricaded Situation*
"Give up or our sniper on the hill will fire"
*Points to the sniper*
*Both the Sniper and Suspect have eachother spotted, but the Sniper has the advantage of range and accuracy*
*Suspect must give up as he is at a disadvantage*
A visual confirmation of the shooter and sniper must be possible to avoid lieing and bluffing.
(May 10, 2017, 02:29 AM)Coupcake Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:3.3b You may not interfere with any RP happening inside your NLR zone, even if you are currently outside of it. This includes sniping and informing teammates/friends about the things happening inside your NLR zone.
What if you are walking past, and you are somehow involved in the RP by force, for example, you want to exit the city via the tunnel, but you died there at the checkpoint due to a crash for example, what if the checkpoint-eers want to RP a search, etc?
Terrible example, hopefully makes sense.
Note to staff that you are in a RP situation at your NLR zone due to uninvolved actions. This will allow you to continue your random roleplay with no interference from staff or having to go into LOOC to try and get out of the RP due to an uninvolved death.
I think the rule is saying if you were to say involved in a raid before you died, you can't interfere outside your NLR area like sniping or spotting enemies while "technically" not being on your death location.
(May 10, 2017, 04:58 AM)Soviethooves Wrote: [ -> ] (May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????
Yes, if communication is still possible between the two parties, as Fearp is based off ordering the disadvantaged. Take this scenario for example:
*Shooter Barricaded Situation*
"Give up or our sniper on the hill will fire"
*Points to the sniper*
*Both the Sniper and Suspect have eachother spotted, but the Sniper has the advantage of range and accuracy*
*Suspect must give up as he is at a disadvantage*
A visual confirmation of the shooter and sniper must be possible to avoid lieing and bluffing.
Does FearRP only apply if there's communication?
hidden replies are strong.
(May 9, 2017, 01:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ] (May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????
Adorable loophole but I thought about up this one myself and no, obviously you can't. You could ask that same question with the old rules as "under gunpoint" didnt specify range either.
Be reasonable :>
Edit: There's also the problem of actually seeing the person's weapon at that distance, at which point he's not necessarily "visibly" armed anymore. Microphone range (maybe /y) is a good indicator for most situations I'd say.
Surely this FearRP would still apply in some cases with long range weapons?
For Example:
** Person A mugs Person B
Person B: I suggest you leave me alone, before my friend with the rifle behind you blows your head off.
Person A: Chat shit.
Person B: Don't believe me? Turn around and look next to the tree with the pink leaves
** Person A turns to see the sniper aiming at his skull
(May 11, 2017, 07:29 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ] (May 9, 2017, 01:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ] (May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????
Adorable loophole but I thought about up this one myself and no, obviously you can't. You could ask that same question with the old rules as "under gunpoint" didnt specify range either.
Be reasonable :>
Edit: There's also the problem of actually seeing the person's weapon at that distance, at which point he's not necessarily "visibly" armed anymore. Microphone range (maybe /y) is a good indicator for most situations I'd say.
Surely this FearRP would still apply in some cases with long range weapons?
For Example:
** Person A mugs Person B
Person B: I suggest you leave me alone, before my friend with the rifle behind you blows your head off.
Person A: Chat shit.
Person B: Don't believe me? Turn around and look next to the tree with the pink leaves
** Person A turns to see the sniper aiming at his skull
If the sniper is quite far away and there is no cover you can take instantly - a good roleplayer will surrender to FearRP at that point as obviously the sniper has a huge advantage.
However player A won't be punished if he doesn't do that. By the current rules both players with weapons are equal regardless of distance position or the suitability of their actual weapons, etc.
(May 11, 2017, 10:07 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ] (May 11, 2017, 07:29 PM)Faustin Wrote: [ -> ] (May 9, 2017, 01:08 PM)Overlewd Wrote: [ -> ] (May 9, 2017, 03:04 AM)SourLemon Wrote: [ -> ]So the rule says within range, so can i put cops across the lake under fearrp with my awp??????????
Adorable loophole but I thought about up this one myself and no, obviously you can't. You could ask that same question with the old rules as "under gunpoint" didnt specify range either.
Be reasonable :>
Edit: There's also the problem of actually seeing the person's weapon at that distance, at which point he's not necessarily "visibly" armed anymore. Microphone range (maybe /y) is a good indicator for most situations I'd say.
Surely this FearRP would still apply in some cases with long range weapons?
For Example:
** Person A mugs Person B
Person B: I suggest you leave me alone, before my friend with the rifle behind you blows your head off.
Person A: Chat shit.
Person B: Don't believe me? Turn around and look next to the tree with the pink leaves
** Person A turns to see the sniper aiming at his skull
If the sniper is quite far away and there is no cover you can take instantly - a good roleplayer will surrender to FearRP at that point as obviously the sniper has a huge advantage.
However player A won't be punished if he doesn't do that. By the current rules both players with weapons are equal regardless of distance position or the suitability of their actual weapons, etc.
Now would in this same situation would it be FearRP for Player B to pull a gun on Player A, Consider he will not fear for his life based on the fact he has a sniper? Then they could put Player A under FearRP as it would be 2v1?
Don't want to quote that wall of text so:
Player B cannot pull out a weapon because he is still under gunpoint and can easily be shot by player A.
Being in a 2v1 does not automatically apply FearRP.
Player C (sniper) would be able to try and snipe player A if he believes that he can take him out without harming his friend. Inevitably if player C decides to do that, he either very quickly kills player A or a firefight breaks out. If player A goes for cover or attempts to shoot at player C, he will be distracted and will inevitably allow player B to get out of his sight and pull out a gun. Alternatively if player C shoots at player A, player A shoots at player B at which point FearRP is off and player B can take out his gun. But player B cannot just take out his gun mid-standoff.
As of 16/05/17:
6.7 Do not try to get on to rooftops; do not build on them either.
6.7a Exception: You may place a new billboard/sign on top of the existing billboards.
HAVE BEEN REPLACED WITH:
6.7 You may get up to rooftops if you have a valid RP reason to do so. You may only use the ladder tool to reach rooftops
and the act must be roleplayed out (no magic ladders out of nowhere mid-raid, for example). You may build on rooftops,
however defensive fortifications or contraband are not allowed.
6.7a You may reach rooftops via means other than a ladder if a staff member approves of it (must look realistic).
6.7b Tides/Empires hotel roof in city is off limits, do not attempt to get up there.
Hopefully this change allows for some interesting Roleplays that previously would not have been allowed.
It seems that due to weird formatting some of the rules were not legible in the F1 menu by being cut off early. This has been fixed and everything should be fully legible from next server crash/restart.