Angry
Full Member
Posts: 240
|
Post by Angry on Jun 9, 2018 12:36:06 GMT -5
ill forum warrior this in a bit i cant argue on a phone rn to hard to type
|
|
fatih
Junior Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by fatih on Jun 10, 2018 17:43:38 GMT -5
"Players can demand for another player to stop playing an instrument. However, no other animations can be demanded."
|
|
|
Post by simonrat on Jun 10, 2018 18:40:55 GMT -5
that would be a pretty useless rule imo especially because as far as I know stopping an animation doesn't show up in the logs so it would just make it more difficult for admins
|
|
fatih
Junior Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by fatih on Jun 10, 2018 18:53:35 GMT -5
that would be a pretty useless rule imo especially because as far as I know stopping an animation doesn't show up in the logs so it would just make it more difficult for admins What I meant was somebody can't say "halt Simon" then go "kneel" then kill you for not kneeling or doing whatever animation they asked for. This happened today
|
|
|
Post by simonrat on Jun 10, 2018 18:55:05 GMT -5
that shouldn't need to be clarified, and what i was referencing was the instrument part specifically because without a recording there is as far as i know no way to tell whether or not they followed the demand
|
|
fatih
Junior Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by fatih on Jun 10, 2018 18:57:19 GMT -5
that shouldn't need to be clarified, and what i was referencing was the instrument part specifically because without a recording there is as far as i know no way to tell whether or not they followed the demand Perhaps for that then it would also be a case of "If you're going to use this Kill reason, you must have your own proof" like with pointing. The only thing we can see is the starts of animations I believe, though I think this only applies to the ones where audio is spoken like the "What's this then eh?".
|
|
Vic Tide
New Member
"Lets jew some EU tin"
Posts: 69
|
Post by Vic Tide on Jun 11, 2018 3:00:33 GMT -5
Read what I wrote in mikey's complaint on the commonwealth player complaint
|
|
|
Post by ElephantMan on Jun 11, 2018 17:11:55 GMT -5
Read what I wrote in mikey's complaint on the commonwealth player complaint My opinion is that unless outlaws don't have faction chat anymore they should count as a faction. I didn't even know they did until I saw that video, last time I played outlaw was on Celestial XD. My rationale for this is basically it's called "faction chat". What's the point of treated outlaws like individuals if they have almost all the benefits of a faction? Because that's all outlaws are these days. In fac chat in Mikeys videos, there are people organizing outlaw attacks on Vienna village. Levy_Bob_Bohemia says in fac chat, "surround the village/ hit from all sides." At this point it's clear there is a skirmish going on, and the outlaws, the group who supposedly are to be treated like individuals, are, at least minimally, using fac chat to plan and work together across the map, rather than bands of outlaws who work together only using local chat. In the 2 videos where Mikey is killed in the village, there is fighting going on nearby, and what should the guys who killed him be expected to do? Wait around until he picks up a wep and starts fighting them? With the "Outlaws do not need to request help to be assisted by other outlaws. Nobody can assist outlaws, nor may outlaws assist anybody." (Commoner & Outlaws) it can basically be interpreted that outlaws can help in fighting and when returning to an ongoing skirmish plan to assist their brethren. I believe this logic applies to normal faction players (maybe I'm wrong, sorry if so).
|
|
Vic Tide
New Member
"Lets jew some EU tin"
Posts: 69
|
Post by Vic Tide on Jun 12, 2018 1:03:32 GMT -5
Which is why I believe that rule has to be removed, and outlaws can coordinate attacks with faction chat but have to use local chat to halt and assist each other, etc. using family names may help - but not to loophole the rule.
|
|
fatih
Junior Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by fatih on Jun 12, 2018 1:45:49 GMT -5
You could always de facto remove the Default Outlaws and instead add a (technically) landed faction designed to be outlaws. That way they get faction functionality, while also having the opportunity to better implement special outlaw faction rules. Kinda like how there's the suggestion for a "de facto" or "designated" village/market fac that can never cap.
I did this once in another game in a different context but similar idea, though not sure if it would work here.
|
|
|
Post by ElephantMan on Jun 12, 2018 14:18:54 GMT -5
Which is why I believe that rule has to be removed, and outlaws can coordinate attacks with faction chat but have to use local chat to halt and assist each other, etc. using family names may help - but not to loophole the rule. So basically in context, let's say a group of outlaws halted a smaller group of fac players. If the fac players use fac chat and get more men onto that scene to help kill the outlaws, and the faction guys don't need one of their own to say help in order to assist. If I'm not mistaken (might have read that wrong) then for outlaws to reinforce during a skirmish, a new group of outlaws would have to get one of the currently fighting outlaws to stop and say help in order for the new outlaws to be able to fight. Am I right in this? Because if so, that doesn't seem very practical (having outlaws say help in local in order for newly-arriving outlaws to join the fight), and doesn't make sense with the way outlaws already are (almost a fully fledged faction).
|
|
Vic Tide
New Member
"Lets jew some EU tin"
Posts: 69
|
Post by Vic Tide on Jun 13, 2018 3:12:46 GMT -5
I dont care if its not practical, it would be a rule and outlaws would follow it or get banned. Not my problem. If thats the way to make sure outlaws dont get rdmed during a fight incase they just stumble upon a skirmish between some outlaws and a FACTION, the faction doesnt immediately kill the new band of outlaws. If outlaws return to the fight its NRR and thats a different battle in the adminscape.
|
|
|
Post by ElephantMan on Jun 13, 2018 9:08:51 GMT -5
I dont care if its not practical, it would be a rule and outlaws would follow it or get banned. Not my problem. If thats the way to make sure outlaws dont get rdmed during a fight incase they just stumble upon a skirmish between some outlaws and a FACTION, the faction doesnt immediately kill the new band of outlaws. If outlaws return to the fight its NRR and thats a different battle in the adminscape. That’s makes no sense, because how does the faction differentiate between the outlaws and the old ones if they are already preoccupied. If I’m fighting for my life I’m not gonna remember which outlaws halted me(probs not) if there’s a group of like 5. If another group of 5 shows I’m not gonna remember whose in the first group. From the outlaw perspective, how do they reinforce that skirmish? Would they have to halt one of the faction guys? Cuz if so, that’s untenable as they are literally fighting, no one is gonna stop because a new group of outlaws is halting them. As such the outlaws would be able to enter the fight due to the faction guy not halting. But halts need to have the possiblilty of actually stop and going through a halt peacefully. With your new rule you would make halts just a kr.
|
|
Vic Tide
New Member
"Lets jew some EU tin"
Posts: 69
|
Post by Vic Tide on Jun 13, 2018 22:04:05 GMT -5
halts already are a KR for some.
|
|
|
Post by ElephantMan on Jun 15, 2018 23:01:11 GMT -5
halts already are a KR for some. Confused on your meaning and how that applies to what I said.
|
|