Re-defining Raid Rules

[Tene]

This thread is to gather the community's opinion on various raid rules that they believe are left too undefined, leaving behind grey areas in the rules.
This isn't a thread to add a rule to fit in every single grey area and situation, but a thread for improvements on the current raiding rules that helps to cover more grey areas overall, leaving less confusion and overall a better raiding/basing experience.

Note: If something in this thread is agreed upon by the community, it is not final. The agreed upon rule change will be put into place temporarily, and will gradually be improved upon by both the staff team and the community. If a rule is changed, and there is significant issues, it will simply be reverted and will be taken back to the discussion phase. 


This thread is not only my suggested change, it is for any and all raid rules that YOU, the community, thinks should be changed, removed, or explained further.
Please try and give feedback on all suggestions you feel you should share your opinion on. 
If a comment is not constructive or adds no value, it will be hidden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The rule I would like to start off the thread with and ask the community's opinions on changing is to do with raid zones.
In specific, the rule that states:
DO NOT attack a base member while raiding they must be both within eyeshot AND reasonably close to the base

I think this is a very flawed rule as there can be many questions surrounding the wording itself: What is within eyeshot? From which perspective am I looking to determine this, the player's, the bases', or somewhere else? What is reasonably close to the base?

My way to attempt to 'define raid zones', and to improve this rule specifically is via separating the map into districts. Here is an image of the potential 'districts' which I and other staff want the community's opinion on.

Made by Cuntbucket

The colours represent the borders of each district, with the tunnels being left as undefined (we want the community's input on the this too)
While this may look insane for some, the ability to go ANYWHERE within these districts during a raid is solely when in combat with someone who is outside the base, and once the combat ends (you kill the other player), you must then return to the base.

Example (current rule):
I am raiding the base behind the Elevator in Industrial (dark blue district), a base owner comes from the opposite side of industrial and shoots me, with the current raiding rule, I must stay in front of that base, whilst the base defender can hide behind a wall, reheal and then peek, and I must wait for him to peek so I can shoot, despite me wanting to raid all of his loot.

Example (change above):
I am raiding the base behind the Elevator in Industrial (dark blue district), a base owner comes from the opposite side of industrial and shoots me, I can now approach the person who has shot me and fight him over there, instead of right beside the base. This also means I can fully use all of Industrial (excluding other bases) to fight back. I can approach not from the main street, but via the streets behind the 2 buildings (left side of industrial in the image provided) to go and fight the base owner there, once I have killed him I must now return to the base to continue the actual raid, since I am no longer in combat

With the change, it personally speaking improves a lot of the issues with raiding, I can now actually fight the guy who has already shot me, or who is part of the base (he is on the doors) without being glued to the front of the base.

I also still think the defenders will have an advantage, as they can simply leave the district if they get too low, whilst the raider cannot, and can also approach the district from various different positions, however, it will nerf defenders as there will be a lot less situations where a defender is outside the base and basically has the raiders sheeped together at the front of his base, where he faces no threat simply peeking and then hiding behind a wall, as the raiders aren't allowed to run up to him and kill him.

This change as it is still leaves grey areas:
"What if the person defending outside the base runs away, am I still in combat since he's not dead?", "What if I go into the tunnels when chasing a defender?". "How far can I go if I'm not in combat?"

I think with the Community's help this rule can be improved upon, whether it be via the district system, or a completely different way of defining raid zones, and a lot of the grey areas can be thinned out with one overarching rule instead of making rules for every single situation.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Tene

[bone.]

wheelchairs as raiding tools read my post about it for more information

Edited December 25, 2022 by Tene
removed the cancer image spam

[Makoto]

First of all, Merry Christmas everyone.

 

 

To start off with a disclaimer, I'm not much of a baser/raider, so several of my opinions may  "ignorant" of the overall situation.

 

 

That aside, I don't think it's the best idea to "spread out" the pvp involved in raiding. I already forsee several misunderstandings happening and the staff team having to deal with a lot of sits from either players caught in crossfire or raiders killed because their bullet grazed someone in crossfire. Keeping raids pinned to the base being raided has the additional benefit of letting people know what's going on.

 

 

The district idea isn't a bad idea. If we're going to spread out pvp combat, keeping it in tight districts is the way to go. However, the picture in the original post shows that not every district is created equal. Quite frankly, the red district is a clusterfuck and on its own is enough to derail the entire concept. I don't think any further explanation is necessary. Also, please tell me that the hot pink district isn't everything from the street all the way to the beach house island?

 

 

Here's an area of this rule change that I think needs more fleshing out: the sewers. How do the sewers factor into the proposed district idea? The majority of the proposed districts have one or several entrances to the sewers (red, dark blue, light blue, dark green, purple, and burgundy [forest area]). I'm assuming that they would have their own separate ruleset. What about the bases that connect directly to them (the warehouse downtown [that pesky red district] and that one house in the green district)?

 

 

That's my two cents. Maybe an actual raiding expert can come in here? @1-800-Suicide

[Tene]

6 hours ago, Makoto said:

 

That aside, I don't think it's the best idea to "spread out" the pvp involved in raiding. I already forsee several misunderstandings happening and the staff team having to deal with a lot of sits from either players caught in crossfire or raiders killed because their bullet grazed someone in crossfire. Keeping raids pinned to the base being raided has the additional benefit of letting people know what's going on.

This would just be the same as any other gunfight outside of raids that happens in the streets, if you crossfire someone it should still be considered as RDM, and if you shoot a player and they kill you, your raid is over. All this does is increase gunfights in streets a bit more, I think there's a very slim chance that the misunderstandings from these incidents will take long to clear up, again, it would be handled the same as if I was a bounty hunter trying to kill my target and I accidently shoot someone else, they are allowed to kill me, and if I kill them in the crossfire it is RDM on my part. That being said, one thing I can see happening frequently which could become an issue is party assists. Since party member's can no longer defend a base with a /yell and must be on the doors, if they see their party member being shot in the street relatively far away from their base and they party assist and kill the raider, are they at fault? If so what's the punishment? This is the main flaw I see with opening up the raid area.

 

 

6 hours ago, Makoto said:

 

The district idea isn't a bad idea. If we're going to spread out pvp combat, keeping it in tight districts is the way to go. However, the picture in the original post shows that not every district is created equal. Quite frankly, the red district is a clusterfuck and on its own is enough to derail the entire concept. I don't think any further explanation is necessary. Also, please tell me that the hot pink district isn't everything from the street all the way to the beach house island?

While the red district very rarely has actual 'hard to raid' bases (bases with a lot of people defending outside), it is arguably where the most raids happen, so I do agree with you that it is quite a clusterfuck because of how large it is and how many different areas you can go to. Maybe divide the red area into 2 sections, but again this will cause more issues. Can you try and maybe colour in areas that you think would be good as districts, because I'm not too sure what you mean by tight districts.



As for the pink district, no, it is not until the beach house island, its simply until the first tunnel at beach that leads it into the ocean, this is mainly due to the base at beach alley being defended from the shipwreck (where Captain Charlie stands), so opening up this entire area shouldn't really too bad since it is only fully accessible when in combat with someone else who is outside the base, and considering the movement swep cooldown after being put in combat, I don't think the entire area is that much of a 'big area' seeing as how open it is and how easy it is for someone to shoot the raider. Again remember, the raiders must be at the base until in combat, so the defender on the outside could still keep them penned at the bases due to the cooldown.

 

 

6 hours ago, Makoto said:

Here's an area of this rule change that I think needs more fleshing out: the sewers. How do the sewers factor into the proposed district idea? The majority of the proposed districts have one or several entrances to the sewers (red, dark blue, light blue, dark green, purple, and burgundy [forest area]). I'm assuming that they would have their own separate ruleset. What about the bases that connect directly to them (the warehouse downtown [that pesky red district] and that one house in the green district)?

Not too sure what you mean by this, all above ground districts will be ended at the appropriate sewer entrances in their area, the same way that the districts all end at tunnel openings. The district for sewers itself (in my mind), is that both upper and lower sewers are accessible, and again the district ends at all entrances to the BASING part of sewers: The Ladder entrance, the hole in the wall near the ladder entrance, the entrance with the meth dropoff and the vent into PD.
As for the industrial base with the elevator, I believe standing inside the elevator is fine, along with going down in it, but exiting the very short tunnel when you go down the elevator should be considered the end of your raid in industrial. I say this because a lot of people who raid the industrial base at the elevator will usually stand in the elevator itself to re-heal, so making it so if they go down in the elevator it ends the raid should be considered silly, especially since it's only useable when in combat.

Thank you very much for your reply! Still trying to work a lot of this out myself
 

[Makoto]

Tene, your reply answered most of my questions and concerns.

 

 

As for what I meant by tight districts, that was American delivery driver slang leaking out. My bad. A "tight" area is a small, condensed area with a lot of delivery stops. Much beloved in the delivery driver profession because you empty your truck quickly. I say all that to mean that I was agreeing with the district idea and that I liked it. 

 

 

Based on your above reply to each of my points, my only remaining concern is the red district. I don't think much can be done about it since downtown is always a hotbed of activity.

 

 

As for the party assist thing and raids, I guess the staff team will have to have a meeting to re-define assists if we're going to be going down this road.

[Slippery Banana]

I strongly agree with all these points but just to add a bit. I think, we should word it as, "If you get shot during a raid, you can use the 'district' to chase the shooter until they are killed/leave the district. Then, you must return to the front of the base" to be careful people are not just camping edges of districts waiting for people to enter again. 100% agree- this is a grey area and could be improved on! As of now, you just have to hope that somebody misses on you while they can keep corner peaking and you are stuck near the base. +1

[Chessmond]

This would greatly help with balancing raiding omg add this!!!!!!!!! (bump)

Edited August 5, 2023 by Terrry