change the active threat and idle threat rules a bit

[Daddy-skulls]

so, I like the active and idle threat rules but I think they should change it a bit.

so, in the active and idle threat rules "Someone saying they will kill/beat you in an argument or conversation. (Unarmed, weapon on safety etc) that is an idle threat."

now I understand if someone was unarmed and was making threats, they should not be KOS, but I do not feel the same with the safety part.

because if I were to go up to someone on the street and have a M16 automatic rifle on safety and I were to threaten someone's life I would be an "idle threat" and not an "active threat" so, they would not be able to kill me even though I'm carrying a rifle while threating their life.

even though I could easily change to active threat in less than two seconds they still can't defend their selves until my guns off safety.

I feel like it's unrealistic and dumb that they have not changed this rule yet. it makes no since on why they keep this rule and I feel like they should modify the rule, so the safety part is in the active threat category where it belongs. 

thank you for reading this suggestion and have a nice day   

 

 

 

 

Edited July 30 by Daddy-skulls

[Faith]

i have a feeling someone got a rdm note and is a little upset 

 

 

on a real though the rules are balanced in that way to work with fear rp rules, they work together hand in hand.

-1

[Creambru]

8 hours ago, Daddy-skulls said:

so, I like the active and idle threat rules but I think they should change it a bit.

so, in the active and idle threat rules "Someone saying they will kill/beat you in an argument or conversation. (Unarmed, weapon on safety etc) that is an idle threat."

now I understand if someone was unarmed and was making threats, they should not be KOS, but I do not feel the same with the safety part.

because if I were to go up to someone on the street and have a M16 automatic rifle on safety and I were to threaten someone's life I would be an "idle threat" and not an "active threat" so, they would not be able to kill me even though I'm carrying a rifle while threating their life.

even though I could easily change to active threat in less than two seconds they still can't defend their selves until my guns off safety.

I feel like it's unrealistic and dumb that they have not changed this rule yet. it makes no since on why they keep this rule and I feel like they should modify the rule, so the safety part is in the active threat category where it belongs. 

thank you for reading this suggestion and have a nice day   

 

 

 

 

Imo generally people dont go walking around threatening other people usually with any weapon and when they do its usually for petty shit. The most times ull ever see guns presented is around owned businesses and i think if the rule were changed it would allow for alot of bullshit and kill baiting such as one faction visiting another business exclusively to fuck with them until they get told to leave by force and then automatically resort to killing once they see the firearm and hear the threat.

There is alot of good RP that can come out of a rule change like this but at the same time there's alot more opportunity for  kill hungry people to abuse the change just for the sake of having the excuse to shoot someone.

[Canadian-bacon]

Cream pretty much puts the thinking on display. Since open carry is a risk people arent usually doing that shit on the street. By changing the safety rule it would allow minges / instigators to run into shops being annoying until someone asks them to leave with a weapon out and the second they are told to buzz off they just shoot the guy. Classic bait tactic. 

[Daddy-skulls]

15 hours ago, Faith said:

i have a feeling someone got a rdm note and is a little upset 

 

 

on a real though the rules are balanced in that way to work with fear rp rules, they work together hand in hand.

-1

I'm just trying to make suggestions to make the server a better place. its not about the fact I have a rdm warn I'm just saying the rule should change because it makes no since.

whether I had the rdm warn or not my opinions would not change. so stop being argumentative for the wrong reasons 

 

Edited July 30 by Daddy-skulls

[Daddy-skulls]

7 hours ago, Creambru said:

Imo generally people dont go walking around threatening other people usually with any weapon and when they do its usually for petty shit. The most times ull ever see guns presented is around owned businesses and i think if the rule were changed it would allow for alot of bullshit and kill baiting such as one faction visiting another business exclusively to fuck with them until they get told to leave by force and then automatically resort to killing once they see the firearm and hear the threat.

There is alot of good RP that can come out of a rule change like this but at the same time there's alot more opportunity for  kill hungry people to abuse the change just for the sake of having the excuse to shoot someone.

true it usually does not happen, but it does sometimes like before in the ghetto i would always was being threatened with their weaponed presented and i could not do anything about it because they were a "idle threat. now your statement "There is alot of good RP that can come out of a rule change like this but at the same time there's alot more opportunity for  kill hungry people to abuse the change" true some people might abuse the rule to kill people but at the same time, people can abuse the rule now. with the rule still being there, there is nothing stopping me from presenting a gun or a deferent weapon and threating people. (except the police) realism should be more valued more than convinces. I would also like to add if someone is doing this to everyone and their mother that would just be minging so that would stop most players from being kill hungry and abusing the rule.

Edited July 30 by Daddy-skulls

[Daddy-skulls]

7 hours ago, Canadian-bacon said:

Cream pretty much puts the thinking on display. Since open carry is a risk people arent usually doing that shit on the street. By changing the safety rule it would allow minges / instigators to run into shops being annoying until someone asks them to leave with a weapon out and the second they are told to buzz off they just shoot the guy. Classic bait tactic. 

like i said to cream, true it usually does not happen, but it does sometimes like before in the ghetto i would always was being threatened with their weaponed presented and i could not do anything about it because they were a "idle threat. now creams statement "There is alot of good RP that can come out of a rule change like this but at the same time there's alot more opportunity for  kill hungry people to abuse the change" true some people might abuse the rule to kill people but at the same time, people can abuse the rule now. with the rule still being there, there is nothing stopping me from presenting a gun or a deferent weapon and threating people. (except the police) realism should be more valued more than convince. I would also like to add if someone is doing this to everyone and their mother that would just be minging so that would stop most players from being kill hungry and abusing the rule.

Edited July 30 by Daddy-skulls

[Fox]

Idle/active threat makes sense to me in a world run by gangsters. Whilst I understand your reasoning behind the safety part, IMO it would just invite a lot of RDM bating. 

 

The threat rule is fine as it is.

[Canadian-bacon]

There's no reason to change it, it's more than reasonable, people talk shit and front with guns all the time, not every interaction you have should lead to shoot out, weapons on safety just heightens the tension, which is the intention