More Civi Kill punish

[RCMoonPie]

Are you kidding me?

Look kid...
Whatever the semantics...
you could have said 18/20 or 36/40.

...it still implies 90%

[BloodBane611]

This needs a lock.....

[Spec]

It only needs a BTT.

The devs should do something about the civilians.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Are you kidding me?

Look kid...
Whatever the semantics...
you could have said 18/20 or 36/40.

...it still implies 90%

Yea, because there are 10 caches

And I am not a kid either.

[Spec]

Please... this is about the civilians, not about math or whatever... It will get locked if we dont get back to topic, and i would really like to see a solution for the civilian-problem in PR.

[RCMoonPie]

Yea, because there are 10 caches

And I am not a kid either.

Neither you or I ever said there were ten caches.
I always referred to your inference of "9/10"...in other words 90%.
Dont twist my words.

If you arent a kid.....then act like it.
Speak like it.
Play like it.

[RCMoonPie]

Please... this is about the civilians, not about math or whatever... It will get locked if we dont get back to topic, and i would really like to see a solution for the civilian-problem in PR.

I have remained on topic defending what I feel are good solutions.
As for 00soldieroffortune00...please remind me again what his suggestion was....
Oh wait.....he hasn't made any....he just complains about those attempting to contribute.

[bullit_toof]

Please... this is about the civilians, not about math or whatever... It will get locked if we dont get back to topic, and i would really like to see a solution for the civilian-problem in PR.

Mate, I'd suggest you request a lock for this thread and start a new one with all the decent points raised from the old one. No one will really want to read a ten page argument.

I'd really like to see how this pans out aswell cos the insurgency mode could be absolutely brilliant.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

I have remained on topic defending what I feel are good solutions.
As for 00soldieroffortune00...please remind me again what his suggestion was....
Oh wait.....he hasn't made any....he just complains about those attempting to contribute.

I am all for contributing and suggestions, but these ideas have to be practical and not further complicate the game in some grand way.

[RCMoonPie]

Most are practical and wouldnt complicate anything.
Either address the impracticality or complications....or make a suggestion yourself.
Otherwise....

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Most are practical and wouldnt complicate anything.
Either address the impracticality or complications....or make a suggestion yourself.
Otherwise....

I have already addressed the impracticalities of them, just read the post. Most are hardcoded anyway.

[Spec]

Most? Playing around with spawn time and ticket punishment wont be hard coded. I still say: Increase the civilians spawntime when getting killed - much higher than when they are arrested.

The fact is:
Civilians have no reason to let the brits arrest them
but they DO have a reason to let the brits kill them

ergo:
There should be a punishment for being killed by a brit, so the civilians stop being human shields only. Of course they still can do that, but not as much as right now.

That being done, its possible to increase the punishment for killing civilians, as this will happen less often now, because they will not be as agressive as right now.

A good punishment would be to display the name visible for everyone (possible) in a message like: "Tr1gg3rH4ppY killed a civilian!". Of course the negative score and additional spawn time, and a small ticket penalty for the british forces, at least one or two tickets. Thats not much more than a soldier suiciding. The person would be kicked for negative score before he could kill enough civilians to do really serious trouble.

What i say is simply:
Stop the civilians from getting themselfs killed all the time and make the brits at least look twice before they shoot. Of course, accidents happen, but thats the weapon of the insurgents. Confusing the brits so they do mistakes. Right now that doesnt work well, all they do is running into the line of fire. It should be less spammy and more tactical.

Its for the gameplay. If only a dev would say something or say what they are planning. This is only one solution, i could imagine a lot others. Not hardcoded.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Most? Playing around with spawn time and ticket punishment wont be hard coded. I still say: Increase the civilians spawntime when getting killed - much higher than when they are arrested.

No, I never said those parts were hardcoded and I even believe a long respawn time for civilians who get killed wouldn't be a bad thing, but it would be very complicated to get it to work correctly. If civilians have a long respawn time, than who would play them seeing as how civilians are killed so often by enemy fire.

They would have to be distinguishable from other insurgents or else it would be a waste and they would be killed just as much as they are now. And at the sametime, if that happens, the civilians class would lose some of its alure because a lot of civilians rely on the US to kill them in order to jack up their respawn time. It is kind of like a double edged sword.


And just jacking up respawn time or taking away tickets (1 idiot civi or soldier shouldn't take tickets away for the whole team) has already been proven to not work. Just look at the civi punish for Brits and how many civis are still being killed by British fire.

The fact is:
Civilians have no reason to let the brits arrest them
but they DO have a reason to let the brits kill them

I agree like I said above. Without that, they would lose their alure, which is what is one of the problems of RCMoon's argument.

ergo:
There should be a punishment for being killed by a brit, so the civilians stop being human shields only. Of course they still can do that, but not as much as right now.

That being done, its possible to increase the punishment for killing civilians, as this will happen less often now, because they will not be as agressive as right now.

A good punishment would be to display the name visible for everyone (possible) in a message like: "Tr1gg3rH4ppY killed a civilian!". Of course the negative score and additional spawn time, and a small ticket penalty for the british forces, at least one or two tickets. Thats not much more than a soldier suiciding. The person would be kicked for negative score before he could kill enough civilians to do really serious trouble.

What i say is simply:
Stop the civilians from getting themselfs killed all the time and make the brits at least look twice before they shoot. Of course, accidents happen, but thats the weapon of the insurgents. Confusing the brits so they do mistakes. Right now that doesnt work well, all they do is running into the line of fire. It should be less spammy and more tactical.

Its for the gameplay. If only a dev would say something or say what they are planning. This is only one solution, i could imagine a lot others. Not hardcoded.

Of course those aspects are not hardcoded, but some of those things just wouldn't work right, so like I said, it is a double edged sword. And the whole team should never lose tickets for 1 man's actions. The "kick" idea is actually pretty good though.

[Psyko]

argh! damn civis, they are good for nothing

Just get rid of them and let some plain cloths bots run around like idiots

[joselucca]

DOUBLE POST!!! yikes!

[joselucca]

RC MOONPIE: you still didnt give a valid reason why we need civies aside from the same line of reasoning you (and others...blind leading the blind) keep rewording and goes somethign like this:
"To answer your question.....civies are necessary to the attempted realism of the game. On the insurgent maps....the Brits are moving into a foreign land that is occupied by inhabitants. They live there. Civies just dont pack up their lives and move to another city. They stay in hopes that the battle will be temporary. Also....this game mode simulates Brits moving in to look for weapons caches....and as a result fighting breaks out in defense of these caches.
The Brits arent looking for a fight necessarily....but they are prepared to do so to take out those caches."

Again, if civilians take on a militant posture then they are not civilians, they are UNARMED COMBATANTS. Your little explanation there is weak and that is because you dont address the fact that civilians are just that...CIVILIANS. they are not, I repeat, not actively assisting fighters or jumping out in front of tanks and such. If civies are to be a part of the game play then their role should be reevaluated or redefined.
'Nuff said.

[RCMoonPie]

RC MOONPIE: you still didnt give a valid reason why we need civies aside from the same line of reasoning you (and others...blind leading the blind) keep rewording and goes somethign like this:
"To answer your question.....civies are necessary to the attempted realism of the game. On the insurgent maps....the Brits are moving into a foreign land that is occupied by inhabitants. They live there. Civies just dont pack up their lives and move to another city. They stay in hopes that the battle will be temporary. Also....this game mode simulates Brits moving in to look for weapons caches....and as a result fighting breaks out in defense of these caches.
The Brits arent looking for a fight necessarily....but they are prepared to do so to take out those caches."

Again, if civilians take on a militant posture then they are not civilians, they are UNARMED COMBATANTS. Your little explanation there is weak and that is because you dont address the fact that civilians are just that...CIVILIANS. they are not, I repeat, not actively assisting fighters or jumping out in front of tanks and such. If civies are to be a part of the game play then their role should be reevaluated or redefined.
'Nuff said.

No....its not "Nuff said".
Its really cute how you obviously think you are the authority on this subject.
You made a post in another thread about how "ridonculous" you thought mine and another poster's arguments on a related subject were....and yet you make a condescending post directed at me regarding my posts.
I guess it wasnt so "redonculous" since you felt left-out enough to jump into the foray, huh?
I could be wrong.
I could be wrong but I am going to assume that by your "black and white" explanation that you aren't familiar with the reality of the "grey areas" that exist in having civilians involved in a theater of war.
There are many people who play reality based games, who have read lots of great books, seen lots of great movies and documentaries, and read up on all sorts of weapons and tactics. They are very intelligent people.
But nothing they "simulate" or imagine, can even remotely compare to the reality of actually being there.....or being forced to make what is literally a life and death descision for ones self...or FOR those in ones immediate vicinity.

Dont take that as an insult...it isnt meant to be, and it wasnt directed at any ONE person in particular.

Those hefty descisions and the gravity they carry cant be emulated in the game.
Thats why people do not take any care to check and hold fire on the civilian class.....and it is why civies just stand out in the open with binos.....there isnt enough bite in the penalties for civie or shooter.....period.

But things aren't so "black and white" in reality....and the way things are in game.... arent "black and white" either.
We are in agreement that something needs to be fixed and adjusted.
One of my suggestions earlier in this thread or the other thread was to change the way the civilian class could be killed.
Currently to my knowledge, civilians may be killed in-game without penalty for the following reasons:
If driving or riding in a vehicle
If they are run over by a vehicle(I think)
If actively on a grappling hook or a ladder (I think)
If the bottom two are wrong....they should be implemented.

My suggestion was to add to the kit an empty space....which would in turn mean the civilian was empty handed.
With this....I would make it so ANY civie...carrying any item that could be construed as aiding the insurgency...would then be considered a combatant....and would be subject to being fired on or killed with impunity.
If you see a civilian throwing rocks, using binoculars, using the grappling hook, holding bandages, or using a wrench.....it is obvious that he is helping the insugency and is a target of opportunity.
Of course it would remain the same in the way civies are captured.

All these combined would keep civies acting a little more sheepish.

But if he is empty handed....thats another story.
You are then killing an unarmed person....and should be held accountable.

I know the argument will be...
"I saw him seconds before using his (binos,grappling hook,wrench) and then he dropped it before I fired (or as I fired) and I got punished!"
or...
"He was so far away and due to the draw distance I couldnt see if he was carrying anything or not...I fired and got punished!"

Well....that is what happens in reality as well. Civies arent "clear-cut" civies in real life either.
They mask their faces today while they fire RPGs at us....tomorrow they are standing out on the curb amongst the women and children smiling and asking for water.
Or they fire from hundreds of feet away from a building. You move onto their position to attack and find women and children and sweaty, guilty looking, out of breath men....that you just know made a clothes change and stashed their weapons.
After a search reveals nothing, other than the fact that they are better at hiding things than you are at searching.....all you can do is take them in for questioning....where they lie and deny everything and are soon realeased.
But there are those golden moments....when those "civies" pop up on that roof-top....to fire on another platoon in the area....and they dont see our movement flanking them....that justice truly gets served.

But anyway.....not seeing a weapon, grappling hook, wrench, rock or anything.....is no excuse in my opinion.....you should be certain of your target, which means holding your fire until you ARE certain.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

RC MOONPIE: you still didnt give a valid reason why we need civies aside from the same line of reasoning you (and others...blind leading the blind) keep rewording and goes somethign like this:
"To answer your question.....civies are necessary to the attempted realism of the game. On the insurgent maps....the Brits are moving into a foreign land that is occupied by inhabitants. They live there. Civies just dont pack up their lives and move to another city. They stay in hopes that the battle will be temporary. Also....this game mode simulates Brits moving in to look for weapons caches....and as a result fighting breaks out in defense of these caches.
The Brits arent looking for a fight necessarily....but they are prepared to do so to take out those caches."

Again, if civilians take on a militant posture then they are not civilians, they are UNARMED COMBATANTS. Your little explanation there is weak and that is because you dont address the fact that civilians are just that...CIVILIANS. they are not, I repeat, not actively assisting fighters or jumping out in front of tanks and such. If civies are to be a part of the game play then their role should be reevaluated or redefined.
'Nuff said.

Couldn't agree more.