Project Reality Forums

So failing a shotgun or a decent flanking manouvere, is shooting them in the leg to reduce their vision ok/within rules?

It's stretching the rules very far.

I'd say no, it's clearly not realistic and fair. Always think of the player behind that other screen, he has the same right to enjoy the game as you do, so don't try to stretch the rules to your advantage.

Spec_Operator wrote:It's stretching the rules very far.

I'd say no, it's clearly not realistic and fair. Always think of the player behind that other screen, he has the same right to enjoy the game as you do, so don't try to stretch the rules to your advantage.

seeing as irl a group of "civillians" would get wasted if they physically harmed coalition forces in any way. i lost all of my points on al basrah in a chally last week when a sniper/spotter team was killed by civilians right in front of me... and they are still considered unarmed? that sounds like stretching the rules to me

FLAP_BRBGOING2MOON wrote:seeing as irl a group of "civillians" would get wasted if they physically harmed coalition forces in any way. i lost all of my points on al basrah in a chally last week when a sniper/spotter team was killed by civilians right in front of me... and they are still considered unarmed? that sounds like stretching the rules to me

Armed mobs worldwide pelt peacekeepers with stones and rocks. If you feel it's ok to shoot them do some research to prove your point and post it.

At the moment, 99% of the time I think the RoE state it is not allowed to kill them for doing it. Although I wouldn't necessarily say that it's good for the long tem health of the mob once the back-up lads arrive with shields, batons and pickaxe handles.

That said, in 'real life' if a sniper/spotter team was compromised by a mob of angry civilians, they would face exactly the same quandry as the sniper/spotter team in PR that you played.

i.e. they would have to make the choice: Shoot civilians or be stoned to death.

Ironically, PR is sometimes more accurate than you may think.

Spec_Operator wrote:It's stretching the rules very far.

I'd say no, it's clearly not realistic and fair. Always think of the player behind that other screen, he has the same right to enjoy the game as you do, so don't try to stretch the rules to your advantage.

There are no PR wide rules.

Generally wounding the civies is plausible (well you still get some negative points I believe) but dont do it unless you are certain that its within the server rules. (Also when I think of the other dude all I see is someone trolling with game mechanics...in other words he's having fun for me not having fun)

I've been purposely wounded multiples times as a civi. Even though I don't like it, serves me right for not having close backup.

CroCop wrote:There are no PR wide rules.

Actually, yes there are. Where Collaborators are concerned, they are called the Rules of Engagement, (ROE) and they cover acceptable circumstances for shooting players using the Collaborator kit. Check the Project Reality Manual, page 25.

Project Reality Manual, p25 wrote: Civilians and unarmed Iisurgents/Hamas fighters are covered by rules of engagement (ROE). Any of them doing the following within the last minute are considered combatants and may be shot without penalty:
spawn or pick up a kit
use a weapon or vehicle (stones are not counted as weapons)
use resuscitate or the epipen

*bold was added by me for emphasis

Stoickk wrote:Actually, yes there are. Where Collaborators are concerned, they are called the Rules of Engagement, (ROE) and they cover acceptable circumstances for shooting players using the Collaborator kit. Check the Project Reality Manual, page 25.


*bold was added by me for emphasis

Those aren't rules, they are game features since they are ever-present and cannot be broken.

What CroCop is referring to are server-defined rules such as 'shooting civis deliberately is against the rules' - which occurs quite often.

If you want to get technical, Rules of Engagement are indeed Rules, and do govern all of PR. This is why if you shoot, but not kill, someone using the collaborator kit, and they die before you arrest them, you are still penalized with an ROE violation. You were not supposed to shoot the Collaborator in the first place. So, yes, there are indeed PR wide rules in place. Whether they are recognized as such by all players, or enforced rigidly across the board is irrelevant. The fact remains that they are rules, and they do govern this specific activity.

The fact that the punishment for ROE violations is negligible is a discussion currently being held in another thread here if anyone wants to weigh in on that particular issue.

hhaaha yeah i would run a tank through the crowd ;D that will show em

Stoickk wrote:If you want to get technical, Rules of Engagement are indeed Rules, and do govern all of PR.

Nobody likes wiseguys.

Game mechanics =/= server rules

Stay on the bloody topic will you?

I have never captured a civi, got killed trying to, but never done it.

If the server admins say shooting them is acceptable to capture them (the leg that is) then go for it.

If not, then follow their rules. Just make sure he doesn't die or you are out a lot of points.

Shotgun is the best option as it offers you a ranged way of attacking them. Any thing else can be a pain. If you do capture one without a shotgun, you have a great story to tell.

A few hours ago an LAV thought that the best way to kill a civi is driving over him. But there was a hero and that was me! The civilian was standing on a arty ied, resulting in a LAV getting on fire and exploding without the crew. But I got my revenge by luring them into my grenade traps

CroCop wrote:Nobody likes wiseguys.

Game mechanics =/= server rules

Stay on the bloody topic will you?

I don't like people who make generalizations about what everyone else likes, tell me what to do, and make rude remarks in a public forum.

I am on the topic, which is acceptable ways to engage civilians in the game of Project Reality. You sir, are off topic by attempting to moderate a thread in a forum where you have no moderation authority. Watch your tone.

/rant
/Off Topic

Your original comment did not specify server rules, but rather game wide rules, and I illustrated the error in that statement.

dtacs wrote:Those aren't rules, they are game features since they are ever-present and cannot be broken.

Umm, yes, they can, and are every single round of insurgency. That's the entire point. The rules are there, but they are broken regularly. They are not in the same class as gravity which would qualify as a game mechanic as it can not be defeated no matter how badly you want to. For the ROE to be in that category, Collaborators would have to be bulletproof until they put themselves in play. We all know that is not the case.

User warned for flaming -[R-MOD]Thermis

Stoickk wrote:I don't like people who make generalizations about what everyone else likes, tell me what to do, and make rude remarks in a public forum.

I am on the topic, which is acceptable ways to engage civilians in the game of Project Reality. You sir, are off topic by attempting to moderate a thread in a forum where you have no moderation authority. Watch your tone.
/rant

/Off Topic

Your original comment did not specify server rules, but rather game wide rules, and I illustrated the error in that statement.

Firstly, I have never told you to do anything other than staying on topic as you tried to argue with me by posting irrelevant stuff and persisting that you "have a point". If anything this "Watch your tone" remark actually states that the situation is the other way around.

Now as for the rules...did you even read the post? Let me help you out a bit

CroCop wrote:There are no PR wide rules.

Generally wounding the civies is plausible (well you still get some negative points I believe) but dont do it unless you are certain that its within the server rules.

Where did I failed to specify that its about server rules?


btw: They cant be broken. Abusing mechanics is not the same thing as breaking rules

User also warned for Flaming -[R-MOD]Thermis

What you told me is irrelevant. The fact that you did is what matters. You have no right to tell me what to say, where to say it or anything else. You have no authority here. My opinion in this matter is every bit as valid as yours, whether you like it or not.

I took up a debate with you about the game of PR. You chose to engage me personally in a rude manner, and are continuing to do so. I do not like your rudeness, and telling you to watch your tone was an attempt to communicate my feelings on the subject. Obviously one that was utterly wasted. Oh the joys of internet communication.

"There are no PR Wide Rules," is a very simple statement. That is the statement I took issue with, and illustrated the fallacy of. There are indeed a set of PR wide rules regarding Collaborators called Rules of Engagement. They are not game mechanics because players have the option to ignore or break them at will. Doing so is not hacking or exploiting in any way shape or form, and while, in certain servers, that behavior can result in a kick, judging by responses here and in the other thread dealing with Collaborator ROE, as well as my own PR experiences, that type of disciplinary action is the exception rather than the rule.

Game mechanics, such as gravity, walls, deviation, view distance, and things of this nature, that can not be circumvented in any way shape or form are game mechanics. Breaking these in any way results in kicks, bans, punkbuster bans, etc. The ROE does not fall in the same category with those by any stretch of the imagination.

Your other sentence, which was situated in a separate paragraph, discussed a separate matter entirely, and did not appear to be on the same subject at all. Yes, it was part of the same post, however it was not part of the same statement.

It was all within the context of the statement.

And you still accuse me of telling you "what to say". If you plan on arguing about something then stay on the damned topic otherwise your argument is invalid and further discussion about the same invalid point will be ignored as it is irrelevant to the statement. To make things ironic, you even said that its up to the server rules to kick someone "for breaking game rules".

It wasnt rude. It was figure of speech. If you think im doing something wrong, well, you got the report function.

Stoickk wrote:They are not game mechanics because players have the option to ignore or break them at will. Doing so is not hacking or exploiting in any way shape or form, and while, in certain servers, that behavior can result in a kick, judging by responses here and in the other thread dealing with Collaborator ROE, as well as my own PR experiences, that type of disciplinary action is the exception rather than the rule.

Game mechanics, such as gravity, walls, deviation, view distance, and things of this nature, that can not be circumvented in any way shape or form are game mechanics. Breaking these in any way results in kicks, bans, punkbuster bans, etc. The ROE does not fall in the same category with those by any stretch of the imagination.

The game mechanics include a lot of things including the ROE or what you call Rules. Game Mechanics also include the part where you will get a longer spawn time for shooting a civilian, thus making the ROE a Game MECHANIC. Not a rule, A rule is enforced by the server admins.
The ROE is enforced by the game or it's game Mechanics alas the longer spawn time. The admins CAN make the ROE to a rule by kicking people that shoot too many civilians, this however is not generally accepted by all servers and it's admins.

ROE in itself does not fall under Game Mechanics, you are right. The general concept/thought it not seen as a game mechanic. but it is implemented as one in this game. A rule does not require a reaction, when a rule is broken it can be left or it can be punished.
When the ROE in the game is broken you are always punished by the game not the admins, thus making it a Game Mechanic.

That shouldn't matter though. Breaking a rule or game mechanic or whatever you name it should never be done. Just think of the other players and not only of yourself, and play fair.

Imagine this was airsoft. You could ignore being hit, and on long range, you might get away with it. But you, of course, should never do that.

Every player should be trustable enough so we don't expect them to break, bend or ignore rules to their favor. Sadly that's not the case, I don't trust every player. Mainly because it's teh internets and we're all anonymous and people simply don't care about being nice.

Isn't it one of the most basic netiquette rules that you should always remember that there's a human being behind that other screen?

You're not fighting bots here! You're fighing people. People who'll not like being fooled. Don't abuse game mechanics when they allow you, don't ignore rules just because you won't get caught, don't try to win at all costs - simply for the sake of fairness and good sportmanship!

I can't believe how many people would break rules or inentional gameplay just to win, without thinking of what that means for those who they win against. This is a community you're part of! Work and play with it, for it, not against it!

If you find something in the game that's unfair, but not covered by any rule or regulation; don't do it anyway! For you wouldn't want the enemy to do it either. It could all be so easy, and that's driving me mad.

Except airsoft doesnt have that thing called Game Mechanic. There is no divine force that automatically enforces upon you. If the server doesnt prohibit wounding civilians then there is nothing wrong with it. Its like complaining that someone is using a OP weapon thats available to everyone. Sportsmanship is a personal choice