A way of jailing people?

[Connall]

Jailing and interrogations of NPCs but not Player Characters should be the default setting, though I think there should also be an option to activate it for players on dedicated role playing servers.

 

Agreed, though to be fair if it's a roleplaying server then surely you can just roleplay the torture?

[Kajin]

It might also be a good idea to be able to jail your own survivors if you need to. Say, if an NPC named Shane decides he'd be a better leader than you, you can beat him into submission and throw him into your makeshift prison on severely reduced rations as punishment until he learns his lesson and agrees that you're the better leader.

[Rathlord]

 

1- There is no point system to rack up - this should motivate people to not act stupid/irrational on purpose (like running around screaming/shooting etc), since griefers/trolls would simply die within first few minutes.

 

 

You must never have played an online game XD What's to stop people from just spawning a new character and resuming running around, shouting, committing suicide, and getting others killed? There's always ways to be a bitch online, but I can tell you from experience playing on a roleplay server with strict rules is much better than other ways. There's also major differences in how people troll online and how an asshole would be in the zombie apocalypse.

 

A troll does ANYTHING to get people killed or griefed, regardless of the consequences to their character. In real life, you might be an ass to someone or even try to kill them, but you're not going to do it if it means you die, too. There's a big difference in how things like this play out.

[Connall]

 

 

1- There is no point system to rack up - this should motivate people to not act stupid/irrational on purpose (like running around screaming/shooting etc), since griefers/trolls would simply die within first few minutes.

 

 

You must never have played an online game XD What's to stop people from just spawning a new character and resuming running around, shouting, committing suicide, and getting others killed? There's always ways to be a bitch online, but I can tell you from experience playing on a roleplay server with strict rules is much better than other ways. There's also major differences in how people troll online and how an asshole would be in the zombie apocalypse.

 

A troll does ANYTHING to get people killed or griefed, regardless of the consequences to their character. In real life, you might be an ass to someone or even try to kill them, but you're not going to do it if it means you die, too. There's a big difference in how things like this play out.

 

 

I've admined a couple of roleplay servers with an apocalypse theme. It's always a lose, lose situation with griefers. You kick/temp ban them after warning them and they throw a hissy fit about how it's "realistic rp" then other players get in a tizzy because they think we're controlling roleplay. So much stress.

 

It's an unbelievable pain. If you bring in too many rules that becomes a sore point for people, think you're acting like a dictator or something. I don't know. I try to make everybody happy, but it's always relatively futile.

[Rathlord]

The best times I've had in games like that were where there's just a hardcore dictator of the server. If you piss him off, you're out. No whining, begging, or arguing about what the rules say. It may not exactly be "fair" but it keeps the server fun for the people who are behaving. That being said, the joy of having private servers is that you can always either find one that fits your ideal method or just make your own =D

[Connall]

The best times I've had in games like that were where there's just a hardcore dictator of the server. If you piss him off, you're out. No whining, begging, or arguing about what the rules say. It may not exactly be "fair" but it keeps the server fun for the people who are behaving. That being said, the joy of having private servers is that you can always either find one that fits your ideal method or just make your own =D

 

I think it also depends on the gaming community around the game itself. I do plan to set up an rp server and have it whitelisted, see how it goes. Should be interesting I'm sure. I'll be the only one playing on the server I'm sure. 

 

Getting ahead of ourselves in either case. I'm sure it will be a while before multiplayer is even a tangible thing.

[Fj45]

 

The best times I've had in games like that were where there's just a hardcore dictator of the server. If you piss him off, you're out. No whining, begging, or arguing about what the rules say. It may not exactly be "fair" but it keeps the server fun for the people who are behaving. That being said, the joy of having private servers is that you can always either find one that fits your ideal method or just make your own =D

 

I think it also depends on the gaming community around the game itself. I do plan to set up an rp server and have it whitelisted, see how it goes. Should be interesting I'm sure. I'll be the only one playing on the server I'm sure. 

 

Getting ahead of ourselves in either case. I'm sure it will be a while before multiplayer is even a tangible thing.

 

 

Ill be on there.

[Kajin]

Sign me up for the future whitelisted Role Play Server as well.

[silents429]

 

The best times I've had in games like that were where there's just a hardcore dictator of the server. If you piss him off, you're out. No whining, begging, or arguing about what the rules say. It may not exactly be "fair" but it keeps the server fun for the people who are behaving. That being said, the joy of having private servers is that you can always either find one that fits your ideal method or just make your own =D

 

I think it also depends on the gaming community around the game itself. I do plan to set up an rp server and have it whitelisted, see how it goes. Should be interesting I'm sure. I'll be the only one playing on the server I'm sure. 

 

Getting ahead of ourselves in either case. I'm sure it will be a while before multiplayer is even a tangible thing.

 

Eh, I honestly don't think the PZ gaming community will be all that wonderful

[Fj45]

 

 

The best times I've had in games like that were where there's just a hardcore dictator of the server. If you piss him off, you're out. No whining, begging, or arguing about what the rules say. It may not exactly be "fair" but it keeps the server fun for the people who are behaving. That being said, the joy of having private servers is that you can always either find one that fits your ideal method or just make your own =D

 

I think it also depends on the gaming community around the game itself. I do plan to set up an rp server and have it whitelisted, see how it goes. Should be interesting I'm sure. I'll be the only one playing on the server I'm sure. 

 

Getting ahead of ourselves in either case. I'm sure it will be a while before multiplayer is even a tangible thing.

 

Eh, I honestly don't think the PZ gaming community will be all that wonderful

 

 

[silents429]

Nope. Can't cite something that doesn't exist yet.

[Fj45]

Nope. Can't cite something that doesn't exist yet.

 

Then why would you come to that conclusion?

[silents429]

 

Nope. Can't cite something that doesn't exist yet.

 

Then why would you come to that conclusion?

 

Because I said I don't -think-

Making an assumption.

 

No reason to think otherwise

[Connall]

 

 

Nope. Can't cite something that doesn't exist yet.

 

Then why would you come to that conclusion?

 

Because I said I don't -think-

Making an assumption.

 

No reason to think otherwise

 

 

I guess what it comes down to is how the community as a whole is. I mean games multiplayers do live or die on the community they foster. (Though bad communities always bewilderingly become popular.)

[Fj45]

 

 

 

Nope. Can't cite something that doesn't exist yet.

 

Then why would you come to that conclusion?

 

Because I said I don't -think-

Making an assumption.

 

No reason to think otherwise

 

 

I guess what it comes down to is how the community as a whole is. I mean games multiplayers do live or die on the community they foster. (Though bad communities always bewilderingly become popular.)

 

 

*HACKCOUFHWARZCOUGH*

[rabbit]

See, I could see the point of locking up a bunch of zombies to use as a weapon, but I just don't see the benefit of locking up a person, NPC or player, over just killing them. I can't see the whole idea of ransoming really working, just because individual players are just as capable of getting by alone as they would be with their co-op partners. If it were done in order to try to gain items from other groups, I just can't see there being any real incentive for them to give in to those demands, as opposed to either just attacking the imprisoning group, or completely ignoring it all together. Life is pretty cheap in PZ, especially if there's going to be server respawns, or even just the ability to create a new character and jump back into the same server. If you were playing as part of a team, and someone wanted to hold you hostage for an extended period of time, I can say that I personally would sooner sacrifice the character, create a new one, and rejoin my team.

surely a large part of the appeal of PZ is that it will allow people in single or multiplayer to live out their own little walking dead style post apocalyptic melodramas? caring about the livelihood of your communities strikes me as pretty integral to that. i think this is a pretty great idea and can see no reason it wouldn't be a neat addition to the game.

[GrimexReaper]

See, I could see the point of locking up a bunch of zombies to use as a weapon, but I just don't see the benefit of locking up a person, NPC or player, over just killing them. I can't see the whole idea of ransoming really working, just because individual players are just as capable of getting by alone as they would be with their co-op partners. If it were done in order to try to gain items from other groups, I just can't see there being any real incentive for them to give in to those demands, as opposed to either just attacking the imprisoning group, or completely ignoring it all together. Life is pretty cheap in PZ, especially if there's going to be server respawns, or even just the ability to create a new character and jump back into the same server. If you were playing as part of a team, and someone wanted to hold you hostage for an extended period of time, I can say that I personally would sooner sacrifice the character, create a new one, and rejoin my team.

I would say if you have a group and someone does something bad, but not atrocious, you could keep em in prison for a few days.

[Walther]

 

See, I could see the point of locking up a bunch of zombies to use as a weapon, but I just don't see the benefit of locking up a person, NPC or player, over just killing them. I can't see the whole idea of ransoming really working, just because individual players are just as capable of getting by alone as they would be with their co-op partners. If it were done in order to try to gain items from other groups, I just can't see there being any real incentive for them to give in to those demands, as opposed to either just attacking the imprisoning group, or completely ignoring it all together. Life is pretty cheap in PZ, especially if there's going to be server respawns, or even just the ability to create a new character and jump back into the same server. If you were playing as part of a team, and someone wanted to hold you hostage for an extended period of time, I can say that I personally would sooner sacrifice the character, create a new one, and rejoin my team.

I would say if you have a group and someone does something bad, but not atrocious, you could keep em in prison for a few days.

 

 

it's not only to keep someone captive, like someone from another group... but also likes grimex said, as a punishment

 

"throw him in the hole for a day..." Cut. Scene. 2 muscleguys from your group grap the one that stole 2 cans of beans out of the storage compartment and throw them in the hole (a room with only a mattress and no windows.)

[lemmy101]

Realistically, is it really worth going through the trouble of keeping someone in any of those situations alive anyway? As opposed to just putting one in their head and being done with it?

 

Well if fully fleshed out NPCs are involved any other members of your team with or without specific traits would be quite appalled at you doing that. That's assuming you were the leader and had the authority to do that in the first place. 

[Walther]

 

Realistically, is it really worth going through the trouble of keeping someone in any of those situations alive anyway? As opposed to just putting one in their head and being done with it?

 

Well if fully fleshed out NPCs are involved any other members of your team with or without specific traits would be quite appalled at you doing that. That's assuming you were the leader and had the authority to do that in the first place. 

 

 

plus... uhm ransom anyone? put a little pressure on the enemygroup? send a finger as a message? lots of possibilities

[Kajin]

Can't wait to kidnap people and ransom them for packs of smokes. Even if my character doesn't smoke.

[silents429]

It would be dangerous to be a leader that kills someone for stealing something right then and there, or having the punishment of death for your teammates for screwing up.

 

Might even cause the NPC's to think your unfit to lead..

 

REVOLT?

[Fj45]

So every SS13 Round ever?

[AcademicGravy]

On the topic of punishments for crimes within a community, maybe a way to make a permanent mark on someone. A brand or something or make them wear a certain type of clothing. Forever in the community they will be labeled a thief. I like the idea of imprisoning players though, tons of potential and unpredictable outcomes.

[Fj45]

That would be hilarious with multiplayer.