There are multiple rules that work against their intention where rules are used for rule-play and power-gaming, instead of being used as a guideline for good roleplay.
I will be giving more examples and feedback soon, but let’s begin with these two first.
Friends in the area takes away from actual roleplay.
I will in the text below try to argue the fact that being forced to “initiate for friends” ruins roleplay.
Keep in mind there was a point in time where if someone was shooting at a friend of yours, you could shoot the guys that shot your friend, be it if they were only shooting at the tires.
"Hey.. you shot at someone but ended up dead to bulletwounds, tough luck... maybe you should think twice before a robbery..."
I will now give you an example of a common situation since this new rule\consensus was introduced: Rebels\Cops say they will shoot the tires of my truck. I have a perfectly good opportunity to just drive away and get to a more advantageous position (this will lead to me getting my tires shot at, I can now shoot back at the assailants). I have friends that are 1 Kilometre away but they cannot help me fight the ones shooting at me as I did not “initiate for friends”. This situation has two possible endings,
1. I die without my friends being able to help.
2. My friends must drive up close to the enemy (in the middle of a gunfight) and “initiate” themselves.
Looking at the example above I would safely say this rule – or consensus needs to be changed. Being forced to “initiate for friends” takes away from roleplay and ruins the immersion of a perfectly good roleplay opportunity. I write this with in mind that roleplay is every situation happening in altis-life, and not just the talking ones.
“I’ve got friends in the area” was perfectly good roleplay before it was made a rule. You could use the sentence to pressure people to put their hands up, or you could choose not to say it for a tactical advantage.
Solution: Remove the need to “initiate for friends”.
There is the obvious of “more talking = more roleplay”, and I acknowledge that. However, we are at a point where I personally believe the cons heavily outweigh the pros.
The blue-zones’ un-continuous roleplay
Let me here also start off with a common situation as an example:
A gang has robbed the H.M Treasury and the police are in hot pursuit of the trucks filled with gold.
The police successfully spikestrip a truck - kill the robber - then commandeer the vehicle. It is obvious and common sense that the police will then quickly try and get to a police station where many more police officers are (in RP) on duty. As the police drive towards the police-station they are being chased by multiple rebels. Unfortunately for the rebels they are too slow to catch the truck before it enters the police-station.
The rebels are extremely antagonized by this action as they are not just un-able, but bound by the rules of the server not to enter the police-station them self and take the truck back with force.
The police officer that commandeered the truck quickly calls Bob the impound man and within 10 seconds the truck has been sent to the scrap-yard (The officer is in a "safe zone, and therefore not in combat"). The officer then takes his own vehicle out and re-enters the firefight as it is known.
From the example above, you can clearly see how not being able to continue RP in blue-zones are against common sense. The rebels would in most situations enter the police station by force and try to take the truck back. We must remember rebels are not always smart individuals, and will most times do everything in their power for personal gains.
Solution: Give rebels the power to continue roleplay (even if it is a gunfight) if the “assailant” enters a “safe-zone”
Also, here I see the obvious “Rebels will just use it as an excuse to attack police-stations”, but will they? Say a situation would occur where rebels did exactly this, would it not be solved in TeamSpeak within 30 minutes?
