Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars"


  • Hello everyone,

    Some thinkers within GM recently came with the following idea; war declarations between gangs. This would mean that there'll be a possibility to request (and get approved) a formal gang war, which mandates (random) acts of violence or malcompetition between gangs, without it being considered as DM or provoking.

    We want to ask you, the community, for your opinion on the idea in general, and most of all we'd appreciate some input & suggestions on the regulatory and limiting measures that would accompany the implementation (policies to keep it all reasonable and not let it derail into hate games).

    Currently this is what we envision (subject to change after suggestions):

    • A major incident (or a buildup of frustration or competition) happens between atleast 2 gangs, that lead to tensions severe enough to create rivalry.

    • Gang leadership face eachother at "the table" of a gang coalition (this is a fun RP aspect and building these coalitions between gangs will likely be prompted by the new possibilities) including intermediation, as it is in all gang's interests not to let wars erupt

    • If the conflict cannot be solved peacefully, gang leaderships sign a "declaration of war"

    • The backstory of the situation (conflict, incident, exactly what happened and how it should reasonably lead to tensions severe enough to permit a war, realistically) is submitted to GM, and constitutes the "war approval request".

    GM will then review if there's a good enough RP backstory to the war request, based on the events that unfolded between the gangs.
    If there is, we will approve the war, after which it is officially permitted.

    An ongoing war permits the following to be carried out;

    • Random acts of violence aimed at members of the opposite gang (unpredecented attacks on gang base or properties, shooting at the opposite gang on sight, arson/attacks on their real estate)
    • Removing the cap on the amount or interval of Gang robberies (of their base's safe)
    • Allowing one gang to interrupt another gang's activities, such as Bankrobs headed by the gang (entering the bank to attack the robbers belonging to that gang, possibly foiling it) altho this point is still up for serious discussion and evaluation
    • Allowing corruption (for example, squads will be made aware they can accept bribery from gang 1 involved in a war with another gang, being PAID to bump up the amount of Base raids the bribed squad will want to carry out on the victim gang)

    Alright, so that's that. What we as GM will want to make sure, is that gang leadership makes everyone inside affected gangs aware that the ongoing war means no DM accusations are to be made, and that if they get shot they know the origin of the attack. We will also make sure all server staff and admins are aware of the active gang wars so no DM will be considered for the permittable attacks.
    What we would like to encourage however, is that random acts of violence be carried out in a RP way.

    For example: gang 1 enters gang 2's territory or where they are hanging out.. gang 2 RP's yelling "Ey vatos.." and raises their shirts off their waistbands, showing their guns. After a short moment of eyeballing they won't fall back, and shots ring.

    Or you have incidents where there's staredowns and a threathening athmosphere very often, and at one breaking point gang 1 decides to organise a drive-by shooting on a group of gang 2's members hanging out in their territory, or whenever they see a group of them anywhere.

    What we also do not want is continuous DM battles, like it were a TDM with respawning; do not turn hospitals into DM zones, we don't like handing out permits to farm kill-stats, it is not intended so; if you have a shooting once and your gang kills all rival gang members, then there's silence as soon the final opponent dies, and it's done with; dont re-locate eachother to bring it on, just consider a new attack only when you randomly meet a bunch of rival gang members again, under the right circumstances so it be.

    If anything goes out war by the last-mentioned criteria, GM can decide to prematurely withdraw the GANG WAR permission, after which it will be forced to end.

    These are our basic ideas of how this should be implemented. Please leave both your impression on whether or not the idea of GANG WARS in general are a good idea, if you think it brings a valuable addition to SAES, but also your opinion on the regulations that we wrote up in the concept.

    Notes for fair-play:

    • Allies or coalitions between gangs can be formed between gangs (even beyond the negotiations table), but not so much that 10 gangs are against 1, forcing that one to die out or be safe nowhere. Common sense.
    • It has to remain fun. If the leadership of one gang feels they are under unreasonable pressure or violence, they can decide (one-sided) to request GM to force the war to an end.
      A declaration of war can be one-sided, but the safeguard for this approach is that the second gang can object & request cancellation as soon they took notice of the declaration of war which had previously been approved by GM after being submitted by the aggressor gang. Gangs may get a tactical advantage from not giving another gang time to prepare, so in some situations (as far the backstory of the incident/intra-gang tensions supports it) a declaration of war can just be handed out without deliberations on the "round table" of negotiations between the 2 gang's leaderships.

  • Nah, all players of the server will suffer from it and all server will be in chaos if someone will start the war.


  • Random acts of violence aimed at members of the opposite gang (unpredecented attacks on gang base or properties, shooting at the opposite gang on sight, arson/attacks on their real estate)

    anything with the exception of shooting at sight (i assume it means shooting at any location in map) sounds decent to me.

    Removing the cap on the amount or interval of Gang robberies (of their base’s safe)

    as a player who's never been in a gang i'm not familar with the consequences of GR's, but it sounds fine..

    Allowing one gang to interrupt another gang’s activities, such as Bankrobs headed by the gang (entering the bank to attack the robbers belonging to that gang, possibly foiling it) altho this point is still up for serious discussion and evaluation

    go for it!!

    Allowing corruption (for example, squads will be made aware they can accept bribery from gang 1 involved in a war with another gang, being PAID to bump up the amount of Base raids the bribed squad will want to carry out on the victim gang)

    as a squad member i'd say this would be fun.. go for it.
    overall idea is cool, keep us updated


  • I believe there is no need for this as all gangs can already enter in rivalry mode between them on agreement by leadership of concerned gangs. Everything suggested in this idea can already be done ingame, there are no rules, or anything that prevents players (except for bank rob part) to do it whenever they like.
    Also, I saw the way gang robs turned out, I feel this would just rise hate between players out of role playing situations. My own gang is gang that is trying to be in very good relations with all other gangs on server, except for few role plays, which is all done on mutual agreement between all involved parties in name of good fun. I can say right from the start that Organization Zero won't take any part in this kind of rivalry, but if majority actually wants this to happen, then go for it. I just hope everyone can understand all, both good and bad, situations this will bring on server.


  • @riseagain said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    Nah, all players of the server will suffer from it and all server will be in chaos if someone will start the war.

    @tut-greco said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    Random acts of violence aimed at members of the opposite gang (unpredecented attacks on gang base or properties, shooting at the opposite gang on sight, arson/attacks on their real estate)

    anything with the exception of shooting at sight (i assume it means shooting at any location in map) sounds decent to me.

    Both of you mentioned the most sensitive point and understandably.
    I got an idea, to meet you halfway, we could make it mandatory to have some sort of 'foreplay' that comes before any shots are fired.

    That means like I described at one part; displaying weapons to the opposite gang, trying to provoke (or warn for) a physical standoff by certain actions which are to be RPed at the scene. In the case where violence (after a sufficiently RPed standoff or intrusion of honour) does happen, it can however be pardonned by the fact there's an active war. For example an intrusion of honour that i mentioned would be when a (bunch of) gang members goes to stand near to a rival gang, who obviously cannot appreciate the presence of a gang they are in a fiercy war with, in their direct vinicity. A (vehicle of) enemy gang members can also 'stalk' the other gang to intimidate them, prompting a standoff.

    This change in plans would mean, 'shooting on sight' will not be the case, and thus it won't really look and feel like legalised straight DM.

    Does this sound reasonable to you guys?


  • Both of you mentioned the most sensitive point and understandably.
    I got an idea, to meet you halfway, we could make it mandatory to have some sort of 'foreplay' that comes before any shots are fired.

    That means like I described at one part; displaying weapons to the opposite gang, trying to provoke (or warn for) a physical standoff by certain actions which are to be RPed at the scene. In the case where violence (after a sufficiently RPed standoff or intrusion of honour) does happen, it can however be pardonned by the fact there's an active war.

    This change in plans would mean, 'shooting on sight' will not be the case, and thus it won't really look and feel like legalised straight DM.

    Does this sound reasonable to you guys?

    yea, harassing or otherwise provocating through Rp actions -> gunfire, something in that direction seems as the best solution for me (otherwise it would kinda change the gamemode if you could just run up to someone and shoot him right away)


  • @gengar said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    I believe there is no need for this as all gangs can already enter in rivalry mode between them on agreement by leadership of concerned gangs. Everything suggested in this idea can already be done ingame, there are no rules, or anything that prevents players

    Most of the points suggested in the basic write-up do lift some boundaries/limitations that gangs/squads would otherwise have to follow as ordinarily. We're not saying that due to this implementation, we want to forbid gangs going the old fashioned, informal (non approval) 'rivalry', this just brings extended and mandated possibilities and more safeguards from unforeseen consequences of what comes and goes from what is permitted by a formally active war under GM. I'm not sure if you really did read it all well enough..


  • TL;DR


  • SWAT would like to declare gangwar against NNB


  • @silence Ez win for NNB


  • can squads participate

    arresting only is boring, i want turfs

    maybe let's have squad turfs where you war other squads for turf control and you get more arresting money for arresting in your turf

    vigilante > cops, fact. play APB


  • Right.

    The reason this had been brought to you guys as an idea, is to look at adding another dynamic into the game.

    Gangs would be able to draw unnoficial turf lines dependant on there bases, warning the gang they are at war in that they will be shot on sight entering into gang Xs 'turf'. Gang Y (Who are at war with gang X) could do the same.

    It would also add the need for a gang to work closely as a gang. If they're going to sell weapons here, should they take backup?
    Is it safe for them to go into a certain part of a certain city alone? Or is it not worth the risk?

    It adds the ability for gangs to actually have 'enemies' outside of just cops (as they arrest them.), Gang Y could stop gang X members participating in a store robbery either by threatening or actually fighting it out to control the SR, or refuse to assist with a bank robbery. (Personally I don't like the idea of gangs shooting up banks to kill each other).

    Yes, there probably would be a few over-enthusiastic players who'd want to just Rambo about blasting everyone, but we can look at implementing guidelines to stop issues that.
    One example being for the above:

    • "Players can not just Rambo about with the single intention of killing enemy gang members constantly"
    • "To go and openly attack enemy gang members, there must be a minimum of X players, and conducted as a drive-by, assassination, or 'beating'."

    An idea that I've just thought, is having a 'gang war' forums, where things such as drive-bys, assassinations & beatings must be logged to make sure there is fair play, and disputed incidents can be settled if for some reason they can't be settled in game.

    Another idea is more turf zones could be placed around SA. X amount of turfs can be placed in a certain radius from a gangs base. This turf would be a LOT harder to take, but would also help create 'surrender' points, as if gangs loose some valuable turfs it might be enough for them to call a halt to the violence.

    Try to look past the 'oh players shooting each other' and into the depth this could add for gangs on the server.

    On a side note. Squads could then have the need to make a gang unit for there squads, and potentially a 'taskforce' compromising of several of each squad member to help co-ordinate stopping gang violence.

    Perhaps squads would need to have actual patrol areas to help supress gang on gang violence, instead of just finding the nearest wanted criminal or running up to the SR or BR.


  • can squads at least get money / not get jailed for killing gang members in turfs / gang wars


  • The potential is there to look at removing cops getting wanted levels when in an active turf zone and having to use lethal force if it's possible to be done.


  • Overall I like the idea. Ofcourse there are some kinks to work out but honestly it should be atleast have a trial period in where we can test it.
    Gangs should be responsible for there own actions. Having a shootout and a trucker passes by? Don't throw that nade.

    @apollo said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    Try to look past the 'oh players shooting each other' and into the depth this could add for gangs on the server.

    Most of the times it's just that. I don't want to get caught up in the crossfire between 2 gangs who will frequently kill bystanders. If people decide to just go kill anyone and everyone the 'gangwars' idea should retire

    @teddy said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    can squads at least get money / not get jailed for killing gang members in turfs / gang wars

    Get money for killing? So TST can snipe from 200m away like they do at Storerobs? Nah.

    @teddy said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    can squads participate

    Fuck yea they should . Why not allow turfzones to become 'neutral' under police supervision (+ Payout for the whole squad). Also an added bonus (5-10%?) for arresting players inside there turf.


  • @ikzelf

    Fuck yea they should . Why not allow turfzones to become 'neutral' under police supervision (+ Payout for the whole squad). Also an added bonus (5-10%?) for arresting players inside there turf.

    Now that's what I call a suggestion!

    Official squads should be able to netrualize turf zones, how about that? Just like how a gang takes over an area, if official squads do it, it becomes a neutral color on map.

    Squad members would be able to turn on a /war to see turf areas on map, and while only this war is on, is able to neutralize a turf area. This would really bring competition.

    Criminals would be constantly turfing, and it would bring a whole new game mechanic to squad members, instead of arresting only.

    Also a different kind of suggestion I got:

    After the reset, wouldn't it be interesting for gangs to get income for turf areas they own? The more turf areas owned, the more income they get. Say if a turf zone is owned for 24 hours by a gang, their gang recieves a small amount of money for that one turf zone - you have more, you get more. So no more money per tick when turfing?

    It would be like a business.

    However, here comes the squads being able to neutralize turf zones into play. When squads neutralize a turf area, that gang will not be able to recieve money for it. They would have to gain control of it again, and maintain it for 24 hours. Another gang takes over that gangs turf, timer gets wiped, new 24 hours start. You get the idea.


  • @thek said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    Removing the cap on the amount or interval of Gang robberies (of their base’s safe)

    My only gripe on this part is that only 4 gangs have an actual safe in their base. If you force gang safes upon gangs who wish to start a gang war, then you have my full support.


  • @silence said in Share your opinion: GM idea of "gang wars":

    @ikzelf

    Fuck yea they should . Why not allow turfzones to become 'neutral' under police supervision (+ Payout for the whole squad). Also an added bonus (5-10%?) for arresting players inside there turf.

    Now that's what I call a suggestion!

    Official squads should be able to netrualize turf zones, how about that? Just like how a gang takes over an area, if official squads do it, it becomes a neutral color on map.

    Squad members would be able to turn on a /war to see turf areas on map, and while only this war is on, is able to neutralize a turf area. This would really bring competition.

    Criminals would be constantly turfing, and it would bring a whole new game mechanic to squad members, instead of arresting only.

    Also a different kind of suggestion I got:

    After the reset, wouldn't it be interesting for gangs to get income for turf areas they own? The more turf areas owned, the more income they get. Say if a turf zone is owned for 24 hours by a gang, their gang recieves a small amount of money for that one turf zone - you have more, you get more. So no more money per tick when turfing?

    It would be like a business.

    However, here comes the squads being able to neutralize turf zones into play. When squads neutralize a turf area, that gang will not be able to recieve money for it. They would have to gain control of it again, and maintain it for 24 hours. Another gang takes over that gangs turf, timer gets wiped, new 24 hours start. You get the idea.

    An amazing idea. I know this topic is not meant for this suggestion, but I support it all the way.


 

true