+- Halo Space Station Evolved (https://projectunsc.org/forum)
+-- Forum: UNSC Operational Test and Evaluation Center (UNSCOTEC) (https://projectunsc.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Server Suggestions (https://projectunsc.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions (/showthread.php?tid=983)
Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Insanegame27 - 02-03-2019
There are a few points in the (https://projectunsc.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=486&highlight=rules+of+engagement) Rules of Engagement that I would like to contest for gameplay, balance, RP or other purposes
"Non-civilian hostages can be executed at any time for any reason" in both the UNSC and URF Rules of Engagement. While execution should be allowed for non-cooperative, violent, etc prisoners, someone that surrendered without firing a shot and co-operated while they were captured should have some degree of protections. For such prisoners (the quiet co-operative type) there should also be limits on interrogation/torture severity. "If an Innie surrenders peacefully or after non-lethal struggle or contact where they did not personally inflict casualty and co-operates with their arrest and processing, they are to be kept in Holding until they can face trial." [see misc suggestion #1]
Regarding prisoners, Rules of Engagement for taking prisoners should be implemented. Peacefully surrendering forces should not have their tendons cut or joints dislocated when UNSC forces outnumber prisoners stripped of gear 5 to 1. If handcuffs are unavailable, aim a smallarm at their legs or something until a humane method of restraint is available. Battlefield execution of unruly prisoners is allowed only if they are an objective threat. This is only to thin the numbers down such that co-operative prisoners may still survive the round and not get caught up in prisoner-UNSC crossfire. Ideally, prisoners should be secured with zip or handcuffs, which should be made available in the various armories. Other restraint methods are allowed, however. A UNSC lockable locker works as a ghetto paddywagon to hold URF forces, as does any that are welded shut
> The URF, being rebels, have a looser RoE regarding prisoners, but degrading it from the UNSC RoE should be considered poor form OOC.
Clarify Heresy rules for the covenant. "Do not commit Heresy" is black and white until you see "Kig-Yar and Unggoy are allowed to secretly commit minor heresy". What constitutes as minor heresy? Using a human smallarm as a last ditch in a fight? A grunt manning a human HMG in a flood attack?
Maybe add in a rule for engaging the covenant that a covenant prisoner is not to be rendered free or armed?
Misc 1: Get an MP role. Break RoE and get treated like an Innie. Give them the power to fax central command about issues they can't uphold due to resistance among the ranks.
 > "Keep your marines in check, interrogate and handle prisoners. Administer executions when necessary and arrest marines who break Rules of engagement, Mutiny or disobey direct orders that aren't suicidal. This is considered an RP-heavy role, though less is acceptable when you have to handle a lot at once by yourself." as a suggested job description
Misc 2: 2-shot sawn-off and/or 5-6 shot pump/lever shotgun for Insurrectionists along with beanbag, flash, buck and slug ammo types in the armory. IIRC the asteroid has beanbag slugs on it but no shotguns, but I could be wrong there.
Misc 3: Clean up the Innie IED/Bomb/grenade workplace a bit. Give more beakers and a complex machines vendor.
Edit 3: Another misc suggestion: Make less than lethal ammo available to all human factions for a variety of guns. Rubber bullets, flash rounds and the like. I know you can make flashbangs as an Innie, but I'd love to see LTLs or crowd control things like tear gas being used more often.
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Frontline03 - 02-03-2019
-1.
I've got a couple points against this.
Urf are allowed to kill for any reason mainly since the prisoners we capture are usually Unsc, we do not take civilians hostage. We can execute unsc for any reason mainly since they do the same with us, we have less morals for this as ic'ly we see the unsc as a bunch of genocidal bastards. We want them gone.
We do not have shotguns on the armoury. I believe there are plans to put the sawn off in but currently, only commandos have shotguns
The unsc are allowed to execute us for any reason because we are, in their eyes, terrorists.
Granted, it would be preferred that unsc have some sort of MP or something that would be in the prison to stop random executions, not to mention how the unsc would most likely imprison us and torture us, then kill us
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Insanegame27 - 02-04-2019
As I said, URF should have different expectations with prisoner taking. With the URF the only way you’re staying alive is if you’re important to the UNSC and can be broken down for information and negotiation value. For the UNSC, if Innies know they’ll be treated with basic human decency as a prisoner, they’re more likely to surrender, which avoids ‘grit your teeth and fight on’ firefights, which means less UNSC deaths which means more UNSC morale and victories and more innies surrendering. I know a few people who have main chars on both sides play as conscripts/under duress. I’m not saying make executions bannable, I’m saying “make surrendering a valid option with IC protectionsâ€. From the Innie side, even a lowly marine can be useful in a prisoner trade - Government militaries tend to be big on getting soldiers home, even if its only for the good press
Even with today’s political climate, police and military forces still try and capture terrorists alive. Why would the UNSC torture and kill someone who lays down their weapon without firing a shot? It would be far better to *encourage* Innies to surrender, letting under-duress Innie personnel know that it’s *safe* to defect or surrender to UNSC forces. Hearts and minds. Likewise the Innies want to show that they’re better than the UNSC. Hearts and minds.
Compliant, docile and restrained (or subdued, such as aiming a gun at them after theyre stripped down) prisoners should not be valid targets for battlefield or pre-trial execution. People who manage to communicate with the other side well before defecting (faxes) as well as being compliant, should also be protected from execution.
Edit: the above applies to executions and brutality including torture, weird and unusual, and torture executions (leaving someone bucklecuffed gasping for air from internals until they die)
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Sgt. Guprei - 02-04-2019
I would contest this too.
The rule is in place since the UNSC is on the defensive side already. They have to defend VT9, their ship, and the station, with the expectation to defend KS7 and the system. Having prisoners creates yet another thing for the UNSC to take care of. Not to mention ONI doesn't apply here, so RoE is completely different for them.
As for MPs, right now we need more personnel in the current nonMarine roles. MPs would further distract from those roles. Marines should self police to keep each other in line. The MP roles in CM are only in place there because they are too big to self police and the MP roles in Leben are there because of all the shit that goes on there too. We hold our forces to a higher expectation. If you have issues with another Marine take care of it yourself. We don't need cops reciting a bunch of laws to a cuffed Marine to make sure people stay in line.
I get where you are coming from, but we got other worries right now to take care of.
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Insanegame27 - 02-04-2019
Except the Marines/unsc have literally every advantage over an innie. Better weapons, more coverage armor, a respawn that allows rapid redeployment nearly everywhere. Theyre far from the underdog. I really don’t see how the UNSC RoE can condone battlefield or post-trial execution of people who have sought them out for the sole purpose of surrendering.
Marines self policing is one reason why things like slicing the tendons of compliant prisoners is allowed as a form of restraint and barely seen as poor form. When the majority of the playerbase (or dominant faction compared to innie/cov) plays as a marine you tend to see poorer quality self policing. I fail to see how the UNSC would tolerate the warcrimes that are literally a meme status in this community. You have marines that boast about beheading innie prisoners or act like shooting an innie who is bucklecuffed facing a wall is the same as honorable combat; or someone who casually snacks into an MRE as the prisoner who handed herself over - with her own handcuffs - gasps for air as the internals he set run on empty. People who want prisoner RP need these protections in an IC term.
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Sgt. Guprei - 02-04-2019
Marine armor has less protection values than innie armor. The idea that Marine armor is flat out better is a fallacy. The URF armor covers less, but has higher stats. As for weapons, the MA5B is the MA37 just with 28 more rounds per mag. The DMRs for each side are pretty equal as well. The only weapons the UNSC has over the URF are the shotgun and the BR55. The BR55 is contained to only 4 rifles given to Marines with 5 mags each if equally spread out. The rest get the other weapons.
As for getting shot for surrendering, the term for not accepting surrender is Tarleton's Quarter. It is an order issued when one side cannot take prisoners due to lack of resources and manpower. Given how the UNSC are supposed to protect 4 places (VT9, the Bertels, the base, and KS7) and have an an average of 10 Marine players at a time, that is 2 to each location to defend with two left over. Given how they are fighting two factions, those two would definitely go to a defense. Adding the additional strain of prisoners they have to keep checking up on, it gets very hard for the Marines to do their tasks. Redeploying might be easier if they grab the bare minimum, but 10 Marines redeploying still means 10 Marines running around. You might find it fun to rp being "saved" from conscripted service, but it might not be fun for the Marines.
And even if we did have MPs, we only have the same 10 Marines that we would be pulling from to be an MP. Why would a Marine who finds joy in stabbing terrorists about face when given a MP role? You can say "they can get into serious trouble for abusing the role", but then why would they choose it in the first place? And even after that, we have 10 Marines we are talking about. If 1 Marine goes MP, how is he going to control the situation? By brainwashing the Marines? If two go to MP, that leaves 2 Marines for everything else to defend, thus negating the point of them existing as they can't reach all Marines. If 3 go MP, we now got balancing issues because we now have 30% of our Marines locked to the Bertels with the sole purpose of enforcing RoE.
Don't play a conceived terrorist role if you don't want to be treated like one. The cases of URF surrendering to actually be free of the URF is incredibly low, making them a small minority. The rest are die hard guys who would fake surrender to activate their bomb vest once the Marines approach. The Insurrection War is not a traditional one. Introducing an RoE rule that is supposed to protect terrorists does not make sense in the current state of the server.
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Insanegame27 - 02-04-2019
The marines never spread out when stationing people around. In fact stationing practically does not happen unless the Bertels is full of holes and everyone evacuates to the ONI base. The marines act more as a QRF than a garrison. Those 10 marines are more than capable of taking on an armed and active force of innies. If there’s 10 marines, there’s 4 innies, and one of those is SSD on the asteroid. Marines are not spread thin in game and are regularly on the offensive against the innies.
RE: Rules of Engagement changes + other suggestions - Frontline03 - 02-04-2019
(02-04-2019, 06:18 AM)Sgt. Guprei Wrote: Marine armor has less protection values than innie armor. The idea that Marine armor is flat out better is a fallacy. The URF armor covers less, but has higher stats. As for weapons, the MA5B is the MA37 just with 28 more rounds per mag. The DMRs for each side are pretty equal as well. The only weapons the UNSC has over the URF are the shotgun and the BR55. The BR55 is contained to only 4 rifles given to Marines with 5 mags each if equally spread out. The rest get the other weapons.To say covers less is an understatement. It only covers the chest and head(If you are wearing the helmet) Urf have it so the armour protects the vital areas of a body as they matter most, Unsc have full coverage with their armour which is a big difference when you consider how most people now aim for the limbs, not the chest or head, of an normal insurrectionist as that is where they are not armoured and are generally the weak areas.