R&R Handbook Update 8/15/17

[Isaac Newton 1983]

Chapter III - Illegal Zones

...

3.2.  Illegal areas defined:

                              3.1.1. Rebels

                              3.1.2. Cities with an ongoing terror (Anywhere within city limits)

                              3.1.3. Active Jails/Feds/Blackwater

                              3.1.4. Illegal gathering and processing areas

                              3.1.5. Drug Dealers

                              3.1.6. Black Markets

                              3.1.7. Cartels (Within 1 km of the cartel's cap point)

                              3.1.8. War Zone (Large land mass labeled as war zone)

...

Chapter IX - Interacting with the APD

...

11. Medics shall comply with all APD orders so long as they are reasonable and don't go against the Medic handbook, APD handbook, or Olympus Server Rules.

...

 

 

 

*Cities with an ongoing terror are no longer considered illegal areas.  EMT's are allowed to be present.  All medics must still be careful as to follow any reasonable orders by the APD and obide by NLR rules.

* It has been clarified that as long as the APD officer is not going against any of the rules in place, medics must follow orders.  If there is a situation where an APD officer is asking something that is in violation of any faction rules or server rules, the medic may avoid or refuse service.  Instances of meta-gaming or rogue officers should be immediately reported to a senior APD officer.

[DashTonic 797]

Yes issic

[PoptartRex 3292]

I agree with this update (EMTs should respond to terrors) but I am questioning this: Why make it harder to engage medics during a terror? The party that does a terror already has to send at least 22 texts for a full 30 minutes terror. One for side chat warning to start in 5 minutes, then one to APD dispatch for 5 minutes about to start, then they have to do that again when it starts, then another pair every 3 minutes after that (for a total of 22 texts). With this update, you could no longer just give warning shots to medics. You now have to send even more texts to engage the medic since it is no longer considered a red zone for medics. 

What is your opinion? @Isaac Newton

[Isaac Newton 1983]

3 hours ago, TheCmdrRex said:

I agree with this update (EMTs should respond to terrors) but I am questioning this: Why make it harder to engage medics during a terror? The party that does a terror already has to send at least 22 texts for a full 30 minutes terror. One for side chat warning to start in 5 minutes, then one to APD dispatch for 5 minutes about to start, then they have to do that again when it starts, then another pair every 3 minutes after that (for a total of 22 texts). With this update, you could no longer just give warning shots to medics. You now have to send even more texts to engage the medic since it is no longer considered a red zone for medics. 

What is your opinion? @Isaac Newton

Medics have immunity.  It shouldn't be a thing to ward off medics from major cities so easily.  Engage the medics if you need to but in all honesty there is no reason to just mow down medics in acts of terror.  If you need to stop a medic from reviving, catch them in the act and threaten them through direct chat if you don't want to pull up your phone.

Thing is, if you are doing a terror, you want bodies and bounty.  If a medic is there as a neutral party and reviving people it shouldn't be an issue (unless they are reviving officers) In which case, yes you can provide medics an ultimatum.  This is where tense moments happen that really challenge a medic's survival instincts.  A smart medic would leave an area of terror until it ends but the reality is that medics love being present during terrors.  If they are there, they should be able to enjoy their neutrality to some extent.

Just because bad things are happening to a city, doesn't mean it is an illegal area to be in.  The only thing that should be considered "illegal" is if police give a reasonable directive to the medics and the medics flat out refuse to comply.  Areas of terror should be considered dangerous no doubt. But illegal? No.

[PoptartRex 3292]

3 hours ago, Isaac Newton said:

Medics have immunity.  It shouldn't be a thing to ward off medics from major cities so easily.  Engage the medics if you need to but in all honesty there is no reason to just mow down medics in acts of terror.  If you need to stop a medic from reviving, catch them in the act and threaten them through direct chat if you don't want to pull up your phone.

Thing is, if you are doing a terror, you want bodies and bounty.  If a medic is there as a neutral party and reviving people it shouldn't be an issue (unless they are reviving officers) In which case, yes you can provide medics an ultimatum.  This is where tense moments happen that really challenge a medic's survival instincts.  A smart medic would leave an area of terror until it ends but the reality is that medics love being present during terrors.  If they are there, they should be able to enjoy their neutrality to some extent.

Just because bad things are happening to a city, doesn't mean it is an illegal area to be in.  The only thing that should be considered "illegal" is if police give a reasonable directive to the medics and the medics flat out refuse to comply.  Areas of terror should be considered dangerous no doubt. But illegal? No.

I just think that warning shots and/or side chat should still be viable to engage medics here. The medics themselves might be neutral but we must remember that everyone they revive are instantly engaged with the terror group, which would make medics an indirect threat that can be an issue to the terror group. Terror cities are a very dangerous place, but to catch an RDM ban for killing a medic that is reviving people who are engaged to you seems kind janked to me. It's not like the medic doesn't know what is going on/what they are getting themselves into. There are messages right in his side chat to look at. Obviously just sending a text or engaging in direct would engage the medics and it isn't a super hard thing to do either, but all I am saying is that the medic isn't very bright if he can't point out the obvious threat in the city. I feel like warning shots should suffice at the very least in a terror to engage a medic since the terror group literally has to send a shit load of texts before he can start a terror. 

I am not trying to start an argument here by any means, just expressing my personal opinion. You are the Head Coordinator and I will respect your decision. 

 

EDIT: I would also not be apposed to no NLR for medics here, as in a normal situation like this IRL, medical personnel would not consist of 2 - 5 people.

[Isaac Newton 1983]

32 minutes ago, TheCmdrRex said:

I just think that warning shots and/or side chat should still be viable to engage medics here. The medics themselves might be neutral but we must remember that everyone they revive are instantly engaged with the terror group, which would make medics an indirect threat that can be an issue to the terror group. Terror cities are a very dangerous place, but to catch an RDM ban for killing a medic that is reviving people who are engaged to you seems kind janked to me. It's not like the medic doesn't know what is going on/what they are getting themselves into. There are messages right in his side chat to look at. Obviously just sending a text or engaging in direct would engage the medics and it isn't a super hard thing to do either, but all I am saying is that the medic isn't very bright if he can't point out the obvious threat in the city. I feel like warning shots should suffice at the very least in a terror to engage a medic since the terror group literally has to send a shit load of texts before he can start a terror. 

I am not trying to start an argument here by any means, just expressing my personal opinion. You are the Head Coordinator and I will respect your decision. 

Side chat is a big No.  This is definitely not sufficient engagement for medics (cop&medic side maybe but this is clarified in the rules).  I disagree.  I also disagree that warning shots are sufficient too.. First of all, there are shots flying all over the place and constantly landing next to medics in times of terror.  This could be easily mistaken by new and seasoned members of R&R alike.

I will go back to my point that medics have immunity/neutrality. If the rebels are lazy and just want to pop some shots at a medic and expect them to know exactly what that means in a chaotic moment such as a terror, those rebels are the problem, not the medic who is just there to provide a service to the city.  Obviously a medic knows whats going on in a time of terror.  If a medic is reviving someone you don't want revived, kill him (the civ) again and let the R&R know what you are all about.  It's easy and I'm not going to listen to people who tell me it's hard.  Because it's not.  I've seen terrors done correctly hundreds of times and experienced gangs do just fine with this.

If said rebel is shooting at an incoming medic helicopter, my question to them would be why?  There is no point to being a debbie downer and excluding a medic from landing or from an entire city.  Medics have immunity precisely because of these types of situations.  We are apart of the city and should be factored into situations occurring in major cities just as they should be in real life.  

We could debate this, but always remember that every situation is different.  Over-analyzing a change that is meant to make things more easily understood and smoother is counter-productive because at the end of the day RP reigns supreme.  Anything is possible within RP.  We will just have to wait and see.  For now, factions (including rebels) should know their place in terms of engagement with other factions.

 

PS- I fixed your quote since I have since edited my reply from earlier. Don't wanna be misquoted