[email protected]

EDITED OP, IN ORDER TO GIVE MORE PRECISE DETAILS I think that Handcuffs or some other equivalent should be implanted in to the game, such as zip ties, for basically the following reasons. They're pretty much the same as what I said in the previous OP, but I want to clean it up a bit. How would the Handcuffs be used? Handcuffs could use one slot in the utility slots of the inventory (where the compass, map etc goes). Once a player is incapacitated, and cannot move, the player with the handcuffs should see the option 'Handcuff player' in the scroll menu, similar to how they would currently see 'Give morphine'. The handcuffs wouldn't heal the player, it would have to be up to the handcuffer to do that. The handcuffed player then would not be able to access their weapons, or possibly their backpack, and would instead rely on the guards to feed them etc. To stick with realism, the handcuffed player should run slower than normal, however, they could sprint and risk falling over (similar to how blood loss causes a player to fall over - thanks for the idea _Profile_Shame) Why would you handcuff? Why not just kill? At the time of writing, the only actions that tend to be performed on an incapacitated enemy player are either killing them, or letting them bleed out. Handcuffs would give an opportunity for other players to allow the incapacitated enemy to live, whilst being able to do numerous things with a prisoner, such as: - Holding them hostage. Players could offer to give the prisoner back to the enemy group in return for a ceasefire, loot, or possibly one of their own players back. - Getting information. Players would be able to offer the prisoner their life in return for information, such as locations of enemies or loot. - Stealing. Rather than killing for loot, as is usually done, the player could instead just handcuff the prisoner and take the loot from his backpack. This allows the enemy to keep his life and location, which he otherwise would not have. How would the prisoner escape? A feature could be implemented where if the prisoner is out of range of the handcuffer, the handcuffs break and the prisoner is set free. This allows the prisoner to escape, whilst encouraging the handcuffer to stay with the prisoner, and not just go round handcuffing other people. This can link back to the possibility of falling over when sprinting with handcuffs mechanism, as it allows the prisoner to risk being killed in order to sprint away and break the cuffs. What stops the player just respawning or disconnecting? Absolutely nothing, just as there is nothing to stop a player respawning or disconnecting in the middle of a gunfight. However, players may not choose to respawn, as by doing so they would lose their loot and location in the world. Handcuffing offers an alternative to outright killing a player. Hope you like the improved OP, and tell me what you think.

Ok, I'm fed up with people saying shit like at the above. Obviously you have no imagination, or you simply can't be bothered to read the OP. Why don't we just disable guns as you can use them to grief huh?

This thread can be summed up by the following: 'WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA'

I'm sorry, but rofl.

I understand why Rocket did this, but I feel that changes to the crossbow really need implementing before this was. It is now practically impossible to shoot a zombie without alerting a horde, and this wouldn't be so much a problem if it was possible to 'lose' zombies. If Rocket allows crossbow bolts to be stackable, I would have no problem with this.

I disagree with this idea, however, I think bigger player structures should be possible, such as the medical tents seen in Cherno and the army camps.

Personally I think the resources are already their for players to create their own classes rather easily, and this would remove the power from the players to do so.

Yeah, the idea of not having player-specific 'ownership' sounds better actually, and is probably easier to implement. Also, to the people saying "I would just kill myself" or something along those lines, you're forgetting that this is an OPTIONAL ALTERNATIVE to you being killed in the first place. Neither party has to participate in this, it is just nicer than being killed and can offer a more fun game experience than 'kill on sight'.

People can abuse their way out of dying, that doesn't mean we should disable dying.

Why are people still not getting this? Handcuffing would be an ALTERNATIVE to killing people when they're incapacitated. Neither parties have to participate.

Yeah, I just noticed a thread which suggested non-lethal weapons too, such as tazers and rubber bullets.

I think that the crossbow is fine in its current state, however the amount of slot space the bolts take is terrible. What if you picked up the bolts in groups of 6-10, and they only took up one slot in your inventory for each stack?

Eh, it's a difficult thing really. On one hand, you could have an NPC-enforced safe-centre, which would be nice to have, but would take away control from the players. On the other hand, a completely player-run place like this would be entirely unenforceable, and would lead to mass amounts of griefing.

Nobody realistically sleeps every 4 hours, and I'm not really sure how this would benefit the game - sorry

Like people already disconnect in the middle of gunfights? Any feature has the potential to be exploited, however, this feature can be useful to both 'parties', helping the prisoner with the ability to survive a gunfight, whilst the handcuffers are able to barter for the prisoner's life.

I'm excited for this now, despite the fact that I'm terrible at all card games. Hopefully Rocket will see this thread.

Oh, thank you then haha. Its early in the morning ;)

I'd think that they should be able to walk at a slightly faster pace' date=' but not able to run (chances of being able to run consistently whilst handcuffed are slim anyway). This would also cause the 'guards' to walk slower, and would stop the handcuffs from being overpowered, as the 'guards' would have to walk at the same pace. [/quote'] Right, why the hell would I choose to handcuff someone just to have them slow me down when I could put a bullet in his head and be done with it? Because the chances are that that person may be part of a larger group, and could be bargained for. Say two groups are fighting on either side of a field, and one of the members of the other group tries to go over to the other group and gets shot. The group could then take that person prisoner, and request for the other group to ceasefire in return for said prisoner. Also, the handcuff feature doesn't HAVE to be used, you could just as easily as you put it 'put a bullet in his head and be done with it'. Handcuffs would just allow more interesting interactions between players. See latest post.