Belrick

The zombie eating folks isn't original. They do eat people, but I just feel perhaps they should be attracted to dead corpses and not just people they kill. Also, remember an update ago where there were about 1200 instead of just 500 or so. That was great fun, but perhaps a bit too much for most people. I think we the LoS update, one could toy with adding more zombies on a server.

Yeah, I also wonder how people would start playing if zombies did much more damage.

"A safe-zone should consist of some simple buildings and a small hospital, inside will be patrolling guards, also the safe-zone should be sourrounded by fences of some kind, also there will be 1 guard at each exit, I will tell you why I choose just 1 guard." I wanted to stop reading there, but I pushed through the rest of it. "Also PVP wont be possible inside Safe-Zone, then the patrolling guards will kill you if you attack someone, firing shots should be no problem, they should just attract sourrounding zombies which will be killed by guards. Bandits (aka people with humanity under 0) wont be allowed to enter the safe-zone." Terrible. NPC guards are a bad idea for a player driven sandbox game. "It will be like an invisible wall. " No, no no. I apreciate allowing them to be overrun, but NPC safe zones are a bad idea. Go out and make your own safezone. Look at groups like Chernarus Quarantine Force.

One assumption here is that the griefer suicide pkers are the huge problem. I don't think that is the case. I think the problem is that groups of players working together will not naturally emerge like they did pre-bandit skin removal. If you are not shooting on sight, you will die. This is a problem, because even in the worst of the worst survival situations, conflict avoidance, not shoot on sight, is the key. My suggested solutions try to address this without arbitrary mechanics like skins, timers, or otherwise. They change the environment to make reckless or needless gun battles slightly more dangerous, to both survivor and bandit alike. Personally, I feel the griefer / camper / mindless troll pker is a heavily exaggerated "problem". Besides. Should my (terrible) solutions ever see the light of day and work, these so called "bad pkers" are less of a problem: people would be more likely to be in groups and would be able to deal with these pkers.

With the average lifespan only being around 30 minutes, we'd have to be careful not to make any sort of respawn timer too harsh, though again, I am not against the idea. I respawn timer, however, doesn't solve the problem of why players kill each other on sight, even if they are serious and not griefers. This is the main focus of my suggestion: how to give incentive conflict avoidance / teamwork, without punishing bandit style play.

If the point of the game is survival, then killing another player could be a very legitmate means of surviving. It might be a preemptive attack. They might also have gear you need. If you don't like player vs player action, you are probably playing the wrong mod. In fact, let me go further. ~~~~~~~ Are you actually totally against player vs player action? Do you see no reason why it should exist? Do you not think its a meaningful dynamic of this mod? If you think it is, how would you suggest we fix it to only punish "griefers" "pkers" or "trolls", without breaking the game? People who just kill to grief may be immature, but there is not much of a way to deal with it unless one is okay with resorting to arbitrary things like bandit skins, or punishments.

In resposne to Techercizer: Oh I understand its their mod. So its all suggestions. That's why this is on the suggestion forum. I am quite happy with the way it is, I am just giving me two cents. Firing a lee enfield isn't as bad as people make it out to be. Just be on the second floor of a building, stand at the top of the staircase, and use your pistol to dispatch the incoming horde. Headshots are guarantied as the zombies walk indoors. I find if you're inside, firing a loud gun is not dangerous at all. Its just a question of ammo, and even if you don't have enough, being able to run and congo line zombies into the next house (where you can grab more ammo and run, while they politely walk behind you) removes a lot of the danger. I've spent some time CZ and Lee-enfield sniping from tall places in Cherno as well. The attracted zombies have never been an issue, and probably aren't an issue for good players. ~~ On water and food: It might not necessarily need to be more rare as a spawn or a drop, its just that killing a player is a 100% flawless way of supporting yourself with basic needs and medical supplies. Think about it. Off the coast, if you need painkillers and morphine, what do you do? Killing people for loot is a legitimate style of gameplay, but it shouldn't be a certainty that you get these things. The way to do that and compliment the other suggestions I have made (and it seems rocket in some of his posts and 20 word questions, is leaning towards this) is to limit the items one spawns with.

Buddy. I like your suggestions. Check out my thread for ones of a similar vain. http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12199 Stick with me and we could go places!

I am such an asshole and so arrogant, that I think, that ZedsDeadBaby's point at the very start of the thread, (post #2) combined with some of my own thoughts (sorry for dickishness), would at the least in some way, make this whole thing an almost non-issue. "No. Persistent identity through permanent name and appearance would attach long-term consequence to short-term decisions without necessitating outward indicators. -ZdB-" + http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=12199 Not necessarily original ideas, but good ones.

Don't let your ADHD and the length of the post get the better of you. Read on! Let me put my head on the line and offer some suggestions to tweak the game for the better for everyone. This is not a post that asks for: NPCs Safezones Arbitrary punishments Arbitrary identification (ex: bandit skin) in-game rewards (for killing/not killing) Or any other really stupid ideas that flood the suggestion forum every day. No, I hope this is a suggestion post that we'll make you, yes you, feel glad that there is at least one other person on this board who isn't full of garbage. Keep reading, it'll be worth it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps I didn't get this across due to my poor writing or presentation, but let me say it up here for any new readers: I want to stress these suggestions are not about solving a "Bandit problem" (There isn't a bandit problem, and bandits are awesome). These suggested tweaks are about solving the issue of why regular players will choose shooting on sight over a live and let live or team up attitude. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I fully supported the removal of bandit skins 110%. But, I will admit it introduces a problem: without identification of "bad guys" there is absolutely no incentive to work with strangers, or form organic partnerships on the fly? You are simply better off shooting people on sight. Now, if there was one (and it is a very small) good side to the bandit skin system, it was that people did form these partnerships: you'd shoot bandits and survive with survivors. Of course, this was flawed because not all bandits were truly bandits. So how do we recreate the survival aspect, and move away from the sort of "deathmatch" or shoot on sight attitude? Let me start by saying, I think we ought to move away from these attitudes of playing, because they are simply unauthentic, unrealistic, or whatever adverb you want to throw. The problem is that the incentives are stacked Against forming these partnerships, where they shouldn't be. But, how do we create incentives that aren't arbitrary, like the humanity system? How do we make sure that bandits aren't punished for their style of play? Here is my suggestion list: 1. Severely limit the spawning items Perhaps we don't need to go as far as removing the starter pistol, but one major issue is that you start with enough stuff as to not need to scavenge to survive. You start with enough food, water, ammo, and medical supplies to auto-run all the way to the biggest hotspot, with your only concern being whether you get shot. If you get shot and die, its not a big deal, as you'll respawn with all that same stuff again. Why should someone start with morphine? Painkillers? All those makarov mags? Removing or severely limiting these would force people into a survival mindset. It would move starting players towards survival and away from insta-spawn suicide runs on the nearest city to hope you shoot some well equipped player in the back. The other side to this is that, if well-equipped players come across an obvious newly spawned player, there is less incentive to shoot them for gear. Currently, the best way to get morphine and painkillers is to kill a noob. This is a problematic incentive. You should not kill someone knowing he or she will drop loot like some sort of MMORPG mob. This leads to my second point. 2. Zombie modifications To compliment the above change, I would suggest modifying how zombies function. In short, zombies should be a little slower, do a little more damage, increase their numbers, and give them better hearing for gunfire. This, combined with an upcoming change that would allow you to line of sight hide from zombies, means that gunless or ammoless players would have an easier time evading the infected. What this also would mean is that firing a gun would be deadly not just to the victim, but the shooter. The radius for attracting zombies with gunfire should be much larger. They should not instantly run full speed to the site of the gunshot, but perhaps slowly shamble their way there. This adds another incentive against deathmatching. If you mak or winchester someone in say, Cherno, you should be prone to attracting the whole damn city of zombies to slowly shamble towards you, and break out into a slightly slower run than now when they see you. This would also have the double effect of forcing players to stay mobile if they plan on shooting all the time. For a zombie apocalypse, the amount of gunfire spent is absurd. This combined with making ammo slightly more scarce, would mean pulling the trigger on anyone is a tough, and not easy decision. Zombies should also congregate more towards deceased players corpses. They ought to shuffle towards them (if they are in "smell" or "sight" range), and stay and eat them. This also means that getting a kill, and looting a kill become two very separate challenges. Finally, adding to all this, is my most controversial suggestion: 3. Let zombies run (or at least move faster) indoors. DON'T KILL ME! Hear me out. Remember I suggested that zombies should be slower in the first place, so in my mind, it won't be super sprinting indoors. They should just go more quickly. Why? Well even if you take into account everything I have said above, surviving is still far to easy. If you 3-4 akm mags, and are inside a building, its almost laughably easy to kill off hordes of zombies with well placed shots as they walk into a building. It should not be that easy to clear a town or defend a building. Right now, running inside a building is (if you aren't a crappy player) an invincibility cheat against the infected. All it becomes is a question of whether you have the ammo, which is not the right attitude. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So let me show you how I think (mistakenly probably!) how these changes would play out in three different situations. 1. New spawned player encounters a new spawned player By looking at their pistols (or lack thereof) both sides can see they are new. Because they do not spawn with hordes of supplies, there is no real incentive to kill each other for say, medicine or water. They could engage in a gun fight, but both risk expending their scarce amounts of ammo for little reward. Furthermore, without morphine or pain killers, either getting shot is a death sentence. Added to to this better hearing zombies, and no more invincibility cheat running into buildings, its probably best they either work together or go their separate ways. Things we would want passing through their heads: "What do I get from killing them? Probably little to no loot." "If I start shooting, will I have enough ammo to finish the fight?" "If I win the fight, will I have enough ammo to fight the zombies? Even if I run into a building, it'll still be tough..." "If I get hurt, do I have a bandage? To I have morphine or painkillers enough to see me through?" 2. Well equipped, or long life'd player meets new guy. This is one of the roughest situations. In terms of an encounter, the well-equipped player has incredible incentives to simply shoot the new guy on site. It might offer a little bit more gear, and would certainly defend against the potential madness of a makaroni suicide knight. There is also the incentive for the new guy to shoot the old one and take his stuff. Just pull the trigger and you acquire hours of work. Still, I think some of my suggestions would at least make these encounters more interesting. For the new guy: "Am I making a powerful enemy?" "Can I actually win the fight?" "If I kill him, will I be able to loot his body before the zombies arrive?" "If I can't loot his body before the infected arrive, do I have enough ammo to clear away the infected from his corpse?" For the old guy: "Is it worth risking a zombie horde coming after me over little to no loot?" "What if I lose the fight? Is it worth losing everything over nothing?" 3. Two veterans meeting. Both of the ammo and supplies to last a while. I think the same incentives apply in this scenario as in others, but unlike situation 2, the potential victim can really fight back. It'll be an even tougher fight with harder risks. "Are we better off just going our separate ways?" ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I would hope these suggestions are helpful. I think they are good because they do not specifically punish any style of play. They simply tip environmental incentives against THOUGHTLESS acts. Shooting someone should not be casual and without consequences in the apocalypse. However, these suggestions make the incentives natural and environmental, not arbitrary. They do not punish "bandits" any more than they punish survivors. They simply make the act of pulling the trigger one worth thought and consideration, not something to be done casually. The other benefit is (I hope) a lot of these changes don't require incredibly stupid and gamebreaking things like NPCs or new models, or melee weapons, or other garbage. It would just be tweaking some numbers (I hope). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "BUT Zombies going fast in buildings! How will we survive!" Don't aggro zombies. Sneak around. And if you do aggro them, don't camp a building. Clear a wave and keep moving. The fact that you can run through stary sobor and train a hundred so zombies into the barn by the military tents, and gun them all down easily without breaking a sweat is rubbish. Again, with added LoS zombie aggro changes, avoiding them should be easier than ever. Besides, are you so carebear as to tell me we need to handicap zombies to walk for no reason whatsoever. You are probably against bandit skins, but for zombies walking in buildings for no reason at all? Come on.... Zombies walking in buildings is a bug, or so dayz wiki says. Why should we let a bug define the status quo? "B-but, campers on the shore!" The issue here is incentives. If people start with next to nothing, the only incentives people have to spawn camp the shore is the thrill of the kill. This is a wholly legitimate play style. There are enough spawn points that it isn't that much of a problem. Besides, just switch servers. With my suggested changes, it would be even harder to just stay in one spot and shoot: the infected will pay you a visit if you are a spawn camper. "This is unfair to bandits!" How? By making them think before they shoot? The only people this system would "punish" are those who pull the trigger. That's everyone. If you're the kind of bandit (shit) who runs and guns, and are now complaining that under this suggestion you wouldn't be able to invulnerability cheat run into a building, then tough. These changes would encourage smart, one shot one kill, stay mobile banditry. That is a good thing. "But even with these changes, large groups of players can still shoot at will, kill all the zombies, and bully me!" Then get some friends. Lonewolfing should be hard. In fact, its wholly Unnatural for humans to be alone. Rolling with a group of buddies is the norm, and it is totally and completely fair that they will curb stomp you 9/10. If you're the kind of person who comes here to complain about how clans are "ruining" the game then go home. Don't be so bitter that people are working together. "But with super hearing zombies that do more damage and run in buildings, plus with less ammo, and less starting gear, this game will be practically unplayable and impossible! No one will survive." Survival in DayZ shouldn't be a given. If the game is hard, and as Rocket says "gone to shit" then we are right on track. Put fear back into the hearts of players. Make the infected scary and dangerous. Make players ponder every choice. Make every pull of the trigger a deliberate action. This is how one improves the game. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ addendum Let me provide a personal example. I am a white knight of sorts. I don't like killing others, and I try to be friendly. Because of this, I die a lot. This is my choice, and is no one's fault but my own. That being said, there are situations where I wonder, if some of these suggested improvements were made, we could see more authentic gameplay. I was in Berez. I knew someone else was too. I knew they were in the building I was looking at. I called friendly, and I walked in with my pistol aiming away from them. I had just spawned, so I was just a makaroni warrior. They fired their lee enfield: Miss. While they readying their next shoot. I wave my gun up and down. I am not aiming at them, I am completely non threatening. Hit. I am still alive, and I am still standing. I am trying to blurt out desperately that I mean no harm. I still haven't shot back. At this point, it is quite clear I could have poured a whole mag into this poor shooters head, seeing how bad their aim was. Hit. And I die. I am totally okay with how this played out. I approached someone I didn't have to, I encroached on their looting zone. I could have been a murderer. Maybe I was lagging, and that's why I didn't shoot. I would just hope, with some tweaking, that shooting a lee-enfield three times in a city would be (even more) suicidal. Assuming that person does not kill for fun (which is legitimate), they felt that shooting a new player who wasn't fighting back was their best option. They were right as far as incentives stand now, but I would hope it could be altered so that they would need to rethink that decision. I would suggest, that someone who does that, not be punished by some arbitrary hand of rocket, but by the encroaching hordes that would soon pour into the building, being able to run inside. They wouldn't have time to loot the body. They'd would have to move fast. They would need to relocate, knowing they didn't have enough time or ammo to stay put. The only thing that should "punish" the decision of the player, is the world itself. Thank you for reading this. I appreciate feedback. I see lots of views, but no responses. I wouldn't mind feedback. Don't be scared by the length.

YES (ish) If its a subtle beat, and its only for super (SUPER!) close, have it just a radius. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Before folks cry: UNREALISTIC! Do remember what Rocket said: "It is an attempt to model the subtle ways you perceive how people are and what they have done." Unless you are socially deficient, people "Just know" who to avoid, and who is friendly. We are social beings and process this stuff quite well. Trust me, you can tell the difference between good sounds, and bad sounds. Some breathing makes you uncomfortable, certain coughs make you twinge. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That being said, I think Zedsdeadbaby has the right and superior idea, and would be a better alternative: "Persistent identity through permanent name and appearance would attach long-term consequence to short-term decisions without necessitating outward, artificial indicators."