GodOfGrain

thanks. enjoyed reading

You are right, providing players with any information on a player's previous behaviour is unrealistic. That certainly is true. On the other hand, the situation in which you have no information about other player's is unrealistic as well. Such as system would simulate that you have already met a good part of people living in this area over time; and further that you are talking about whom to watch out for. And besides simulating knowledge gained through previous interactions and the word of mouth you are also doing something good gameplay wise...

Thanks for your reply. I indeed think that interaction should be more rewarding. That's what would people drive to interact in this scenario in RL; they need something the stranger may have. That's why I want to push the importance of trade. You are right though that interaction should still be risky. But I think it would stay that way. Well, the database with its written comments would serve as a source of information if you want to set up a trade or other form of cooperation with someone (medic, transport, etc.). Ingame you would have a vague indicator (e.g. heartbeat) for quick information. This would also be based on players reviews, but based on a numerical vote. (Average of "trustworthy" and "dangerous" votes). Besides warning of potential dangerous players (heartbeat) there should further be a indictor for potential peaceful players. If the data is not sufficient (amount of votes) there should be no indicator. Votes should degrade by time, e.g. over last month or last 50 votes or something. You still don't know though. Interaction is still risky. If you can hit "Esc." to enter DayZ Menu, enter sub menu "recent interactions" and then have the option to rate a player, that's not much effort.

Facilitating Peaceful Player Interaction To state the obvious: As of now, we have the “not much to do-situation", combined with a steady supply of tools to kill. No wonder, the situation is characterized by the often-complained abundance of PvP and little chances for peaceful player interaction. But going forward, the situation will not fundamentally change unless a basic issue is addressed: The risk vs. reward of peaceful interaction is dramatically flawed. Basically you are always better of playing with an organized group than taking the risk of approaching strangers; which is unrealistic and limits gameplay options. I don’t think that I have to elaborate this further. What we need is a structure which rewards interaction with people outside of an established group; while decreasing the risk of doing so. The concept I want to propose is based on two things: a ) Increasing the importance of trade b ) Add a reputation system to facilitate trade The basic idea is that if “trade is required” and “reputation is required for trade” – we will have more interaction and less KoS. The crucial part herein is of course the design of an adequate reputation system. I am aware of previous discussions in that regard (e.g. arbitrary bandit-hero system, based on “kill-counters”). But let’s dive into the trading dimension first. Part 1: Making trade necessary for achieving advanced gameplay objectives In my vision for DayZ, the gameplay of a survivor would be driven by the necessity to fulfill his or her basic needs. Obtaining food and other consumable supplies would be the main challenge and occupation. It should be that difficult, that someone new to the game should almost certainly die from hunger, thirst or lack of medication. Even a rather experienced player who successfully obtained all necessary survival items (clothing, storage, tools etc.) should frequently get into dangerous situations; the lack of consumables such as food, water, medical supplies or ammunition. It should be barely possible to survive by scavenging food alone. An experienced player would combine scavenging, hunting and basic forms of horticulture to secure his food supplies. A good combination of these activities should ensure a players survival, unless he is very unlucky. But this would still require him to spend most of his time dedicated to basic survival. Organized group play wouldn’t change this situation. The necessary amount of consumables increases proportionally; and if the group relies on scavenging only, it will be even more difficult to obtain enough food for everyone. But there would be one way for a steady food supply: Horticulture. Advanced horticulture should be a very effective way of producing food. But it should be designed in a way that it is not attractive for a large proportion of the player base. Horticulture should require the effort of a larger organized group. Time until harvesting would be about one week! It would be necessary to maintain the fields on a daily basis (watering) while obtaining necessary resources (fertilizer, equipment). (Necessary: Fields cannot be destroyed. Harvesting fruit only possible once food is 100% grown, so the team can organize protection of their crops/ harvesting process at that time.) It should require so much effort (and be a bit tedious) that this option is not appealing to many. The output would be great on the other hand. Five people doing horticulture could trade away about 80% and only consuming 20% themselves. Similar to the horticulture system, there should be additional fields in which you profit from a concerted group effort. For example: a ) Creating ammunition b ) Repairing weapons and tools c ) Creating medicine Besides creating value with the activities mentioned above, additional playstyles would evolve which fit into that system: · E.g. bandit clans hunting other players and selling their stuff. · Scavenging and hoarding rare items (e.g. rare parts for base building, crafting, vehicles) · People going to dangerous loot areas to find and trade rare weapons · Groups offering transportation services · Medics which go out and help people may ask for a fee for their services While it shouldn’t be strictly necessary to participate in trade, it would be highly beneficial. Otherwise, you may be limited to fight for your survival and not have time to e.g. collect resources for advanced base building. Such a system would introduce basic economic principles: · Scarcity of resources · Economics of Scale · Competitive advantage by specialization · Value-created is realized by trade · Self-regulating market system (over-/undersupply) · As a result, a currency would arise on its own. Maybe food, maybe bullets. Part 2: Reputation System To reward peaceful interaction we can combine the “necessity to trade” with a reputation system. That ain’t easy though. We had our experiences with the notorious hero-bandit system. Simply logging kills does not help representing what is really happening in the game. Here is what I came up with: Online database in which you can check information about other players. Perquisite: Single identity across database/ forum / game The database contains the following information for each player: a ) Player has the possibility to write something about himself b ) Written input by other players c ) Numerical input by other players (“trustworthy” or “dangerous”) d ) Maybe basic stats (e.g. active since, average life-time, max life-time, kills) Think of it in terms of the review system used in Ebay. You can only enter a “review” in the database after you have met the player in-game. a ) By talking to a player (standing next to him, scroll-down option) b ) Identify a dead body You would gain the option to add a comment in the player’s database. You would probably do that out-of-game in the browser; or alternatively there could be an option in the in game menu. You have all the freedom you want with that. Lying is fine. The idea is that once you have enough entries, people would have the possibility to elaborate whether you may be trustworthy or not. This system could of course be abused to a certain degree. Each bandit would have 5-10 positive reviews (from their teammates; but limited by “unique-ID”). But you cannot really forge an account with 500 positive reviews for a dedicated medic or a trustworthy trader. A player could spend time checking a player before agreeing to a trade; carefully reviewing the comments on a player. In addition, the game could provide the possibility to quickly check the reputation in-game by a non-intrusive form such as the heartbeat system when looking at another player at close or medium range. The data available ingame derives from a basic numeric rating (“trustworthy” or “dangerous” votes) besides the written comments. Is that system perfect? – No. Is it realistic? – No Is it more realistic than “to know nothing about other players”? – I believe so Is it good gameplay wise? – I believe so Combining the “necessity to trade” with a reputation system, we would live in a world in which killing is not always the optimal way of playing. You can do that, and it has no arbitrary punishment. But you will get a bad reputation, and you decrease your possibility to trade. In a world with really scarce resources, this may be a bad option. On the other hand, peaceful players will receive a tangible benefit for the risk they are taking in social interaction: You go out, hand out a can of beans to fresh spawn – and they may leave a positive comment for your account; simulating the word of mouth. Please also note that this system would allow skillful bandits to do their job: You can only rate players after “talking” to someone or by identifying a dead body. If you kill without getting identified, no one will know about it. Thanks for your attention. Looking forward to your feedback J

Well, this also is DayZ

Just stumbled upon this n1 DayZ SA footage by Sacriel: "The hunting of man - DayZ SA First Person Adventures" For me, that's DayZ. Not "killing bambies on the coast", but tactical PvP among equals. While DayZ should push the importance of peaceful player interaction and survival elements, I hope it will always stay true to its PvP elements. By the way, this event was proudly sponsored by "first person only".

Yea, you are right. Actually now I remember that we had shifted one of those guys to watch south. Otherwise we wouldn't have had the roof of the firestation covered, too.

Nice pictures, appreciate that. Well, we found that it is impossible to cover the southwestern treeline anyway - such a vast area. So the guys in the warehouse were advised not look out of these windows, besides a small peak once in a while. And none of our other positions are visible from there. But I have to admit: That was a bit based on luck. I wasn't aware of that elevated position, which indeed has a really good vantage point.

Grenades can wreck your day, indeed. One day we got into a 2-hour-long firefight with another group in that position. Our last-man-standing was burried in the warehouse after a smoke grenade made the building collapse. Wonderful bug. :D

That's a valid point. On the other hand, NWA is a deathzone. We ensured that that saying stays true ;) We did some other stuff as well which I might add later. Which hill? You mean the one at the end of the runway in the south? That's to far and no direct line of sight. Perhaps the map is different now in the standalone, haven't come around to start playing again. Great stories, both of you. Man, "million ways of dying"... we had such stuff too. Know exactly how you felt :) This mix of fun and dissapointment...

Well, that's a concerted group effort! Well played

Hello everyone, let's share some stories of our experiences in organized group play. Besides a source of entertainment, we may also inspire each other regarding "what to do" in sandbox DayZ. Side note, my experiences are from DayZ mod days. Let's start with a classic: NWA camping Guys, that was great. Running a quite disciplined team of usually 5-7 people, we used to occupy the northern barracks at the NWA for a couple of weeks. (greetings to Azrail, Snake, Gordon, Rob). We usually logged-in in the woods just outside of NWA. We carefully made our way in, secured the area and took positions. There were six designated positions (Alpha, Bravo, ...) around the immediate area of the northern barracks, as you can see in the picture below. We had spent some time in the arma editor to find the exact positions to give us 360-degree cover. Optimal group size was 6 people, but 4 or 5 could do it as well. One player had to enter the area on his own first, which had something to do with the loot mechanics. This allowed us to cycle the loot in the baracks every 15-20 minutes. But before we started our first loot run, some preperations had to be made. While the whole squad had taken defensive postions, we usually set up a tent around the positions D-E-F. There is a hole in the ground, around 2 meters deep, providing perfect cover for our base of operations. In the tent we stored food, drinks, medical stuff and ammunition to set us up for the next hours. After that was done, we set up barricades to protect our guys in the warehouse (postions B-C, as marked on the map). We carried some barbed wire with us for that reason. That was always quite a tense procedure, as you had to expose yourself to the southern treeline doing that. If everything stayed calm, one player would start looting the baracks. That was risky although we had the whole ground covered, as some people like to server-hop the barracks. (An AS50-round penetrating the barracks-walls has proven to be very usefull in these occassions). Of course there was a lot of down-time involved. It's DayZ, we are used to it. Usually a lone survivor or a couple of guys would enter our territory. What a pity, they soon had three barrels pointing at them, opening fire at the same time. Sometimes an occassional group fight commenced, high times. We never left our positions until we retreated for the day, so there may have been other teams at the southern barracks doing the same. Some positions were less exiting (Player E had to stare into the woods with 15 metres viewdistance all the time). So we implemented a rotating system: After each loot run, players would shift positions clockwise. We did this for two or three weeks, and then occassionaly came back to this strategy if we needed to stock up on gear. Was very fun while it lasted: Creating and refining the strategy, working on our communications and team discipline. Ok guys, share your storys. Just keep it under the headline "group play" please. Regards

Great hint using ruined ammunition, have to try that. @ Chaingunfigher You're right, they could check the magazine. But at least some would not know this or not think about it.

Blank Cartridges would be a great addition if you want to team up with someone, but don't know whether you can trust him.

I don't really understand what has happened to my little topic about a chessboard and a chessclock...