GodOfGrain

Microskills [shortened repost of a DayZ Mod suggestion in January '13] Summary "Progression through equipment" is a core part of DayZ. But in itself it is not sufficient to ensure a player's identification with his character. The low value of life & death is a structural flaw of DayZ and is certainly one reason for the abundance of PvP. If progression through equipment is not enough, it has to be progression bound to the character. That could be some visual changes (e.g. growing a beard), but that would be of limited effect. Ergo, a skill-based progression should be considered for DayZ. Don't imagine a skill-tree aka Diablo. There are no "level-ups", spendable exp points, no unlocking of skills etc. There wouldn't be any visible information for the player except from what he observes within the game. The concept In the beginning, we thought of a concept of "getting better at what you do". E.g. you gain in medical skills by applying a bandage, get better at gutting animals by doing just that. I guess that is the initial starting point of most skill-related suggestions. But it does not work this way. Basically it would be a problem of "training skills": Although I am not the type of player who would grind skills, I'd probably hunt down every animal I come accross; not because I need food, but to gain exp in this. A skill system for DayZ should make the training or grinding of skills impossible or unfeasible. Trainable skills require a drawback But there is a valid principle to avoid this: If gaining exp in this area has a very big disadvantage / drawback. Think of the desease + immunity system. To gain an immunity you suffered a potentially lethal illness; so there is no incentive to intentionally getting a desease just to be immune in the future. Significant drawbacks prevent any false incentives! It is not possible to find realistic disadvantages for many potential "skill areas", which limits the extent of this model. But one area where it would work well is medical skills: If every injury you endure in the game has a certain chance to cause an infection / desease, potentially resulting in your death, you will not injure yourself on purpose. So here we can add a progression by training without any grinding effects. Applying bandages could be trained regarding speed and success probability. A blood bag applied by an inexperienced player could result into an infection with 10% probability, while an experienced medic would have a 1% chance. Mechanical skills could be another area, e.g. regarding the speed and success probabilty of repairs. It is more difficult to implement a drawback here, but it seems possible: - Time effort: To finish a repair action takes between 3 minutes (tire) to 6 minutes (engine). Exp only granted if action is completly finished - Risk: During this action a soundfile is played (*repair sounds*) which can be heared by other players over some distance. - Risk #2: (Very small) chance of hurting yourself during a repair. - Weight / size of repair parts prevents people of carrying repair parts with them just for the sake of using them should they find a vehicle. In summary, progression by training can be introduced where a significant drawback is implemented. This makes training a skill on purpose not a suitable option. The areas of medical and mechanical skills are suited in this regard and would also be a nice addition to the gameplay; we could have an experienced medic or mechanic in our team. A potential addition: Progression over time A system where the character progresses by actually "doing things" is limited to areas where a significant drawback can be implemented. A system of progression in medic or mechanical tasks is already an improvement. But we could make a further step by introducing "progression over time-played". This is a very simple system: Your character progresses over time-played. The major advantage is that the incentive is very clear: Staying alive. There is nothing to think about, no unintended incentives which would cause e.g. grinding. It would not affect player behavior and perception of the game world, despite rewarding "time stayed alive". The differences between a freshspawn and an experienced player should be substantial, but not huge and should never effect combat. The only information a player gains about his character is by observing him in the game world. "Fitness" and "Abilities" So besides medical and mechanical skills, there could be two further categories: "Fitness", which represent the character's general condition, and "abilities", which includes specific things such a lighting a fire. Fitness "Stamina" in the context of an enhanced stamina concept "Strength" in the context of an item system which includes the weight of objects "Dexterity" as a general skill which influences the success in other abilities like "gutting animals" "Abilities" Lighting a fire, gutting animals, chopping wood, ... fishing ... Example: "Lighting a fire" This would now take 30 seconds with a certain success probability. You'd possibly need several attempts (matches - scarce) to light a fire. If you character has gained experience over time, success probability will increase, duration will decrease. These "abilities" will simply improve over time. For instance, after your character survived for lets say 100 hours, your success probability for making a fire increased from 70% to 90%; so it is a significant, but subtle difference. All abilities are influenced by the genereal conditon of the character, e.g. dexterity. "Fitness" is a bit different. These values also raise over time, but they can also be temporarily reduced or influenced by e.g. hunger, thirst, illness etcetera or permanently reduced by e.g. a gunshot wound. An example how it could work: There could be a range for skills from 0 - 100 points, fresh spawn starts with 50. [Again, points are displayed nowhere, and improvements are only incremental, so nearly unnoticable] Now imagine a fresh spawn running around for 20 hours. All skills (fitness and abilities) have raised to 60. The player goes to Cherno for some n1 PvP, gets a round to the chest and retreats. All "abilities" are still at 60. But the characters fitness level has dropped permenantly. Depending on where the character was hit, stamina might have dropped to 40, dexterity to 55, strength to 50. He will have less endurance, can carry less or for less time, and his lower dexterity reduces his efficiency in all "other abilities" like lighting a fire. [You could also choose to implement an effect on weapon handling if dexterity drops below 50. That means: Wounded characters have worse weapon handling, while all characters at 50 or above (starting value) would have the same weapon handling skills, ergo level playing field.] Now his points will raise again over time. For gameplay reasons, points below the starting value of 50 could increase at a faster rate, perhaps twice as fast. The system is so flexible... Imagine, you could also have a very strong effect of a gunshot wound, e.g. reducing fitness values to e.g. 30 in this example; but part of it will recover after medical treatment and only the rest will be a permenant reduction. Incentive to "hide your character"? There is a significant drawback in hiding your character to gain exp. Beside the fact that survival should be difficult, ergo the game should not allow players to sit around endlessly... It is fucking boring. Who should feel compromised to adopt to a very defensive style just for this slow gain of exp. Remember, we are talking mikro skills here, which have a distinct effect, but are in no way game deciding. And they take a loooong time to build up. The positive thing is: Even if there is this school kid with way too much time at hands, who has his other school friends bring him food and water to his little hut in the woods... it would not affect you! Hell, he will be able to light a fire during rain in no-time and everyone around him cheers for him, yes man, you got it! But you still can pop his head with a 9mm round. :D Summary: What do we gain? I'd always prefer to have "real skill" at work; not the character is learning ingame but the person behind the monitor. But we have to be realistic, DayZ will never be the mother of all simulations. Perhaps things from TOH will be introduced, regarding heli mechanics. But you cannot simmulate everything, from gutting animals over fishings to medical stuff. Minigames are not a solution. The introduction of item degredation and player customization (clothes) in the SA are certainly going in the right direction. But will it be enough to create a strong identification to your character and give enough incentive not to risk your life in PvP? DayZ developers should probably not wait too long to see what will happen in the SA. Once we are back at a PvP fiest, it manifests itself. In my opinion, the introduction of a system of micro skills should be contemplated early in SA alpha development and - if seen as a suitable addition - added rather sooner than later. A system of micro skills will be a real incentive to stay alive. This will have a distinct impact regarding the abundance of PvP. The system I described above has no problem regarding wrong incentives, as "progression by doing things" has a significant drawback or it is simple progression over time-played. Further, mikro skills can add additional depth to the gameplay. They are a great tool to combine with other mechanics, e.g. to simulate effects of deseases, wounds, thirst etc. This system is not gamey. There are numbers working in the background, but that's it. You won't see anything from this system besides what you can observe from your character ingame. Imagine your character was alive for 200 hours, perhaps being the dedicated medic of your group. Now you die. You may start a fresh life on the coast, you may be more angry than in DayZ mod (that's what we want). You may also think: "Damn, these nice abilities my previous character had". But what can you do now? There is nothing you can do to get your skills back faster. No false incentives. So you keep on going and will forget that the skill system even exists. Everything what makes DayZ great today will remain in the game. No + in "gutting animals" will make tactical awareness anything less important, nor communication, navigation, decision making etc.

thanks. enjoyed reading

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

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.

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".

Well, this also is DayZ

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

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

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

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.

Yea, chess board, pleaaase. Of course you'd have to find the chess pieces seperatley. Maybe you find a box with a random amount, some pieces are missing. Happy trading. Would add a whole new dimension to chess. If behind, you can also shoot your opponent in the head. Ah, and a chessclock. :)

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

I am posting a couple of ideas I had earlier. For more detailed information you can access the link. Micro Skills [Link] "Progression through equipment" is a core part of DayZ. But it has the inherent flaw that it is not sufficient to ensure player identificaiton with the character ingame. You can pick up where you left within 30 minutes. Also think of organized groups with cars and base building. The skill system worked out in the link above is more or less ungrievable, rather realistic, keeps the level playing field, does not affect combat. It rewards "staying alive", which should reduce PvP. The system would allow for "specialists" (medics and technicians), which would have a limited positive effect on player interaction. (If its just through meta gaming, e.g. hire an experienced technician over the forums to repair your chopper). Of course, "skills" are a trigger for "WoW", but anyhow, I believe the system would be a positive addition to the DayZ universe.

I am posting a couple of ideas I had earlier. For more detailed information you can access the link. Knowledge Exchange: Dynamic bandit / hero recognition Hero/Bandit recognition is an old topic, which has nearly come out of fashion. I dont like it either. But it is necessary. Brief description: The core idea is to reward player interaction / communication outside of established groups. Approaching other players, you can agree to "sit down and chat", which increases your information about other players. After talking to like 10, 15 players the character will have a rather reliable indication about another player's past. (Constant killing spree? Pacifist? Indicated an unobstrusive system like hearbeat). Information declines over time. The system logs with whom you "chat", so doing this repeatedly within your established group will have a limited effect. - Rewards the risk of social interaction - Rewards a peacful lifestyle, as players are more likely to "chat" with you if they dont get bad indication - System is logic and not arbitrary. In real world, you could gain information about others in your region by talking with other surviors. In general, the idea of knowledge exchange has some potential, even if not used for bandit - hero recognition

DayZ development is advancing, new stuff is added. But I have never come across anything from dev side which would adress the fundamental design flaws of DayZ: - Low amount of social interaction ("role playing") - Low value of a player's life - Abundance of PvP - If something requires "teamwork", the good old teamspeak group is all you need For a detailed discussion of the problem see the recent thread: DayZ is a paradox game - Random thoughts (Cuddly_Rabbit, I hope it is ok with you that I stole your title :) ) DayZ has "game of the decade" potential, but i believe only if they adress these problems successfully. It's a tricky job, as DayZ does not want to employ any arbitrary rules. Also it is not about finding just one system and the problem is solved. It needs a multitude of design elements which in combination influence the average player behavior in the desired way; and that without taking an individual's freedom to do what he wants. Do you agree in general that DayZ should adress the abovementioned design flaws? If yes, what ideas do you think are suitable to push the game in the desired direction?

Sorry, but that isn't quite true; well at least one minor aspect: First, second and third world are - rather historical - geopolitical terms for the western allies and associated states (first world), the Sowjet Union and associated states (second world) and non-associated states (third world). So it has nothing to do with the respective economic development.

Introduction Ok, on one hand there is the problem how to measure "good" or "bad" behaviour. I don't have a satisfying solution for that. But as a working method let's say we have a basic system which records PvP behavior: - Killing good guys results in negative humanity - Killing bad guys results in positive humanity - Killing noone results in a gradual increase of humanity - No exploitable "humanity via medical assitance" - stuff - Avoid the situation where 1 or 2 kills in selfdefense result in being marked a bandit. The system should record for a longer time before giving another indication than neutral. How to differentiate players based on humanity values? Obviously, giving bandits a black hat does not suffice the community's quality standarts. We had this heartbeat-system which had some potential. Something like that is good enough, although it should also provide a positive feedback when looking at a player with positive humanity. It is important though that this system does not help in spotting players! Information would only be available once in a certain distance, probably dependent on whether you use a scope or not to watch a player. Ok, after this basic stuff, my idea: A social mechanic of bandit / hero recognition It is indeed unrealistic to have some god-given knowledge about who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. But I think there is a realistic concept which offers distinct advantages: The word-of-mouth: Civilized, friendly people would exchange information about others in the vicinity, about that crazy bastard in the hills who slaughtered Billy and Jane over a can of beans. How to simulate that in DayZ? Give players the opportunity to sit together and exchange such knowledge. If you are next to another player you could use the "chat for a while" option. If the other player agrees, both or multiple characters sit down on the ground. A small progress bar is displayed, and after one minute the process is finished: Players have exchanged knowledge about who is dangerous and who is trustworthy. The system could be quite simple: If you never talk to anyone, you have no idea who is good or bad. The system would not provide any information when looking at another player. Once you have talked to one or two other players, your knowledge increses to a certain point. a ) the "signal" (visual or audio) increases in strength, easier to observe b ) the max distance to receive the signal (player to player) increases You would need to talk to about 7 other players to have the maximum of information about other players (strength of signal / distance). This information degenerates over time, resulting in the need for continued social interaction. For the system to become useful it has to be a bit unrealistic. You should get a signal (e.g. heartbeat) from quite large distances, e.g. 50 meters or 100/150 meters with a scope. Otherwise it becomes obsolete, if you have to get into handshake-distance. That is a bit gamey, but... I think it is worth it. How to prevent that (bandit) clans spread information among themselves? First, it would require a certain amount of people to reach full information; perhaps after talking to like seven other people within a couple of days would result in full information. Second, the system should monitor to whom you speak. Information obtained by speaking to people you have spoken to before (one time, two times, ten times) is reduced. Information obtained by the same person increases again after some time of course. In short, it should be possible to have a system which identifies groups and group members; sharing information among group members should have limited effect. Bandits should benefit from the system just as well as "good guys" - but of course they will find it more difficult to find conversation partners. They can force others of course to agree to the conversation. Why? First, we need some form of differentiation between good or bad players. Second, we need reasons for social interaction. Right now, you gain nothing if you approach a stranger - only risk. This system would provide an incentive to approach people outside of your group. Third, it is an incentive to play as a "good guy", as bandits will find it more difficult to obtain this valuable information. [Although they don't need this information as much as they shoot everything anyway] Fourth, I think it would be an interesting game element. You have to approach a player, gain his trust, then perform this "ritual" of sitting down. During the progress of exchanging information (simulated), you can also have a nice conversation, about the wheather for example :)

I actually haven't played since mod-days, so I am not butthurt. Stop defending a system which is not working. The game needs elements which facilitate social interaction and reduce PvP. Btw, I am quite sure that this suggestion was not made before. Perhaps you just read the title?

PvP all day, no differentiated gaming experience *cough*

Yea, it is a bit Disney-like, the good versus the bad. But from a design perspective, it just enriches the game. It makes certain playstyles viable which cannot exist otherwise (hero, bandit hunter). Than this game element of sitting together and exchange information... And such information is of course no guarantee... hero can still shoot ya... But even with such a basic system of counting kills you can reliably differentiate between a typical PvP player and a pacifist. Combined with the above system of knowledge exchange you also have a realistic concept why you have this information.