Justitia

Dallas is a player who when he isn't birdwatching, he's sending tamed pigeons, veterans of WW1, to scout for bandits for him to methodically hunt their 'adventures'. Whenever a bandit hears a chirp nowadays they're in fear of his presence.

I like to shoot someone unconscious, drop nice equipment next to them, and revive them to only flee. Why? I don't know!

Witty. I approve.

You will have to update manually, nevertheless, but that's not exactly difficult. Remember: beta patch & game patch are separate.

Send me your Skype, man; I'm totally up for this.

Why not the Earth's spin too! (:

And here is my elaboration over arrogance exhibited clearly. It was quite apparent from his selective quotations before, ladies and gentlemen, along with refusal to answer certain points.

I agree they shouldn't have skins, actually, for precisely that reason. ;) As for the whole 'everyone deciding how they want to be, deciding their own story' concept, I don't think it's true when other players are equally the protagonists during multiplayer. ;) I've said countless times I'm fine with bandits, and I don't think they should be punished, but I do believe it's fine to create a stigma as there are people who feel bandits ruin their experience at times. What's wrong with acknowledging how they can be frustrating/assholes, no matter how much they add to the game and shouldn't be removed?

You're not listening now: I'm not saying they are literally your ideas, I am saying how you present the words is changing how they are supposed to be- the connections. As for mechanics, my opinion doesn't change mechanics - how is that LOGICALLY related? It's something verbal, separate to the mechanics, and closer to an intangible influence on the abstract nature of choice INSIDE these mechanics. Oh boy, if a bandit kills someone and the victim becomes mad, is the bandit now a troll too as their action is offensive? My strategy here is an action and it's for the game inevitably, opposed to simply being a random attempt to cause harm/offense for amusement. Is everyone using 'care-bear' in this thread also a troll? And in every other thread? It's about competition there and differences between players which do cause conflict, bitter remarks..... I've called people 'arrogant' 4-5 times? I only recollect doing that once to a single person besides you - what an exaggerated claim. What's worse is how you proceed to mock me with something which has only been said twice and act as if it's a common trait to deserve this! For you: Def .1 "making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming; insolently proud: an arrogant public official." You presume a lot during the reasoning, often with leaps, and these are framed to discredit my position with ONLY two narrow alternatives: close-minded or troll. This is only reinforced with believing that I'm 'A' and then using this to justify neglecting aspects of my responses or dictating 'relevance' without explanation at times. What's most shocking, though, is how you discourage these judgments as close-minded whilst thinking it's right to DECIDE (with judgments) how I wish to deem bandits or approach them. My preference is being a hero and if I want to engage in a behavior which inherently discourages a behavior I despise, so be it. My post is an expression of my intent to do this and I hope others will also do it as bandits don't deserve no negative titles too. People have their choices and and they have the ability to not be influenced, but I won't judge me...for judging someone over a preferred path....when this is my preferred path, especially when the reason(s) of 'affecting mechanics' are flawed as meta-terminology already does....

Incidentally, don't assert arrogantly with definite options through definite logic revolving possibilities that I'm either trolling or being close-minded. Your path of reasoning is flawed as: Fact 1 - Players decide this - it's an arbitrary realm. Devs made this so with the gameplay, not the community which is flexible as is seen with the fact bandit/hero exists. Fact 2 - I'm not trying to change the community massively, I'm appealing to people who already dislike player-killing and enjoy opposing it. Why can't they verbally as they do with actions, eh? Oh yes, you affirm it's right to be open-minded and simply accept it or you're oh-so-wrong. As for the two postulated outcomes to these narrow assumptions which constrain thoughts to your interpreted standards, I'll say 2 is true obviously - the nature of it being a deterrent as I already said - without the following words being correct about how it's close-minded (oh, as the first word is right, the next ones must be? Maybe to your absolute 1's and 2's!). It does not mean people are being narrow-minded to favor a play style and encourage it, disliking another, it means they've adopted one loyally. You say preferences are awesome, but can't we develop these preferences? Execute them? If only we all could be open-minded to every option as you and not dare question/discourage other possibilities! This deterrent, by the way, will certainly not 'discourage' quite so substantially as said, causing people to instinctively fear I mean a removal of it or I want it significantly GONE, it'll simply be another dynamic of the care-bear/tramp dichotomy within the community.

Wait, you won't waste time reading all of it, but you're fine with broad reasoning on my overall statement? Alright, yet you did miss two crucial points which are bothersome to repeat as you're narrow-mindedly skipping relevant content: "The choice remains, and it's no less valid, but I will still opt to think of 'bandits' as tramps. Is that offensive? I think your choice with gaming is offensive and I'm only applying it to your in-game persona , not you on an individual, personal level. " "The community has choices, mhmm, but all of those won't be equal to everyone or entirely considered 'acceptable', even free of any supplementary thoughts. How shallow do you want roles to be? I understand the 'choice' being there, whether a bandit or hero, and it is, but that does not mean I should condone one or the other, let alone behave positively to one as it's an OPEN feature which attracts people. My choice!" Your logical reasons? Where? Narrow reasoning such as the fact that as it offends to discourage, it must be flamebaiting? That is quite the assumption and until there is clear facts to reinforce such, it's nothing deeper and it's much more logical to accept my words as sinceer which coincide with the delinated strategy. My strategy is legitimate, applicable in-game without disbalancing features, and it's described to be offensive without interchangeably becoming flamebait (mutually exclusive, what?). The clear objective mentioned: decreasing banditry and having it less considered the best, most economical choice due to the social ramifications. You can't portray me as a troll or flamer when I have other reasons, repeatedly stated, no matter how much you simply say I am 'just because' with a superficial conclusion such as: Offensive>Flamebait. Is that wrong? No, it's a choice among players - how they act, talk, react as already happens naturally - and this would only be an issue if you disagree with their choices on how to respond/categorize another playstyle. You have indeed said it's wrong to influence the community this way. I love your conceit here with a 'hehehe'....and you simply repeat the exact crititicsm which I had. The fact is that you are taking the developer's words and representing them for your own ideas, incorrectly so, when they're discussing GAMEPLAY MECHANICS, not community-orienated trends which impact decisions (as this suggestion would be). In my opinion, if there's a logic to all of this, you're discouraging attitudes towards player roles and think we should be open to all choices, but I think if that was so, the social dynamics would be extremely so. You're open to roles being such, and they are mechanically without opposition, but closed to social reactions or categories? These are already around, abundant, and they're far from 'close-minded': they're judgments from a decided position. People don't need to accept anything or flow with all options as I expressed in the segment conveniently neglected.

ANTI-HERO HERO!

This is exactly the reason I call them otherwise. In game, relative to my choices, bandits are my enemies. (: Right now, it's too appealing for both advantage and how they're portrayed. Why are the 'bad guys' being flattered? Would you call them 'rambos' if they were very talented at being criminals?

Doesn't mean a few players - supporting more trust above the rampant consequence-free banditry, causing instinctive killing which thus inspires victims to follow this, a cycle - can't try to shape a better community with the right tactics as leaders would in real life during such an event. Whilst I entirely respect a bandit's choice, and think it should never be regulated or restricted physically, I do think people can and may act against it or think of them negatively whilst the nature of it is selfish: exploit others' achievements with murder, stealing their progression. Skill is irrelevant - it's the nature of robbing someone and I don't think this would ever be happily accepted in a post-apocalyptic world by law-abiding citizens. Do you think they would rationalize their decisions and think of it as 'their' choice? No, they'd think of bandits as scum and if bandits were prideful of 'bandit', as script kiddies can be with being referred to as 'hackers', they'd choose a word which was different: descriptive of how their behavior is parasitic.

I'm of the opinion that banditry is a poor choice and with that opinion the flexibility has endowed, I'll happily be disparaging towards individuals who choose otherwise. This isn't being closed-minded, it's choosing a preference and supporting it with my capacity to speak. For those who are similar to me, preferring helping over stealing, they have an option here, informally so, which is an aspect of the community you're preaching is crucial. This isn't a fact or an official feature: it's a choice among community members, with the effect a decision derived from how they want to INFLUENCE the game socially. The community has choices, mhmm, but all of those won't be equal to everyone or entirely considered 'acceptable', even free of any supplementary thoughts. How shallow do you want roles to be? I understand the 'choice' being there, whether a bandit or hero, and it is, but that does not mean I should condone one or the other, let alone behave positively to one as it's an OPEN feature which attracts people. My choice! As for 'changing' this community, I'm not and only appealing to people who are similar to me: very reasonable as we likely have comparable aims: kill bandits, organize survivors, promote teamwork. As for the effect it may have, so be it, but it'd never be disastrous as you fearfully insinuate, contradict the noted values overtly as you try to philosophize, or noticeably damage the framework which is existent. My motive here is the one I said, not the subtle attempt to say I am trolling with a faux-alternative: Negatively categorize player-killers, currently 'bandits', to perhaps change a few into reformed citizens or cause shame among certain ones. Why can I not do this? If this was real life, as the developers want gameplay to illustrate with choices which define a player's role (ROFL @ your appeal to authority, phrasing the developers to support your reasoning), people would have harsh, negative words regarding individuals who select choices with which they disagree. "Corporate Drone" "Thug" "Pothead" "Brown-noser" The choice remains, and it's no less valid, but I will still opt to think of 'bandits' as tramps. ;) Is that offensive? I think your choice with gaming is offensive and I'm only applying it to your in-game persona , not you on an individual, personal level.