gizm0

True (as a fire is also "built" in some way). But WHAT you build should also not be artificial. But nowhere in this thread I can find anything about "building stuff"? taken from the OP build a small town/fortification second part of his bullets.

But I bet you still understood my point, the game incentives killing each other at its roots, which means without adding incentives to work together, the core elements will always make PVP more rewarding. So we need incentives to have other playstyles than killing each other because the core elements of arma 2 are based are PVP. This is only so that each playstyle has some pros and some cons. Currently everyone is defaulting to PVP because that is all that the core gameplay offers. Currently because I'm not someone who wants to engage in PVP, I only have to log on maybe 1 hour a day to kill some animals, cook the meat, fill my canteens, eat and drink, and log off for the day. Mainly these suggestions bar the comfort in a group one. Would give players more tools to provide deeper interactions between players, sure they give reasons to form groups and not kill. But isn't having to complex interactions what dayz is about?

Ok, lets remove all the weapons because they favor PVP playstyles. see how your argument can be turned right back at you. There is no arguing that Dayz has little to no tools that isn't based around killing each other.

Signed, I love the gun and it fits the soviet setting.

Not one of this ideas harms bandit behavior in anyway' date=' it also doesn't punish any player because to punish a player something has to be taken away. If something is given to a player that is in a group compared to playing solo, you are not punishing the solo player because nothing is being taken away from the solo player. Its like saying cooked meats +blood bonus punishes players who eat canned food, Or canteens being allowed to be refilled punishes pop(soda) drinkers. Being part of a team vs playing Solo is just like choosing canteens or pop, cooked meat or canned food, the winchester or AKM, friendly or being an asshole. We are not harming solo players by saying a player in a group is less likely to get shocked by a gun shot, and we are not harming bandits by allowing friendly players to show their intent without having to stop and salute.[/color']

I'm playing it safe right now.

Rocket Wrote: While consequences may occur for a particular action (e.g. humanity loss)' date=' no judgement is implied or placed on that behavior. [i']ME: Remember the humanity feature is unfinished, So most likely it will have have some kinda of use later in Dayz's Life Time. So don't count your chickens before they hatch about having consequence free actions.

rocket already stated he is adding consequences for players actions. This includes being friendly and bandit playstyles.

I believe that these ideas will do amazing things to dayz.

can't wait for a way to tell who is a bandit so i can hunt you guys out of existence. edit: on topic maybe I "moan" because the there are very few things that players can do after grouping up. I mainly just want unique apperences per player, build-able camps, fortifications that zeds can't walk through, Basically more content that isn't focused on PVP. because it will make interactions with other players require more thought than avoid or kill.

The first twenty or so threads were friendly discussions' date=' now it's just regurgitated crap and should be treated as such. The OP isn't even capable of a higher level of reasoning than "The bandit skin is now harder to make for self-defenders, it is good see". I mean there's not even an attempt to respond to actual counterpoints, it's as if he's an automated answering machine. Come on. [/quote'] Please excuse this if i'm being a bit off topic here but you seem to want to keep the bandit playstyle the most rewarding and the least risking way to play I may be a care bear but I'm all for having something unique for every player, because it will cut down on shooting your friend if you guys happen to take different routes and turn the corner on each other. If you have also noticed is that some players want more content or tools than just weapons to build "safe zones" or show each other they are friendly... Also rocket has already said he is planning on adding consequences for being a murderer, its just the bandit skin didn't work the way he wanted.

why are you so bothered by them taking their time? Wouldn't it be better than we get to beta when they decided they have everything in dayz that they want in dayz?

why is it a preventative measure that has no down side?

this time its more subtle so why not?

I wanted to write up an angry post but I'm just gonna simplify it banditry should have negative effects just like teaming up can have negative effects. The reason for this is to make the choice harder to make and thus provoke more thinking into each decision each player makes.

I wonder if Rocket is against players pooling a bandit list?

Maybe one option would be having a database that is accessible to every player and tracks things such as protecting players, killing players, healing players, killing "bandits", as well as other factors. This way its not just one value controlling if a player is worth trusting or not, as well as keeps the player factor a bit of a risk but a controlled risk that allows players to make a better calculated risk.

Wouldn't also opening more building up to have loot in them in the smaller towns also make it so bandits can't just camp the major spots to prey on those looking for some loot? however I say your idea is great on paper.

so asking if they have some spare beans isn't the better thing to do? I mean really there is no social repercussion for players who go out of their way to kill other players, thus no reason to give killing other players a second thought.