Capercaillie

Yeah, I gotta agree on that one, but anyway the dancing part wasn't the intended primary proof for the hacking. "Call me maybe" playing on 3 different locations MILES apart shortly after one another is the proof.

Dude, I don't care if I died. It has happened to me quite many times, and will happen again to EVERYONE who plays this game. THE POINT OF THIS is to get rid of the hackers. If I want to see someone dancing I go do something else than play a zombie apocalypse game.

Or actually, to be more precise, ban the USE of word "bandit". There are no bandits in Day Z, only survivors and zombies. Now that I have your attention, let's get on to the actual subject which is pretty much related to this "banditry" thing in Day Z. We all know some of us find "banditry" very annoying, and some even think it is "killing the game" and ruining it. I personally find it thrilling, and don't consider it a problem at all, THIS IS NOT A CAREBEAR POST! Lets have a closer look at banditry and what are the actual reasons for banditry. some say banditry is caused by the lack of "end-game" activities. some think, bandits are all "CoD kiddies" who, as soon as they find an Enfield, go out to Cherno and start killing people mindlessly (also the reason: immaturity, not playing the game as it's supposed to be played) for some, banditry is a way to survive, they choose not to sneak into places and loot stuff, instead they murder fellow survivors for supplies. and then, last but not least, another reason for banditry is the lack of trust in this game. There, we have a list of reasons for banditry, lets analyze them a bit. -I think it's safe to say, we can strike through number one, since there are NO immortal survivors. Everyone dies in this game, even the most elite and high-geared players. Surviving is the only necessary activity needed in this game, you start by surviving, your mid game passes along surviving, and when you are getting those military-grade snipers, nvg's and stuff, what you actually do, is survive. Some attempts end on the beach, some end to a desperate run through cherno, some at the NW airfield, some in a desperate attempt to scavenge food from a barn. My point is, that everyone DIES in this game. No need for extra "end-game" activities. -Number two will be stroke through, simply because it is an offensive and an immature excuse to the lack of your OWN survival skills in this virtual world. Someone smart once said something like "It just IS 100% your own fault when you die in Day Z" or something like that. Needless to go deeper in this one. -Number three, well what can I say, it is just a way of how one chooses to play this awesome game. If someone has a problem with this, they need to understand that it is not wrong to choose a playstyle encouraged even by the devs. Lets get to the final reason, in my opinion the "biggest" reason for banditry: the lack of trust between players, which causes a fair share of all the KoS moments. Considering you play alone, how many times have you found yourself in a situation where it would not hurt you to have someone watching your six, where you could use an overwatch with the vision of a hawk, or just that someone to take out those zombies which have you pinned down? From my experience, there has been NUMEROUS times, where a total stranger could have saved my ass in the brutal world of chernarus. Then WHY do people rather kill the other player, than make contact with them and cooperate? There is no trust. (Thank you captain obvious) WHY is there no trust between players? Because there is no actual and legit way to build/gain it! Our ways of building trust include: Direct chat Salute Lowering your weapon "jiggling?" (=hammering Q and E repeatedly) All of these, are impractical and rather useless. Direct chat (from my experience at least) doesn't ALWAYS work properly. Making your friendliness show through a salute makes you an easy target, since the other player must actually SEE you. In addition, you are not controlling your character while saluting (ie. you will not be able to defend yourself while your shooting hand is touching your forehead..) which increases the chances the other player will just shoot you instead of saluting back. Lowering your weapon is almost equal to number 2. It will only make you an easy target for the other player. Never tried to make contact using this method, it seems quite useless though, the laggy netcode would probably not show half of the twists to the other player, and while you were focused on making the jiggling correctly, the other guy would just simply shoot you as you were walking towards them. Now we get to the actual point of this thread, and the actual suggestion: Please bring side chat back to the game! Why? (pros) Well, it is, by far the BEST way to build trust in the game. I remember numerous times cooperating with total strangers by first chatting through side channel and then meeting up somewhere. After side channel was removed, I have met ZERO players who would have cooperated with me. Everyone will kill on sight, because it is better to kill the other player than wake up at the beach again. At first I tried to cooperate, but after being shot a couple times, I realised it is worthless and will CERTAINLY lead to my own death. Imagine the following situation: You are in the apartment house in Berenzino. You see some player ~200 meters away from you. For some of us the solution jumps in right here: You pull the trigger. Some let the situation go further, and as the player proceeds towards you, you start to wonder what to do, can I trust this guy? Now the player is already in the stairs, you hear him coming up. You are not quite sure in what floor he is, so which one do you do: Point your gun at the door, ready to empty the magazine to the first creature that enters the room, OR start writing in direct channel: "Who is there, are you friendly"? I'd choose the first option. Why? coz I don't want to die ofc!! What if I start typing to him, and then as I'm writing that I have no bad intentions he pops in and puts a bullet in my head? I'm not gonna take that chance.. Imagine the same situation with side channel enabled! You can safely contact him when he is 200 meters away from you, you can ask him about what is he up to, and you have time to make your mind whether he is friendly or not. The decision does not have to be made in a quarter of a second, you can actually communicate with him! If you figure out he might be hostile, you can simply warn him not to enter. If you'd like to have that extra guy in your party, simply invite him in and see where it goes! Another reason to bring side chat back: As players start to communicate in game, THAT is how new and great ideas are born! I doubt half of the players even have a forum account, what if they could discuss their ideas IN GAME with fellow players? cons of this suggestion: Well of course many are annoyed by the "shit talk" on side chat, but I guess that is bearable, and then we would get back to the question about language rules etc. but these are BEARABLE, since imho the amount of interesting and immersive player encounters would go up by about 10000%. Some things to "inb4" inb4 "not realistic": Well think about it, we are talking about a GAME, not real life. IMO it's totally fine for a game to have some "unrealistic" things and systems. inb4 "bandits would use it as a trap": If you are st00ped enough to fall for a "Giving away free beanz in Cherno for EVERYONE", then you probably die alot even without the massive temptations side chat brings with it. inb4 "teamspeak, skype, ventrilo etc...": This is probably the most retarded argument against side chat, side chat is for making contact to UNKNOWN people, not your friends. People you DON'T know won't just magically join your ventrilo server when you encounter them in Day Z! TL;DR If you don't bother reading the whole post, then please refrain from commenting for the sake of everyone. Yes I know, the title might be(=IS) a little misleading, but that is just to gain attention and I find it acceptable since I put more effort and thought to this than I put on regular suggestion posts. AND NO, I AM NOT A CAREBEAR! Actually my current character has committed 17 murders! Thank you if you actually read it this far. I appreciate all opinions, but hey, lets keep it civilized and mature. No need to start ranting here since it's been done over and over again in these forums. Now, I'm sure I forgot to mention something as I thought this through, but I will add more if they pop in my mind. Thanks - Capercaillie *EDIT: A great post, a nice idea which would basically have the same effects as the side chat, with probably more immersion and no (at least it seems there are no) downsides Also, it has been suggested that there should be a system, something like "direct shout", which would increase the range of direct to a few hundred meters, with the downside of pulling some zombie aggro.

I like the idea, though I guess it is not going to happen (too soon atleast?) about "realism" "because realistically, NO ONE carries around 7 magazines for a sidearm. it just didn't seem realistic to me." yeah, and no-one really respawns when they die.... Realism is not an argument when talking about games!

Awesome post man, just awesome! I'm with you on blood regen replacing the instant blood gain from food! I saw somewhere that you can't actually respawn when you die.

To me this is simple Gain health from eating food Gain health slowly over time (if hunger/thirst meters are green) Pick one. Also a big NO on the giving blood bags to yourself. Instead, increase the systems that require cooperation and bring a communication mechanism in the game that truly allows players to cooperate

Banditry is not an issue, it's a player made choice on how to play Day Z.

If you shoot at the trigger mechanism, it will most likely go off (ie. shut itself), almost anything will work in disarming a bear trap. Just apply enough pressure on the trigger plate. But isn't there already a way to mouse scroll and select "disarm" the trap?

Your post quite obviously shows that you are new to this game, even without "I'm not playing DayZ for that long, but the PvP really gets on my nerves." "There were people stupid and slow and I had to chase them to talk to them." In the end, who was actually the idiot of your story? "Well, in the Walking Dead graphic novel there was a prison that pretty much worked as a safe zone for a long time." How safe was it actually, can you tell us all how it really turned out to be in the end? I'm not ok with a permanent safe-zone, something scripted in the game which restricts player actions inside that zone, just NO NO NO! What I do like, is a possibility for players to "build" their own bunkers, fortifications etc. and then ENFORCE the rules there by themselves.

I have to disagree 100% on the bandit stuff, bandits are a MAJOR part of the game.. Well, first of all your post was 99% off the topic. This anti bandit shit subject has been literally beaten to death, please type this kind of stuff on suggestions willing to remove/ban bandits & other crap. "Also, the title was a downright lie, no excuses. Yes, it was misleading, but it was still a lie nonetheless." Title says "Ban all Bandits" How is that a lie? Does it lie about some fact? Does it give false information*? I suppose you originally came in here to rant about how bandits are ruining the game, and that's what you did. You did it on the wrong post man, it's not about whether to remove bandits or not.. *inb4 "it gives false information on the actual subject of the thread" and everything that way.. Whenever you read a title, you (might) think in your mind "oh, this title says xxx, it MUST be about xxx". So it's actually just a thing in your head that happens if you hang on too much to this ideology "title xxx, definitely tells about xxx" basically, it is YOU lying to yourself if you think this way (which you apparently do). YOU make YOURSELF believe "THATS THE WAY IT'S GOTTA BE" Now if the title was "Ban all Bandits! (this thread is about banning bandits)" that would have been a lie. Now that we have talked over the off topic subjects, which were still somewhat related to what I said or what I didn't say, why don't you clean up your post a bit? Try and remove all the off-topic and unnecessary text you wrote, and see how much appropriate text there is left in your post.

Your previous statement "Problem is.. they dont look like that in the game, they look weaker, like made for deer hunting." was just for me to figure out that bear traps that actually trap a human being stepping into them, requiring another players assistance to break free, would be too overpowered? Is this game about balance? About what is overpowered, what needs a nerf? I don't see a problem with rifles, one shot kill from 800m away.. compare that to a makarov, 8-12 rounds in the chest to kill, at a 20 meter range. Are rifles overpowered? I don't feel that way.. "you could just picth one up infront of a ladder and the player is doomed, or down a ladder, whatever." You can't "shoot" using bear traps, they lie down passively as long as someone walks over them, so you gotta have pretty much skills/luck to actually make a player trigger the bear trap while you are watching it. And anyone stupid enough to walk to an armed bear trap in a clearly visible spot (eg. in front of a ladder) is IMO stupid enough to deserve the beach-party. And then there is this "cuz most people will just kill you." I don't see the problem here, it's already happening in Day Z, and I'm sure that's a major part of what makes it exciting. I mean many ppl probably wouldn't play a PvE zombie survival game after trying out Day Z...

Yeah, well never tried or seen anyone try stepping on an armed bear trap. Off-topic, but anyway, setting your foot on one of these would probably not cut your leg off, it would surely break the bone and squeeze in really tight. It actually takes quite a lot for a limb to actually be "cut off". Even smaller traps made for smaller game pack quite a punch. I highly doubt anyone would get rid of one hanging in their leg. I honestly think it would be nice to have to remove the trap after you hit one, but make it so some other player has to help you!

This seems to be quite an accepted opinion, and I have to agree with it!

If you want to take it to the "realism" argument, then you should have someone else free yourself from the trap. I'd like to see someone get trapped in this bastard over here, and then get out of it all by themselves...

Seems like a nice idea, especially that part about getting the community to be more cooperating. Also, read my thread about this little teamwork "issue" we currently have.

While the idea seems quite "realistic" (if you can say that about a game) I think it would bring more problems than it would ever solve. Besides, I haven't had my magazines "reset" for a month or so?

I find the suggestion extremely interesting. If the vehicle limit on a server actually is 20, then that seems fair enough, considering the max number of players on a server. But that 7-day respawn time seems a bit exaggerated (implying I understand when the respawns happen: vehicle gets smashed? any other reasons for respawn?) I'd feel more like 24h max. I doubt the servers would get any traffic jams, simply because isn't it a challenge itself to fix that broken vehicle and find gasoline? So far my only experience from vehicles has been an ATV with no gasoline (was playing with a friend, we decided we'd rather focus on survival than getting the atv running) and a fully functioning tractor we found off some players camp (my friend drove it, he crashed a tree with extremely low speed and the tractor went boom. Friend barely made it after a quick bandage->blood bag->adrenaline) Only 2 vehicles so far, and I have played this game quite alot..

"You do realize that the trust issue is mainly a consequence of the other KoS issues" Yes, I do realize that! Can't say its mainly a consequence, it was at start, but as time goes by it becomes both the consequence and the reason. example to sort it out player1: "hey, i wonder who's that guy over there, I'm gonna go talk to him, maybe we can group up" player2: *shoots player 1 immediately.* player1: "fuck this, you can't trust anyone in this game, I'm gonna just kill everyone on sight now to not die myself!" player3: "hey, i wonder who's that guy over there, I'm gonna go talk to him, maybe we can group up" player1: *shoots player 3 immediately.* player3: "fuck this, you can't trust anyone in this game, I'm gonna just kill everyone on sight now to not die myself!" For player 1, lack of trust is the consequence of becoming a KoS guy (ie. he couldn't trust player 2 as he first thought). As player 2 kills him, player1 loses all trust to other players. BUT for player 3, the reason he got killed, was because player 1 doesn't trust anyone anymore, he will KoS instead. NOW that player 3 doesn't trust anyone for the same reasons, both the lack of trust and KoS problems form a vicious circle: KoS -> another player gives up finding trustworthy players and starts KoS himself -> another player gives up finding trustworthy players and starts KoS himself -> another player gives up finding trustworthy players and starts KoS himself...... See where I'm going? The point of my OP wasn't to categorize these killing reasons, well it was for the part to make an argument, but for the argument "we are lacking trust" my OP is enough. Anyway, lack of trust is both a consequence and a reason to KoS, doesn't really matter though. "as now I'm back to hunting all the players along the coast I can find - and I don't really need any chat for that" see, even YOU are a REASON for the KoS thing! BECAUSE of you many players don't trust others! Don't take this offensively, I do it too, but just to point it out in this reason/consequence dilemma.. "As long as there will be excess killing for the other reasons (1. - 3.) as well, there will be little trust" I don't believe reasons 1-3 are the reason for the most player-caused deaths. Nowadays you mostly won't even know who shot you and from where. They just think it's better to get rid of you asap. Read my Berenzino example again, and you will understand what I mean. Surprising face to face situations would still probably end in a firefight even if there were walkietalkies, radios, side chat or what ever. But what I'm looking for, is to increase the cooperation in situations where communication in early phases will lead to friendliness/slight gain of trust. I'm not saying anyone should be careless and walk on the roads, use your brains ofc, but communication would help. Well, don't think it's fine to say "I lied" in the title, it was misleading I know, but it really doesn't get anyone killed, nor does it harm anyone. As in many posts, in forums, in newspapers, in EVERYWHERE, provocative titles are used to gain attention. Whether it's morally right or wrong, I don't know, but what I'm sure of it wasn't a lie. In the title, I didn't claim something that wasn't true(eg. "1+1=3" (which is btw actually true if we are talking about mating couples in their bedrooms)), that would have been a (partial)lie. See where I'm heading? Now, if you feel you were lied to, then why bother reply? Did you originally come here to rant about the beaten-to-death subject about bandits? You probably did, which makes you no better than me. I, and many others could have lived without your shitpost.

We share the same opinion!

Thank you again for your statement, captain obvious! Your statement has nothing to do with the conversation in this thread.

Yeah, if you feel that's the way it is, why not save that brainfart to yourself? Just move along if you have nothing intelligent to say, don't be an immature cunt..

It seems you either didn't completely read or fully understand my OP. And especially the parts What I'm basically saying, is you are off the topic.. If you only read the OP, and read it so you fully understand what it says BEFORE posting a reply, you might just add something intelligent to the conversation! How many times have you made friends in Day Z using the salute function? Or by lowering weapon? Let me guess: ZERO!! "What are we really talking about here?" We are talking about ways to communicate with fellow players. Systems that allow the ACTUAL communication with them instead of making yourself the easiest target in game! That's what we are talking about! My suggestion was bring back the side chat, and it was improved by another suggestion: "Direct-shout" Read the OP properly be4 giving lame off-topic replies..

I think I made a valid point about this "realism" argument, as it seems weird using it when discussing a game. I understand the thing devs have, making the games seem realistic, but after all, they will only be games NOT real life. And if you take into consideration, the map size is 225km, which is basically 15km x 15km, so the longest possible distance between 2 players in the game is the distance between the corners of the map =~21km Totally achievable with modern day walkie talkies, that should counter your "realism" argument.

Thank you, maybe a forum-team mod's post helps keep this reasonable. Also, there were suggestions of increasing the range of direct chat (direct-shout maybe?). and a nicely put thread about another alternative (radio systems). I find both nice, and probably better than the side chat which has the downside of spam and shit-talk.

Well first of all, thank you for manning the fuck up! :) "I don't think re-implementing side chat is the be-all-to-end-all solution to banditry" I'm not looking for a solution to banditry here, no no no! That's not what this tread is about! This thread is about bringing back the possibility to cooperate with fellow survivors, instead of the only legit solution of killing them! "Also, there's a difference between KoS mentality and banditry that you don't seem to fully understand." No, I fully understand the difference and meaning of KoS. Banditry is a way of life in Day Z, but (currently) so is KoS! You just said it yourself "Bandits kill because it's how they choose to play the game." and "Many players (including myself) KoS because it's safer." Isn't it the players choice, "the way the player chooses to play the game" to KoS, it's no different to banditry? I mean, they could just let it go, but as you said it's safer to KoS than risk it. What I'm after with this thread, is through my suggestion, maybe there will be better suggestions on the lack of COMMUNICATING systems currently in the game. I'm not here to remove banditry, or the KoS if some ppl choose to do so. "Also, many players use teamspeak/are in clans, and so the typical mentality becomes 'unless they're on TS with me, I'm going to KoS.'" Yep, you are right, but I still see more those who go solo than who move in groups. There's no problem with that KoS thingy regarding clans, its totally fine. But I wouldn't necessary kill ppl on sight with my friends, if there was a way to actually let them know of our existence (in a neutral/friendly non-dangerous way) and perhaps gain something from the at first hostile-appearing situation (that is, through cooperating, not murdering). I'm not against bandits, nor am I against player killing. Kill and murder all the players you wan't, it's your choice, currently I'm doing the same thing. Because it's close to impossible to get the gain-trust//get-killed risk ratio to a reasonable level. "Also, on my last life, I was on day 26, and could have survived indefinitely." You are not the only one who has thought that way. You just simply will not survive indefinitely in this game. You just don't. At some point you die. If you really can survive indefinitely, then maybe you are too pro for Day Z, and I congratulate you, but I just don't believe it.. from the front page "So your argument that everyone will eventually die is weak" Survival Attempts: 19,071,748 well with that +19 MILLION *attempts* to survive (=== +19 MILLION DEATHS), I don't really feel my argument is too weak... "and you didn't even mention hackers anywhere" Nope, I didn't because it would have been off the topic. The OP was about bringing back the side chat or not. It wasn't about hacking.