mercules

I seriously doubt it since anyone who kills for gear right now probably kills every person they see on the off chance they might have something useful on them like ammo the killer has but the victim hasn't found a gun for yet. I doubt they will kill more simply because I think they likely kill every opportunity they get and getting no additional opportunities means no additional killing.

Your first statement there, "The fact that people enforced laws shows that they thought certain actions were immoral." can not be supported. You do not know what reason they made those laws nor can you provide proof that it was a moral drive that influenced them and not simple self interest. There are countless laws that are likely not morally sound but enforced and breaking them would actually be the moral thing to do. Just because a few laws mimic moral responsibility does not mean that all laws are based off moral codes. Example, Monsanto has been using copyright law to sue farmers who have their copyrighted crops growing in their fields no matter how the crop got there. A wind blown seed or a plant growing from a previous seasons crop is enough for them to sue farmers. This is neither ethical or moral especially considering that they basically use bully tactics against people who have no legal recourse as they can not afford the court fees. It is legal but it is not moral. I'm not scared at all. I do not believe a single person is capable of living a moral life given the definition of morality that I follow. I believe we can strive for morality but I do not believe in a person who is completely moral. All I ask is that they try.

Ask any marathoner how often they need fluids and how many calories they need while running. ;) If you sit in one place without moving you don't really need to eat or drink much at all but most of us while paying are running the equivalent of 1-2 marathons per gaming session. I remember casually commenting to a friend the other night, "I am only 3 klicks away from you now." That is a short marathon and I had been running for a while. I only used 2 drinks and 1 food on that run too. ;)

I think you missed the point. I broke Kant's actual discussion on morality into a paraphrased one liner for the masses. Of course it matches doctrine from books and codes written to give the masses rules to live by. Also, "A Broken clock is correct twice a day." that doesn't mean it keeps time. Coming to the same conclusion as another method of thought does not mean those two methods are equally valid. The bible and Hammurabi's code both approach morality from the point of punishment. In the case of the bible it is "Act as such or you will not get a reward and might be punished in the future." with Hammurabi it is a law of equal reprisal. People follow those codes not out of morality but fear of punitive measures. That is NOT morality. You also act as if Categorical Imperative Morality can not change which is untrue. New evidence can alter a logical conclusion and thus could alter morality. For example, if we discovered tomorrow that chickens have the same cognitive ability as mankind or possibly even more would it still be morally right to eat them? Logic would dictate that it is not right to eat sentient intelligent beings so no it wouldn't. However at this time we have no data to even imply such a thing so they are still morally acceptable to eat although I could state some evidence that we still need to treat them a bit more ethically than we currently do. However, given all the evidence is the same it is not morally correct for one person to act in manner A in a situation and in manner B in a different situation.

You can't know, but bringing my mother into any discussion and stating I learned morals from her is a laughable concept. It may apply that most people learn their initial concepts of morality from their primary caregiver or society in general but that is not true morality. That falls under the category of Social Mores or Taboos. Morality is not subjective. The circumstances around the killing of one person by another are not relevant to the discussion of, "Is killing morally right or wrong?" It is wrong. That doesn't mean I should not defend myself if attacked. If attacked by someone with the intent to kill me they have already tossed morality aside. I am not morally bound to allow them to end my life by being a pacifist. In fact that in itself would be immoral as by not preventing them from taking my life and am allowing them to kill another. Instead I should do what is necessary, and only what is necessary to prevent them from taking another human life. It would not mean that had I stopped them from killing me by knocking them unconscious I should kill them to be certain they can not kill me. In fact the moral choice is to prudently render first aid to them in such a manner that neither myself nor anyone else is brought into danger. Just like I don't have a moral obligation to put myself at risk for another human being. I will lend aid where and when I can but not at the cost of my or anyone else's health and well being. It is, however, in everyone's best interest to aid others instead of harming them. It actually increases the chances that each individual will survive and lead a healthier and happier life. Work division and specialization of skills can go a long way towards improving an individual's life.

... were still morally wrong. Why do you think the Nazi regime specifically dehumanized the Jewish people? It was because they understood that any empathy towards them would force the people under their rule to morally object to what was being done to them. Part of Kant's universalism is the very simple concept of, "Would I want this done to me?" If the answer is no, then you probably shouldn't be doing it to others. That is Categorical Imperative broken down into layman's understanding level. Religous texts and well oral traditions were not specifically treatises on morality but more so instructional manuals on how to live your life if you wanted to belong to that social structure. There is NOTHING immoral about shaving your beard but the old testament forbids it. True morality is not subjective.

No, exactly the opposite. They are pointless because they respawn. There is literally NO REASON to shoot a zombie that you are able to maneuver around. The only time you should kill a zombie is because you do not have another path to take or are in circumstances where you can not avoid it. That would mean you were trapped in a location where you can not exit and need to move, your legs are broken, or you are hiding from a larger danger like a sniper you can't see and so can not leave cover and have a zombie agro'd on you. That being said I still kill zombies. I will kill a Zed from range so that I don't have to move carefully when I approach my goal. Especially if I have a silenced weapon. But in reality it is a waste of ammo and if ammo wasn't so readily available (like they say it won't be in the SA) then I would avoid them instead. Now, IF zombies are not an endless respawn you can actually bump up their danger level. Why? Because you won't just get done dealing with one and have to deal with the respawns making for an endless cycle that simply kills players. Yes, some players will still end up in that situation by running past a bunch and then agro'ing the whole lot onto themselves, but smart play which eliminates one zombie at a time will be rewarded. Endless respawn means the zombies have to be less potent or the possibility of even smart game play causing player death goes up. Not respawning constantly means they can be tougher and like I said will reward methodical clearing out of zombies.

Logic is fallible. For one thing we might not have enough evidence to come to a valid conclusion. However it is still the right basis for morality. I don't understand your second point. Oh.. you think morality comes from a book of allegorical morality anecdotes that has been heavily edited and incorrectly translated over the years and has no bearing on modern forms of thought? Those are prime examples of why morality should and can not be subjective. "It's okay for members of religion X to kill, it says so in their holy works." <_<

It's not that we don't have a reason to kill them. I have a perfect reason to kill zombies in that they can cause damage to me and maybe kill me. The issue is more that it isn't a practical approach to dealing with them. Shooting a zombie with a noisy gun will most likely attract another zombie. Since Zeds respawn there is no reason to waste ammo on them, it will be replaced in a few minutes. This is, of course, barring them blocking your path. The most efficient and practical way to deal with zombies is to not agro them and simply avoid engaging them. This becomes "dash and run" instead of stealth when you end up dealing with PvP elements making standing still waiting for a zombie to pass a "bad idea". This also compounds the firing issue since you have now alerted players that otherwise wouldn't have noted you or known where you are that you are present and in roughly that direction. If the area doesn't immediately respawn zombies then there actually is a practical approach to searching the area for loot that consists of engaging and defeating zombies or using stealth. Stealthing through won't cause multiple respawns which make sneaking past that much more difficult either. So yes, the fact that zombies spawn at server start and don't constantly respawn from the building you want to enter is a good thing that will help.

Well, I can't say what others will do as I won't have enough evidence to come to a valid conclusion. I can state, however, that item destruction will give me pause when it comes to shooting someone.

Kant approachs Morality from the Categorical Imperative which I think is one of the better models of thought on the subject. Summing the ideas up in my own words he believes that morality is and should be based off of logical reasoning. Since such a thing is not subjective neither is morality. In other words for something to be moral it needs to apply to all and everything. It needs to specifically not be subjective or determined by events or individuals. Look, I am talking to a customer on the phone right now and covering philosophy right now is not going to be possible while I am talking to them. Just go read, "The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals" and "The Critique of Practical Reason". I have recently started rereading the later and have found that college was so long ago that I have forgotten a good deal of the concepts that were common knowledge for myself back then, some of which are necessary to understand Kant. I'm finding it a fascinating refresher. Now, if you want a GPA or degree you won't find that I have one. I took college courses to learn... not for a GPA. I didn't put together courses to build a degree so I don't have one. Instead I took courses that were of intellectual interest to me and continued on interesting subjects long after I left college. A GPA doesn't build a well rounded or thoughtful individual.

As a NORM people do not kill other people. In a video game where people kill others for fun it could be considered a norm but we are attempting to create some form of simulation of a zombie apocalypse so it would be good if the game offered some sort of reason or reward for not shooting others. I doubt I would behave any differently than I currently do if dropped into a DayZ reality except be extremely careful. I would probably shoot a zombie chasing another player or shoot someone I just saw murder someone else. I probably wouldn't shoot a random person I saw but would move away from them.

Morality is not subjective. For more information please take a college level Ethics class. ;)

Okay, I don't have a hero skin but I actively hunt bandits(and shoot those who shoot at me which is why I probably don't have the hero skin yet). I am currently carrying a AKS74 Kobra, DMR, Hatchet, and m1911 I believe. Like everyone else I assume they will be taking the best gun they find and using that. DMR came off a bandit sniping folks in Electro, Kobra from one of the Firehalls in Elektro, m1911 from... Hmmm.. not sure where I picked that up.

You miss the point. We don't want people to not kill each other. What we want is for people to have a reason to not kill each other. There actually are a few and they are growing. We want to explore the dark side of humanity but when everyone is in that dark side you really are not exploring it anymore you are just living it.

They are related. You can't really play the video game without being alive and experiencing life. In the video game it isn't the lack of punishment that drives the KOS mentality. In fact punishment very often doesn't stop people who kill outside the game, if it did there would be fewer prisons. What does cause KOS is lack of empathy or connection with those other players. We look at them as another game obstacle and not people who are experiencing the same things we are. We have a level of disconnection with them because of the filters of the game and we no longer associate their struggle with our own. This is why a more difficult game might just bring some people around to less KOS mentality, they might come to realize that the other player struggled like they did to get where they are.

What is funny is that I am an INTP according to the Meyer's Briggs which means I really don't need others for socialization. At the same time I am very unlikely to just shoot other players "for fun" despite not wanting to interact with them in any way. ;)

There is a reason why after shooting someone a police officer is required to be evaluated for fitness for duty. Killing another human being is often a traumatic experience. War veterans, police, and others who encounter trauma, and I am not talking about being shot at but being forced to shoot others often experience PTSD. There is an underlying human morality that goes beyond the definition above and societal norms. Biologically we come from primate social groups where a family of primates would band together for mutual protection. It is bred into us to group up in social clumps and protect those that are close to us. From there we moved to a situation that would more readily promote smaller groups. We moved out of the protection of the trees to what was likely a hunting situation where pair bonding was more likely than larger families. Where partners and their juvenile children might form a small group. Still a social group where we protect the members form outsiders. In video games you find the same thing. Many players seek to belong to a social group within the game, Clans/Guilds. On top of that we are genetically programed to aid others of our species, and this is where the PTSD comes from for those that shoot others in the line of duty. During war time the military specifically works to dehumanize the enemy soldiers. This is why they often have nicknames for enemy soldiers that lets you lump them all together; "Charlie", "Gerry", "Japs" and such; or derogatory names, "Towelhead", "Chink", "Commies", and such. They do not want you to identify with the enemy because if you suddenly come to realize that your situation is more or less mirrored on the other side with only minor philosophical or political differences that really only matter further up the chain of command you might hesitate to shoot. As long as your opponent seems distant from you and you fail to identify with them you can shoot them freely without any morality kicking in and causing you stress. For a soldier to shoot you need to make it "Us" and "Them" and keep anything they have in common to a minimum but that also leads to atrocities again the opposing forces because when the other side is not human many people don't care what happens to them. This is what happens in games. You do not empathize with your opponents in the game because they are not a person but a game object/construct and they get to come right back into it. You don't empathise with the time and effort someone put into making it up to the NWAF. This is why "easy" game play makes people shoot other players more. When you struggle and then come to the enlightened realization that the other player also struggled to get there, you empathise with them and occasionally will hold off on shooting. Of course if there is no real struggle then there will never be that connection. This is where personalities and such separate because there is a subset of humanity that will empathise with how hard the other player had it and giggle as they pull the trigger and realize they just undid all that hard work. ------------------------------ Okay, outside all that the game really doesn't reward you for grouping up. Were this situation more real it would because having multiple people means some can sleep while others keep watch. It means if you are hurt someone can help you get back into functional condition. Multiple people, while having more mouths to feed, can employ tactics that make gathering/hunting food more effective. Mutual defense is also a huge thing. Yes, the game doesn't capture them... yet. Lets hope someday it can capture some of this and make grouping up more rewarding.

Get a job? I know... it's a lot to ask of someone to pay for their own crap. I rent a server from HFB Servers and I pay for it myself. I don't ask people to donate, not even my friends, I do it because I want a place to play where I know the admins won't cheat and/or alter the rules of the server to something I don't want to play. I don't try and make money off my server or even try and get the rental free by making others pay it. You are correct, what is ETHICAL and what is LEGAL are two very different things. Something being legal doesn't mean the person doing it isn't a total douchebag in every way imaginable. Yes we have no legal recourse so the only recourse we have is to discuss it and maybe make some of those who might have considered paying for such a thing rethink their purchase. If we don't support these people they won't be able to do it.

But wait.. the point was that it would have an impact on "KOS". You just stated it might have an impact on KOS then said "This is going to solve nothing." (after which both my grandmothers are yelling at me from the afterlife that you should have said, "This will not solve anything. "). It does alter some KOS, not the type that occurs not because the shooter is a douchebag who enjoys ruining other people's days nothing will change that, but those that hang out outside a town and "gear up" by shooting those that risked running through the town and taking what they found.

What I have found when I or friends are using a lot of melee is that all of us forget when we are hit to check and see if we need painkillers. You get hit a lot in Melee if you are not careful and since you never look down the sights you don't notice you are shaking and your "shot" is going all over the place. I do it and try to remind my friends to check for it. I'm constantly, "Crap I was hit." then switch to 1st person view and back to 3rd person view. It isn't such an issue when I'm on a 1st person view only server but most people play 3rd person as do my friends and there it is very easy to miss.

You are not going to get what you are looking for, simply because what you are looking for is a bunch of us to say, "Oh it's impossible it was found legitimately so it MUST have been a hacker." which is simply a lie. Here are a few ways someone could have found your helicopter: 1. They saw the direction you were headed the last time you flew it. Seriously. Many people set a way point and fly in a straight line toward their destination. With ONLY a compass if you are somewhere under their flight path you can get a rough heading and follow it. since most people go "as the crow flies" if they are headed toward the North and not something like NWAF they are likely headed home. Follow that path and you will probably find their camp. 2. They themselves were looking for an "out of the way" spot to set up camp. Seriously, this is one of the big reasons someone might be out in the middle of nowhere. When I want to set up camp and I am looking for a possible place to put a vehicle it is not in primary traffic lanes for the map. 3. They were "camp hunting" looking for vehicles. 4. They followed one of you back and waited for them to log off. 5. They stumbled across it. I had the happen once where I was trying to lose a zombie and tried to run through a set of trees and literally ran into a tent, as in "couldn't get around it and got hit by a zombie". I would never have seen that tent but for that. It really does happen that people are somewhere they normally wouldn't be because of some bizarre reason and stumble on things. Why would they take that and nothing else? 1. Very simply, "Helicopter! Oh wow! Crap I better not hang around long. I don't see anyone..." *panting as they run* "Holy crap! A helicopter, a helicopter! Outta here with my Helicopter!" They could have been literally so hyped up about taking the helicopter and so worried someone might be around that they ran straight to it and took off without checking he tents and other vehicles. 2. They did check the tents but you didn't have anything they needed. Maybe they did take something but it was so minor you didn't realize it. I know my friends and I don't track every bandage, 1911 mag, cooked mutton, Pepsi in our storage. 3. No one took it. Vehicles will sometimes despawn or will spawn in and then vanish. I had a ural that ended up overfull of stuff. One day it just vanished. We lamented the lose of the items and moved on. Then one day I was in camp during a server restart. I logged back in and our Ural was mysteriously there so I quickly grabbed a bunch of things out of it and hopped in and drove it like 2 meters then got out. It stuck around after that so the same thing might have happened to your helicopter. Sometimes on server resets the vehicle isn't placed exactly right and will bounce around and blow up. If you happened to be off for 2+ server resets your helicopter could have blown up and the wreck cleared.

Hey now... the base building in Epoch is a refreshing change. The only indestructible thing there are the safes so very little is actually "safe". There are only a few extra guns in vanilla Epoch and there "should be" the same amount of random vehicles but since they are all private servers you can find ones that are really bad and others that are really good. The one thing I don't like is that Armored SUVs can random spawn but I am going to be going through the vehicle list someday soon on my own server and eliminating the most game breaking vehicles. I am somewhat tempted to limit everything to unarmed/civilian vehicles.

You are just a Negative Nelly aren't you... or maybe Cynical Cyrus would better describe you. It looks like SA is adding in some of the hard coded things to help discourage instant KoS. There are, however these type of people: Those guys and gals will hurt their own game to mess up others. Nothing will ever stop them from KOS. I get that, but there are a lot of others that will be given pause by item destruction and more difficult zombies.

Epoch gives you some reason to kill Zeds. Some of the items you really want are rare spawns from Zed Corpses. Worker zombies can drop hammer heads for Sledges or Combination Locks and both are used for crafting. Zeds in Buisness suits might drop a briefcase which you can then fill with 10oz Gold Bars. Once it has 10 in it can be used to buy some of the more expensive things from traders. Things like that. Gives me a reason to kill zeds instead of just running from them AND go back and search the bodies, just in case. In the SA where they won't immediately respawn on top of you clearing an area of Zeds so you can do a more focussed search and find the things others missed in their quick run through will make dealing with them a good idea and worth it. Giving some of them an appropriate possible spawn other than food/drink would also help. Doctor zombies having possible medical supplies, working having small industrial items, and such.