WBK

Try. Otherwise everyone else calls bullshit. Stop trying to use big words and say something worthwhile. Something that isn't "humans enjoy killing" with no evidence to support it. Whatever you're trying to say makes no sense. If killing is primal, as everyone agrees, where does risk/reward factor into this? You need to stop saying this. He mentioned he felt euphoric because he was still alive. It wasn't about something trivial like winning or losing. That's the problem with your argument style. Stop taking things out of context and making them into absolutes. Also, just because exceptional cases display feelings of elation and euphoria after killing, does not make it so for all people. You must justify this. Actually not a bad paragraph, I have no qualms here.

See, how hard was that? That is a fairly reasonable response, not backed by sources but at least you explained your point calmly and used what anyone could assume was established knowledge in the field of psychology. For once you acknowledged there is two sides to the coin, and I'd be happy to give you beans if you hadn't comprehensively shat me up the wall for the last hour. You've finally reached the counterargument stage, how does it feel? EDIT: I thoroughly re-read your post and realised you hadn't changed anything...

Ozelot you claim to be an expert in psychology, touting your knowledge by sprouting random conjecture. I don't doubt that you study it, and I don't doubt that you might actually know a few things. Studying something however, does not an expert make. I studied it for 3 years and wouldn't dare call myself an expert on the matter. Also, you have backed up literally nothing with facts, only with throwaway statements that are the bread and butter of the foolish. It's easy to say anything and pass it off as fact. It's another thing entirely to show us the proof. I'm not even shitting you, I literally want sources for every comment you make. Otherwise it's bullshit. The human psyche operates from the parameters of 'completely psychopathic' to 'completely altruistic' and everything in between, but just because you might be reading about someone on the fringes of lunacy doesn't mean that there aren't thousands more in the middle ground experiencing psychosomatic distress from killing or even witnessing killing. With regards to what Walking Wounded said, you couldn't be more childish by molesting what he said and turning it into something that fits your argument. I don't want to know why or how WW killed someone, but I do know you're a twit for just gleefully skipping around what he said and using it for your own sake. And as for that pyramid of yours, I suggest you take a look at it as well, you definitely haven't gone past the contradiction stage, and I would dare say you haven't even gotten that far. I was genuinely interested in this topic when you posted it, but now you've just turned it into a megaphone for drowning everyone else in your own opinion.

It's good to have a healthy argument! I applaud you for actually stating that something is opinion as opposed to fact. Too many people do otherwise. I don't think there should be a price for murdering. I don't play that way, I don't like it, and I think it's the 'wrong way' to play, but if someone can feasibly survive in the apocalypse killing other people while actively disregarding their own safety then all power to them. There is no palpable, tangible incentive to trust a player and that's the way it should be. Of course you can kill other players, or you can ignore them, whichever will assist you in surviving. But there will always be the potential for meeting up with a true friendly (that should be the interview with Van Halen btw), and because there is so much mistrust, whenever you find a friend or maybe just an accomplice it is so rewarding! It's not just carrots and sticks, but that's where the vast majority of activity happens. It's stupid to go up to someone yelling "I'm friendly", and it's wanton to KoS, so you just have to take what you can get with the utmost caution and ultimately trust your instincts. Your mastery of the English language has me sufficiently aroused and impressed. I've never seen or heard that word before!

Ozelot I honestly can't tell if you're a troll or someone who just likes to play Devil's advocate. We've all read history books. Know why they're filled with murder? Because kings wanted to kill other kings, and civilisations wanted to conquer other civilisations. Most acts of kindness occur in everyday life. No one wants to read about everyday life, because it's plain. But plain isn't bad, and people want and need plain. Otherwise there would be more murders than births, simple as that. I'll admit war fuels an economy and vice versa - especially a capitalist one - more than anything, but anarchy is not war. Anarchy is completely different. Anarchy far more closely resembles an apocalypse than any war would. Find a few well documented cases where anarchy has resulted in societal annihilation and I might change my view. But right now, with all these assumptions and snide remarks you just look like you're trolling a little too hard.

It's an interesting post, definitely one that requires serious thought and not just an instant response. While the study of the general impact of anarchy has produced some fairly gruesome and distressing results, nothing much like a pure live or die scenario has really been documented. So most people are going to judge this based on two perspectives: literature (by which I'm including media and cinema) and personal. I think most people would say "oh I couldn't kill anyone", and I'm the same, although all previous thoughts and attitudes are thrown out the window when faced with a situation that doesn't resemble what we know and expect from life. However, OP's comment that people retrogress into baser instincts is exaggerated. There are people with a passion for killing: Baron von Richtofen and Richard Kuklinski are names off the top of my head. But these people aren't the norm, and in this sort of scenario he isn't even talking about those types of people. He's referring to people who kill for personal gain. As I'll show in my post, I think people will realise soon that there is not much to be gained from killing others. While survival is the strongest instinct, humans also have an unbelievable capacity to care and nurture - both of which are essential to survival. My impression of what would happen, based on the variety of sources I know: I think the immediate reaction to an outbreak would be quite similar to that seen in lots of movies (i.e. I Am Legend). Chaos. Nothing but chaos. People wanting to leave with only one goal. In those first few days, nothing would matter apart from leaving the area, trying to get to safety. It's the most basic survival reflex of those without a plan or an overwhelming advantage: flee. People would throw money at anyone who could get them to a green zone. For those that don't manage to get away, the survival instinct switches to the next option, prepare. It's the famous fight-or-flight response. I imagine this is the period in which the most killing would happen - maybe not intentional, but in this stage more than any, people are scared because they don't know what the exact problem is. Fear is a strong impulse, one of the strongest, and it would literally flick a switch in people that initiates a free-for-all, me-first mentality. People would be fighting for the best gear, locations, buildings, strongholds, anything that they feel could give them an advantage. People would fight to mainly to protect and earn things they think give them an advantage in preparing for whatever is coming. After the initial outbreak is where I'm most lost. I can't see any studies or find much help at all from literature (they usually cut to '2 years later' in movies at this stage...). However my guess is this is when a lot of communities are formed. Once people are aware of the extent of the problem, the fear instinct is almost removed. People would want to rebuild society, get back to their normal lives, start trusting people again. They'd be objectively aware of strength in numbers. It'd be like the Kevin Bacon Gambit; I trust my friends, they trust their friends, and they trust their friends. We can all get together and stay strong. People would stay in packs, possibly even one large pack for each town. If you are staying in one place, the larger the group the better. In this stage, people would have the most trust in others. They don't know whether it will end soon, they saw the horrors of people trying to escape and they would desperately want to trust people. People would be really eager to work with and help others. People might see a few zombies and kill them, but it would still be a raw experience. After groups have been formed, I imagine that soon after people will discover who is to be trusted, who is to be removed from the group. I think in this stage most people will become desensitised to killing. They've had to kill or seen people die that they used to know, and they know it's an accepted part of life now. Communities will form hierarchies, and because hierarchies are the basis for civilisation, there will not be too much killing between or inside communities. Group leaders will talk to other group leaders, and work together while maintaining a healthy mistrust for those outside the group. What happens next is (moreso than anything I've said yet) pure conjecture. People might split up and form smaller and smaller groups and become increasingly isolated, or they might understand the concept and success of a community-based lifestyle. A few simple turning points, like a death here or an infection there could literally change the landscape of an apocalyptic environment forever. People will eventually grow weary of living inside a community, some will embrace it. It is how the community deals with it that determines the world in which they will live. I imagine larger groups would stick together better, purely because of majority rules. If you're a group of 5 disagreeing with 100 other people, you're going to stay. If that same group disagrees with only 20, there's every chance bloodshed will follow. So if anarchy reigns, then there is a fair chance that bloodshed will ensue. If there is order, that chance is substantially lower. It's as simple as that. My guess? After the initial hysteria, people would understand that working in groups is best. Smaller towns and communities would deal with it the worst, purely because of low numbers. Large cities the best. Safety in numbers! But if we skip straight to a DayZ scenario, with wandering survivors, I imagine there would be small tightknit groups that keep to themselves. Trading would be essential but minimal, and people would own territories of the land. Obviously some people would have better land; i.e. those in the country could sustain themselves, and this could cause territory wars, but I don't think there would be much 1v1 at all. Being a lone wolf would be very difficult to survive, and those that do would stay well out of the rest of society's way. TL;DR - go stuff yourself! I put work into typing this, you can put work into reading it.

I don't. CZ550 is my weapon of choice, but as I'm a lone wolf and don't like killing other players for fun, I have to stay on the move. Yeah it's my primary, but that's because it's a rifle with a scope; I can see people from over a kilometre away, track their movement, fire warning shots if necessary, and maybe fire a death shot if no other choice. I don't use a sniper to engage from distance, I use it to observe from distance and make sure no one comes too close.

This is what I think of the humanity system.

Poster above, I think you'll cop a fair bit of flak for wanting NPC's, so for what it's worth, I won't shout at you. That being said, NPC's would ruin immersion. You know they're either going to be friendly or evil, and if for some weird reason the devs made them and coded them so they acted randomly, the community wouldn't accept that sort of randomness from an NPC. IF (ctrl+b,i,u ftw) they were implemented, I think they'd act as an extermination group: soldiers sent by the army to rid Chernarus of the infection once and for all. Friendlies could work also, but it'd be too much of a help to fresh spawns. Regardless of how good they might be though, they would destroy immersion. Firstly, they wouldn't react to a dynamically evolving situation. Secondly, they'd be great shots; too good in fact. Finally, it's an MMO. NPC's are defined by coding. Real players are defined by nothing - apart from that silly humanity system. That's what makes this game so great. NPC's would take a lot more than they could give to the game.

Yeah. Your idea is pretty good, and if we have to have a psycho-social system in place, then I definitely think something like this is the way to go. But I just don't like these kind of playstyle influencers, so I'm actually going to say no. This isn't a negative post though, as I said great idea, but I just don't like the whole concept of artificial systems.

I couldn't disagree more with the OP. I don't think Humanity substantially affects KoS either way. It lets people know who is and who isn't a murderer, sure, but that just means people either go out to specifically hunt bandits or stay away from them. So I don't think removing it will make a large impact on the KoS community. I don't even want it to be removed until SA. But when SA comes along, I really hope the Humanity system is gone. Why? It artificially impacts on playstyle. It makes people aspire to be heroes or bandits. Once someone is a bandit, there's not much point in trying to be friendly because everyone wants to kill you, so you just adopt the new playstyle. Heroes are at least something worthwhile to try to be, but I still think they're ridiculous. You can spam bloodbag your way to heroism, and then you have to wear that ridiculous bright clothing. People might say that spam-bagging or some such is just an exploit, it'll get ironed out. It might, but people will always find a way to exploit the system. If there's no system, they can't exploit it. If there's no system, then they have to make one for themselves, which is how it should be. Especially with the advent of player customisation in the SA, I hope the clothing of heroes/bandits are gone. How cool would it be if there was a clan who frequented your server, and they all wore the same clothes? Imagine some badass KoS clan who all wore black leather, or maybe a medic clan who all wear white clothes. I'd be genuinely scared of the black leather crew, and I'd know if I needed help I'd look out for the white-clothed people. Clan identification is cool, because you'll truly know what they're about, and it gives them a sense of pride and belonging to be with that clan. That's not artificially impacting playstyle, that is the environment and the society influencing playstyle, which is fine, awesome even. Playstyle identification is not cool, because one bandit could be totally different from the other, but yet we're giving them all the same label, shoehorning them into some decisions they did not want to make. EDIT: Also, some bandits want to be tricksters. How on earth do you trick anyone except noobs with a bloody turban on? I want real bandits to lure me in, make me trust them and then steal my gear or possibly kill me. That would make me respect 'bandits' and have a healthy level of respect for every player, not some predetermined idea just because of some clothes they're forced to wear. TL;DR - I really hope humanity is gone by the SA

Might as well not have lone wolfing as a sanity detractor then... Alright, so here's my full appraisal! I'm really torn as to whether I want this in the game. I like this more than 'humanity', but I'm not sure if humanity needs replacing or removing. Let's assume I want this in the game, review it all, then decide if I still want it. I think all the actions for lowering sanity are about right. As mentioned above, I like my own idea :D for sanity on lone wolf players. I don't think removing it would be good because the way I interpreted it makes sense for player interaction and lone wolves. Killing people is a good one also, obviously if you kill someone it's going to come back and haunt you eventually. And washing/grooming makes sense, although I hope you don't have to keep your hair short, I do want a dude with some huge ponytail and beard at some point. The ideas for gaining sanity look alright too, although it's a bit too similar to humanity. I'm pretty sure they're kind of the only actions you could actually use to implement sanity, so not really sure here. The ideas for actually losing your mind are flat out cool. I don't want the visual effects - too much FPS usage, too much distraction, and everyone would just disable post-process as a lot already do - but the sound effects would be so wicked. I've wanted to hear voices in my head in DayZ for a long time! Random gunshots, random voices, bushes moving. That would make this game so scary again, especially at night! I'm pumped just thinking about it.... If it was implemented, I don't think that having a lower sanity rating should influence how often the effects take place. I think it should just be a measure of how severe they are. All in all, I'm a bit iffy about sanity. It makes more sense than humanity, but as NoFace said, something like this is quite arbitrary and influences player behaviour artificially. I think we should drop these psycho-systems that affect social behaviour altogether. It's the sort of thing that seems great at the time, but people only really look at the positive effects it will have on gameplay, not negative. I really would love to hear voices and gunshots in DayZ though, find a new way to implement those and I'll give you all my beans!!

Excellent post. I haven't read it all but I will soon. On the note of Lone Wolfing - as I am such a player - I think perhaps that short-term, your sanity would go down, which I think is fair. After a while, you get used to being alone, and perhaps being alone after 3 to 7 days for example, you actually gain sanity from being alone. Obviously IRL, it would take a lot longer to cope with being alone, maybe not at all, but we can't work with a realistic large scale time frame. This will encourage player interaction (by increasing sanity at start game by being around friendly people), without harming the lone wolf style of play. If you find a group though, your sanity reduces to neutral if you hang out with them, to 'adjust' to being in a community again, before rising back up. You'll know I've finished your post when I give you beans ;)

This should be the ethos of DayZ. I'm with you that we don't need more weapons - perhaps more low grade, but definitely we don't need more high grade weapons. But I don't think that zombie animations and human animations are pointless, they add immersion. If it doesn't look like I'm there, then I can't feel like I'm there. In the same vein, the fundamentals of the game like listed above are just as important. I don't think anything needs to take a backseat, every aspect is as essential as the other. With a team that seems to truly care about the community, I'm sure the final, full release of SA will be excellent. It's just a matter of how far away that is :P

I don't like this idea of suicide. If the lockout/suicide combo was implemented, everyone would suicide because there's an objective gain in doing so. I don't like the idea of lockout either in this scenario. I think lockout is a good idea. But this is just punishment/reward for its own sake, as opposed to adding any immersion in the game. I do eventually want to see suicide in the game, but it should be inserted in a way which is more realistic. All I see it as in this case is a time saver and a reward for people taking the easy way out. Cut outs are extremely frustrating. Although I did end up on the winning side of it once: I was running in the forest just north of Cherno, after I'd sniped a guy on top of the industrial buildings. I saw another guy, tried to run past him without getting seen. He saw me though, so I ran into a pine tree, where I hoped for the best. Then my PC shutdown because of a blackout, I logged back in 10 minutes later to the sound of him shooting me, but apparently I couldn't die yet, and as he was reloading I just killed him. I told him "unlucky buddy, that's why you don't shoot at strangers". On point though, I think lockouts do have a use. Yes I want to be able to play all the time, and so does everyone else. But you learn to value your life more the less you play. If I die on a good character and I'm bored, I'll just play for an hour, dying 4 or 5 times just waiting for a good spawn sometimes. I'd be better off if I was forced not to play for a short while. Valuing life is the biggest goal I think players and devs alike should be aiming for.

Yeah, climbing's next on my list of suggestions, as you said they're both immersion breakers. Hopefully this is all in by the early stages of the SA. I wouldn't think by the first release, but hopefully soon after.

Horatio Caine gave you beans

Appearance makes all the difference. If you hadn't said that you at some point logged/hopped, no one would've dissed you. Full disclosure doesn't get you points unless it's a worthwhile addition to what you're saying. Having said that, my actual advice is what StoneColdSteve said. I do what he does to a T.

Let me just say that I don't want KoS gone, I don't do it but it makes the game interesting. Imagine the complaints if people didn't KoS: "omg bro can u believe it I was running around Elektro when I bumped into someone and so I asked them if they wanted to team, but they said no!" "Did you kill him?" "Nah I don't do that?" "Did he kill you?" "Nah" "What's the problem?" "You wouldn't do that in an apocalypse!! So unrealistic, so unfair" "Dude, STFU" "I HATE BANDITS" Sorry, got a little sidetracked. What was I saying...? Oh yeah. Different play styles make it fun. So I don't think there should be any mechanic that forces people to play any certain way. Having said that, I think people don't value their lives enough in DayZ. One of the biggest reasons is the ability to loot your own body; I know I've used it as a fallback in the past. So I think SoulHunter's idea is the beginning of a good one. Maybe an hour is too much, maybe not. The humanity system is ridiculous though, it should be removed, not bolstered. And also you shouldn't respawn far from your body; that should remain random.

This has to be a joke right? Openly admitting to zombie logging and server hopping and saying it's only because the zombies are too frustrating to enjoy the game.... sheesh. If you really want my advice on how to deal with zombies in Stary, turn off DayZ. I don't like being an elitist asshole - I love it - but if this is not a joke then this game clearly isn't for you.

How is it lacking in purpose? It has clearly defined objectives set out in the first post, and it's had 2 genuine responses. Underwhelming? Sure. Purposeless? No way!

I'm bumping this for the penultimate time. Beans for use of the word penultimate? Or preferably more responses!

Someone (I think Rocket) said that the blood level was increased to 12000 so they could implement effects like bleeding and infection realistically outside of a warzone where you have relatively immediate medical help nearby. I don't mind it, 4500 would be too low IMO, because 2 shots from pretty much any gun, anywhere on your body would kill you. If the Revolver amd M1911 worked properly (they're supposed to do 4.5K dmg), they'd be 1 shot kill. A better system though is the hitbox system someone drew up. I can't find it b/c I'm on my phone but if you're interested look it up on the forums, it's a great idea. Essentially it removes blood almost altogether, but instead I akes into account zones on your body, and assigns a kill % based on the importance of that section on your body. Like if you get shot in the chest - where your heart is - it's like a 90% chance instakill. Something like that.

Ok. I've never seen it. I'll take your word for it.

Seriously though, who says clip? I'm not knocking you, I'm honestly wondering. I've only ever really heard people say mag.