Leechman

--GIANT POST ALERT-- I'm sick of arguing about the need for bandits in a game like this and about the stupidity of punishing bandits. (I swear that's the last remark I'll make about it) So instead I'm taking up pointing out why every "solution" that I've seen is a bad way of going about business. This post will not be about the 'need' for PvP, but rather why all suggested methods are ineffective in their attempt to address the proposer's "problem". This post is also not suggesting that any changes be made, rather addressing inadequacies in current proposals, as well as (hopefully) reducing the number of threads that devolve into pointless arguments about the inclusion of PvP and the need for punishments. For the record, I am not, nor have I ever been a bandit. The only player I have killed was accidentally hitting a buddy of mine in a zombie engagement, and I did not drop to negative humanity. I am all for the uninhibited bandit playstyle as it stands in the game currently, and believe it adds a large amount of immersion, challenge and freedom to a great game. Anyway, to business: Firstly, almost every thread I've seen proposing a 'solution' are punishments, in one form or another, of varying severity. I don't think I've actually seen a thread asking for the complete removal of PvP, but rather addressing the poster's desire to discourage excessive or indiscriminate banditry. The specific sphere of banditry shifts slightly from suggestion to suggestion, but mostly seems to focus on those who choose to kill for fun, rather than for resource gain("extreme banditry"). The argument of whether PvP should be allowable is irrelevant. Secondly, every single one of these 'solutions' have been proposals that affect ALL players who choose a low humanity/bandit play style AFTER they have already committed to it. I say ALL because most, if not all proposals I have seen thus far, base the 'solution' off the humanity counter, which, while being a useful and interesting tool in the game, is ineffective to base a system of deterrence on. Any punishment adversely affects (beyond the intended targets) those who became a bandit by accident or self-defence, for example. Furthermore, it limits the ability of such players, as well as those who chose the bandit playstyle, to switch from low humanity/a bandit playstyle to high humanity/a survivor playstyle, because they are being adversely affected by the implemented punishment. This occurs regardless of the severity of the punishment and is a detriment to the overall experience for the player and can influence their decision-making, possibly removing any emergent gameplay. Examples of ex post punishments: (not singling out suggestions, just giving examples) -Altering spawn points to favour high humanity survivors -Implementing new mobs that act aggressive towards low humanity players and passive to high humanity players. -Altering gear upon spawn to favour high humanity survivors -Altering loot chances/rarity to favour high humanity survivors -Implementing a new gameplay feature to adversely affect low humanity players. The better solution would be to use simple, already existing gameplay mechanics (i.e. zombies) to discourage 'extreme banditry' BEFORE it occurs. Don't take anything away, or play favourites, just increase the risk of certain generalised gameplay aspects. Zombies already exist in the game and are the PERFECT tool if you want to discourage extreme banditry. By altering zombie mechanics and behaviour in certain situations you can increase the risk associated with extreme banditry and effectively reduce the number of players who participate in such behaviour with far less deadweight loss for the community as a whole. Furthermore, 'solutions' that utilise zombies as an ex ante deterrent are fair to all playstyles - increasing risk/danger for all players, not targeting those with low humanity for punishment. Examples: -Zombies that become more attracted to gunfire, perhaps on an increasing scale (i.e. the more gunfire within a certain period the greater the aggro radius for the person firing). This would discourage, and effectively reduce, the amount of indiscriminate firing by all players. Furthermore it would increase immersion, and encourage more thoughtful use of ammo in a crisis. -You could spawn more zombies in near to a player if X number of shots were fired within Y seconds (this basis is just an example and would have to be balanced per weapon). Once again, this discourages indiscriminate firing and instead of punishing it, it actually encourages directed, considered firing something which is important for all players and immersion. -You could also improve the rate at which zombies which are aggro'd onto one player will switch to another if he is also firing nearby or within a certain radius. Or perhaps even transferring zombies once their target player is dead. The aim of this would be to reduce PvP ambushes whilst one player is being attacked. It would also, however encourage and foster teamwork in the face of adversity as both players would need to fight together to fend off the horde, or risk taking them all on solo, adding to immersion. -You could spawn zombies around a player who has not moved or moved a small amount (I believe the servers can track distance moved?) in a certain period of time or perhaps a certain period of time after firing a weapon. This would be aimed at reducing camping behaviours. It would also encourage players to consider their movements (or lack thereof) and add a danger element to going AFK in a bush (something which would definitely be highly dangerous in a real zombie apocalypse :P) -You could increase military zombie spawns around players who are frequently (X shots within Y seconds again, balanced for weapon type/firing rate) firing military-grade weapons. More often than not, it is likely that a bandit will carry this type of weapon, but this would increase the risk for all players who use such weapons. Ammo for those weapons tends to be more valuable due to the rarity and military zombies are more difficult to kill giving incentives for players to be more mindful of their ammo use and increasing the marginal risk of choosing to shoot at a player or a zombie. These are just some examples of ways that gameplay challenge and immersion could be improved while discouraging prevalence of extreme banditry or poor playing. They don't unfairly favour one playstyle over another. Instead they affect all players and give them greater choice and challenge about pursuing different playstyles, giving better immersion and gameplay experience. Furthermore, they don't limit switching between playstyles because they are based on how you are playing in the moment, not how you have acted previously, giving freedom of choice. As I mentioned earlier, I'm not providing these as suggestions for changes to the game, but rather providing suggestions on how to change your mindset for addressing, and providing 'solutions' for the 'problem' you see with certain playstyles. An ex ante method of deterrence is far, far better than an ex post punishment at addressing the issue and achieving the desired effect without adversely affecting by-standers (self-defence bandits or those who wish to change playstyles). Limiting choice through punishment is detrimental to an individual gameplay experience in a game such as this, and can affect the game as a whole. Instead use the existing mechanics to increase the risk of decidedly risky behaviours. Remember if you choose to reply that this post was about methods of enacting 'solutions' not about whether they are needed. Apologies for giant post, but I needed to get it off my chest. Thanks for reading (if you took the time :D) TL;DR: Ex ante deterrents > ex post punishments. Please change your thought process.

ACRE compatibility has been discussed before, use the search function.

But thats the problem with your idea. You're placing rules around having a female character, limiting or disadvantaging people who choose to play as a female character. This is the same as any other bandit 'solution'. Imposing restrictions does not lead to fun, emergent gameplay. Comparing it to real life is irrelevant. Leave it as an aesthetic difference.

The issues with tents atm are that they are single server bound and sometimes unstable. There is a plan, for characters to become server bound, removing the issues with tents being server bound. The Stability issue is one that they are working on, and have fixed for some. I don't think they need any changing.

Ignoring any potential sexism, your idea is bad because you will be forcing a certain playstyle on players. You suggested giving female characters bonuses to staying in a single camp, and limit their ability in the field. This is the same sort of suggestion as imposing restrictions on bandits. Just because a player prefers a female character model, does not mean that they want to stand still for hours on end just to light fires, cook meat and do laundry.

You and me both...

Not sure if troll :/ And please, no.

I have no idea if it's feasible, but I disagree with this idea. Part of the risk/reward balance of tents is that someone else can take your stuff when your not around (even offline). The fact that its persistent to a server would also be to stop exploitation of server hopping for loot spawns.

Perhaps it was just bad luck on your part. I have seen plenty of medical supplies spawn in on ground-floor-accessible areas. I'd suggest that you always carry a spare set of medical supplies in the future, just in case. ;)

Other people have had this idea. Please use the search function before posting.

Many people have had this suggestion before. Please use the search function before posting.

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=8404 Seems to be now in the process of being fixed.

Been getting this since 1.6(.0.1). I'm aware it's a server-side issue, however, the message pops up on every server I have tried, and the chat indicates that there are people online and playing.

I'm scared mommy. :-/

I lol'd In all seriousness it could be quite a cool thing, but it may get painful to be stuck knee-deep in snow for months on end. I dunno

lol nice drawing :P Not sure how well it would work with the engine though :/

I don't post in the stories thread but I do like to read it. having a dedicated sub-forum would be a good way to encourage more detailed or chaptered stories. /support

The other night I was on a server and saw 5 people get killed who claimed it happened BEFORE they spawned in. If this is an issue, it definitely needs something to help stop it.

You hear a helicopter overhead and your first thought is to go prone behind a bush.

I'm not sure about this. rocket posted once saying that the zombies aren't actually dead. It might be better to wait for the back story to be announced to see if something like this would fit.

Perhaps he's not carrying beans? Not that I'm actually for the idea, though.

Only if you don't plan ahead.

I have, and there's always the threat of such a situation. Luckily I always have strategic plans for combat engagements that counter the incoming numbers and give me a chance to recuperate and refocus. The fact that it is a constant, unavoidable threat is a GOOD thing. It encourages the player to think strategically about how they proceed to operate in dangerous areas.

I disagree with this idea. It just seems unnecessary to me.

Other people have had this suggestion. Please use the search function before posting.