Leechman

A good suggestion OP. Not sure how it would actually fare in-game, but I would like to at least play test it.

Regardless of the number of female players of this mod, I would like to see the option of female survivors purely for realism/immersion.

Ok, I'll ignore the whole argument about whether or not there needs to be a punishment for banditry and look at it from your point of view. You're not trying to remove banditry, you're trying to make it more challenging to do effectively, and discourage indiscriminate killing. Your proposal to this is to punish ALL the players choosing a low humanity (bandit) playstyle, not just your target group, by adversely affecting the respawn locations of ALL bandits. From this view, the biggest problem I see with your proposal is that you are implementing the deterrent AFTER the undesired banditry has occurred, utilising a system that directly targets the playstyle of ALL players who have acted as bandits in the past. If someone wants to switch playstyles it becomes hard because they are stuck with the adverse affects whist trying to remove their past 'indiscretions'. The better solution would be to use simple gameplay mechanics (i.e. zombies) to discourage indiscriminate banditry BEFORE it occurs. Don't take anything away, just increase the risk of certain generalised gameplay aspects. Gator's idea was along the correct path for a 'solution'. 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) are a good deterrent to your stereotype of "15 year olds running around spraying bullets". You could spawn more zombies in if X number of shots were fired within Y seconds, reducing "spraying" and encouraging directed, considered firing. 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 or within a certain radius. This would reduce PvP gunfights whilst one player is being attacked. You could target camping behaviour by spawning 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. You could increase military zombie spawns around players who are frequently (X shots within Y seconds again) firing military-grade weapons as bandits tend to carry these weapons. Ammo for those weapons tends to be more valuable due to the rarity and military zombies are more difficult to kill, acting as a deterrent to "spraying". These ideas would be far more effective at achieving your ideal of increasing the challenge for those who wish to pursue continuous bandit behaviour while discouraging indiscriminant killing. 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. 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. Also, please stop using your "15 year old immature CoD player"/"CoD deathmatch" references and your judgements on real life apocalypses scenarios. The first is inappropriate, offensive and irrelevant and only detracts from your arguments. The second is highly opinionated, has no factual evidence and also irrelevant.

/sign

Pretty sure rocket said somewhere that he was against the idea of putting achievements in the game as it adds a set of rules or goals. Can reduce emergent gameplay.

Lol chill your beans before a bandit steals them. I'm sure they were referring to the Australian "timezone" in a broad sense. Given that Aus/NZ happens to be quite separate with playtimes. If not and they were being selectively racist, well lol. It's a gaming group and they can restrict it however they want. GL suing them for discrimination.

People need more situational awareness :(

/sign +1 for zumbi :D

I've said this before elsewhere: DayZ is not a Zombie Survival Game. It is a Post-Apocalyptic Survival Game, with Zombies. PvP is a feature.

You're dead. How do you propose to control who loots your dead body?

It's an unfair outcome no matter how you look at it. Rewarding one playstyle and deliberately ignoring and not equally rewarding another would be poor design.

1. Some people carry more, some people carry less, it's a personal preference. Comparing it to current military standards is irrelevant as we are not 'soldiers in Iraq' - that is, we are not serving in a well-supplied military. We are, instead, scavenging and doing whatever we can to survive. 2. I'm indifferent to this. Realism can go too far. 3. As it should be. The military would have cleaned out their stores to mobilise to the threat. Furthermore, these are the best weapons in the game. Scarcity is important to maintaining a balance with that power. 4. I'm also indifferent to this. It would have to implemented as part of the talent/skill system. For the non-Military Grade weapons I feel there is too much around. Look at the ridiculous amount of Lee Enfield/Winchester ammo that spawns it is a poor representation of a scarce-resource survival scenario such as this.

I believe this is a server option. I also believe it is a horrible idea.

Rewarding one playstyle while ignoring another is the same as implementing a punishment.

For some, not for others. More people around you leads to greater numbers of unknown factors. Some may choose to avoid other people at any cost, even killing them on sight to avoid future complications. Agreed, Non-Gucci Gun ammo is far too abundant and it would be nice to see alterations of loot spawn chances for things like that as well as food/drink. But this is early alpha, we're testing the systems. The game isn't supposed to be fun at the moment. See: Saying a playstyle is anti-fun is silly. Let's explore this. In real life you have incentives to not kill people. These stem from things like social stigma' date=' established legal deterrents and punishments, religious or moral beliefs and lack of means. In this scenario: There are no legal deterrents/punishments, because there is no legal system in place. There is no social stigma surrounding murder because there is no society. There is no lack of means as weapons are readily available if you know where to look. The only thing remaining as an incentive not to kill someone here is personal morality and beliefs. Your morality might tell you to co-operate, other's morality might tell them to be extreme in ensuring their survivability by killing everyone in sight, not just for resource gain. Just because you don't believe in it, doesn't make it invalid. Try to be more open-minded. Have you thought this is because the player doesn't want to co-operate with others? Just because you don't believe in it, doesn't make it invalid. This is simply because no-one has tried to unify the survivors against the bandits. People have managed to control and lock down entire cities. It just takes the right attitude and some determination. Rewarding one playstyle but ignoring the other is the same as straight up punishing the other. This would only be a good idea if you rewarded in a balanced and fair manner all styles of gameplay. But then we'd be back to square one and people would be complaining about getting killed by another player once more.

Nope. The game is about survival. Nothing more, nothing less. Co-operation is a playstyle that arises out of a need for survival. Much the same as Banditry is a playstyle that arises out of a need for survival. The way you might play is not the only way to survive. Just a side note from this that made me laugh. The only time I have died to a bandit is when I was in a group of 4. The key thing with your 'prey' argument is the 'run'ning. Try stealth. I mean seriously try it, go all out stealth. You'll find that you become nobody's prey. ...except for maybe that dead silent crawler zombie that spawns right next to you... >.>

I recall reading somewhere that it was on the list of things to implemented for testing soon

You thought wrong. It's about survival. I guess one out 2 isn't that bad. There already is a consequence. It's the loss of ammo you used to kill that person. Like all other PvP complainers you are complaining about the playstyle' date=' not the fact that PvP is in the game. PvP is a feature, there does not need to be ramifications from killing other players, just because they choose a different playstyle to you. The game is designed so that players can make up their own rules in regards to things like this. Don't like someone killing other players? Form a group that hunts bandits and try to uphold some sense of law and justice, or stop playing. Don't come on the forums and complain about a the playstyles of others which are perfectly within the bounds, and theme, of the game. I don't even. It's a Post-Apocalyptic, scarce resource, survival scenario. Are you actually, seriously saying that the idea of someone killing someone else to take their resources is immersion breaking?

This. A thousand times for every anti-pvp thread, this.

Awesome ideas. However, I disagree with the idea of basing Mental Hallucinations off of Humanity. Instead have it develop as a disease if the character gets knocked out by a zombie attack or passes out at below 3000 blood or something.

I understand what you're trying to do, but rewarding one group and not rewarding the other is much the same as a punishment. If there could be a way of rewarding both (bandit/survivor... I'm generalising :) ) playstyles in a manner that's balanced and fair then it would be a good result. (We'd also be more or less where we are now) However such a system would be very hard to balance perfectly...

/clap