hoik

Its all we ask :P Also: This really is a great achivement!

I agree that the current "humanity" system is clumsy. And personally I hate the idea of the game determiningi if your actions are "good" or "bad". (I'd rather use the terms "agressive" and "non-agressive".) But if you want to get rid of humanity as the indicator of your actions then you have to replace it with something else. If it were gone, there would have to be a way for players to at the least recogonise eachother as individuals, so that we can't act in almost total anonimity. This is obviously a lot harder to do than count kills and slap on a turban when the criteria is met.

I agree that simplicity is much more preferable for everyone involved (the coders through to the players) but I don't see how players can be recognised as individuals in dayz (especially the mod) without resorting to some sort of artifical mechanic that helps the player emulate this. I had once thought it would be interesting if each player was given a randomly generated code that would "describe" their face (eg: A2409t) then at certain distances you could recognise these "features" (yes, with floating tags :( ). Each players code would be unique to them, but there would also be slightly variations on this code each time you spawn (eg: A2408t) - like the variation of features within a particular family. I realise this isn't much different to nametags but because it is something that would be universally forced on the players it is something that can be trusted - the slight variation on the code means a player is not instantly reconised as soenso the bandit A-hole and helps maintain the illusion of death rather than reincarnation.

I completely agree. But I think this type of "memory" system could avoid this by only indicating if a person has been hostile towards you - without putting any label on the player (so you are not assuming their intentions). If info could then be shared and corelated about a single player, then maybe you could make a informed decision on who this player is. For me the need for long term information gathering is where this idea comes a bit unstuck - because not only are memories lost on death, so is that players "personality". So any info gathered on them will become redundant. How can a database be built on something that is constantly changing? EDIT: Just a thought, but if there were enough variaty in clothing/ custom faces to enable players to simply identify eachother on sight, then through the incarnate nature of death in DayZ, players would actually be able to unathentically retain knowledge about players they have met previous lives...

This is a horrible reply :P . To quote SeeJayPee Like I said in the other thread - this idea has alot going for it, not the least turning "knowledge" into a kind of currency that is intrinsicly linked to the players current life.

i admit, all those outcomes i mention could happen organically on their own, if you were able to identify players as individuals - ATM you can talk about your experiences with your friends, but there is no possibility of doing somthing about it (if you encounter that person again). The basis of this idea adds intrest to the game that doesn't rely on you playing the "imagination" game in your cardboard box - as much fun as that may be :) . Player identification is a must - if this can be done well visually then maybe a complex system like this is unneccessary. As far as I can tell the mod will never have complex individual visual indicators (I belive its because of technical limitations), so IMO there will have to be some other artifical means of associating player actions with their ingame avatars.

This will stop PvP as much (or as little :) ) as the bandit skin does. In no way does this idea infringe on the option of PvP - all it does is give the possiblilty that you may be associated with your actions - you may be talked about around camp fires - players may form posses to hunt you down and kill you! Then the slate is wiped and you start again... I can only see an idea like this enhancing the gaming experience for everyone involved!

I meant that clothing options may be a tool that can help differentiate one player from another (if there are enough variations/combinations), which is what the stand alone will have - but the fact that clothing options could be a simple soloution is invalid when talking about the mod. (open wide, here comes the aeroplane brrraaawwww!)

lol - Personally i dont see the issue with creating tools that help players identify eachother, as currently there is no intuitive way to identify people you have met before (from a safe vantage point). Being able to recognise a "character" that has previously tried to kill you or your friends seem very plausable - that is a face you would rememver. It is no less realistic than everyone looking the same and being able to act in total annonimity. The problem is everyone essentially looks the same - there is no way to discribe one player to another. This may be true for the stand alone - not the mod.

Sorry, but how does this NOT take into consideration perma death?? I wouldn't listen to the haters too much, IMO you're concept is very interesting - you just didn't take the time (qute understandably) to spoon feed it to this community. Knowledge sharing is a very interesting concept (Here are some simular threads: http://dayzmod.com/f...-communication/ , http://dayzmod.com/f...y-i-know-you/ ). A side benifit of retaining knowledge through a single life is that it becomes a kind of currency that is unique to the player - this in turn gives the player an intrinsic value that can not be plundered (in any conventional manner :) ). This is very cool. Honestly I don't know where all this negativity is coming from, but im guessing because the TL;DR uses the words "reduce PvP" (which, apparantly, is sacralige :( ) everyone got a hardon and started spewing up hate. Really, all you want is people to think about their actions by having authentic concequences for them.

For me, this is not detremental to the idea but enhances it. Being able to have a subtle, long term, mechanic that uses the communal actions of the players - to create global concequence - will give everyones actions value, not only for themselves but also everyone around them - that is why IMO, this type of idea has more potential as a core device for creating authenticity in dayZ, and not just a novilty/event (thought I think that it could also work well as a event :) ). This might be a silly annalogy, but I'll give it a go anyway :) . We the players are the director of our story, we define the narative, but - like in film - there is a whole lot more to creating a interesting and immersove story than simple direction. For example a cinamatographer can have a huge influence on how a movie feels, and he/she does this on a almost subcontious level. This is how I relate this idea to dayZ.

Brainstorm anyone? What I'd like is some alternative suggestions to just outright killing the server when the "clock" hits midnight, something thats is less final than a server reset but just as undesirable - the idea is to keep the game in play so as not to loose its dynamic quality. (Im not really concerned how they would be implemented - just want some ideas) A couple I thought of: * Airborne Epidemic (based on rockets disease idea) - all the death and chaos brings about a widespread epidemic. * Military Purge - Due to all the chaos and violence the area has brought the attention of the millitary on itself. * (based on FaustianQ's version) all clans are disbanded - it is free-for-all for a set amount of time. More suggestions welcome!

I agree, this makes sense. But like chabowski said, if a metagaming clan were to dominate a server, they would in effect kill it. These are some interesting points. In regards to this: I don't think you can discount the selfishness/shortsightedness of players, especially in a arena like dayZ, where you are in no way associated with your actions. I relate it to something like smoking - we all know its bad for our health, but many of us indulge in it to varying degrees anyway. Its easy to do and makes us feel good on the short term - we know the long term effects, but brush these aside for the here and now. This is a good point - I'll have to have a think about this. I understand where you're comming from, and it is a good addition to this suggestion. But does a "victory" condition give too much direction to the game (any more than a "loose" condition)? The thing is - with my "loose" condition everyone looses out, whilest the "win" condition everyone looses out - but for the winning clan. I suppose this makes sense though - if you were the group who put the most effort into dragging people back to civilisation - you would have some perks in that said society. I think there is potential here - just unsure how to make it fit (my ideals :P ). Cool and cool - I really like both of these outcomes. For me, the pottential of your take on this idea would hinge on how factions are made/organised. I remember reading a threat where it was suggested that the use of particular items/locations might be how factions could be formed within DayZ. Agree with your sentiment. I think the best thing about this idea is the potential for it to be all inclusive - fot those people who choose to take on the bigger picture as well as those whose only interest is the chaos.

Server 'Death' - the end game to end games. This idea is aimed at creating the 'realistic' outcome of excessive PvP (eg: the death of humanity) while giving tools/systems to struggle against this outcome. I have tried to keep it fun, intuitive and asexual. (My thought was directed this cinlusion by these two posts on creating 'family' : http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=27409 , http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=22300 ) THE COMPLEX VERSION The complex version involves children as they are the key for human survival - This is a FACT (though I look forward to see how people disagree :) ) For clarity my view of a "child" (in regards to DayZ) is around 12-14yrs old, they are old enough to handle themselves but still vulnrable. If PvP of characters this age is too contrversial for some (mostly the cencors I think) the age could be 'offically' 18 (because thats a nice clean line in the sand for some...) HOW TO 'have' CHILDREN A ratio (1:10 maybe)of players will be randomly chosen to spawn as a child. The Debuff A child is requires to eat times 'X' (this is ballancing) more often than 'adults'. I think this debuff is most benificial for encouraging group activity around a child. Of course a child could have many debuff's (eg: can only use sidearms effectivly, less stamina etc.) but for simplicity I am sticking with the ONE. The Buff The buff a child will have is to be the only 'character' in game to designate other players as 'friendly' - This turns off friendly fire (FF) for the child against those that they put 100% faith/trust in (but not for the trustee against the child). For me this is realistic because only a CHILDS MIND can truly place this much trust in another person. THIS IS THE ONLY GUARANTEE OF NON PVP IN THE GAME - THIS IS WHERE ITS VALUE LIES Of course a child could have many buff's (eg: give a health boost to friendly , longer food timer etc) but for simplicity I am sticking with the ONE. Opt-Out For those that would hate this you can opt out by respawn/sucide, but will be bringing humanity one step closer to extinction (I know, you really don't care :) )- I don't hate you for this. If pure PvP is your goal, do it - I want you to! You bring the balance to the game! (you are darth vader and I am luke skywalker!) So this is how 'children' could be implemented into the game. I think a ratio of 1:10 is nice because it would resonable (I hope) to think that at LEAST 1 in 10 people who play the game do so as somthing else than a sandbox deathmatch. HOW CAN CHILDREN SHAPE THE FATE OF A SERVER? They'll do it in the exact same way that they shape humanities fate in real life. HOW All that is required is a very simple 'ticket' system that is associated to a 'Child' character. EG: ChildTicket = 50 and on a child spawning the ChildTicket = ChildTicket - 2 So then when the "Ticket" counter reaches 0 no more children will spawn - and by extention all players that now die do so FOREVER (they are locked out of that server) till the last man is left and then the server is resets. THIS IS PERMA-DEATH! Players can logout but are then LOCKED OUT of the server till it resets, if they logout they leave an empty slot that anyone can log into (and then the same rules apply to them) - but if they DIE that slot is removed till the server resets. A SIDE NOTE: There should be no cudos for being the last man alive (stats/leaderboard) because this IS THE END OF HUMANITY - there will be no one left to brag to! EXTENTION OF THE IDEA To save the last two people hunting down each other across 200km2 + area I'd propose an imediate count down timer when child 'tickets' hit zero (5hrs maybe) till the server resets. HOW CHILDREN CAN SAVE US (For those that WANT to save us ) 'Child' characters cost 2 tickets per spawn but also have the ability to ADD TICKETS to the counter. It'll work like this: The game checks the current life expectancy of players on the server WHEN THE CHILD SPAWNS. If the child lives 2* the average life expectance (ALE) then they add 1 point to counter. If the child lives 4* the ALE they add an additional 2 points to the counter and graduate to adulthood - that is they become a 'normal' character and loose all buffs/debuffs. By associating points to ALE this will (hopefully) ballance the difficulty of maintaining child 'tickets' on chaotic/quite servers (that is you will have to live less time on a server with a low ALE and a longer time on one with a high ALE to gain points ) This is 'logical' as well as have great side effects, such as: - being a great way to prevent child "hording" for buffs - makes being a child a temporary inconvenience. - could lead to groups banding and disbanding because of a child. THE SIMPLE VERSION This type of 'ticket' loss/gain could be implemented to be effected by everyone in the game, without the need for 'child' mechanics, but would need to be ballanced differently and IMO would lack alot of the 'moral/social' impact of having children in the game. IN CONCLUSION The best thing this would give to the game is a least ONE definate over arching END GAME, make group play vital, dynamic and fun for civil minded players and retain and enhance chaos for those who dont want to take the game so seriously. YOU CHOOSE to save or damn humanity!

Yeah, and thats a very cool nuance of dayZ: Doing things because of your own personal code. But I guess for myself this simply is not enough - not killing someone has no real game value - killing them does.

Its supposed to give the player some perspective, its meant to make killing other players a decision rather than a given - that is where it tries to build immersion and authenticity. It does take some liberties, and it does "punish" excessive PvP - and not only does it lock you out the server, it then erases all your hard work and you have to start again :o . Ok, I admit this is rather harsh and unimaginative - and is directly aimed at influencing people who dont see dayZ as anything else than a arena for thoughtless PvP. I suppose this could be seen as me pushing my own agenda and trying to dictate to others what I think dayZ is actually about. I genuinly want to find a way to give people a reason to care about others in dayZ - without making them care. The problem is players have no real value in themselves, so the only value you can actually give them is by directly relating their lives to something detremental like - killing a server or loot drops, or prehaps inherent skills/perks. This is where my interest lies. Thank you for your post, I apreciate your perspective.

Wow, you paint a very interesting picture. For me the question is, in a game like dayZ, is the level of co-operation (that you suggest will happen) even possible? I think the fact that you can be so completetly annonomous ATM is what drives against this notion - but I would definatly like to see if it could! The point you make about stockpiling loot in preperation for tougher times is very apt. What if every "doomsday" server was started at a random point on the "clock"? Would not knowing the exact nature of your server/world be enough to influence hording, or do you think it would just reinforce "hording" as the default setting?? As for making the focus orgonisation rather than morality...this is a bit anoying - because its true :P. The problem is morality can not be something that is implemented as a game mechanic - computers are...computers and not human beings. I think organization/resources should be the favoured metagaming tool for the computer - because this is something that it can "understand". The hope is, by having people implementing this tool against other people, you can then form some sort of morality that isn't based on a defined code - but rather on how players view the actions of other players in context to what is happening around them in the game. Is this just total bunk, or could this actually work? (If Im making sense :) ) Anyway, nice post!

Thanks for taking the time to post all your opinions! Now let me agree, disagree, disect and clarify :P. Agree - I know this idea isn't everyones cup of tea. IMO having a "Doomsday" scenario, like this idea would only enhance dynamics in dayz. The"end game" (in this scenario) is highly dynamic and when it occurs is not defined by the mechanic - but rather the players. The world will be "ever changing" until we stuff it up! As for your thoughts on servers, I agree. If there were some sort of RPG hive alongside the vanilla hive that would be cool. Alot of this is answered in the OP. Formost, my idea is that the children will not be NPC's - they will be players. Understanding this should clear up the rest of your questions - unless you are proposing you would prefer that they were NPC's, then you're questions still stand :) . I use the term "buff" because it is a gamey term that we all understand - what I actually mean is that they should have limitations and advantages that are logical to a child. How far you want to take this is the question IMO. Some logical "buffs/debuffs" would be: they are less likely to be detected by zombies they take more sever damage from combat (zombies or whatever) they can carry less items than an "adult" they get hungry and thirsty quicker they get colder faster their sprint speed is slower *any more?* One of the main "features" of being a child is the ability to choose to switch off friendly fire on a player by player basis - eg, you meet a stranger, and ask them for help - then assure them of your intentions by switching off friendly fore towards them. The idea was to create a way for children to be a catalyst for in game grouping. This is important for this idea, but I think there must be a better, less obvious soloution. Any input here would be welcome. Absoloutly, in a twisted way they are required to make the game work. They are the "badguys"! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lol - it immediately brings to mind Lord of the Flies - would be cool, and probably very messed up :) . -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with your sentiment - but at the same time I like to belive that there is room enough in a game like DayZ for all types of players, no matter their playstyles or opinions of what DayZ "is". You should do as you like - but I do think there should be concequences for our actions, maybe not as immediate or obvious ones, but things that will effect the players later down the track. I agree that this idea may be better suited to a more desolated population. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would really like to know how this type of idea makes DayZ less of a "sandbox". Also, I dont understant how it rewards a single type of play? If your refering to this "give a health boost to friendly" that was a shitty example and not really the direction I had in mind for "buffs" :) . The reson for "buffs" which players get if they are marked friendly, was to ballance out the effects of having to look after a child, who have inherent "debuffs". So in my example, if you want the security that a child can bring, then you have to pay for it with food - as children get hungry faster than adults (you can debate this - Im just making stuff up here!) lol, as silly as reanimated corpses wanting to eat brains...yes. But I understand, my scenario doesn't nececarily mesh with the scenario you have formulated yourself - but ask yourself: where are all these people washing up on the beach coming from? A automated, boundless, biolab? There are limits to humans as a resource, if we wipe eachother out faster than we replenish ourselves, we will go extinct. I know we don't have to acknowledge this, after all this is a game, but then there is a very clear lack of responsibility - given this is a sandbox game, I understand that responsibility is not nececarily what people want.

Player actions: Peek up (when prone) It would make 1st person while prone alot more usable.

You can't "win" dayZ - :P

Isn't the idea to legitamise banditry? If people kill other for a legitamate reson (thats within the context of DayZ - eg they are dying of thirst/hunger) there is nothing wrong with it - intigrate banditry into the game as much as possible - because you will never get rid of it. (P.S - I do not "bandit") Edit: Appologies, i didn't take any notice of the date! - Though I dont see whats the issue??

From here: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/96910-notches-and-ears/

Thought I'd give this a bump. It is the most novel idea about identifying players I have come across - would love to see something like this in the SA.

If you can collect 'trophies' from dead players you should also be able to preform acts of "respect" towards them. eg: close their eyes, put their jumper over their face, dig a grave, whatever. Just because you kill someone doesn't mean your a total f-ing gore-porn degenerate. This idea needs some ballancing - Just my opinion :) .

There is alot more tention in first person, and personally I find it alot more tactile in a combat situation. At the same time I have gotten used to switching to third person for my jogs through the country and to make crawling through the dirt...well, easier :) . For all those that support 1st person only, make that support apparent and populate servers with 3rd person disabled - I have a couple in my favourites but there is never anyone on board - might have to put my money where my mouth is! Also, this might have been said, but a 'peek up' function while prone would make crawling around in first person much more apealing - I think Arma 3 has alot more 'tacticle' movements/animations than peek left and right - would be cool to see that in DayZ. EDIT: First person is the ONLY way to fly or drive!!