hoik

Yes, for me this is the key - giving players some sort of intrinsic value that can not be taken with a bullet. Skill IMO (implemented in the right way) is a very clear and direct way of doing this. Though there are other ways ;) - http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/8616-lifedeath-calculator-intrinsic-valueculture/

I'd say it would 'disadvantage' them (maybe) not punish them. And it would ALL depend on the implementation. How about some alternatives?? Here is a rather good thread on skills - it takes the other side of the skill debate and wants skills to be earned. It also has alot of good discussion: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/86283-experienced-survivors/ there are also many others skill suggestions, try serching for them :) .

I pose the question - is this really punishment? Or is it more akin to realism? I agree this is a likely scenario, but I think the skill redundancy will be only applicable to that particular group. IMO most clans/groups that are orgonised outside of the game-world have a tendancy towards a f*you attitude anyway :) . Really this idea is aimed towards spontanious interation/grouping with strangers, not as a buff mechanic for forming clans. Maybe your just taking those freedoms for granted? As for what it will add or take from the game, well thats debatable, I would at least like to see a very simple trial of some sort of skill system.

I think you might be getting Colekern and me confused? So other players value is as a kind of pack mule? I don't think many people view other players this way, though it is a valid point. Like Lights Out says the general mindset of players (and this has been my experience) is that you are just a walkiing loot pile - if you can give players a value that is a part of their character useful to you only when they are alive, IMO then the doors will be open to a much larger range of interactions between players.

Thanks, I think this idea has alot going for it as it has the potential for highly varied behavior in both zombies and players. Also because it lowers z-spawn rates in the 'zones' it passes through it could help smaller groups or individuals gain access to areas that have become oversaturated with zombies. IMO I think that dynamic systems based on causality is the way forward for a truly unique experience in dayZ. Because it is causality it isn't a emotional reaction or a punishment and it implys no judgement of morality - it just is. The first and last link in my signiture are both on a dynamic theme. The first relates loot density/quality to player actions and the last brings about one inevitable conclusion to dayZ (it is a bit 'borderline' throwing children into the mix, but I think the basis of the idea has some merit).

That may be true, but because everyone can do everything those skills have no value. Meaning that the only 'gamey' value other players have to eachother is the suff they carry. It also means that there is little to connect you with your avatar. As much as these ideas might get slammed, they are a very effective way put some value on others that is bound to them and cannot be pillaged.

Hey, heres an idea for dynamic zombie hordes! It can be applied to any idea that involves 'zones' or 'regions' whos spawn multiplyer/density can be effected by the players. - every 24-48 hours a wondering horde of zombies is spawned. - it will have a max cap, and zombie multiplier just like 'zones' - the spawn density can be determined by average server PvP (the higher the PvP the larger the initial horde) - the hordes destination will be the 'zone' with the lowest spawn multiplier! (this indicates that there is high co-operation in this area = a larger population/bases) - A hordes spawn multiplier is effected by the 'zones' it passes through, EG: 'zones' with a high z-multiplier will add a large no. to the horde multiplier etc. - Any 'zone' that a horde wonders through gets a reduction in its z-spawns (indicating that a no. of zombies have joined the horde!) For me a dynamic wondering horde has alot of metagaming possibilities as well as some end(ish) game possibilities. It will become a quick reference for the 'demenor' of the server (a large horde would mean that the server is very agressive). It will become a dynamic flashpoint for confilict as it will attract players because: The horde will eventually lead players to the areas of high co-operation/bases. This is attractive to both players who want to co-operate and those that want to kill! It gives highly co-opertative groups an end(ish) game, and aditional reason to clear 'zones' and create bases/fortification.

Sorry, but do you see how contradictary your story is? You complain that players don't gear up and then return to the coast to help people - but also clearly say that you opened up on this guy with no warning hoping to score his shit on a seconds assumption (though probably true....). I do understand where you are coming from, but, well your story isn't as self righteous as you portray :) . Also, I think the OP is an alright suggestion.

I don't see what is wrong with that? Let people be responsible for their actions. Why does the 'line' have to be drawn for us? As long as there are some solid concequence to the action (especially if it can be impossed by other players/groups) and it is within the correct context, I don't see what the issue really is. Maybe it is you think gamers just arn't mature enough...or more likely that the ratings board won't :) . I just feel that the differation between books/movies and video games is based in some arcane school of thought. If a game is aimed at a mature audience, why can't it have mature themes/features? Movie and books are entertainment, and their basic format has been accepted for decades. They may contain all sorts of horrible things - but we read them, and watch them for fun. My point is that that is the same reason we play games. So in effect IMO there is no difference.

haha, that is fucked up. But that is why IMO it has potential within the frame of this game - It is horrofying and terrible, and you should dispise those that have resorted to it. That is till your crawling through the wilderness with the clawed specter of hunger tearing at your insides!! Why is it ok for books and movies to portray these acts? What is so dramaticly different about it being in a game? For me you can portray anything in a game, just like any other media - as long as it is within the correct context. Canibalism is clearly within the context of this game. Has anyone seen the movie Ravenous with Guy Pierce? You could have good cannibles... (Also, since when has any press been bad press :) )

Hey, back at you jesus!. Also, did a bit of a edit and will soon add zombie spawning and hordes to the mix! Also, how do you edit the title :blush: ?

haha THAT would be awsome.

I vote yes :) .

You should have a look at these two threads: http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/55532-what-if-regions-zombie-spawn-was-linked-to-humanity/ http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/87515-dynamic-zombies-spawn-rates/ Also, I like the horde idea!

Ok, what if when the loot is abundant (high PvP) the chance for 'essential' items is high but 'exotic' ones is low. Then, at the other end of the scale, scarce loot (low PvP), the chance of 'exotic' items is high and the 'essential' items are low. I reason this into the story of the game by assuming that low PvP = more advanced culture/knowledge and this is the reason that more exotic weapons increase as PvP reduces. You may disagree :) . Besides, the idea is causalty, not 'but I want to play with my friends'. The world couldn't care less about you and your friends than a bandit does. There wil still be 'essential' loot out there - but it might be in your best friends backpack - and he might not want to share... EDIT - I don't want to highjack this thread - if you want to talk about this idea I suggest going to the first link in my signiture.

Hey, like the idea - but not so much the execution. Items/loot should be more of a 'character' in the game and having players influence its density/quality gets a big +1 from me. I also like the attempt at refocusing the players on the survial aspec of the game. I would suggest instead of making the players preform specific tasks in order to effect loot, make their every action effect it. What I mean is have a type of dynamic causality in the game - make actions have reactions - and then make those reactions effect the game accordingly (be it in loot density or zombie density). I hope Im making sence :) . I think this opinion is formed on a exceptance of the status quo. I agree that loot frequencey is a way to ballance the lack of enterable buildings, but it is a bad one. (then again, this is just my opinion...) But I do agree that to a large extent DayZ has got 'regional' specific loot, but it is too reliable IMO. loot drops need a higher level of uncertanty - and if in some way this can then be related to player actions...well it could, maybe, possibly have some effect on the F'ed up culture of dayZ :) . I was thinking, "yeah, well nobody will want to spend all their time in dayZ cultivating a farm", but Xuse actually pointed out that there is a large audience that loves this kind of thing. If the farming mechanic was well enough implemented you could have two vastly different, yet intertwined games. Unfortunatly for this reason (having two largly diffent games rolled into one) I have doubts about this specific incarnation of this idea. Though I like the direction of your thinking!

Yes, I like this idea as it is a very direct/ logical way of modifying zombie spawning - of course it is the balancing, like in the OP, which is the tricky part! Personally, I think more generalised guages of behaviour (like this average zombie/kills ratio) would take the attention away from specific actions (like suggested in the OP) effecting the game-world and redirect it towards the overall conduct of a player. I realise this is the intention of the OP, but I think it is because there are such specific actions relating to outcomes that there is the feeling that this idea can be easily exploited. So, for example, what if co-operation/'good' behaviour/humanity was guaged by the average death by PvP? If this was compared against no. of players (ever) it would give a good over all indication of co-operative behaviour without a focus on specific actions. The average life expectancy of players could also be used as possible guage, as it indicates survivalist behaviour. So, what I would like to see is the exact outcomes you propose, just built on a more generalised set of data.

This IMO is not punishment but causality. The more people in one area the faster the resources will be getting used - it is also essential to make players from groups 'controlling' safe regions leave their haven in search of food. OP, this is what dayZ needs. A total refocus!

Your right, without long term effects 'humanity' is pointless - IMO the way dayZ is trying to impose morals on the players is way off the mark - 'humanity', whatever that is, can not be implemented as a 'hard - coded' rule which the game dictates to you. The focus IMO should be on creating tools that the player can use to 'remember' players they meet - though of course there is still the problem of info on individuals being lost when they die as technically when they respawn they are a 'new' character - when practicaly they are not. So here is my suggestion, replace 'humanity' (a vague, undifinable concept) with causality ( a logical, undisputable conciquence to our actions) - and make it global causality. Here's a what I mean: Make the communal actions of every player have an acumilative effect on the world over time - If the game is in a state of high PvP on average then the loot table and zombie spawns are effected accordingly. Eg: More death = more zombies. Less mouths to feed = higher loot drops/spawning This can also go the otherway Eg Less Deaths = less zombies. More mouths to feed = lower loot drops/spawning This allows players actions have an effect on both themselves and those around them - which is the key IMO to making people give a shit about how they conduct themselves( if not for the sake of others, then at the least for how others might react) - and as it is effecting the game world and not some personal atribute, the effects of their actions will have concequences beyond any single life.

Great idea, I admit I hadn't even considered this flaw in dynamic loot systems. IMO it is alot more elegant a solution for item 'inflation' then simple weapon degredation :) .

Thanks for the reply. I see the point in your scenario, and I think I should first point out that this idea isn't meant to be a deterant for PvP, elitism or any other naturally occuring scenarios in DayZ - rather all its trying to do is compell the players to think about the larger ramifications of their actions (Haha, yeah, I know how that sounds). But if the system was implemented well, I think that it could be so subtle, as well as pervasive, that having to think about how you are effecting the game world will be a given - to question it would be as silly as asking why dont you just jump from the sixth floor window to the ground, as its the quickest way down... Just a couple of questions for you: If it will always be the case that cheaters win etc. then why is this a issue with this concept? Cheating is a byproduct of rules, and as my idea really imposses no black and white restrictions/rules on players behaviours, I dont see how 'cheating' is an issue (aside from hacking of course)?? Fairness (IMO) has no role to play in a world like DayZ, unless we the players decide that it should. So IMO there needs to be tools that helps players do this. Identifying players as individuals so they can be associated with their actions, as well as better ways of communication would be a good start. And there are many very good threads out there that do try to directly takle these issues. Also I don't quite understand your distinction between something being 'rare' and 'harder to find'? IMO if you ballance the percentages for items drops correctly you could make it so that special items are so scares as to be mythical!! Also your point about 'true' scarectiy - would that mean your in favour of a server having a set amount of resources, then you play the server till everthings consumed and start again?? Could be fun!! But would making resouces finite really lessen a players focus on them or make item 'farming' more prevelent? EDIT: I had a read of your excellent post on 'Dynamic Hard Loot Drops' (here for those that are interested: http://dayzmod.com/f...hard-loot-caps/ ) and see you have addressed these two questions there. I say hell yes to item caps! To conclude, I realise my idea isn't going to dramaticly change the dynamics of player interactions (which I think is its strong point) - but what I think it can do is give players a common understanding of how their actions effect themselves as well as other players around them - It make them aware that thier actions have concequences, even if they may not be imediate. IMO this is vital to build any kind of 'realism' in DayZ as we have to care about others even if it is at the most basic level - other wise its is simply suicide (Players selfishness(eg, execessive PvP) bringing the end of humanity, would be a awsome game mechanic IMO).

Great idea, I am on the same page as you in many ways. DayZ needs to get dynamic, no matter the end method chosen (IMO)! And by making the 'humanity' aspect of the game indirect to the player (rather than being told directly - you are good, you are bad...) it allows the players to evaluate other players actions and judge them accordingly. This is THE only way to implement a humanity system IMO - of course this needs other things like unique player identity so that players can be associated with their actions. Also, I noted that in one post you were against the idea of player action effecting loot drops, why? To me this would be a very effective way to both give every player value to themselves as well as eachother (in lew of the actually caring about eachother as human beings) as then their lives will directly associated to loot, and its the thing that everyone values - if implemented in the right way it could also result in a effective supply and demand mechanic. Please have a read of my first sig-link on how this could work, it directly tackles loot/life dynamics, I would value your opinion :)

Judgements of good and bad should not be made by the game - ANY system that designates skins/marks to indicate actions is playing a god like role and is writing the rules you MUST conform to. Mechanics should make actions effect the game-world in such ways that it makes them meaningful to yourself and everyone around you. If these effects are negative the community can villanise you, if they are good they can praise you. So there for my conclusion is this - there needs to be global humanity which is unavoidable as to be invisible. All players need to be unique so that they can be held accountable for their actions, communication has to easy, intuitive and varied, players should have some other value beyond the items they are carrying (eg. skills/perks

The reason (IMO) that 'humanity' does not work in DayZ is because it is a equasion - this + that = this. Its mathamatical, with zero neuance and a unseen entity tells you that you have been good or bad. Humanity is not a law of physics and IMO can not be implemented as a hard and fast rule by a game. Rather there should be tools/ mechanics that are undeniable (meaning unavoidable but subtle, as to be invisible), they themselves will not mark or judge the player asgood or bad, but rather allow the players to gather the facts as known to them and then make a judgement call - humanity is a human construct - so IMO it is impossible to accuratly emulate it in a game. The first link in my sig trys a very basic method of giving the players a reason to care about the actions of others as well as their own - it does this simply by linking the quality/quantiy of loot on server to level rate of killing/co-operation (see link for details) - is this not how humanity works?? I admit my idea is very basic and does not cover the issue of identification or communication - which is the key (IMO) to a better, more interesting state of play in dayZ. this is a good thread on communication and humanity - http://dayzmod.com/forum/index.php?/topic/12238-humanity-through-communication/

If anything, reputation (or 'humanity') should be given to you by other players IMO rather than given to you (by whom??) - eg.a serial killer etc may not view themselves as bad/low in the humanity department, rather they are judge by the community as a whole - 'himanity/good/evil is a human construct and shouldn't be implemented like a law of physics that just happens and is unavoidable (like gravity). If a person is seen to do good things they will become good in the eyes of the community (even if this is not true of his/her private life) and vica versa - if 'skins' or prehaps badges/markings could be given this way I would be for it - but as for a black & white imposition by a game mechanic I think its lazy and not in the spirit of the game. If you would like, please read my first sig - it trys to takle the tricky subject of humanity and society in DayZ with solid game mechanics.