mithrawndo

No Apologies necessary Nex - I didn't actually ask a direct question but rather implied one with those statements. Letting my mind run my mouth unabridged is a common fault of mine. The question was this: Why do online computer games cause an erosion of empathy amongst otherwise well adjusted people, and is this behaviour damaging to either the individuals or the communities they partake in? I have preconceived answers to this, namely Freudian sublimation (the satisfaction of socially unacceptable impulses in a socially acceptable manner) as I've made clear, but given the flack that the old codger's theories get these days I felt it advisable to open this up for discussion. For the second part, proposals like this (which pop up with alarming frequency) do seem to indicate that the behaviour does have a damaging effect on at least some members of the community, as evidenced by the fact that the OP has gone from rational to batshit in the course of three pages. I completely agree with you here, but that doesn't mean there isn't still mileage in this playstyle. Deception immediately comes to mind - I'm seldom friendly for example, but that doesn't stop me from acting that way - and the tension in such situations is more than palpable. Given that ammo is a reasonably scarce commodity (I don't beleive the ease with which it is currently acquired represents their vision of a final product), then surely the decision to pull that trigger is one that should have a larger influence on our attitude to the game? As I insinuate above, this is exactly why mechanics that force an element of doubt when considering hostility could be beneficial. The game's greatest strength is it's tension, and we risk losing that if murder remains the de facto form of interaction. Perhaps this issue will be lessened as loss becomes a greater influence (a la Eve Online), but given the way the game is designed, I doubt this. I know you're in favour of private hives, and I agree with you that this would resolve many of the issues I raise here. However Bohemia clearly have a vision of the public hives being worthwhile, and it is with this in mind that I raise these points. I've mentioned Eve twice so far here alone, and it's a great example of this mentality. Google my nickname and you'll find quite a few posts on the eve forums where I lambaste people for getting so caught up in a computer game that they feel the need to throw insults around and quit. Like you, it made me question their state of mind. The years however (I'm no spring chicken) have led me to question whether it was their behaviour or mine that was irrational. I'm still trying to answer that. Again, we return to sublimation. To continue your analogy, the rules of soccer have been changed under these circumstances several times in the last few years. We're on the cusp of goal line technology becoming the norm; Most professional leagues have instituted a pass back rule, preventing goalkeepers from picking up a ball returned to them (which directly discourages defensive tactics and encourages pressing football - a wonderful analogy for this thread's goal); UEFA declared "simulation" (diving, feigning injury) a bookable offence - again, an artificial addition to the rules to encourage the spirit of the game and to work around gamesmanship, something very prevalent in online games. Edit: These changes were all made after complaints from professionals and fans alike - much like the OP has a valid complaint in the original post and offers a solution. An unworkable solution to my mind, but at least he's making the effort!* I beleive they try to avoid shooting people unless they absolutely have to, as opposed to shooting people just because they saw them. The latter behaviour is, for the record, a self criticism. *It's easy to destroy something. It's a lot harder to create something.

That's not what I was saying at all. I was inferring that behaviour witnessed in this environment is seen because computer games (and their attached communities) are seen as a valid outlet for such behaviour. There is as yet no way to attach the social stigma present in regular day to day interaction without using a truly persistent environment (see the pariahs of eve online for examples of this) and genuine risk/reward game mechanics, and even then this is easily circumvented. I was therefore implying that this behaviour - which I myself often partake of - is in fact derived from the suppression of what are natural human reactions. In short, I was asking a question.

Nex at least I know has been involved in threads with me in the past, and can attest to the fact that I am no "carebear": I seek all forms of interaction in this game, be it in the form of simple conversation, outright deception or good old fashioned murder. I keep coming back to these topics because I believe you guys are actually missing out on a great aspect of games like this, and if you throw enough shit eventually something will stick. As for amateur psychoanalysis? Hells yes. If you have even a morsel of introspection in your character, you should be doing this on a daily basis anyway. The fact that you either do not (or masquerade in such a way at the least) casts a terrifying representation of your cultural upbringings. The responses guys like this get is sickening, and shows an utter lack of empathy - which doesn't even take a high school education in psychology to explain.

I expect to be trolled one way or another, but this is a topic I continually see raised and one that offers us a deeply disturbing insight to the human mind. The short answer to your questions is that people play a game that allows them to "piss people off" because they have serious mental difficulties with which they are unable to come to terms with. To whit, most of these people would have at one time been classified as suffering from Sadistic Personality Disorder, and although this is no longer considered a disorder in-and-of-itself, it's still illuminating to use as an example. SPD is often found alongside other common disorders, such as Conduct Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Anti-Social Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personal Disorder and many more. The last two are especially illuminating, as they run hand in hand with the archetype of the computer nerd living in his mother's basement. When you think you have discovered someone who behaves with the call signs of any of these disorders, your best bet is to completely disengage from them. All the above listed disorders allow for disassociation, enabling these individuals to no longer see their victim as a human being. It's an interesting theorem; if it's correct, then DayZ will fail as a social game. I hope it's incorrect.

I'm assuming the lack of an auto run key is probably a design choice with the long term in mind, specifically described by one word: Stamina Whilst it's not yet in the game, I can't imagine Bohemia avoiding this mechanic entirely and once added, it will render the use of an auto run key defunct as you'll need to rest dependant upon your fitness and health levels. I can only assume it's missing at present because one's stamina is tied directly to one's general health; ask marathon runners about their eating habits, for example.

If I may, I'll start with a short story recounting the events of last night. I play in a small group of 3 or 4 laid back players who spend most of their time in the western reaches of the map. Once we're comfortably set up we tend to roam around looking for interaction with a healthy balance of firearms on our side, casting a reasonably wide circle around Berezino (as we once did with Elektro) as we'd like to do a little more than just shoot and be shot at - though of course we do enjoy our share of conflict. However this post was inspired by another player we met at Balota Airfield in the small hours last night, on a server with around 25 players connected. What happened here? Was this just poor judgement coupled with a non english speaking player, or a player silently raging at himself for his mistake? Did I do something wrong that spooked him into trying to run? My transcript is, excepting a few corrections in prose, word for word. If you're still with me, thank you for taking the time to read this. In the interest of Becoming Better At Being A Bastard At Balota And Berezino (teehee!) I'd like to know what I could do differently in the future, and to do that I feel I have to understand the mentality that leads to the fight or flee reaction when a reasonable alternative is available. TL;DR: Go away or stop being lazy and read!

This has always tickled me. To take the example of the United States, the Miranda warning wouldn't cover this particular situation: Since 2010 the supreme court has ruled that the detainee must confirm they they are invoking their right to remain silent. In the United Kingdom you can actually be detained indefinitely if you do not identify yourself - countermanding your right to remain silent. Interesting trivia points, though obviously not strictly relevant to the topic at hand. Absolutely, the player had the right to remain silent in this situation if they so desired. However knowing this only makes their decision yet more irrational.

Thank you for the free advertising, Pilgrim! To clarify a little, my lack of understanding stems not from failing to understand why someone refuses to surrender, no matter the circumstances. I think this attitude is silly, but I can follow the reasoning through to it's conclusion and happily accept that some people are partisan in their position on this. I even respect them for it, to a degree - though moving a little off topic, I believe it's this attitude when applied from the perspective of the aggressor that lead to the vast majority of conflicts in the real world. An example close to home for me would be the British government's policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists: Just because you've entered a dialogue doesn't mean you have to come to an agreement! As for myself? I have never been successfully robbed. I have been taken captive on several ocassions, but this usually ends in me trying to talk my way out of it, then drawing my weapon when I think the opportunity is there... and getting shot dead. Other times, I've been captured and set on my way with more food than I can carry. Maybe 1 out of 20 encounters of this sort, I successfully fought off my assailants. Usually because they were unaware that I had support nearby.

I don't believe I was demanding an interaction, I was simply perplexed at the lack of survival instinct. I gave our target the opportunity to talk his way out of the situation rather than simply gunning him down, as is seemingly the norm in a military loot spawn area. I made it clear his position had been compromised and that escape was unlikely at best - in his shoes I would and have tried to talk my way out. When that fails, I would have attempted violence. The person here elected to ignore the first option, trying for the impossible escape and then, once this option was removed again ignored the opportunity to talk his way out of it and tried to draw his weapon. By refusing to interact, so the player chose their own fate. This thread would not exist if the player had even simply replied: "Go fuck yourself" as they tried to sprint away across the apron. Similarly, if they had opened fire I would not be asking this question - but to do nothing to attempt to save his own life? Fair play to you, sir. Your reaction is exactly the one I would have had if the tables were turned; I would have tried to gather intel on my situation rather than blindly believing my assailants, and likely attempted to fight or talk my way out. The player in the original post did neither, and it is this seemingly nonsensical action that led to this discussion. I absolutely do understand the "No surrender" philosophy, though it's one I don't personally share. "It is better to live one daty as a lion..." is such a popular quote for good reason, and I would not be asking these questions if the player had acted in fitting with this philosophy - but in this instance, they acted seemingly without reason. Poor judgement on his part is what I was inferring in the original post. As you say, you would not have tried to run straight out the door and across the apron given the circumstances. You likely would have tried to find a way out without giving in to my demands, but not like that! As for poor judgement on my part? In hindsight, probably. Pertaining to both this and your next response, in future I will definitely be looking for the player to holster their weapon rather than entirely disarm themselves. Our intentions were to ensure the safety of our group. We were at the Balota airfield having scoured round from NEAF to NWAF and down past Zele, trying to find an ACOG for one of our group. This player was armed and as such a risk factor, our actions here were to ensure that the risk factor be mitigated as much as possible. The best way to do this of course is to silence him, but that in itself brings it's own risks: A gunshot is far louder than a conversation, and likely will draw attention from other players. If the threat can be disarmed without risking this, so much the better. In every sense, I was the hostile party in this encounter. I have made no attempt to veil this truth from you, nor from the player in the original post. I also never once stated that I was friendly, nor did I ask for him to come out of the building. Our ideal play here would have been to keep him pinned down in that building without having to take a shot, whilst we assessed any further potential threats and tried to find that ACOG our group member desired. The reason for this thread is to understand why someone would refuse to converse when facing a "life threatening" situation and offered an option, and when the options of remaining concealed or retreating were removed from their arsenal. Letting the player leave the encounter without assurances was never an option for us: If I had been in his boots and had made the bizarre decision to run into the open, I would have hit the nearest cover and flanked around, trying to gain the tactical advantage and assessing if murdering the potential hostage takers was necessary to ensure my future survival. As for learning English? Right back at you: The word "dialogue" in this context actually comes from the North American vernacular English (which, assuming by your spelling is your native or adopted form) and is a verb, not a noun - it means to take part in a conversation, the goal of which is to resolve a problem. Your reaction is typical, but it is not the reaction of the player in the original post. Had the player reacted as you propose, we would not be having this conversation - instead they acted irrationally, and I inferred from this that the player simply wanted to avoid any interaction at all.

I finally understand: Despite having sufficient time to ruminate, rather than applying their intellect to the situation the individual in the original post instead relied on instinct and feeling. Thank you!

I've heard two analogies for this game that fitted: Firstly that DayZ is like fishing: You sit* around with your friends, chatting away doing nothing particularly interesting. Suddenly there's some excitement (got a bite!), but before you know it it's all over. Secondly that it's a "Trust Engine". With this one in mind... In a nutshell? Yes. The logic that because I am hostile I must be untrustworthy is flawed. It's a logical fallacy, specifically the false cause fallacy. I respect your viewpoint, but arguably this makes you, not your captor, the hostile party. Discuss :) * You don't actually sit, but the analogy stands besides this! Edit: Forgot to add my footnote

As far as I'm aware, only the 0.28 server files have been leaked, and I'm equally unable and unwilling to verify their authenticity. We're now on 0.44 anyway. Also there are more than two companies renting servers. Off the top of my head Multiplay, Gameservers and Villayer all host DayZ - and I'm sure there are more. I agree in principle with you, but these companies will have signed a NDA with BI and whilst in theory you could sign one too, it would be a hell of a lot more difficult for them to enforce their NDA if they opened it up to so many parties. By restricting who can host the game, they can keep their IP a little safer - albeit by using a flawed principle of security through obscurity. Similarly, it protects their probably bad and buggy alpha server code from being easily exploited - again, a flawed principle but nevertheless it still remains effective.

Not really. We did solve the situation with no deaths. He logged off whilst unconscious (confirmed by checking his pulse - when a player logs off their name is replaced with "unknown entity") despite having bandaged him and offering him salvation. As for unpredictability? At no point in the encounter did we do anything other than what we said we were going to do. When he logged on to a new server he would have had no gear and very little blood, but he was alive. It didn't need to be that way. Phoenix777 - thank you for your post, It's the most enlightening addition to this thread since page 1!

I believe the spawns have been changed to allow for more testing in areas that weren't getting much love from the player base. Remember that right now this isn't a game, we're alpha testers of a game in development.

If you check back, we emptied his gear after he had left the server. The hostile acts we committed were: 1) Surrounding him (debatable, but for the sake of argument accepted) 2) Making demands of him 3) Shooting him 4) Handcuffing him As for what I expected? Rational thinking, a desire to engage in multiplayer and/or a survival instinct. The victim here showed none of these, hence my attempts at further understanding his actions. Couldn't agree more. Still, much like the saying that "The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing", similarly if we stop trying to make this the Grand Social Experiment, so will it stop.

There are a few organised groups out there that focus on helping players. Reddit Rescue Force is one of them, as are the Trusted Wasteland Medics. I share your remorse; This short video pretty much sums it up.

Exactly! Having come from Eve Online what drew me to this game was it's sandbox elements and the adrenaline inducing interactions - it's more terrifying when someone confronts you than shoots you I think, and as I've mentioned in other posts in this thread I actively hunt out these interactions, from both side (see earlier post about walking down the road shooting zombies to draw attention). In his boots, I wouldn't have stayed silent. It's this silence I struggle to understand above all else... the victim went from having at least three or four different avenues of escape to none in half a heartbeat. To save his gear and life. When he was lying on the floor unconscious I patched him up and offered him salvation in the form of a blood bag. At this point he had nothing to lose and whilst I could understand if he was sitting there seething on the other end of the screen, it was the complete lack of any interaction that makes no sense to me. Avoiding it altogether, yes... but once you're already cornered? As for trying friendly? I am no liar. I will not tell someone I'm friendly if I'm not; If I offer you a way out, you will have it. I am not alone in doing this, and from what I can see from the "anti-bandit" sentiment espoused in this thread, the KoS mentality problem actually lies mostly with the anti-social part of the player base.

I have made no claim for moral superiority because of my actions here, so stop trying to put words in my mouth please. My assertion was simply that you are more narrow minded than I am; you see only one outcome of a kidnapping, rather than many. We shall have to agree to differ on the definition of the word "hostage", as this has devolved into a cyclical debate. These are both valid responses too, but not the only option in these circumstances. In this specific example the target did not attempt to fight back until his choice was removed: He was crippled by our sniper whilst trying to run across the airfield after (I assume) refusing to communicate with his captors. Presumably because he, like yourselves, made an assumption on the motive of his captors LimeMobber: Clarify for me, if you will - What exactly are your choices when three guns are pointed at the only exit of a building, and those guns are all out of your line of sight?

Hostage: A person given or held as security for the fulfillment of certain conditions or terms. By this definition, in these circumstances the moment I made my demand of the victim, he became our hostage. I do understand however that you see this belligerence as a philosophical point, and that you're taking the attitude of No Surrender. As a British citizen with Irish links, my heart sinks to see someone think like this, but it's your right to do so. Edit: Reponse to edit: Oh my, seriously? You've just made me write you off as a troll :(

Thank you for the clarification! I was only aware of it's use in the 30's and I clearly haven't had enough sleep to be able to join the dots! Likewise the terrorist/freedom fighter relation in your latter point. I think I might need more caffeine. As I stated, the target here was already our de facto hostage when I tried to open communications. With three guns from three angles pointing at him (though admittedly, I only told him of the one sniper and by my presence inferred a second), any step out of line would result in death. I assert therefore that the choice to be a hostage or not isn't yours to make! As with the second, the exact phrase is known as "Gunboat Diplomacy" or "Big Stick Diplomacy". It's not pretty, it's not elegant - but it's still diplomacy. See Imperial Europe between the 18th and 20th centuries, and every middle eastern conflict since 1970 for examples of how people act in these circumstances.

Thanks: I know it's petty, but language is the basis of civilisation in my mind! It saddens me to hear what you say not because I have an issue with that reaction, but because that reaction should surely be only one of a multitude of options available in the situation outlined in the original post. Sometimes the best thing to do is to stay quiet and fight, and whilst it's not the case here sometimes the right response is indeed to run like hell. Sometimes however, surely bargaining your way out is the better, braver and more honourable way to deal with being taken hostage? After all whilst we didn't actually have him restrained, by locking down the building in which he was in we had put him into a de facto hostage situation. As for your last point? I could have put a bullet into the target's head from 50m when I first spotted him facing away from me in one of the bunk room's in the barracks. Instead, I gave him a warning that he had been spotted and tried to open negotiations for his freedom. That is surely a microcosm of diplomacy...

A very simple, short and sweet suggestion: Add the ability to control your landing. In real life when you drop down from a few meters up you can tuck and roll to allow the force of your inertia (multiplied by gravity) to be spread out. Parkour enthusiasts will attest to this; bend the knees, roll through your shoulder to the opposing hip and you can be back up on your feet and running after quite a long drop - as much as two stories even! In DayZ, a drop of 2m is enough to incapacitate you (as you just fall like a stone). This is perfectly authentic as if I landed like that in the real world, I'd certainly sprain my ankle if not worse. What I'd like to see is very simple, inspired by the mechanic Minecraft used to allow you to "stick" to the platform you were walking on. Hold down shift (walk)Walk off side of a single storey building (still holding shift)Upon landing (assuming you're still holding shift!), your character will perform a roll before returning to the standing position This would enable players to comfortably drop from small heights (up to a single storey - approximately 2 metres, for the sake of balance as much as anything) without fear of destroying gear and/or damaging themselves but, without removing the risk. It's also reasonably authentic to the circumstances of falling: The player will panic upon falling and lunge for the landing control key - just as your heart would be in your throat in real life if you fell from two storeys (you might not be able to react in time to land gracefully!). As a player learns the game they will start to spend more time walking when at risk of falling, just as in real life many people become more cautious when at heights. This landing animation could take as much as four or five seconds to play out (preventing further action on the player's behalf until it's completion), and could be accompanied by a loud thud, a rustle of clothing and even a grunt from the character - alerting anyone nearby that someone has just dropped from above. When in first person view, the camera would spin around, disorienting the player until they have become accustomed to it - again, quite authentic to my mind. Edit - Thanks to Scrubbie_McNoob: Your gear should play a role in how well this system works. If you had backpack, this could slow the speed of the animation and increase the chances of injury. If you have a weapon, it could again increase your chance of injury and risk damaging the weapon. With the addition of the physics system it becomes feasible for you to be on a roof, throw your backpack, gun and melee weapon off the roof to the floor and drop down yourself. High quality footwear could also help reduce the chance of injury. Thanks for reading. Your thoughts and criticisms are most welcome.

When we approached Balota, we had no intentions of sticking around. One of our number needed a few pieces of gear that spawn in the area (namely M4 optics), and so we took up positions to cover whilst we tried to scour the area for equipment. Our encounter was not unexpected, but it was not the purpose of the visit. I still don't understand what you're inferring: "No Pasaran" was the rallying call of the communist supporters against the black coats in the Spanish Civil War during the 1930s. It translates roughly from Spanish as "None Shall Pass". Your analogy of the British patrol during the United States revolt against the Crown doesn't make sense to me either, as the British had as much right to the United States as the white "Americans" of the time did. This seems to be going radically off topic though!

Apologies for editing your post, but the wall of text hurt my eyes. Whilst your reaction saddens me, I completely understand where you're coming from. I've seen myself act in a similar manner, too - and in fact I even mention just above your post that I will often try and fight my way out of a hostage situation if I feel it's going to end badly. However the topic at hand isn't surrounding the common reaction of trying to bite when cornered (a perfectly natural, animal-esque response), but rather trying to flee when it's clear that running isn't a viable option. As for the smack comments? I think my posts on this board speak volumes about how I personally handle interactions: Diplomacy and manners are key. Smack is not an option.

DayZ is in it's Alpha development stage. This means that for the most part, the only development we see is the addition of more features. Once the developers are happy that the project is feature-complete, we move on to the Beta development stage, where the primary function is to address the problems created in the Alpha stage - in other words, handling bugs. Software development isn't all that similar to building a house. To continue the analogy though, it's entirely possible to lift the house off the ground, tear up the foundations and rebuild them without damaging the house itself. For clarification, this Wikipedia entry has details of what to expect whilst the game is in alpha. TL;DR? Expect more bugs without fixes for a long time to come, and expect more features to be added long before any bugs are fixed!