mithrawndo
-
Content Count
284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mithrawndo
-
-
At the very least, punching helmets and walls should definitely break fingers. Beans!
-
Says the one who posts nothing but the equivalent of "no u."
The irony is strong in this one...
I guess you missed the fact that I was taking the proverbial out of you by mimicking your posting style there. I guess nuance is hard to achieve on a message board. The point, my good sir, is that you've added nothing to this thread. From your first response you've done nothing but criticise, offering no justification for your position nor arguments in it's favour. This leads me to infer that you're overly judgemental and possibly even hypocritical... and that any further input of yours can be safely ignored.
Have a nice day!
Edit: There's a post made by one of the developers on reddit speaking about the toxic nature of the community (purely in terms of useful feedback). Might I recommend you take a glance over in that direction? Last I checked it was at the top of the page with a thousand or more comments.
-
We dont need names, it would be enough if the chat message would say "Hey, I know this guy, its Steve!"
How is a pseudo-tooltip in the chat window any different to a tooltip above the clients head? It's just less convenient and therefore simply a bad design decision. If you're going to ask for full identification of players, don't water your idea down!
-
No, it's not. The saying simply does not work. I can think of plenty of ideas that it'd be harder to tear down than to create. The saying only works for specific cases, and at that point, why bother having a saying at all?
Nope. Why bother contributing if you only pick holes and add nothing? There's a word for behaviour like that.
-
The thing is in any other community nobody would be complaining but the bulk of this community comes from Arma and mil sim games.Right here is the problem. Whilst most people who have made DayZ a success both as a mod and as a standalone by promoting it (and it is a financial success before anyone gets all alpha-nazi on me), the 2 million and counting players who've signed up for this are not veterans of Arma. We don't particularly care about military super realism and in all honesty looking at how standalone has been constructed so far, I think it's fair to say that BI might well be stepping out on a limb to ensure that the game doesn't end up feeling and playing like Arma. For evidence of this, look at sales of Arma 1, pre-dayz sales of Arma 2 and sales of Arma 3, versus sales of DayZ Standalone and post dayzmod sales of arma2.
We've come from things like Project Zomboid and it's the experience we seek, not purely the gun play.
This said, I'm 100% in favour of stopping weapon attachments having a multiplicative effect on dispersion: Having this leads to there being a best and worst attachment, and that's counter productive to my mind. Attachments should only add functionality (scopes, rails and maybe hopefully at some point straps), cosmetics and handling improvements.
-
1
-
-
I think that shooting your friend by accident should always be a part of the game, and this idea is a little too drastic. I do however like the principle, but I'd like to add a few caveats:
- Session based: You only remember the friends you've made during this session. Lose connection and lose your "friends".
- Invisible: There should be no visual clues as to who is friend or foe
The latter would require some serious thought to make work, but I feel that having a sure fire way of ID'ing your friends would break the game for me. One possibility would be a heart rate mechanic: When you see someone you don't recognise, your character's heart rate could audibly increase (perhaps even coupled with a little blurring around the edges of the screen and/or discolouration) to indicate the sense of fear such an encounter would likely create. This way you could ID people you knew because they don't cause a reaction in your character, but you could never be certain if that person you saw is your friend, or if it was simply someone you had met previously and walked away from.
The game already provides ways for you and your friends to identify each other. My personal favourite? Wear the same hats!
-
Nope. A lot harder to destroy a tank than to create a stick-figure drawing. As always, Deeply Wise sounding sayings don't really work.
They do when you apply comprehension rather than playing dumb. You know fine and well what that saying means, you're simply being a dilatant: It's far easier to tear down an idea than it is to create one.
-
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 find friendly play boring NOW.
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.
Put a gun in a game and what do you expect the outcome to be? Put a car in a game and what do you expect the outcome to be? Make a house of it? The dev's put guns in the game because that is their vision of how the game should be.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?
Partly yes and partly no. To say that it is natural human behaviour to want to kill people is a very complex issue and it cannot be summed up easily in a simple statement, do humans have the capability? Sure! but you don't need to look at video games to see that.However trying to link what someone does in a game to their mental situation is beyond ridiculous and that is where you are going wrong. I think you are wrong because what I get enjoyment out of, is not killing of other players. I get enjoyment out of the tension, the suspense, the adrenaline rush pumping through my body when I spot someone or when I am hunting someone or when I get shot at. If I just wanted to kill people I would play BF or CoD. Killing people is just the vehicle in which I get that rush. In fact the rush comes more from not wanting to die more than the killing and also it is like any competitive game or sport, human nature wants to win, nobody wants to lose.
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.
The raging afterwards (outside of the game) by the people above is like the cherry on the cake, the justification of the murder if you will. If people are going to get so upset by their character dying in game, it makes me laugh and it seriously makes me question their mental stability.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.
When I was a young kid playing sport, we were taught to be graceful in victory and defeat. What we have here is equivalent of a child losing a game of soccer, throwing a tantrum and demanding the rules be changed to suit his/her lack of skill and taking his/her ball home until everyone else plays by their new rules.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!*This thread just keeps getting better and better -- carebears playing a FPS/TPS and claiming people who shoot others have mental problems. Priceless! :D
(I do wonder, though, what DO carebears do in the current state of the game if they don't kill people? I can get fully geared up with the best stuff in about 5 minutes, then there's nothing left to do, zombies aren't a threat and never were. Do they just run in circles in trees or what?)
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. -
No this is where I totally and utterly disagree and your biggest problem is you are trying to analyse this from only ONE perspective. You are saying because player x does this then that means it should equal that, causation and correlation my friend. You are missing a HUGE part of the puzzle, it's like saying because someone plays GTA and only steals cars, that they must be a thief in real life or because a person plays arma 3 they must be a psychopath. It is so far from the truth it is not funny. You would get more of an insight in to my mental state by studying ALL of posts on this forum and watching my videos I post online than from reading one post of "HAHA, I like killing you and making you rage about your lost treasures."
You are failing miserably at armchair psychoanalysis because instead of delving deeper into the midset, you already have your patient pigeon holed and now trying to manipulate the truth to back up your already preconceived assumptions.
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.
-
itt: kitchen psychology
Lol, it's the last refuge of the truly inept. Because a game like this quickly highlights that they have no way of competing on a level playing, they resort to name calling, belittling and trying to psychoanalyse people they have never met. It's different and weird to them and anyone who doesn't fit there player profile is clearly mentally deranged. It's basically BPD (Borderline personality disorder) LOOOOL!
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.
-
See... that's what I mean. Morons like you derive pleasure from ruining someone else's time playing the game. Why did you bother paying 30$ for a game just to piss people off? What point are you trying to make? "Oh look at me I'm an internet tough guy! I'll slaughter everyone all day long because it makes me giggle." What are you, an inbred southerner? Grow the fuck up already. Jesus.
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.
-
2
-
-
.
The right to remain silent is a legal right recognized explicitly or by convention, in many of the world's legal systems.
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.
-
1
-
-
Hey people, you should look at this thread from player called Mithrawndo:
It's a very interesting thread about his heavy team who corner someone alone. He can't understand why the guy won't surrender, and won't talk to him. It is this same subject from the other side, but with players saying they also would not surrender, others saying they might. You should check it out too. He also puts his reasons.
Me, I'm a 'no surrender'. No one ever going to handcuff me. No.
xx pilgrim
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.
-
2
-
-
It doesn't seem like a really great idea to demand an interaction from someone whom you are threatening. I don't see why would anyone have a reason to submit to a bandit in game only to be toyed with, humiliated and most likely killed anyway, is this a some kind of masochism some find enjoyable?
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.
op i dont get why you would expect someone to interact with you in the situation you just described, seems really obvious to me that they would not want to interact
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?
Had a guy find me in the jail building at NEAF the other day, and he said pretty much that I was surrounded, and to put down the weapon and I wouldn't die. I wasn't sure, so I did a bit of scouting in from the windows. I didn't see anyone, and after a bit, I had a thought. I poked my head in the wall to check, and there he was, no weapons or anything. Just hoping I would give up and he could get the jump on me out of fear. What a scam. Sorry, I don't give up when confronted. I would rather die and regear that be a plaything for psycho's trying to hold me up for no real reason.
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.
Many many different reasons but in this particular case I would say because dying is preferred over being humiliated. Most people who carry around handcuffs are going to take a great deal of pleasure in "playing" with you while handcuffed. I would rather not partake in their gratification.
Poor judgement of whom? You or him? I think he knew his odds and played the cards he was dealt, would I play them that way? Certainly not, you would have had to come in there and get me and I know I would kill at least one of you.
Can't answer that unless we know what your true intention was. It sounds to me you wanted a power trip (nothing wrong with that). You clearly had all the gear you wanted, so why take him prisoner at all? If that is the case then you did something wrong as you failed in that task. I would suggest if that is what you wanted then taking the softly softly approach works far better. Tell him to holster his weapon instead of dropping it, pretending it is just you alone etc etc. You already have him on edge just by knowing where he is and him not knowing anything about you but a voice in the cold.
As above, think like you are negotiator for the police or a hero wanting to help but being cautious at the same time but again hard to answer without knowing what your end goal was.
Twas a good story.
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.
You shot first. There is little doubt about that.
I was in these situations before. "Come out of the building, we are friendly." And the moment I opened the door I had a bullet in my face. You can't blame anyone who is trying to escape certain death.
I'm also in dayz to communicate with people. But if they feel to run away, I never stop them. And I let them run because I wanted to communicate, not take them hostage or whatever. If your aim was to take a hostage or force communcation, then say so and don't tell me you just wanted to communicate.
Do me a favor, learn English. That is what is called a threat, it's not a dialog. You might want to look up these two on wikipedia, just in case.
I'm not sure how I would have reacted in this moment, most probably just stay in the building and shoot people trying to enter. But I would also consider to play along and then after a while shoot you in the back of your head.
Next time try: "Hey there! Hello!"
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.
-
Open hostilely is one very good reason not to trust someone.
At least open hostilely without any real cause is very serious in this regards.
Trust is nothing you get donated. One can have a sub, but this immediately is gone as one opens a hostilely.
Trust also is a feeling and therefore it gives a sh*t on logic.
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...
Then, maybe you decide to let people life. Fine. Where the heck someone else should know what your mind is being in? Mindreading? Just believing anything you say?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 never cooperate with other players that try to scare me into submission. The moment someone tells me they have me surrounded they've made an enemy. I'm always friendly and if someone tries to use intimidation to control me I always try to fight. Something in me tells me its just right.
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.
-
2
-
-
The only ones who could have solved the situation peacefully were you. You controlled the situation. You almost killed your victim. He couldn't have really done anything. Maybe he did exactly right. Now you wonder.
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.
-
Uhm, whatever your intentions were, they became meaningless due to your hostile operation.
I don't really know what you expect.
Wasn't looting out his gear not hostile act number 4? Say as punishment for not complying?
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.
I absolutely love the fact that this game isn't a real pvp thing. There's absolutely no necessity to harm another player unless you fear for your safety or you're feeling greedy for their equipment. That's such an oddity in gaming at the moment. There's there ever present option but no real incentive. There's no points, no score, no perks or bonuses, no real detriments either. It's just an option for the sake of being an option. I just hate that so many people have treated it like a bonus that it's really altered the entire style of the game. It went from sometimes you'll have to be aggressive to "well everyone is out to get me, so I've gotta shoot first". I agree that this game has the potential of a grand social experiment but the outcome thus far has been very negative.
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.
-
I'd love to find a group to run with and I'd be more interested in helping players than being highwaymen but it's not easy to get with groups from what I've seen so far and the groups I've come across seem much more bent on aggression than anything else. Kinda sad, was not the dynamic I was hoping for starting in dayz.
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.
-
There's a huge KOS mindset in this game...
...There's no telling if you were serious about him being surrounded, if you were actually armed, anything. But he did know you could see him and he couldn't see you. That's a really rough spot to be in this game. Normally you're just shot dead before you know what's happening. I think actually having that moment to think about it ups the adrenaline more and makes it more tense.
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.
@op
I don't really know the problem is.
You commited at least 3 hostile acts (trapping, urging, wounding).
Why should he talk to you? To get hostile act number 4 and 5 and 6?
Maybe try friendly next time. ;-)
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.
-
yeah well it makes my heart sink to witness people like you feel as tho your aggression is the moral high ground somehow. and I think we have the answer to your original post - people like you are the reason people like me will never surrender and work hard to avoid interaction. oh and do you think for one second that during the apocalypse I am going to stop and consider that at some point in history my ancestors beat the stuffing out of your ancestors?? seems unreasonable.
edit: forgot to address the hostage situation - he was not your hostage until you had immediate control of his person. that did not happen until you shot him.
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.
Why not
I prefer solo play so I avoid people at all costs and if I do happen to encounter someone I usually shoot first and ask questions later.
You would be wrong. In a game with instant respawn and no loss other than the loot you can never take away the choice.
Why would I want to be a hostage? I have to deal potentially with a bunch of pricks who may or may not just shoot me anyway. My preference is to go down shooting so that you ruin at least a portion of the gear I have and if I am lucky ruin some of your gear if not kill one or more of you.
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?
Am I the only one seeing this..... People losing faith in the game
in General Discussion
Posted
Personally I'm happy to encourage people to leave the Alpha. They've paid their money, now let the people who actually want to try and contribute to the Alpha by testing and providing feedback do so, whilst everyone who misunderstood what they were getting into can go away and wait.
Sounds like win-win to me.