mithrawndo
-
Content Count
284 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by mithrawndo
-
-
Its a (famous) fighting slogan signifying intent. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Scotland, Stalingrad, the Danelaw, Palestine, N. America, the Confederacy, Vietnam, the Crusades, Nevsky Bridge, wherever at whatever corresponding time period, conflicts always involve folk telling other folk they've no business to be where they are, and they aim to stop each other from attempting to get where they are going, or die trying. This is simply a well known example. It also implies freedom-loving volunteers fighting against organised fascism (but this is a view of the opponent taken by many sides in many conflicts)
[historical note]
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.
like I said - not being taken hostage, ever. apparently your victim felt the same way.
the second you say anything that suggests I should in any way disarm or stop while I am running or anything along those lines you have just tossed diplomacy down the crapper.
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.
-
no worries I live around a lot of OCD.
be sad all you want but I am not alone in this and you will encounter many that feel this way. as for your victim... his mistake was trying to flee - just sit tight and kill everything that comes thru the door or wait till the squad gets bored (patience, while not always providing a just reward, has much merit on its own) or opts out of the risk of loosing life or gear.
soooo you've caught me on a base with my pants down and you are telling me to drop my wep or die - diplomacy just shit the bed.
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...
-
Hope this is not boring:
If your gameplay is to hold a military policing role in an area like NEAF or Balota, you have exactly the same problems that face real life military in several areas of the world today. (I won't enumerate them, everyone knows where they are, and the 'special circumstances' of each)
The airfields are definitely combat-zones. They are actively dangerous fighting areas, pretty well all players know this, and agree they are current combat-zones. But this is not a classic two-power confrontation. Often strangers may be friendly, not fight, or cooperate inside the zone. It is more like an insurrection area, or region outside the rule of law, or a region dominated or disputed by 'warlords' or paramilitary, armed and semi-organized groups, lawless individuals, pirates, bandits, revolutionaries, religious zealots, and suspicious non-aligned survivors, one might say also 'armed civilians' and even non-violent sects.
If this is your gameplay, then you're involved in a key aspect of modern military training. How to act in these zones? If this is your game (and why not), then asking "why didn't the guy communicate?" is like loosing the round. He acted wrong so you shot him. You probably won't get 10/10 for this exercise.
You face individuals, temporary alliances, groups, organized or disorganized, or specifically antagonistic, or simply wary. In the game, the fact that players may be any age from very young (say ten or twelve) and any nationality, and with completely different basic ideas of why they are playing, different equipment (including no headphones, no mike) corresponds in real life to you as a military unit policing an area where reactions can vary rapidly and seemingly 'without reason' between very great extremes.
So if you are into "military policing" then you are exactly where you want to be. You are in a very dangerous situation which will often become rapidly incomprehensible and/or deadly. You not only need firepower, organisation and discipline you also need understanding of local attitudes and complex motivations, and great communication skills.
Since you asked the question, I guess you yourself don't mark your team 10/10 for this exercise? But perhaps you really had no other choice? You couldn't just walk away, obviously, because that's not your objective.
*
As for my 'No Pasaran' quote earlier: Let's say I'm an amateur Hawkeye out with my long rifle in the year 1757 minding my own business, jus lookin' for food, and a British military patrol turns up. They got no business to be here! Damn them. Why would I want to talk to them? And if I was stupid enough to let them shoot me - then why would I want to talk to them? My tradition is to remain silent. Or maybe by bad luck my indian friends logged out, and they just didn't show in time. Or maybe I'm jus' a simple minded backwoods boy with no idea about modern warfare.
xx
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!
-
Some of us are simply NOT going to be hostages, ever. Had you cornered me in that barracks and I had no way out except at your good will, then I am forcing you to fight no matter the odds. I don't want to chat with you at this point and I am certainly not compliant. Yes, you will likely kill me [but] I will do everything in my power to kill or maim as many of you as possible. The more it costs you, the better I feel about it.
The biggest difference in the way I play [versus] the way you play is that if I have the upper hand on a military base, I will almost always allow the other person to escape if I have not been seen. If I have been seen I will assure the other person that I have no [intention] to shoot (even if I have my [weapon] pointed at their face) and we should part ways alive and unscathed. In an even match its usually a flight situation on both sides (as in no one had a [weapon] out and we surprised each other) I tend to allow my flight direction to be known and I watch my six but I run. if I am on the loosing side no matter how many I encounter, I die. if you are alone I will likely leave you unscathed (and take my punishment for not being alert) but if you are in a group the odds of dick measuring is pretty high so.... at any rate once the shooting starts I am going to shoot up as much of your group as I possibly can and force you to kill me.
Once dead or unconscious I will respawn immediately, so grab your cuffs or just keep [them] in your pocket [because] I ain't sticking around to hear you talk smack on local comms.
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.
-
Good idea, but as always it will brings more - bugs/lags error 3000, and other shit, because developers can't even fix damn textures, floor is still only for player, not for zombie or items in some places, dafuq i am talking about?Everyone know that's we have tons of bugs overhere, which one just do not solving, instead they add items that does not work, instead of fixing problems that we already have, it's like making a house without good foundation, how someone allow to release new patch with new items if you did not fixed those things which one was added before? Who will fix them? Me? Or maybe those dudes who posted in that thread?
UPD.1. If i will not continue to say that here on forums, idk who the hell will tell that to developers, because i see no result for a long time, even no news about work on those issues
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!
-
1
-
-
No!
I will just say that's when i meet ppl i dayz i just get sad about how stupid they are, that's why i just walk(WALK) to every city, and do not give a fuck about what happens(only kill zombies), like Chuck Norris.
When I play alone I tend to do this too. I'll walk the road on the east coast, picking off zombies with a pistol to try and attract some human attention. Guess that's kind of sad when I put it like that...
I rarely let people hold me up because you are right and most of them just want to force feed you poison or something. If I get caught off guard and legitimately held up, I'll play along till I can tell their intentions, and if they're just going to be douches about it that's when I'll try to fight back or run.
This is exactly how I act on the receiving end. I'll try to keep a weapon concealed as long as possible and if the encounter is going south?
"If I'm going down, I'm taking you all with me!"
Hence I can't wait for explosives to be a thing!
-
2
-
-
pretty nice idea. but i cant still imagine how would it look with big backpack and allot of military gear. like vests and stuff like that
From the original post:
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.
-
Something I think they BADLY need to add is the ability to walk with your hands up so you can walk out a building and surrender because just putting a gun away is no way surrendering and you can just go in to a run instantly anyway.
Not sure if there are threads on the suggestions board about this yet, but if not: Go. Now. Make it so!
-
1
-
-
In answer to the question "Why do some players do everything possible to avoid interaction?"
Because you've probably spent at least an hour trying to find some gear, then a bunch of dudes come hold you up.
You know what people are like in this game, KOS or they mess around with your and take your stuff. Or they pretend they're nice and then are like holy shit he's got a cool pistol I want that *BANG*
People just aren't trustworthy.
I've played the game over 90 hours and only encountered like three people using mic's, never found anyone with guns who tried to be nice.
Literally not once have I found a group of dudes and not instantly had them turn round and shoot.
So if I was that guy depending on what guns I had, I'd just dig in and shoot anyone who comes through the door it's not worth the risk especially not if you don't have a mic to talk people down with.
What gets me most of all is that he didn't try and fight; he tried to run. He only tried to fight when the opportunity to run was taken away from him. When we searched his gear after he logged off, he had an M4 with a couple of magazines and an FN for backup. He could have at least tried to pull the old "pistol in the pants" trick on us.
As for the rest, it's is a sad example of the self perpetuating cycle of distrust that means as the player base of the game grows, so the quality of the interactions seemingly decreases. I challenge your assertion here: Yes, most players will shoot on sight but if you make the effort to engage players more (as I am consciously trying to do now, hence this topic being the first of many intending to analyse the psychological element of the game's encounters), so this trend can be arrested and more fun can be had by all.
I'm sure I'm not alone: In most successful hostage situations I've encountered - from both sides - if you play it cool and do what your told, you'll come out of it alive. Hell, you'll often come out of it better off than when you started!
-
I'll add the caveat that while I've successfully held up a large amount of players, the amount of success I've had at airfields (namely the neaf) is very low. Most people at airfields are already completely kitted out, and a guy with an m4 or something is probably feeling pretty good about his odds if he's in a building.
The fact that your guy chose to run out makes me think he just didn't really believe you, or maybe didn't even hear you. If it was the first bit, I suppose you could have thrown a shot in at him/over his head or something to let him know you're serious.
Again though it really depends on how he was reacting to you. When holding some one up, they need to actually see you've got the advantage in some form but as I said you don't want to come across as overly hostile either.
I'll also just add that your sniper guy probably shouldn't have taken that second shot. You had his legs broken, that would have been a good time to talk him down some more if you were serious about keeping him alive. I wouldn't have handcuffed him either, just disarm him if he was knocked out.
Again, it's about being in control but letting people still feel like they also still have a little bit of control over what's going on. You can't just strip a guy of options completely and expect him to play along, there's nothing in it for them.
That's an interesting point; perhaps it was as simple as the guy was playing with no sound? Unlikely as that may be, it's possible - though doesn't explain why he spun like a marionette when I made initial contact.
You're right about the handcuffs too - because he logged off I couldn't recover them. As for the sniper? I'm still torn. The target was trying to draw a weapon whilst on the ground, and it was only in post mortem that we realised his legs must have been broken. Our sniper was so delighted that he got the guy down whilst moving at full sprint, transversally from 500m that we weren't getting much else other than exclamations of delight from him over the mic at first!
We had plenty of cover too, and could have easily tried to talk him down. Thanks for that.
-
Some interesting points here. We're dealing with human psychology here, which is a fascinating subject in itself.
Impossible to know without his side. You didn't do anything wrong, some players just don't want to cooperate.
I'll say that the way you speak to people goes a long way to get them to do what you want though...
...you need to make people feel comfortable as there's not a ton of incentive for a player who doesn't want to cooperate...
...you want to be confident but not pushy. Keep things casual, but make sure you're in charge.
Apologies for the annotation, but I think I kept the meat of the meal. I'm blessed with a commanding voice and a confident manner (verging on pompous), which is why I often end up calling the shots in team games I play, despite being totally and utterly tactically inept (I've been a commander for 300+ fleets in EVE and a 25 man heroic raid leader in WoW, both of which to my mind have more resemblance to this game than any FPS you'd care to mention). However I am cursed with a Scottish brogue, which can sound guttural and aggressive even when being friendly. As all the target had to go on was my voice, perhaps this would have spooked him? I was careful not to offer choices or surrender the advantage to him...
Most players tend to get a bit nervous about dropping their weapon. Usually if they keep it on their back and don't face directly at you is usually safe enough.
Thank you for this, that's good advice. I'll change my tack next time as you're absolutely right - I'd be loathe to drop my weapon completely too.
You said you wanted more than just shooting but you surrounded a player in an aggressive manner and told him to surrender or else...How would you have reacted if i came up to you in the same situation and told you to surrender? Wouldn't a "Hello, let's talk" have been better?
I would have surrendered, and perhaps if the opportunity arose I may have tried to put up a fight after I had started a discourse with my assailant. the "Surrender or else" was simply an honest statement, given in a jovial but commanding tone. We gave him a good thirty seconds before I revealed that we had a sniper on the door, too.
Thanks for all the responses guys, it's enlightening to hear how people react!
-
Most people in this game aren't worth interaction, just a bullet. I tried for months and it's just better too stay away from people or kill the ones that get too close in a threatening manner.
Also, "stop moving and we won't shoot" (and most variations) usually means, "stop moving, we can't shoot a moving target".
When I issued this command, he was crouched down in one of the bunk rooms in the barracks, so he was actually pretty safe. By running, he put himself into the line of fire. If he'd have done as I said, he could at least have tried to trick us!
-
Heavily armed group of five, moving in a military sweep through an area.
My first reaction would be to get round behind you, pick off one of your wingers, and naff off into the hills.
I'm more guerilla than police squad
Engage the enemy long enough and they will learn your tactics.
'¡No pasarán!
Actually we were only three (sniper, midrange and close quarters), but the dialogue makes for better reading without revealing exact numbers :)
Your response to the situation would probably be accurate, but we were careful not to reveal ourselves until we had the area covered. Unless you'd have got lucky moving between the Barracks, you would neither have seen nor heard us until it was too late - and the sniper was beading him all the way, itching to take the shot.
I'm not concerned about people learning my tactics, as what we were doing was fairly textbook stuff, easily countered if he even had one friend on the airfield - of which we couldn't be entirely certain, given the reasonable server population. You've lost me with your Spanish civil war reference though...
-
1
-
-
I'm loving the fact that the hate is being levelled at a guy who was just being honest about your ridiculous censorship laws. I thought Aussies were made of sterner stuff - when did you let Melbourne become the unofficial capital, guys?
"Greatest Country On Earth, Mate". :lol:
-
Intelligent zombies.....maybe some are smarter than others and can pick-up a gun off an unconcious player and start shooting
I would love for the game to have "Bub" zombies, but I'm pretty sure this isn't the zombie apocalypse Rocket is looking for. It would be amazing to see a zombie unload a clip at you, then stand there looking at it, trying to figure out why it doesn't work anymore - then try to eat it.
-
I agree with your idea, but as the flashlight is treated like a weapon I'm not sure this is possible. Have you tested using a head torch instead? I suspect this does exactly what you're looking for. When holding the alt key your head visibly moves, which infers that a headtorch would follow your camera.
Now if only you could wear a head torch over the top of a beanie...
-
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.
We had just run in reverse what was once known as the "path of the warrior" back down from the NWAF to Balota via Zelenogorsk and, unsurprisingly, hadn't encountered a soul. As we approached Balota from the coast, our sniper peeled off to the north to take position on one of the overlooks at the airfield, whilst our close and mid range members took up position about a kilometre away from the western edge of the airstrip. Soon our sniper spotted someone running across the apron from the north to the barracks at the south-west corner of the airfield, and we sprung into action: As we approached the airfield we split into two groups, with the close quarters specialist moving to the south, behind the barrack buildings to block the exit and our mid range specialist moving in from near the Jail building - a simple pincer manoeuvre. Confident that the area was reasonably safe, we closed in around the building that the player was last seen in and, having confirmed through a window that he was indeed still present, tried to open a dialogue.
"Alright buddy" I oozed, "Put your weapon down and nobody has to get hurt. We have you surrounded."
I could see our target spinning his head around inside the barracks, desperately trying to confirm if we were telling the truth.
"There's a sniper on the hill zero'd to the front door." I revealed, trying to keep the effects of adrenaline out of my voice. "There's only one way you're getting out of this alive, and that's if you do exactly what I say. Put down your weapon and..."
Before I could finish the sentence, our target was running for the door. As he hit the open air, I called for our sniper to take the shot and the player stumbled to the floor, leg broken. The target then turned to engage his assailants, and as his weapon reached his hands a second bullet from the hill sent him into the black. With my pulse playing a samba beat in my ears, I could hear the elation in our sniper's voice as he recounted hitting a transversally moving target at five hundred metres. The rest of the team took up position to cover the area and I approached the prone target, checking the pulse to confirm that he was still alive.
"Why did you do that?" I pleaded, "I told you we had you surrounded. Now you're bleeding like a stuck pig and half of your gear will be trashed. Was it worth it?"
Silence was the only response.
"Hold on, let me stem your bleeding." I offered, pulling my medikit out and bandaging his gushing wounds. "Do you have a microphone? Do you speak English?"
Yet again, my only response was silence. I proceed to handcuff the unconscious player and, abusing the fact that handcuffing shows a player's name (let's call him Rudolph), confirmed he was still connected to the server.
"So Rudolph, here's what's going to happen. You've lost a lot of blood and we have you restrained. You can still come out of this alive if you listen very carefully to me. I need to know your blood type if you're going to pull through, can you tell me what it is?"
The deafening roar of silence continued, until our sniper chimed in over Teamspeak that he had left the server, his avatar still alive and most of his gear still intact. We emptied his body on to the floor as punishment for (essentially) combat logging, and moved on along the coast in search for other survivors.
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!
-
2
-
-
Human beings have a predisposition for spotting patterns. It gets us in all kinds of trouble, as it leads us to doing Bad Science and making Assumptions. The "fact" that anyone wearing a mask is hostile is one of these.
There is no magical pattern for spotting hostile players.
-
As long as you are restricted to no more than around 2 admin reserved slots, I'm all for this. Beans.
-
1
-
-
I like the idea of taking this information away from the user, but as others in this thread have mentioned it's not workable to do so: Anyone with access to the server console could easily discover how many players were connected, adding an unfair advantage for super users.
Will watch this topic with interest, as I would love to see a mechanic that allowed this level of immersion to exist. DayZ is at it's finest when you don't know if there's someon else nearby...
-
As the game is loading in, your character should not be visible or even exist at all until you can physically move your character. Nor should you see anything until you are completely loaded in. If the server resets while I am traveling, I shouldn't spawn in front of a zombie getting beat to death when I can't even react to it. Or even the other extreme which is spawning when someone is nearby and being killed instantly without even seeing anything.
Also as a point to the last sentence, I miss having a sound for spawning in. I didn't like the loud one before, but there should definitely be some minor noise that only players very close by can hear just so someone can't ghost next to you and kill you
I'd like to see a spawn button (attached to a "pop-up" server welcome message over a black/default screen) added to the workflow, as I think this would satisfy your first point. This means that you would select and connect to a server, and once the client has loaded in you would be presented with a window & button to spawn into the game, rather than loading you straight in. If you don't click the button to spawn in, the server will disconnect you after X seconds.
This is really just a quality of life thing; It makes it possible for players to do real-life stuff whilst the client loads/connects, and avoids any initial lag/latency when first connecting to the server by adding a grace/buffer period to the spawn mechanic: I can now load the game, click connect and go and pour myself a glass of water without fear that I'll be shot when I spawn as I directly control when I spawn into the server.
-
2
-
-
I think if you had stuff on your back you should get injured and the axe/gun/backpack should also get damaged.
Agreed, 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 would also reduce the chances of injury.
It's a very elegant addition to such a system, and I thank you for your input :)
-
So then what should we call it? Hand ball?Naw. You seem to like the word soccer, and we don't. You can have it back for your own sport!
-
You did exactly the right thing by running away. Where you went wrong was that once you were in cover and the gunfire had ceased, you should have been looking to see if you could turn the engagement in your favour, hopefully by ending your assailant.
'It is better to live one day as a lion then a hundred years as a sheep'I know many sheep who would respectfully disagree with this statement. As for the sentiment? Military history supports the premise that retreat and regroup is seldom a poor strategic decision. Examples of so-called "bravery" tend to be overhyped mistakes: See the Charge of the Light Brigade as a pertinent example, given that I presume you to be English (or at least British)
-
1
-
Why do some players do everything possible to avoid interaction?
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Mithrawndo
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 :(