FlimFlamm

Just because Sacha has never played the mod doesn't means their comparisons aren't accurate and your own aren't terrible. I've played thousands upon thousands of hours on the mod and I can happily tell you that she is in fact correct. People stopped playing vanilla because it got boring. People came back to DayZ when mods released additional content to keep the game interesting. On the idea that the SA is going to be the same as the mod, I wrote some pretty specific stuff, here it is just for you:

I feel like it is my righteous duty to take up the offense in this thread. The level of cantankerousness has so far been above equitable standards which is why I will try to make my rebuttal to the points in this thread as comprehensive and short and direct as possible. Here are the "arguments" that have appeared so far in this thread: DayZ SA will be the same as the mod if we allow moddingmodding will allow hackersvanilla servers will be emptymods will be too militarizedmods will create bugs and desync issuesmost people bought SA because there would be/is no moddingThe problem with each of these points is that they are simply asserted conclusions with no evidence or explanation whatsoever; they are assumptions, and bad ones as I will demonstrate. The idea that most people bought the standalone because they knew or thought where was or would be no modding is a ridiculous assertion with absolutely no evidence, good or bad, which could point us in this direction. The only argument we have seen for this is the assumption that since DayZ SA currently has no modding, that must be the cause of it's early success. It's actually more than likely that the modding success of the mod itself is what inspired 3 mil + players to purchase the standalone. Unless someone cares to show me evidence of any kind then my opinion is just as valid as anyones on this issue, except I reckon mine is a heck of a lot more popular! The notion that modding will create desync or bug issues is a poor assumption based on poor evidence. Which mods become popular will be highly dependant on which ones are not buggy or create desync issues. It's entirely possible that modders will find ways to improve upon the engine and implement features with minimal server resource costs. If the mods release buggy content, nobody will play them; this is a non-issue. The notion that there will be more hackers because of modding is also an unsubstantiated assumption. Unless someone understands the programming of the enfusion engine, I would be very skeptical that their opinion on this matter is of any value. I could make an easy argument like "arma 2 was never designed to played like DayZ was played, and the antihack infrastructure simply was not there" and point out how it's an apples to oranges comparison, but I would much rather see an actual argument for the positive claim itself. Please provide one! The idea that vanilla servers will be empty is a self defeating argument; a genuine ouroboros. If all the vanilla servers are empty that simply means that the mods have surpassed vanilla in terms of enjoyability, and you will all be playing the mods too, looking back on this thread as a regretful blip of ignorance. To repeat, if mods become more popular than vanilla, then that means that the entire argument of this thread, that modding should be disallowed or is of negative or no benefit, will have been wrong. Furthermore, the desire to prevent other people form playing what they want on their own servers is unfair and greedy. People who do not want to play the game the way you imagine it aren't going to play your imagined "vanilla" for very long are they? The idea that the mods will be too militarized is an assumption regarding something that in the end won't even be an issue. Many servers will have the freedom to turn off certain weapons in the vanilla that they deem are too militaristic, and the mods are completely optional so only people who are looking for more militarization will be subjected to it by entering those servers that cater to them. I always tended to play on servers which did not have stinger missiles and black hawk helicopters, you can surely do the same. The insidious lie that a modded SA will be exactly the same as the DayZ mod is so jampacked with falsehood that it literally fatigues me to read it; my mind recoils at the ignorance of this idea. First of all, the "DayZ mod" by definition was not one exact thing, it was a cornucopia of different mods servers and players. There is not one ultimate way to define the DayZ mod, whether it be "too militarized" or "too buggy" because the DayZ mod was a collection of many things, some of which were drastically different from one another. In the DayZ mod you had choice. You could choose what mod to play and what server to play on, and if the mod and server were any good, chances are you would have a good time. The diversity of the DayZ mods are literally what gave longevity to the game. The irony about the understanding of some people in this thread regarding this phenomenon is that the vanilla servers would have dried up either way. At least with the mods they kept playing DayZ instead of abandoning the game entirely. Likewise the mods of the standalone are only going to give you people options in terms of deciding what kind of experience you would like to have. There will be mods for all playstyles, including whatever playstyle the people in this thread arguing for vanilla only envision. There will be mods designed to increase horror elements of the game, mods to increase difficulty. Mods to increase or decrease miltiarization, increase or decrease PvP; you name it and if it is a good idea someone will make a mod for it. In concluding here I am still utterly flabbergasted that some people think modding is somehow a bad idea. Modding created DayZ, then sustained it, then lead to the birth of a brand new infrastructure simply to continue on with where the DayZ mod left off or could not go further. The plan was always to have modding, there was never any real opposition to modding at any time in the history of DayZ. That some of you are of the mind that modding should be disallowed is both astounding and demoralizing.

Currently Chernarus has been given a very full feel. No longer are there only a few sparsely populated towns; we have cities. Wherever there are cities, there are rich people. Wherever there are rich people, there are mansions. There are simply no posh houses in DayZ; they are all tiny. What we need is 1-3 mansion house models that can be placed on the outskirts of various towns. What's the big deal with mansions? You might ask... Player bases.... Mansions make ideal player bases... They have many walls, so people on the inside won't get shot up so easily through windows, including possibly a fireplace in the interior, away from windows. They are typically found in secluded areas away from inner cities. They can be large enough for a group of survivors to comfortably cohabitate All players need to do is barricade a mansion to make a sizable base instead of building their own... I would love to have more options in size between bungalow and apartment building...

In conclusion, this thread is saying: "I don't want optional, free, and unlimited additional content for DayZ SA". Why would anyone ever say this?

Basically what you're saying is that you want to restrict people from playing what they want to play and force them to play what you want to play so that you have a bigger player population to entertain you... Is that fair to the other people who have their own desires about what they want to play? Can we even sit here and speculate about what's better when we have no clue exactly what the vanilla SA will be like, and even less of a clue what the mods will be like? I don't know why you say things like "modding in general isn't fun". The only things I can think of that might make me think this is general buggyness or unappealing content, but buggy or unappealing content won't be popular among DayZ mods. Finally, you keep telling players to go play the DayZ mod as if it has everything to offer that the standalone does not or should not. The standalone is aiming to have indepth vehicles and basebuilding, just like the main features of the mods. DayZ standalone is essentially trying to improve upon the original DayZ and it's mods. Saying "if you want modding then play the DayZ mod" is not fair because the DayZ mod is a different game with an older engine, worse performance, less potential, and we've already played it out. DayZ standalone is a remake; an improvement. We want mods for the standalone just as we wanted mods for the original, and as always, the modding community will drag us kicking and screaming, and in the end, we'll thank them. Just remember that the DayZ SA vanilla is simply going to be a remake inspired heavily by modded versions of the original DayZ mod. Telling us to go play DayZ mod is like telling us to play DayZ SA Vanilla.

I understand where you are coming from but you seem to have misconceptions about the way mods will function. Mods will compete with one another and whichever mod provides the best content/features will become the most popular. Nobody will be forced to play a given mod and there will always be vanilla servers for people to play on. If you think about it, there is no good reason why modding will make SA "exactly the same as the DayZ mod". The only thing it can possibly do is add content ontop of what DayZ SA is already becoming. If servers with tanks and jets become the most popular (they never were the most popular, in fact mega militarized servers were rare) then so be it, but you and I don't have to play on those. Do you remember on the mod when servers started to crank up their vehicle spawn numbers to the thousands and they became quite popular? Modding was the only thing that squashed that trend by adding constructable and purchasable vehicles with in game currency. Mods can only be successful if they improve upon the oiriginal; what is there to fear?

Some of the ideas in this thread are so backward it's hard to imagine... By definition modding can have zero impact on the vanilla standalone experience. Unless a mod comes along that is jsut so eprfect that the devs decide to implement it into the vnailla, what is there to worry about? People played DayZ mods because of more vehicles and basebuilding and variety, something that the DayZ standalone is trying to shoot for with the vanilla. That said there is no telling what awesome content the modding community will produce. Anyone who purchased minecraft back in the early days (I have an alpha minecraft account) will thoroughly understand the incredible and vast impact that mods can have on the playability of the game. My only hope is that the vanilla mod has enough vehicle variety/access and basebuilding mechanics that the main focus of the mods will be on other things and not on fleshing out these two main mechanics. Put simply I'm worried that I'm going to need to rely on the modding community to get what I feel is a full set of features. The idea of disallowing modding is literally horrific...

Wrong!, Beans for pugilist!

Castles are not enough, and I want variety; it's about game-play. If fly shit is thinking that everyone must live in small houses in Chernarus because 'communism', then I have happily filtered it out for you! :)

Here we see a fancy lady outside of her fancy house: See how much bigger this house is than most of the houses in Chernarus? It's not a mansion but it still beats the hell out of the tiny houses we're stuck to in DayZ. This picture was taken from the real world Berezino!

The Czech Republic is no longer considered a communist nation. There are currently many rich people building many rich mansions in the Czech Republic, I assure you. Unless you're trying to argue that DayZ should be set in the past I really have to strongly disagree with your notion that there are no rich people in Chaernarus because of communism. There are many mansions, new and old. Before the rise of communism in Russia (a la Lennin circa 1917) there were a great deal of victorian style mansions owned by the bougeroise. Most of them got converted into multiple family dwellings, communal style, called "Kommunalkas". Their interiors are sprawling apartments (usually built from single rooms now divided that were once owned by rich people) There is currently only one building that looks like it might be a kommunalka, but it is compeltely urban and the interior is hardly accessible. While I'm on the topic of eastern european building trends, more "Dachas" would be nice... Vacation homes essentially... Remote cabins and nice places where the affluent would go to escape city life... My point is that I want some large buildings in practical places that can serve as player bases, like a mansion. Castles are great but they are so difficult to sure up and defend. what I want are houses that seem larger than humble middle class 2-3 bedroom one level houses. Here are the requested photos, these houses are all in the Czech Republic:

People do this for various reasons. Boredom or sadism or fear being the likely culprit in this case. But consider this, all the people who you have killed and whose gear you stole must have somewhat learned the idea that other players tend to be a bunch of murderous bandits... Players diffuse stress by killing other players, because they themselves were killed (incidentally by players like yourself), and in turn they create additional stress. (an exponential increase in overall stress in the community with each cycle) The real answer to your question is that getting KOSed only one time can inspire people to KOS many more times over in order to diffuse their stress, and in doing so they create more stressed players. The phenomenon of KOSing is a self-reinforcing trend...

What's a mannequin? So, Why mannequins? You are probably asking... Who knows? All kinds of reasons. Want to set up a decoy? Dress up a mannequin. Want to set up a target for target practice? Mannequin. Want to store/show off your awesome clothing? Mannequin. Want to mind fuck people? Mannequin + balaclava + aviators + walkie talkie. Feeling lonely? Mannequin Extraordinary fashion desire? Mannequin. Feeling maniacal? Mannequin + radio + land mine Want to create a zombie reverse scarecrow? Mannequin + walkie talkie + bull horn. Want to train your infinitely incompetent man-children you call subordinates to engage in quality warfare? Set up mannequins for sniper training and many mannequins inside large buildings for close quarters training, some wearing friendly arm bands and some dressed as enemies. Who really knows the amount of uses for mannequins, but the function of carrying them around in your hands and placing them where you want and then dressing them up with any and all available clothing should be pretty straight forward to implement. I reckon it might be downright easy. Every-time you see a dressed up mannequin (unless you know it's there), whether it is in a forest on the street or in a building, there is going to be a split second where your brain tells you it is a living human, giving you a quick jolt of adrenaline. I feel mannequins would fit in nicely with base-building and the incoming persistence of all things. My main desire for having mannequins is so that I can store my extra clothing in a very show-offey way. I would also like some sort of wardrobe capacity for mass clothing storage, but for now mannequins would be enough!

As DayZ continues development and gets more features like barricading and basebuilding it's going to drastically change the experience (for the better) and so I can understand why many people have a hard time being patient. It's like a fine meal; when the ingredients are still raw and being prepared the taste is nothing compared to the finished product. Due to the laws of physics and the limitations of programming science we simply must wait until things are ready before a proper tasting is possible. The devs likely know more about programming than us, and the limitations of their current code. They have a specific strategy in implementing certian features at certain times for specific reasons; the intended infrastructure for barricading is probably not yet up and running and so anything that the devs implement will be completely redundant and need to be redone in the future. This is what we agreed to when we bought a game in early access; we're testers as much as gamers. We're supposed to de-bug, not dev-bug.

This hilarious scenario you linked seems inevitable if we got mannequins! So much emotion...

That's one I didn't think of!!!!!! Your mannequin pal can potentially absorb some of those friendly hellos that players tend to send at one another in the form of high velocity lead projectiles.

"Emergence" and complexity science is currently a fairly open field of study and we as of yet have no formalized definitions or procedures for studying emergence within complex systems. In fact, one of the definitions floating around for "complex systems" which is something that gives rise to "emergence" entails that "to even begin to investigate a complex system in the first place we need to create new analytical tools.". With that in mind I will try and be as objective as possible, but my definitions and arguments might inevitably in some ways only apply to DayZ based emergence and not a more holistic description of emergence. I hope it proves as interesting to others as I find it! I know this is a massive post, just over 4k words, but I really think it is an interesting read and deserving topic. I have highlighted some of it in red as a kind of crude TL;DR (as all TL;DR's are) What is Emergence, and what is emergent gameplay? Is emergent game-play a good thing? How can we encourage desirable forms of complex emergent game-play? On the emergence of KOS'ing Things I think are important to Emergence in DayZ. A better understanding of the developing DayZ experience is my goal with this thread, and I think it can only come from the help of many minds an opinions to test, criticize, and refine the ideas and arguments I have made, and as we apply them to DayZ. If you have an idea regarding the forces that govern emergent game-play in DayZ please don't hesistate to share them, epecically if we can potentially use that idea to create a more interesting, lasting, and enjoyable Chernarus!

You were close :) Prig is player slang for pirigrodski (correct pronunciation "peer-ee-grod-ski" I think), a town in-between cherno and electro. Horn the squad basically means notify the group/friends (maybe even with the new bull horn that is coming :) ). Twirl the cage refers to the group helicopter. Twirl the rotors to get ready for takeoff, and why they call it a cage I'm not sure. Perhaps because it feels like a flying death trap/cage, or perhaps because this particular group sets out with tranquilizers in order to capture and enslave people and force them to farm for their freedom. Human history actually has a ridiculous amount of this happening; forcing people to work particular plots of land built empires. (Could you imagine how awesome it would be to be brought inside of a large fortified base as a prisoner and kept within an enclosed area and forced to farm a certain amount of goods for the promise of freedom?). Slavery in reality isn't cool, but in a video game where dominating the zombies, the players, and the land is the name, then even if you're the one being enslaved it should be a downright thrilling experience. Plotting an escape or prisoner revolt would be such a unique and enjoyable experience. Not sure why I'm rambling on about all this; twirl the cage means get the heli in the air :) . It's been taking me a long time to organize my thoughts and take my analysis further. The fact that there is so much to talk about when it comes to emergence is befuddling to someone trying to make a digestible, useful, and persuasive thread on the subject. Lately I've been mulling over the notion of trying to categorize various types or sorts of emergent game-play as a strategy of simplifying the subject for practical reasons. For instance, hicks just announced a single player mode for DayZ, which caused me to think about what kinds of emergent game-play would currently be possible or might be possible in a single player setting. The way the environment interacts with itself can drive emergence; Zombies can chase cows around for instance, leading to certain parts of the map accumulating large amounts of cows. Or if the way zombies interacted with one another and the land had some sort of logic to it, then the resulting patterns could result in emergent zombie behavior, like aggregation inside large buildings for shelter, the natural formation of roving hoards, or a kind of natural dispersion/attraction to certain areas. In minecraft for example, the terrain itself was emergent, but aside from that the way mobs interacted with one another sometimes produces interesting results. Creeper behavior was very intriguing, they would get stuck in holes and you would not expect them. Sometimes skeletons would have duels with other skeletons or monsters and large fights could break out. Fires could break out with catastrophic results from lightning. The EvE driven emergence in minecraft made it so that you didn't even have to do anything for something interesting to potentially occur, you just had to turn the game on and you were getting novel content of some kind. Given that single player is confirmed, I'm thinking that environment driven emergence is something that will be important for keeping chernarus a fresh and dynamic and therefore interesting place. It's very important for single player that the world is an interesting place in this way, but it can also simply add to or enhance the online experience. Where I'm at so far in my analysis is that I can distinguish between three kinds of emergent game-play: EvE , PvE, and PvP driven elements. How does the game interact with itself; what content emerges? How do players interact with the game; what content emerges? How do players interact with eachother; what content emerges? These I think are good questions for delineating the most basic forms of emergent game-play, but there is still the issue of these basic emergent aspects of game-play interacting with each other and giving rise to new forms of complexity. This is the hierarchy of complexity that is typically found within very complex systems. How players interact with the environment for example can impact the way the environment interacts with itself or each other which might give rise to the emergence of a whole new phenomenon. When players label something "sniper hill" it is a good example of hierarchical emergent game-play taking place.Players interacting to the environment tend to exhibit trends in the locations they visit which depend on accessibility and loot prevalence (risk reward). Once a clearly beneficial location is identified or emerges as a trend in player traffic, some players then decide to camp a nearby hill with a sniper. The very trend of them camping that hill is dependent upon the way players are interacting with the environment on a basic level, and then how players are interacting with one another. Once a hill earns a reputation as a "sniper hill" smart players will learn to avoid or to flank it, which is a kind of pvp player trend that can only emerge with the emergence of more basic things like player traffic patterns (PvE). The more layers of emergent phenomenon there are, the more difficult things are to try and predict. This is a good point to re-state the original strategy I tried to voice in the OP, and that is that we cannot and probably should not try to force and predict the end result of game-play; as others often say part of what made DayZ great was that players were given tools and resources without instructions, and were able to create content on their own. In this regard I think that focusing on the most basic forms of game-play from a design perspective is what must be done. To ensure that there is a diverse and adaptive set of parts and parameters capable of producing lots of basic emergence I think is all that we can do in an effort to arrive at the much more interesting forms of emergence that take the shape of vast hierarchical networks of all kinds of interactions. Single player will have no emergence that is driven from player v player interaction, and any hierarchical forms of emergent gameplay that involve or depend on players interacting with one another simply will not exist in single player, which is why the PvE and EvE forms of emergence are going to need to be heavily focused on (which is probably a good thing to promote diverse content in general, which may enhance the PvP aspect of things as well.) I literally can just keep writing about emergence and DayZ and never stop, so I'll force myself to end it here for now, at least until I get a bit further with my strategy of making a suggestion thread about it and having it not be a thousand page tome.

On the private hive server I play on vehicle persistence recently was reactivated. My question is regarding how the respawning of V3S's works. If I destroy a V3S (completely, not just broken down) will it respawn at it's proper spawn location upon restart or will it respawn at the same place it was destroyed? All my instincts tell me the former but It was indicated to me that this is not the case.

Thanks, but are you absolutely sure that the V3S was completely wrecked? From what I remember these V3S's can absorb a shit ton of damage onto all their parts before they are totally ruined.

Great guide Tatanko! I would really love to see a mroe comprehensive map that shows animal spawn points. Some info in that regard: Mogilevka cow can be found at coordinates 070 100 There is a pig/goat/chicken spawn at vishnoye, coordinates 065 092 I tend to live at Zub and these two animals spawn points are my bread and butter for gathering leather in a reasonable amount of time, Very reliable.

There are some interesting ideas in this thread but they all seem to suffer from the same main drawback: potentially causing penalties to players who are switching servers for reasons other than loot. We want a mechanic that directly prevents loot hoppers, but inevitably this mechanic will affect people who are not loot hopping, so whatever mechanic we put in place it needs to somehow prevent loot hopping while not messing with regular player behavior. - If we identify server hoppers by number of server changes, then we are going to misidentify players as loot hoppers who might just be looking for a lag free server. - If we use time delays to slow down server hoppers then players who are switching servers for natural reasons will be unfairly delayed in some instances - If we use physical location displacement against server hoppers (an idea I was initially interested in) then people might learn to exploit this mechanic to gain a form of free travel by server hopping. - If we use loot invisibility for newly spawned in players then we are going to create a whole lot of delays for players who are not in fact hoppers. With these setbacks in mind, here is me idea: After 5 server hops within a certain amount of time, the system will flag you as a server hopper. This flag will vanish after 30 minutes of not joining a new server (other than the one you currently might be in). The reason for 5 hops is to try and weed out the players who aren't actually server hoppers. - Stage one of server hoppers syndrome is that your character spends two minutes logging in instead of only one minute. Inevitably at some point this will piss someone off, but it will piss off more server hoppers than regular players. This is meant to be a light system because the dilemma of harming normal players is unavoidable. - After five more hops, the system flags you as a stage two server hopper. At this point the mechanic becomes more severe. I was thinking either a 5 minute log in timer or possibly 5 minutes of invisible loot. The key to success is that it needs to be a very light system, and we are going to need things like 5 hops before being identified as server hopping and therefore penalized in order to pull it off without raising a big stink.

This is mostly just curiosity as I'm pretty damn sure the devs aren't going to try and remove 3pp as an option, there's evidence against such a thing, but I'm curious to see how people feel about 1pp vs 3pp so this poll question is a good way to try and chart the demographics! Personally I enjoy 1pp much more than 3pp. After playing in some 1pp servers 3pp feels odd and uncomfortable. 3pp is much more convenient at times, it increases your view distance by giving you a higher vantage point, you can look around corners and see on top of objects like wardrobes. 1pp is more of a challenge because of this. My two cents.

So as we all probably know aircraft are set to make their appearance by the end of the third quarter of this calendar year (this, the 2015th year of our lord, Rocket). I'm sure the devs are already on their secret high horses with their majestic plans, but I think it's important for us to have an on-going discussion about the types of aircraft we want there to be, the roles we want them to be able to fill, and also the mechanics of how we get our hands on them. Personally I want there to be a decent variety of helicopters and planes, but nothing too big or powerful. Any modern military helicopter is simply beyond what my vision of vanilla DayZ should be. I also want there to be a big emphasis on maintenance and tools. Also very important to me is that the flight characteristics be as realistic and difficult to master as is feasible The most desired for me in regards to aircraft isn't necessarily what they are, but how we can get them. I would be forever satiated if I had the ability to construct my own ultralight aircraft (flimsy, slow, one seater flying machines that can carry very little weight) because I would no longer have to worry about spawned in vehicle availability and could rely on my own hard-work to ensure access to flying machines in the long run. I think maintaining and repairing aircraft of any kind (let alone building one from a kit/fabricated parts) should be a major chore and require a host of tools (maybe all of them) and all kinds of other things which present a challenge. Owning and maintaining large ground vehicles and aircraft is something that only organized groups with established bases will be able to pull off. If we had makeshift vehicles with adequate difficulty associated with them, the small frys would be able to have an enriched end game. large groups probably would not care much for makeshift vehicles because their speed and transport capabilities are so limited they serve less function to large groups. If I had to pick just one vehicle that I want to see, it would be the AutoGyro!

Early in development rocket talked about introducing multi person interaction mechanics that supposedly would help to reduce KoS'ing. As it stands there is only a single multi-person mechanic, and that would be administering blood and saline bags. Please share any ideas you might have for interesting multi person mechanics that would be easy to-implement and would help deal with the constant KoSing. One idea I had would be relevant along the coast: Shaking apple trees with two people. Coastal players mainly desire food to carry them into the mainland. When they meet a player they think that they can either rob or eat them and get off the coast sooner. If two strangers could meet and do something productive together like shake an apple tree to make a dozen or so apples fall into the ground/vicinity rather than having to search for apples individually, then this could be a great way to break the ice between players, establish trust, and potentially lead to long lasting friendships and alliances. With this addition when players are fresh and on the coast fresh, they will look at another survivor not as a piece of meat or a mark to extort, but instead as a valuable resource (alive) whose cooperation can lead to good things. Even though this mechanic would only make a difference for coastal players (inland players care about gear over food), I think it would drastically improve the coastal experience, and it should be exceedingly easy to implement as a feature (placeholder animations for now with motion capture down the road, apples spawning in a circular pattern around the shaken tree). Another potential mechanic that was talked about but never implemented would be a trading vicinity menu option. If players had a formal way to trade with one another then there would be incentive to actually introduce yourself to people instead of shooting them for their gear. This would help coastal players get along and would also create interesting encounters for mainland survivors. The other mechanic I came up with is a general one that can be used in many potential features. Objects that are so big they require two people to move them. A dynamic event could be that some normally enterable houses have had the doors barricaded with refrigerators or something, which could require two or more people to push out of the way. For that server restart only, there could be special loot inside the barricaded house, given that since it had been barricaded, nobody will have scavenged it. The reward for opening a barricaded house could be basic clothing, backpacks, and food, possibly with rudimentary guns like shottys and magnums as well. Every restart some random houses across the coast or the entire map could become barricaded as a part of a dynamic event just like heli crashes. It would be easy to implement because they simply need to have the fridge be moved to a doorway in a house (thereby blocking it, and also ensuring that other entrances are blocked), and add a mechanic that with two players this fridge can be pushed aside or knocked over to allow access to the house. It doesn't have to be a fridge, but it certainly could be. Whether or not you're moving a large object out of your way, or moving some large object or piece of equipment into place for some specific use, having a requirement for two people to move an object it something that can mesh well with vehicles and with basebuilding. What would be perfect for DayZ as it is currently is some sort of two person chore that coastal players can do in order to get the advantage required to make a safe trip inland. I think there should as many multi-person mechanics as possible so that when two strangers meet, they instantly begin thinking about all the nearby stuff they can do if they would agree to work together. I've been trying to think of more two person mechanics that would be easy to implement and also productive so that players are encouraged to cooperate instead of murder, but it's hard to think of good ideas, so this is where you all come in. Please share your ideas for multi person mechanics that can encourage cooperation instead of competition. Mechanics that can be done by freshly spawned strangers as a way to get off the coast and meet each other would be most ideal for the current state of the game. ADDENDUM: Does having a DayZ "meaning of life" reduce KOSing? The Dayz meaning of life... A bit of a conundrum... The meaning of life, and the value of life can be two separate things.The meaning of life is a very subjective thing; unless god is around to provide objectivity, we each discover what life means to us. The DayZ meaning of life would be no different. In the mod the DayZ meaning of life for me was the joy of flying and the sense of pride that comes from comradery and successful long term survival. For some players it will be about getting the most long range head-shots, or racking up the most kills. Since DayZ is unscripted the meaning of the DayZ lives that we live are up to us to discover. Value of life however can be additional can(s) of worms. Often times the meaning we assign to our own lives makes life worth living; It makes us value our own life. The reasons why we value the lives of others can be something completely unrelated to why we value our own life. Almost ironically in regards to the dilemma of trying to reduce the occurrence of KOSing, the meaning of DayZ life for some players is the KOS'ing of all other life at all times. Players who value their own lives but not the lives of others tend to be the ones to KOS out of fear, or boredom, or sadism. Getting players to value their own lives isn't necessarily the issue, but rather getting people to value the lives of others. Value for ones own life can lead to conflict avoidance out of self preservation, but it can also lead to aggression, depending on the strategy of the individual who greatly values their own life. Increasing the value to ones own life in this case can be a double edged sword. A notable exception to to the strategy of offence as a viable form of defence (resulting from valuing ones own life) can be destroyed through a greater penchant for mutual destruction. Imagine if the only weapon in the game of DayZ was a knife: players would pretty much be guaranteed to get their pretty faces sliced up real bad regardless of whether or not the emerge victorious. The likely result of that system would be that players engage in group based knife warfare where players form phalanxes of swinging knives in order to dominate individuals and other groups. The game would be terrible (or would it?) but at least KOSing would be almost totally addressed :D. Mutually assured destruction as a source of stability is unlikely to be much of an incentive to reduce KOSing between individuals but once group play becomes common place it is certainly important to try and preserve relations with other groups because war between them will mean overall net losses on both sides. There is a natural spectrum of deviance between the way humans feel about and behave towards one another in the real world, and as a result the motivations which can cause or prevent murder can be numerous and likewise varied. This is I think what makes the issue of KOSing hard to understand and as a result such a heated and controversial topic. There are numerous reason why people KOS: Boredom, Fear, Paranoia, Greed, and Sadism to name a few. Boredom is something that only additional features can really address, and luckily this happens to be a significant cause of current KOSing. Fear and Paranoia and Greed (which stem from the fact that generally people do value their own lives) seem quite difficult causes for KOS to address. When players look through the eyes of their character and see a stranger, what do they see? A potential friend? A potential ally? A likely annoying nincompoop? A walking meat kebab? A walking loot cache? A potential enemy who must be killed at any cost? The next victim in your endless series of senseless murders and short lived characters? Different players with different personalities are naturally diverse and some of them KOS. As I have tried to argue, addressing the "problem" of KOSing as a whole involves dealing with each and very possible cause for it. Now that I feel I've rambled enough about the complexity of the issue, here is my attempt at a useful conclusion: Boredom - Fear/paranoia - Greed Sadism Results of source poll, the specificity of the questions could use some improvement but it got the job done. TL;DR: read what is bold and in red