mrpickles

This is fascinating discussion. Thank you all for the interesting reading. I'm really interested in the conditional response a lot of players have: We kill on sight in the airfields because other players kill on sight in the airfield. We only kill players who have good items. If a player looks like a new spawn, we generally let him live. The first statement is the most illuminating because the community dictates our behavior. It's acceptable to kill at the airfields because we've all agreed that it is (either explicitly or implicitly through our actions). This is moral constructivism at its heart. If you look through all the community rules, you'll see various iterations of the these. They all generally revolve around survival. Survival is the highest good, helping out another player is secondary. If helping out another player a big enough risk to survival, then the community generally ignores the player. But at some point, a survivor meets a bandit. The bandit operating under a different set of standards, let's call them bandit standards, kills the survivor. The survivor is now confronted with this new set of standards and has to deal with it. What you've experienced, Coliin, is similar (but much less formative) to when you hear about another religion or another set of cultural values for the first time. We have to sit down and think, are my beliefs and assumptions right? Or, is this new way of thinking better? I think some players are uncomfortable with a lot of uncertainty. Killing everyone I see eliminates a lot of uncertainty about who to trust. So too does having a set of rules in place helps dictate how I behave ahead of time so I know what to do. Or maybe, we make all these rules because we can't ever seem to truly escape from our conceptions of morality. From my experience, DayZ stands alone in this respect. I've never felt bad shooting another player in any other game. I think the survival aspects and permadeath of DayZ remind us of the hours we've lost when we died. We all have something on the line here. It's not much, but it's enough to make some of us pause. But behind all of this is fun. We play because it's fun. Having our in game perspective stretched and challenged is interesting. Should I continue to give players a verbal warning or should I kill on sight? Part of what I find enjoyable about DayZ is that I can interact with it on this kind of level. The survivors who play DayZ challenge me to play the game differently, to see if from their perspective. Good luck out there Coliin. You're bound to die out there, we all are, but don't let other players dictate how you play the game. Above all, have fun!

So, the question of the original thread was, "what's the difference between a bandit and a coward?" The question seems to imply a mutual exclusivity that does not exist. Perhaps this isn't the intent of the OP, but I'm not the only to interpret the question in this way. Regardless of whether or not this was the OP's intent, the community has interpreted it as such. Before we get too far away from the original question, let's define our terms. Merrian-Webster defines a coward as "one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity." Merriam-Webster defines a bandit as "an outlaw who lives by plunder; especially: a member of a band of marauders." I realize that the dictionary isn't the final word on the subject. The dictionary generally defines terms in broad strokes and we're discussing the application of these terms within the confines of DayZ, but it's a reasonable starting point. So, to the mutual exclusivity claim. Nowhere in the definition of bandit is there any mention of internal, dispositional states. The bandit is one who survives from stealing. The coward is one whose actions demonstrate their dispositional state. That is to say, the coward is overly afraid and acts accordingly. No one would say that one has to act out of fear 100% of the time to be a coward. Morever, no one would say that one has to steal 100% of the time to be a bandit. It may be impossible to delineate exactly how much plundering it would take to qualify as a bandit. So, let's follow in the footsteps of Justice Potter Stewart: we know it when we see it. After all the definitions and clarifications, we are left with an interesting question. Can someone survive through plunder and murder and also act out of fear? I see no reason why one couldn't. I could shoot and kill out of fear and then loot the bodies to survive. But some may raise the following objective: Surely, killing and looting requires acting outside of socially normative standards and that usually requires some level of courage. Isn't a player who loots and kills more courageous than one that hides or runs from other players? To answer this objection, we must examine normative standards within video games. Usually in games where we have guns and we can shoot other players, we are supposed to. The much maligned Call of Duty series is not about having a tea party or teaching children to read. Call of Duty is a series of games in which the normative behavior within the game world is to kill. You are supposed to kill. You ought to kill. There are actually very few games that come to mind where you are given guns but are not supposed to kill other players or NPCs. If we accept that acting against social norms requires courage, then the courageous player may very well be the one who doesn't shoot. The courageous player may be the one who chooses to run from the confrontation. Morever, if this is true, if acting outside of social norms requires courage, the bandit may be less courageous than the pacifist. This all gets a little muddled when it comes to DayZ. Some may argue that DayZ isn't like other games - it transcends it genre to create something new. Our understanding of how other games work simply doesn't apply here. Since that's the case, you fail to answer the objection properly. DayZ has indeed been set forth as a play as you want style game and I've heard that Rocket doesn't want to define or force players to play a certain way. That's laudable and I enjoy the flexibility of the game immensely. However, that does not change the fact that DayZ exists within a set gaming tradition - even if attempts to sit outside of that tradition. When we play DayZ, we come to the table with all our forehavings, including our ideas of ingame normativity. We judge and experience his work based on prior experiences. Our understandings on how the genre operates may change over time but they will always be influenced by what came before. So, can one be a coward and a bandit? Absolutely. It's like asking if you are German and can jet ski. One thing is something you are and the other is something you do.

My name comes from Home Movies episode 406. It's one of the names the kids toss around for a stray dog they found.

yes as long as it's line of sight only. I don't want to use this to track people through buildings.

I lost all my water and I'll probably die of thirst but I'm looking forward to starting over. Keep developing Rocket, this game is awesome.

game purchase only would be wonderful. micro transactions would ruin part of the experience for me. - Community developed or studio developed? no preference. - Community or studio servers? or both? both would be ideal - Kickstarter? or not? no preference, but I'd support a kickstarter project.

I'm new to the game and this is probably something I did, but for some reason I spawn with 1 bandage, painkillers and a flashlight. I don't have a gun or food or a canteen. I enjoy the challenge of having to find everything, but I would love a canteen.