Vitzo

I got bored with shooting on sight. It's way more fun to interact with people even if you get killed 90% of the time. Without that communication DayZ is just a really slow version of any other shooter. Try using your mic! Sometimes you don't even get murdered.

I think the larger issue will be addressed in the long run when there are more things added to the game that require player communication and coordination.

So you're so reliant on running up to a corpse and reconnecting to make zombies vanish that you object to the OPs suggestion? This not a playstyle worthy of protection from future updates.

Perhaps you didn't read the messages suggesting characters being respawned on the beach again if they change server or being killed if they change server once too often. Both fairly obvious penalties I'd have thought? I've stated in other threads on exactly the same subject, that ghosting, dc'ing during PvP or zed aggro and loot farming are all pretty crappy. But tying your toon to a single server? Respawning on the beach if you move servers. C'mon, please get real. Servers aren't all reliable and not all server hoppers are scum. Stop trying to crack nuts with sledgehammers please? KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid!!! Having the player's body linger after disconnect though, which is the most recent topic, doesn't have these problems. It also can make for fun gameplay in and of itself. Having to seek out a safe place to sleep for the night. Or seeing a player disconnect when they left view in combat and searching the area trying to find their body before it disappears. Was their improvised hiding spot good enough?

I really don't want to argue semantics' date=' but that's not really the defining factor. A sandbox game can have victory conditions provided it does not define specifically how or when I reach them, and provided reaching them does not prematurely terminate my play. Whether you are 'sandboxy' or not depends not on whether your game has an ultimate goal, but on how specifically you define and codify the one "right" method of reaching that goal. Again, it's really about rules vs. mechanics and defined paths vs. open-world roaming. It could, you're right. Though probably not a very good one. As long as that mechanic functioned the same for everyone regardless of their prior behavior and didn't serve to punish only a particular group of players for behaving in a particular way, it wouldn't necessarily cross the "sandbox" line. Right. Good example of a mechanic that's not a rule. Because if you added this, playerscould use it to target murderers, but murderers could also use it to take pictures of players and hunt them down over and over again making their lives miserable, or setting up murder meta-games like "don't kill two people with glasses in a row" or "only blondes today" and all of a sudden the forum would be flooded with people complaining that models should be less unique so this sort of "griefing" would not be possible. So I think we agree? But you still don't seem quite clear on the differentiation. Let me spell it out using your example: Making models more unique: Gives players the power to enforce their own rules and regulations by identifying bandits and fighting back. Good. That means the players now have the means to solve their own problems. Making bandits all wear the same suit: Takes the power out of the hands of players. Now the "computer" is enforcing the law by using an algorithm to decide who is naughty and who is nice. The players are no longer making the decision. Bad. Not sandboxy. Is it more clear now? The part I disagree with is that mechanics must avoid having have any intent to be "for" or "against" anything, they just exist in a zen state of objectivity. From the point of the view of the guy deciding what to implement in the game this is silly. Mechanics are going to change the way players play, they are going to 'punish' certain play styles and 'reward' others, and there's no point in ignoring that. It can be fun to put in mechanics you have no idea how people will react to, for sure, but most of these you expect to tweak at a later date in certain specific directions if things seem to be sucking. I don't agree with your characterization of the bandit skin as something distinct from other mechanics in the game. Players could very well see it as a badge of honor. Nobody is telling how to react to it. It's just a skin, one more bit of information. A bandit skin isn't telling players that they are not doing the "right" thing. To exaggerate the example imagine how player behavior might change if the skin grew darker as their kill count increased. I bet players would fight tooth and nail to get the darkest suit possible. Now I don't personally like the bandit skin but the general idea of this discussion was whether we should discuss mechanics being put in specifically to modify player behavior in certain directions -- and I think that is perfectly fine. It makes sense to target player behavior changes with mechanics. You might find that players never talk and think about adding more tasks that require coordination to accomplish. You might find that everyone is living peacefully and nobody is fighting so you want to increase the scarcity of resources to give them something to fight over. Any change, any mechanic, is going to punish certain behaviors and certain types of players and reward others. There's nothing special about the behavior status quo that the devs should go out of their way to effect all players equally. It could' date=' you're right. Though probably not a very good one. As long as that mechanic functioned the same for everyone regardless of their prior behavior and didn't serve to punish only a particular group of players for behaving in a particular way, it wouldn't necessarily cross the "sandbox" line. [/quote'] Even fireworks went off only for certain playstyles or groups, is it a reward or a punishment? On the one hand it's totally rad -- epic fireworks in the sky with your player name! On the other hand you've given away your position to anyone remotely nearby.

Missed this thread entirely, should have checked announcements. 1) Aborting or disconnect to avoid death from zombies. Not so bad because at least it only effects the player who does it. 2) Server hopping to farm (check the same high yield location over and over). Really gamey and these players will have better loot than others by doing it which does effect others. At least they bear SOME risk from popping into a bad situation though. 3) Server aborting to avoid death in PvP. Pretty bad. Really breaks the experience. 4) Server hopping to flank or ambush players. (Disconnect, move location on another server, reconnect). The absolute worst in my opinion. The simplest adjustment they could make, I think, is bump up the disconnect body timer. They already added a 5 second period where your body remains in the game frozen when you disconnect. Why not make it longer, maybe a full minute? You could still do it but you have to find a safe spot to hide first. Or at least get a friend to watch the body. The general idea is to increase the risk of server hopping. Players who are in a safe spot and just looking for a server without much lag shouldn't have a problem. I actually think this adds a bit of a fun phase to logging off for the night too. It's like looking for a safe spot to sleep for the night. If you are looking for a good server presumably you likely just logged same safe spot where you logged off from playing last. So you would be unlikely to have a problem rapidly trying a bunch of servers in that same location to find a good one. I like the idea of a shorter timer, 10 seconds maybe, on spawning into a server as well. You kinda get that sometimes just from lag but it should be standard.

So we have: 1) Aborting or disconnect to avoid death from zombies. Not so bad because at least it only effects the player who does it. 2) Server hopping to farm (check the same high yield location over and over). Really gamey and these players will have better loot than others by doing it which does effect others. At least they bear SOME risk from popping into a bad situation though. 3) Server aborting to avoid death in PvP. Pretty bad. Really breaks the experience. 4) Server hopping to flank or ambush players. (Disconnect, move location on another server, reconnect). The absolute worst in my opinion. The simplest adjustment they could make, I think, is bump up the disconnect body timer. They already added a 5 second period where your body remains in the game frozen when you disconnect. Why not make it longer, maybe 2 minutes? You could still do it but you have to find a safe spot to hide first. Or at least get a friend to watch the body. The general idea is to increase the risk of server hopping. Players who are in a safe spot and just looking for a server without much lag shouldn't have a problem. I actually think this adds a bit of a fun phase to logging off for the night too. It's like looking for a safe spot to sleep for the night.

Yes. In the same way that holding a shovel influences my decision to dig in the sand. But' date=' in a sandbox, nobody's going to come along and put a dunce cap on me if I decide to use that shovel to do something else. There's a difference between influencing by creating mechanics that CAN be used to behave in a certain way, and [b']controlling behavior by adding mechanics that actively 'encourage' or 'discourage' particular behaviors with arbitrary rewards and punishments. Once one behavior is acceptable and another punishable, you are no longer simply influencing behavior, you're dictating it - and you've crossed a line that sandbox games aren't supposed to cross. The bandit skin crossed that line. That's why it's removal was the right step for DayZ to remain true to its sandbox nature. There aren't rules to making a sandbox games are 'supposed' to cross. Anything can be a sandbox game if there is no victory condition. Every time you shoot a player fireworks could fire from your player's backpack and write your name and your killcount in sparkling giant red letters across the sky it would still be a sandbox game. The general question you guys were debating was are there game mechanics that could be implemented that would influence the way players act, specifically with respect to kill rates and shoot on sight. And there are tons. Practically everything would. Adding in oodles of late game stuff for players certainly would because there isn't that much to do once you mastered the basics now except increase your kill count. It is valuable to discuss how such mechanics influence things. One simple example: you can watch someone shoot your friend at close range and you probably can't recognize the same player if you meet them later because the models aren't unique enough. Try and communicate to another player what that guy looks like and have them track them down? Essentially impossible. There's no way to communicate trust or distrust of people. That's a mechanic.

That's two deaths. Also try something different than just saying friendly. Talk to people like you would open up any conversation to anyone in real life. I don't go so far as to run around talking just to have people hear me though.

Great contribution to DayZ discussion. I'm really feeling the insights. But what I really want to know if what you had for lunch today?

Sure but you can't separate this from the game design. Right now you can watch someone shoot your friend at close range and you probably can't even recognize the same player if you meet them later because the models aren't unique enough. Then try and communicate to ANOTHER player what that guy looks like and have them track them down? Essentially impossible. There's no way to communicate trust or distrust of people the way things happen in the RL. So whining about game mechanics is important when those mechanics are important.