tupoi

So less stupid people bitching about game mechanics and pvp? About time.

I don't know. I didn't even realize there was a scoreboard until someone on the forums pointed it out. But I doubt people are racking up kills to top that board. Anyone worth a damn knows its how long you are alive that matters whether you are a bandit or not. In fact, I would think that, except for that d/c crap, bandit lives must be shorter than most unless they decent snipers or hunters. Or otherwise just incredibly lucky. For kicks I tried to stalk some people I found. It almost always ended in them seeing me and us grouping up. not as easy as it sounds, but then again I could just be a bad hunter.

Lets see' date=' let me quote the retoric I've heard a hundred times when people defend PVP: "Might makes right. If I can do it, I should be able to do it without being punished." Funny how this is only applied to things bandits like and not to things they don't. Do I hate PVP, no. But I'm not to too fond of hypocrisy. Right back atcha buddy. Every single topic that you've tried to call me out on, I've made real points you can't refute, so you degenerate into pedantic namecalling, so... different strokes I guess. *shrug* What the hell are you talking about? Might makes right? Look I don't run bandit but I like that the people are the real threat and the zombies are just a fact of life. The zombies become common place after awhile and eventually become nothing more than a "do I need gear badly enough to go to a town with zombies or just keep moving?" While the players are frightening. I have grouped with random people, I have been killed by random people and I have occasionally killed random people. This balance is fine with me. But if you think about it the people left in some kind of zombie apocalypse would eventually grow used to the zombies. Just watch some older Romero films. But the humans are almost always the bigger threat because you can never tell who is legit and who isn't. Some will gain your trust and then shoot you in the back, others will shoot you right in your face and still others will want to exchange protection in the form of group strength. I have not seen anything to make me believe that no one is grouping or willing to. You are the one who wants people to be effectively punished for playing the game in a legitimate way because you think YOUR way is better. I think you are the hypocrite, sir.

making the pvp have consequences is a punishment. read my earlier post about how many people would be afraid to pvp because if they get labeled as a bandit' date=' even accidentally then they are screwed out of all player interaction. Or if they were a bandit and decide to play nice for awhile. [/quote'] Why did you edit out the rest of my post? I already addressed the thing your accusing me of, please read something entirely before posting, your way off and just wrong, I never mentioned anything about bandit skins. /facepalm I didn't edit anything, I replied to your reply. Could be a forum issue. or maybe the person you were replying to edited you. But I replied to your reply. This is what the post was before.... -_- "Where did I say about punishing PvP? o.O I was mainly agreeing with the sentiment that as humans, we should be able to better assess danger, this is how we survive in reality, humans are very adept, usually at detecting danger. In a game that’s about trust vs. paranoia we need more subtle ways to make an assessment of a player on the fly, I’m not saying anything archaic and intrusive like a big red arrow over a hostile player, see my post above about blood on clothing, I guess it covers what I’m trying to say here." Like I said, I didn't edit it and my response would be the same because I feel that imposing a consequence will be seen by most as a punishment and that a case can easily be made that it is a punishment. I do see your point to an extent but I think even a subtle change in clothing or something along those lines is still a consequence and can be seen as a punishment. Let me clarify, anything that changes how the character looks or any thing of that nature will make people afraid to play as "bandits" this is what bandit skins did and I was using them as an example. People would learn what this subtle thing is and you couldn't hide that you have killed. That is a negative consequence and I think it is a bad thing to include.

Where did I say about punishing PvP? o.O making the pvp have consequences is a punishment. read my earlier post about how many people would be afraid to pvp because if they get labeled as a bandit, even accidentally then they are screwed out of all player interaction. Or if they were a bandit and decide to play nice for awhile. Why did you edit out the rest of my post? I already addressed the thing your accusing me of, please read something entirely before posting, your way off and just wrong, I never mentioned anything about bandit skins. /facepalm I didn't edit anything, I replied to your reply. Could be a forum issue. or maybe the person you were replying to edited you. But I replied to your reply.

I think if you can't use sidechat and direct works properly then you have done it right. That is if you are talking about the arma 2 beta patch and not just the newer Dayz patch.

PUNISHING PvP is the exact wrong way to go. This is what stirs PvP type players into a frothy rage. PvE type players do this in EVERY game they play. They join a game with full PvP and then complain that the game should deter PvP. There are plenty of ideas that add cooperative play while in the context of a full PvP game. As for that video, it proves the opposite of your point. "Hey bandits, you should hold people up so they have a chance to shoot you in the face!" Edit: re-posting ways to allow for cooperative play 1. Roaming zombie hordes. Players shouldn't know where all the zombies will be. Right now we can pick and choose when we want to deal with zombies. What if the sniper in the trees stops to think that a horde of 100 zombies may be in the forest north of him? Or exchanging shots with an enemy group only to notice dozens of zombies spilling out of the trees. Next shot aggro's, gentlemen. 2. Cooperative objectives. The best example I've seen yet is having a power plant building feed power to an ammo factory buildling. Each building is held by a different group and they're now forced to negotiate if either group wants the ammo. 3. Friend/Black Lists. You should be able to "recognize" your best friend from a complete stranger. But in DayZ if a player is 10 feet away from you, you have NO idea if he's your buddy or not. Usually you ask your buddy in an external VOIP to prone, and check that the in-game player prones. If you don't have the friend in VOIP there is no solution but to give away your position. It's idiotic. You should be able to add a teammate to your friend list so if he mouses over you, your tags pop up (should probably add a caveat option where you give your friend tags on mouse-over so long as he too adds you to his friend list and gives you tags on mouse-over). He "recognizes" that it's you. The blacklist would not use tags on mouse-over (as it's game breaking for anyone but your friends to see your tags on mouse-over), but instead colors the username in direct chat/voice (bottom left). Red = a player you've marked as bandit/unfriendly. Orange = a player your friend has marked unfriendly. Yellow = marked unfriendly by a friend of a friend. You could see an actual social fabric develop this way. Where did I say about punishing PvP? o.O making the pvp have consequences is a punishment. read my earlier post about how many people would be afraid to pvp because if they get labeled as a bandit, even accidentally then they are screwed out of all player interaction. Or if they were a bandit and decide to play nice for awhile.

Yeah, i think u meant the bandit skins, and you are right about that. The bandit skin didn't work well, so rocket is making a new system so killing other people would bring consequences. No, I said what I meant. Bandit skins are a good example of why a consequence system would not work but they aren't the only example. You cannot punish people for playing Althea game a way that you personally. Do not like. I still say that zombies are meant as background noise and players are the threat. They can be nice but you should never ever assume that and in this kind of situation that would hold true. And alot of people are crazy/hyper survivalist and either way they would sooner shoot you than risk it. It fits the game and the overall tone of The world, you don't like dying and I get that. Every time I go to stary. I die and that sucks but I know that there is valuable loot there and people guard it and horde that area l. Its just a fact of the game and its that kind of unique and organic player motivation that makes DayZ interesting. even the player interaction is organic. I see someone and I have to make some big decisions and in the list of possibilities is just killing some poor bastard and slinking away. Even someone like me, who tries to be friendly, has on occasion just shot someone because I had a bad feeling and it made me feel safer to do that. Don't take that kind of real and difficult decision from me just because you don't like dying in game. No one is going to take that decision away from you, i won't like that either. I'm hoping the KOS problem could be solved with several mechanics i just saw in the suggestion forum. But killing spree definitely should be fixed. There are a LOT of people who just kill ppl because there are bored, and i saw a lot of groups who hunts survivors and they don't even loot the bodies, they just KILL them. I'm not saying like a -2000health for each murder, but a suggestion i saw about a mental consequences might work. But there are more issues. For example it is not right for you to impose your morality system on other people. I have seen bandit camps where bandits group up and ravage the cities then retreat to their camp. This is not how I play and it does not sound like it is how you play but people do group up and some will be more violent than others. So what if they kill people because they are bored, you can't make everyone be nice to each other and so long as they are not hacking then others have no say in what they do. You also cannot make everyone play the same way because then all you have are people being nice and imposing and kind of system would, realistically, make people afraid of being a bandit no matter what the consequence is. It is a game about choice and the natural interaction between people in an entirely hostile environment and I think it simulates that very well. I feel like people make it sound far easier than it is to be a bandit. I usually try to group with people I meet but sometimes you just feel safer killing them, however me shooting you does not guarantee that you will die. I will probably get messed up killing you unless I have the drop on you and then there is the fact that you rarely run into other players anywhere other than towns. So now we have the fact that I might not kill you, you might injure or kill me and then even if I kill you I get to deal with the horde that follows. I have saved newbies before and taught them the game, form basic controls to how to survive and general rules for approaching towns and do you know what the biggest piece of advice I give is? I say "Do not trust anybody. You are lucky it was me you ran into and not someone that would just shoot you for your gear or for the hell of it." And that brings a kind of real and natural comraderie. If I met them again we would group up and protect one another. I usually try to apporoach players in a cautious and non threatening way but I cannot predict or control you and that risk is part of what makes the game fun and unique.

Yeah, i think u meant the bandit skins, and you are right about that. The bandit skin didn't work well, so rocket is making a new system so killing other people would bring consequences. No, I said what I meant. Bandit skins are a good example of why a consequence system would not work but they aren't the only example. You cannot punish people for playing Althea game a way that you personally. Do not like. I still say that zombies are meant as background noise and players are the threat. They can be nice but you should never ever assume that and in this kind of situation that would hold true. And alot of people are crazy/hyper survivalist and either way they would sooner shoot you than risk it. It fits the game and the overall tone of The world, you don't like dying and I get that. Every time I go to stary. I die and that sucks but I know that there is valuable loot there and people guard it and horde that area l. Its just a fact of the game and its that kind of unique and organic player motivation that makes DayZ interesting. even the player interaction is organic. I see someone and I have to make some big decisions and in the list of possibilities is just killing some poor bastard and slinking away. Even someone like me, who tries to be friendly, has on occasion just shot someone because I had a bad feeling and it made me feel safer to do that. Don't take that kind of real and difficult decision from me just because you don't like dying in game.

But it wasn't. I mean, the first video I ever saw was two guys holding up some new player using direct chat. The players are the threat and the zombies are white noise. That is exactly what I expected and that is what the game delivered. I really don't know why people were expecting something else.

Probably what virtually everyone thinks of when they read about it. A free for all zombie survival game. Not a deathmatch game that has zombies on the side. The game would no doubt benefit from a smaller map designed specifically for it as the base game and maps were designed for something completely different and will be held back by the same thing that holds Arma back, being appealing to a small portion of the gamer community in general do the general user unfriendliness of the interface/controls and such large time requirements. To be more clear, such colossal maps and long travel times doesn't mesh very well with such high player casualty rates and death penalties. But that's kinda the point. The humans are more dangerous because they could be friendly hut more likely they are either batshit nuts or pure survivors that aren't willing to risk it. That's how the game was intended, or at least how I thought it was. The zombies are a fact of life in DayZ but the humans are so unpredictable as to make them frightening. Check any apocalypse movie and you will see this theme. Mad Max is a prime example, a few cool people and the rest fight for resources/Domininance. Seems to be working just fine and if that is not the kind of game you want that is fine but don't say the game is broken because you don't care for it. That's more of a you thing.

Well I have to say I agree with you to a point but I fall on the other side of the fence as far as my reaction. If there was such a thing as a zombie apocalypse the zombies would become incidental, just "well we need supplies so we have to sneak through these houses" or "hit this house and kill the one or two zombies inside." The real threat would be other people. I mean if you went out and armed up and figured everyone else did and suddenly there are no real rules then would you trust anyone whether or not they say they are friendly? To me that is what makes this game great. The other people are the greater threat because the zombies are well, zombies and being zombies they are not too bright and easy to deal with while the other people are smart and will hunt you for hours just to see what gear you have. It really is dynamic player choice in how you interact with other people, some will talk and basically set up an info network concerning who is safe and who is probably gonna murder you while others don't interact and they just hunt either because they need items or for the fun of it.

Well I try to be friendly but sometimes there are just some people too stupid to let live. I have come up with my golden rule involving people inland and a shoot on site policy under certain circumstances which is based on a few things I have noticed. 1. Most new players or well meaning players talk in side chat and are usually pretty open about what they are doing and their general location (sometimes they tell too much) Note: most newer players are nice, maybe just because they are too nervous to piss people off on the server or they don't want to kill someone and get shit on forever. Whatever the reason they can usually be trusted so long as you are actively helping them. 2. People who don't talk at least every now or then are usually trying to be unnoticed for a reason and are presumed hostile. 3. Once you are further inland you shoot on site. similar to point 1 most of the newer people and friendlies tend to stick to the coast, the further inland you go the fewer people there are but no one there talks nor do they really like people in "their" territory. In general avoid people who are not actively participating in a bigger chat because people talking together will get to like one another but people not participating tend to be very solitary and don't like to advertise their nature to the entire server and usually don't have time or the inclination for small talk.