Kageru

That video is a superb example of the future of Day-Z. I even like the comments, "BECAUSE IT's ART!" They even did the "We're friendly!" bit in chat.

The PvP mantra from Eve is "Exploit early, Exploit often".

I assumed he was being sarcastic... Harder zombies will encourage PK. It upsets the victim more since it is harder for them to re-gear, it removes a potential threat for longer while they re-gear and it makes the value of the gear sitting on their cooling corpse more valuable.

The current mechanics are a PvP game with aggressive wild-life, most of the more hard core players are PvP/PK enthusiasts. Trying to play against the mechanics as a "friendly" is just playing with a handicap. Accept the game for what it is, hope for a humanity to mechanic to moderate it or stop playing if it is not what you want out of a game.

.... uh. Not sure if serious.

Rocket is from a pretty hard-core PvP community (Arma-II) and with real life military experience. The chances of him implementing a PvP / Non-PvP option is near zero, I doubt he even understands the desire and knows it would remove a lot of the challenge, so it's not really worth discussion. If you have hopes in that direction wait and see if a meaningful humanity mechanic returns.

It's not flawed, it's just niche. And casuals tend to help fund the development of games because they're numerous. I have my own interests thanks. And the casual / hard-core divide, or even PK/co-op divide doesn't affect them. As to their being too many threads, uh, deal with it.

Every notch by which you increase zombie danger increases the PvP/PK penalty (it's much harder to re-gear) and the new player retention rate (it's much harder to survive) if the threat is not graduated. If zombies on a non-enterable, non-loot spawning beach front house are as tough as those at the air-ports you are challenging your new players far more than the armed and organised veterans and that will cost you retention. If you think new players are going to form organized groups in response, when there is no in-game mechanic to encourage that (like a safe starting point, communication or temporary PK protection), when most don't have out of game social groups, and when actally meeting allies is a matter of luck and substantial time you are probably being too optimistic. Most will just die repeatedly and stop playing. In other words I hope zombie challenge is being considered as part of the global mechanics and how the game is functioning now (a hard core PvP game). Harder isn't always better, especially if it's applied universally.

So you are more of a "enjoy being hunted" player? Kudo's, that's a very rare play-style. I find it sort of boring in this game because there's no real counter to a determined camper with a long range weapon. And I think the number of players who will enjoy a game tuned to that level is pretty small, much smaller than the game could be if it supported more casual and co-operative oriented players. I don't think it's much of a sandbox either. A sandbox supports lots of styles of play and different objectives. The number of mechanics not focused on PvP in this game is pretty much only "gearing up", though most of that is weapons too. That's mostly due to arma-II being underneath it of course. Rocket seems to be focused on making the zombies more challenging, possibly hoping that will encourage co-operation. I tend to think it will just further drive off the casual or those trying to re-gear after their Nth PvP death that session. But it's his game.

I know that... I spend a lot of time on a US gaming forum, and the US has all types of people just like anywhere else. But there's also a strong current of objectivism/calvinism that basically says, "If you can't handle it that's your problem" and glorification of the individual and their capabilities (and right to bear arms). I can see how that would influence the results. In one of Rockets interviews he basically gave a version something like that which led him to say if there was a zombie apocalypse he'd want to be in New Zealand when it happened.

Then you should find another game. Or wait to see if this one or a variant gains some PvP controls. Because the game as it currently stands is pretty much designed to encourage PvP.

Carebear is a derogatory term (much older than Eve) to deride people who want controlled, restricted or absent PvP. It's because the PvP fans tend to be motivated but less numerous and thus fairly aggressive in defending their play-style, or just think they are innately more hard-core. Of course they also gain from having lots of targets so they don't really want barriers between the two type of players. I'd assume "Griefer" is more or less the opposition term. Carebear = "Can't handle it, would enjoy PvP if you didn't suck at it, wimp, need a care-bear hug" Griefer = "just enjoys ruining other players gaming and ambush, no-challenge kills" The debate generally comes into play when PvP is non-consensual. In a game where you can flag yourself PvP or choose to enter PvP zones it's generally not too much of an issue. In a game where you can be shot 5 seconds after spawning as a new player it generally is.

As I said, he's a spokesman for the play-style.

I don't like PK'ing, but this isn't the answer. If you don't like the game as it is don't run a server, or wait for a variant that has some controls built in. Though if you are running your own items database/Hive I guess it doesn't bother anyone else, Rocket can't do much about it, and there's no advantage gained. I think you'd still want an automated mechanism though.

It would be fascinating to identify how many of the "I got mine, am armed and will kill without hesitation or provocation" are from the US.

Godwin'd :)

I'm not insulting him, I'm just identifying him. He's not refuting anything because what he's doing is championing a play-style. Same as most people. Not everyone wants the same play-style, that's why there's opposition to that Day-Z is becoming. Though it's pretty pointless because arguing doesn't change game mechanics.

There's an entire forum full of cases of obvious hacking, and where you can report it if you got evidence, just below this one. If you read it for a bit it's pretty obvious hacking is rampant and Arma-II never even tried to protect against it on the basis that both sides just wanted to simulate a fair fight. Day-Z doesn't work that way so hacks and exploits are desirable. I'm sure they'll fix it if and when they can.

Zed is either psychotic or the most able front-man for the PK crowd. Possibly both :)

Under current game mechanics shooting first is the right answer even if you weren't that way inclined to start with. It's safer because attempting to communicate makes you much more vulnerable, there's no model of reputation that helps identify dedicated PK's, there's no negative consequences (other than -ammo) and you might well get nice loot that would be effort to find. You are about to get slammed by a lot of people who like shooting people and are going to explain you are weak, need to learn to play, aren't playing it properly, couldn't get that intensity without them, need them to represent the fact we're all psychotic as soon as the cops are gone. It's not worth discussing till there's a meaningful humanity mechanism in game. That defines how much of an issue Rocket things it is. Current vers: not much.

Don't bother with it. The PK arguments of "we are roleplaying a realistic reaction of the savagery in man being released in a time of crisis, we add tension and challenge that makes the game of value" is really just cover for "I like shooting people in games". Shoot anyone, loot their corpse, send them back to square one is absolute nirvana for these people. And they're as motivated on the forums as they are in game to preserve their play-style. But there's no point arguing until / if we see a new humanity system. Until then you might as well presume Rocket is cool with it and that's the way things are. Because no amount of debate will change the game mechanics, and the game mechanics encourage and reward shooting first. Of course Ultima was cool with it until they realized the people who don't like or can't compete in hard-core PvP get chased off. Same will happen here, though there's less profit motive so maybe it doesn't matter.

Only once the soft targets are gone (casuals and non-PvP players).

I think both sides of the community believe rocket champions their style of play. Quotes from him saying the PvP is currently a larger part of the than intended, quotes saying Day-Z is not a PvP game and lots of others saying PvP is a large part of the game. Meanwhile his recent changes have largely encouraged PK behaviour by making communication more risky and removing one disincentive (which was cosmetic anyway). I think everyone realises most of the game mechanics are going to be those inherited from Arma-II for quite a while. But a statement of direction might help if he wants to keep the casuals and non-PvP audience. Because I have complete confidence the PvP guys are more rewarded, more motivated, more organized and going to be killing them repeatedly. And some of them will complain about it but a lot more will just stop playing. Of course I could also see why he'd just leave it a mystery. Gives him more design freedom, sells more copies of Arma-II and lets the community evolve towards wherever it does. Meh, I hate this thread title anyway. There are lots of social incentives, the good PvP guys travel in groups for a reason. It's non-PvP mechanics and incentives that are lacking.