Kageru

That's not unique. If what you want is the thrill of small group tactical combat there's this game called ARMA-II that specializes in doing it. Seen from that perspective the uniqueness of Day-z is that the sides aren't even in numbers, gear and playing with the same goal (some of them think it's about zombies lol!) like they are in an Arma-II match.

The propensity to PK probably becomes greater once the novelty of the game ambience wears off, your equipment improves (so you have less to gain and risk more from trying to cooperate) and you realize the zombies are a limited threat. Getting killed yourself would probably encourage similar thoughts. Some sort of game progression would probably help provide another avenue, but that's a lot of work to produce and not currently in the game. There are mechanics that force you to go to Cherno, broken bones and infection being the two most obvious. Plus there's not actually anything of interest or value out in the wilds. The good loot is all in towns and the good / military loot with high spawn density is a large part of what makes certain places hot spots.

It's why PvP games always have the worst communities. Sharing information or advice outside your group just makes potential enemies stronger. Same with reporting exploits, why surrender an advantage?

You wanted to PvP and the zombies in the zombie game got in the way.... how terrible.

Information is an advantage so don't share it I guess.

You can't dupe anymore after the patch anyway.... Duping is a silly thing to complain about. I can kill you with an Enfield just as easy as I can with a higher tier weapon. Wasn't a lot of the duped stuff hidden away in off-map tents / vehicles though? problem solved.

There needs to be some sort of reputation / faction / humanity indicator and this could certainly be a part of it.

At least it's helping correct the results of duping I guess.

I thought they were an elegant, if somewhat artificial mechanic. Pulling them completely with no replacement was bizarre.

It can't easily be a civil debate because everyone tries to steer the game towards their preferred style of play. And the easiest way to do that is attack the opponent because, really, it's just a game-style preference with no real "correct" answer. I do agree that part of the reason the game devolves into PvP is because it lacks other goals. The zombies are pretty passive and predictable, it's not too hard to gear up if you get lucky in regards to avoiding PvP threats, and you get all these nice guns begging to be used.

First' date=' mechanics should not be "against" or "for" anything. That's a rule in disguise. Mechanics are neutral. They don't care what you do with them. [/quote'] *Game* mechanics are generally crafted with an intent as to the gameplay they encourage or discourage. The restricted ammo spawn in the game is intended to force conservation of ammo, the zombie mechanic discourages using "noisy" weapons. The old bandit skins gave you a hint as to how likely it was the person was an active PK, their removal gave you less information and changes how you react. A humanity system that does nothing is truly neutral, but also useless. And yes, games have rules, in real life as well. It's just that in computer games their implementation is generally automated. I could honestly believe that Rocket, with his military and serious PvP background, believes that players will get organized outside of the game and thus provide a natural counter to PK activity. He's wrong though, because the vast majority of players are casual and more likely to stop playing than invest that amount of effort. Or maybe he pines for the day when it had a smaller and more hard core audience? We'll only really find out as the game evolves. No, it's whatever the designer allows you to do. But at the moment it most certainly is primarily a PvP game. ... It's just that some people thought it was about surviving a zombie apocalypse and are surprised to find the zombies barely feature after the first couple of hours.

I'm sorry I missed bandit skins, it sounds like a much better game than the current one. Though Bandit skins don't make sense some sort of "I recognize that guy! he's a known mass-murderer" is pretty much needed to encourage co-operation. Especially when the "I'm friendly!" communication range is 40m and the lethal range of guns is rather larger. Watching the bandits do the "yeah, I'm friendly, where shall we meet?" in global chat is funny but you just know some new player is about to have a bad experience and it poisons the idea of co-operation (unless formed out of game). Apparently tonights guy drops gear for them and then caps them when they go to pick it up, and with no indication of the fact the guy is an active PK it's easy as long as anyone believes they can have a co-operative experience in the game. Will probably work even better when global is removed so they can't warn others on the server. Still, also funny going back and reading the early posts...

It only takes a relatively small number of committed bandits to break trust, as people will naturally guard against the worst outcome. And there's probably more than a small numer (1 in 5 I think I saw someone say?) Especially because with a shifting population there's no equivalent to reputation and the game doesn't really have a co-operative goal of any sort. Nor can you easily be an anti-PK when there's little indication of who they are and lots of advantages to the defender (including game mechanism exploits). Removing the bandit skin inevitably meant trust would disintegrate. Even if it was an artificial game mechanic it was a useful one that gave a more varied game experience. I sometimes wonder if Rocket, used to the possibly polite, balanced and honorable battles of the small ARMA-II community didn't see this coming.

Sadly true. Once you have basic gear the chance of finding something of interest goes way down while the risk of losing it all remains constant or even increases as you are a more tempting target. And there's no real goal to it. Of course that just means it's early days in the development of the mod.

Not really. The game mechanics strongly favor the agressor unless the designer chooses to implement a mechanic against that. As such the move towards "shoot first is safest" in the game community is entirely logical. It's not necessarily positive for the game but that's up to the designer.

A PK fan has no interest in the "sanctity of the game", finding an exploit, hack or short-cut is just an advantage to be used and abused. And I get the feeling the Arma-II engine has never been exposed to that sort of thing.

"Zombies will never be the main threat even if they one shot ppl, players will always be the ultimate challenge. AI is just not going to compensate for that." You are probably right. If it comes to a contest between human players and game designers / AI my money is on the players. But they could probably selectively be a little more threatening than they are now. But it is a zombie game after all, they should probably be something more than an irritant while you gear up.

No one's forcing you to go to "0.0 space." There are plenty of places that get zero PK traffic. There are plenty of people making survivor groups. There are plenty more MAKING safe areas. And DayZ seems to be attracting players at a FAR faster pace than EVE ever did (for a $30 alpha in many cases). Your complaints literally boil down to being bitter about bandits killing you' date=' and wanting the game to enact your revenge because you are incapable. [/quote'] Don't be dumb. I admire Eve because it has the different play styles. If you want to be "mostly" safe you can do that, but the pickings are slim. If you want to lone wolf there's a space for that, and then there's player empires. It is a game designed so that players can adjust to the level of challenge they can handle. That makes a massive difference to retention and letting new players ease into the game / PvP when they want to. This game is actually much less balanced because there are no safe areas, few counters to many threats and lots of game mechanics (broken legs, infection, static loot spawns) that force players into high threat environments often while in a weakened state. The zombie mechanic also favors the ambusher that someone who has to try and counter (run, return fire). I mean if you'd read my suggestions I don't want PvP removed. Having "danger-zones" is good. But co-op oriented players should have a foundation for cooperation to balance out really organized PvP crews and the lack of persistent reputation and zombies should be the primary threat. I reckon that would be more than enough to balance the game so PvP is viable but not quite so dominant.

I reckon the infestation of PK's, who are really only interested in player kills, is stealing focus from zombies. And the zombies could both reclaim center stage, become more of a threat and help control PK activity. Though it also mimics the idea that fortifying an area can lead to conflict with a zombie horde. How about: 1. Zombies are attracted by the smell of gunfire, so a silenced weapon does not guarantee non-detection. 2. A combination of lots of powder residue / gunfire in one location, plus the constant presence of survivors in one location, makes it more possible multiple zombies will be spawned to go and investigate that spot. You can balance it so no powder gives you a decent AFK period before you are at risk. 3. The chance is multiplied if you are firing from or into a zombie infested area. 4. Investigating zombies being killed makes it more likely additional zombies will spawn, meaning survivors have to keep mobile. Trying to hold one location will eventually lead to it being over-run. 5. Zombies will destroy obstructions or climb so that no spot is unreachable. It's a zombie mod, zombies should be a threat rather than a bunch of dumb livestock milling helplessly around buildings. I also have a foundation for co-operation suggestion. (edit cause I suck at thread names)

In one of the E3 interviews I think Rocket said the Arma-II engine can do location based visible damage. It's just that it would need a lot of extra art to work on zombies (and would not be used on players).

Eve is supported by people doing PvE in mostly safe zones.. with players geting to decide their level of risk. It tends to be more successful than a game in which the agressor has free reign. It was funny that Rocket identified the arrival of Eve players the start of the exploits, they're a hella smart player base in that regard. I have no idea about that other post... the individual intent of any PvP act doesn't really matter, it's how it shapes the focus of the game. If you are arguing that sandbox PvP basically means it favors the more organized aggressor whereas the other has equal gear, numbers and less of a loss on death I'd agree. But how it changes anything I've no idea.

Nah... But feel free to ignore me, ultimately only the designers opinions on what the game should be (and what is capable of being implemented) really matter. Though in MMO games it's pretty well established that Free for all / Full loot PvP games are a niche market. Darkfall failed and even Eve online, which is pretty hard core, has policed safe zones and player organisations to structure PvP. You can see the two sides in the user comments of this Rock Paper Shotgun[/article].

Lots of new players spawn within view distance of the major cities and think it looks a great place to get the gear they need to survive. They probably don't realize that surviving the zombies is the easy part. Besides, the game also has lots of mechanics such a broken legs and infection that force people into the hot-zones. Generally in a weakened state as well.