DocSavage

Yes.

This post is the best evidence I've seen for banning anyone under 21 from posting here.

While I can sympathize with people who risk a lot only to be warded off by wire and tank traps, it's exactly these dickish maneuvers that need to be preserved as the game moves forward. Yes, it sucks. But so does being sniped from hundreds of yards away, or being blown up by a remotely placed satchel charge, or being killed in the crossfire of two player squads. All of those kinds of things contribute to the anything-goes environment that Day Z is being praised for (most recently by EVE Online developers: http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/25/eve-online-devs-on-dayz-elder-scrolls-online-and-whatd-make-them-quit-the-games-industry/). In so many words, go place some barbed wire of your own.

See, I think the key to figuring this out isn't so much about straight punishment as it is introducing risk into the equation. As it stands, pulling the trigger on an unknown player has little repercussion. And I doubt that the heartbeat system in place is going to stop me and whoever I'm rolling with from gunning down people raiding tree stands or stragglers on the outskirts of Elektro. Players shouldn't be punished because they choose to play bandit. But there needs to be some kind of mechanic in place that makes the decision to kill another player outright interesting. I like the map system because it's drastic; it changes the entire way you play when you know people could be hunting you. Maybe the map blip could only be accurate to the grid square, rather than pinpoint? Or maybe it would only last for a short window of time?

Agreed, the map marker system is a very heavy-handed proposal, but so was taking away starter weapons, and I think that's working out nicely. Do you think there should be in-game repercussions for murder, or not so much?

Guys, what's a carebear?

Well that's a bummer. I haven't even noticed it. Do you like it?

Isn't this a Post apocalyptic reality simulator? Situation 2: Me and my friend running from Zeds' date=' I stop and start killing Zeds and my friend runs in the line of fire and I kill him, by accident, and what now, every one will hunt me, for this tragic accident? Your suggestion reminds me "Lineage 2", Korea'n MMORPG. If you kill some one, and he doesn't shoot back, you become a PKiller with red "NameTag" and in order to clear your "name" you must farm "mobs" or die, even Korea`ns wasn't showing on the map PKillers, just a red "NameTag". [/quote'] I see your logic, but I'd argue it doesn't hold up. The humanity system is already in place and it's forgiving of the the thing you just described. The server already tracks humanity. Technically, there are still bandits and survivors, there's just no visible distinction between the two. Rocket has plans to implement a heartbeat system, but on paper I think it sounds weak. Plus, hunting other players who you know to be capable killers would be a fun addition to end-game, as opposed to picking over dear stands and cooking meat while you wait for your squad to log on. I teach high school English for a living. Show me how it sucks. "Artificial disadvantage to a certain playstyle" isn't explaining anything to me. Give me a scenario where it would negatively impact your game. I believe you that it sucks, but show me how it does.

What? As in reality?

So let me back up a second and state that this post was made on the assumption that Rocket is experimenting with ways to incentivize cooperation. Or at the very least, prevent bean wars. He's removed starting gear and beefed up zombies to that end. Why would this be so awful to try for a week?

If it were only limited If this were limited to only the worst of the worst, let's say, then it'd work similar to a bounty system. Combat-averse people with maps could give the guy a wide berth, while the more adventurous could try and hunt him down. It's a little gamey, yeah, but I think getting a posse together to hunt down a mass murder would be fun.