*Regulator* Curt

In my opinion, Oldtribe, if you haven't already, you should make a thread for this in the Survivor HQ forums. Though it'd be in the interest of our 'posse' to keep this thread going, most people looking to don a tag before their name (join a clan/group) go there. We may get more members if we have a thread there as well.

Two things: 1. How many have we got so far? 2. Anyone who is a regulator want someone to play with? I just got owned by three bandits and I'm thinking that I'd rather play with other people that want to kick bandit butt. I'm no military commando, I don't have a mic, but I know the game well enough.

Good read, kind of evil and sadistic, but fun to read. Note that I'm a friendly survivor and this is in no way an endorsement... I'm just a sucker for a good read.

Glad to be a part of the Regulators, hope this idea catches on. Give it a try guys, no obligations, just be friendly and help when able. It's a nice way to feel a part of something without all of the obligations. Basically, you can join this, and play whatever way you want. Or, you can join another group/clan, and be forced to act like a military commando while you play a game. If the first sounds your style, join up!

Eh, the suggestions are nice, but there are serious an inescapable problems with the ideas. These are general responses to your overall ideas (though some I agree with, most I do not). 1. This will not certainly lower the rate of banditry/murdering -- theories don't always work in reality. 2. This could very well increase the rate of banditry (harder to survive might = killing people just in case they have something useful). 3. This hurts the solo players who are completely innocent in this debate. Even *if* this did help stop banditry, this would really hurt the ability for people to solo. 4. More Zeds on already slow servers probably makes it a bad idea. Here are some counter suggestions, that are simpler, easier, and quite authentic: 1. Guns make more noise (both the noise stat, and the sound of the gun itself), making it easier for players to find where the shots are coming from and make it so zombies are drawn to you from even further away. Sniper rifles in particular, should draw zombies from *really really really* far away. This is not only realistic, this makes camping on some hill somewhere and shooting a *very* dangerous proposition, unless you're very far away from town. This will make it so if they shoot, they'll be in trouble, unless they're really far away, in which case it will be harder to hit. 2. When looting a freshly killed body, you get a blood skin on your clothes that is not removed until you get a new outfit. This would not punish killing in self defense, but this would make it so you'd want to avoid looting for a while. 3. After killing a player for the first time, you are given a shaky effect and slightly blurred vision. This is very realistic, you'd be panicked, shook up, and probably feeling sick at the idea that you just killed someone. (This one I'm not sure about, but it sounds nice) 4. Zombies should be fewer in number, but *far* more lethal and more difficult to escape. Zombies should hit for 2,000 - 3,000 blood minimum, with bleeding a certainty (like 100 per second, nothing horribly outrageous). Zombies should be tougher (except for headshot damage) to kill, 2 times or more (I mean come on... they're already dead, how's shooting them some more going to change anything?). Zombies should run much faster than they do now, making it so they can catch you pretty quick if you don't get to safety. 5. Ammo should be a good deal more scarce. Overall, all of the above will have (I believe) the following effects: - Slower, more careful gameplay. People will not simply run through town, go to the nearest building, and be fine. This will be a dangerous game, zombies will always be on your mind. Stronger zombies = more careful, less carefree gameplay. - Servers will be less taxed due to lower amount of zombies. - Zombies will return to being really scary. It used to be that zombies scared you due to appearance, sound, or fear of death. Now, zombies will terrify you (even experienced players) because you'll know just how insanely dangerous they are. You will *never* feel safe in town, you will always be on your toes. This will make the game a lot more fun for pretty much everyone (except those who manage to get caught). - Less ammo, the further range of gun sounds, and the stronger zombies will make you much more picky with your battles. There will be a lot less killing for the lulz, killing will primarily be self defense or for loot -- good reasons. - The less players are killed by bandits, the more the novelty of killing them will be preserved. Bandits may not like this on the surface... but it will return to the days when it gave them a rush, it was exciting, cool, fun -- it felt special. - Game will be more well rounded -- players are still a huge threat, but zombies must always be taken into consideration. This will not longer just be PvE or PvP, it will be far more balanced. - All of these effects are more authentic -- they add to the realistic feel without being too intrusive/annoying to deal with. The game won't become any more or less complicated.

Eh, the problem is, those kinds are a serious minority. In real life, if this really happened, I'd wager people would be too afraid to shoot (it may draw other survivors, bandits, zombies and such). Not to mention, the natural human tendency towards grouping up is very strong. I'm always friendly, I never shoot first, only kill people I *know* are bandits, and I try to give noobs (note: not just fresh spawns, people who are new at the game in general) sidearms if I can (1911, revolver). I generally run around the edges of the map, through the forests, get decent stuff (CZ, M24, maybe an assault rifle), then attempt to kill noob killers back near the beach. Sadly, I'm pretty sure people are starting to leave the beaches and head inland straight away... so not much action lately.

What I expect, is not to be killed just to be killed. I'm unarmed, just spawned, and shot in the head for no other reason than it gives them a cheap laugh. I don't expect not to die, I don't expect no risk of death, I expect a decent chance at living through any encounter. If you meet someone in this and they're armed, it's almost 100% chance of death, when in real life, no way would that ever happen. In this, people can shoot and not worry about zombies because they're easy to escape/kill. This game is PvP, with zombies sprinkled on top. It should be survival against all elements -- you should be very worried about zombies, you should be worried about shooting players and drawing other players... none of these concerns are present, people kill just cus, they kill unarmed, they kill and they don't loot, it's *just* killing. Fundamentally, I believe this relentless kill on sight aspect of the game *will* ruin it, it *will* kill the game (i.m.o.). This game is only fun for the predator, and that won't even continue. Killing is starting to lose its novelty, it's too easy, it's too common, it's losing its reward. We would all benefit from less shoot on sight, including bandits. Killing would mean something, it'd be special, it'd be fun.

Fantasy, combat, structured. Realistic, survival, unrestricted. Have fun, hope you enjoy it as much as you think you will. SW:TOR, Diablo 3, Rift, Tera... those games were going to keep everyone playing for years too.

Where's the video? :o I wanna see!

This is actually a very misleading statement, and I question whether you know what the definition of evidence is or not. Evidence does not mean solid proof, evidence means, "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Clearly, by that definition, we can determine that evidence only means something that suggests a certain proposition is true. You know how when you're watching all of those crime T.V. shows, and they're dealing with the law, evidence can be anything and everything that supports a proposition? Witness testimony is a form of evidence -- this is because evidence is a broad term that applies to a range of things. The arguments that true infinities are implausible, and as such the universe did have a definitive beginning; the simple question of "why something, rather than nothing?"; the fundamental physical constants are set to such a narrow range that if they were changed in minor amounts the universe would be totally inhospitable to life; the list goes on and on and on (I have about 12 more by rough estimation in mind). There are many reasons to believe in a God, one shouldn't simply dismiss the possibility of any evidence existing. If I were you, I would've used one with some substance and wit, such as, "In the beginning, man created God.". Of course, neither quote is relevant to discovering what the *truth* is, they're only used to insult the other side of the argument. There's plenty of evidence and reason to believe in a God, but there is also plenty of evidence and reason to not believe in a God. To have faith and absolute faith are two entirely different things. Faith on its own, is not an inherently negative or close-minded thing. It can be both, but only in the case of absolute faith (which many theists do have admittedly). “Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance." -Sir Isaac Newton Cute quotes, that they are, but both irrelevant. Plenty of theists, in spite of their faith, are open to reason. What I find really funny, is that many theists admit that they're close-minded... yet atheists who are obsessed with being open-minded are entirely close-minded to the idea of any God existing. Tl;dr: Don't dismiss the possibility of evidence supporting a certain proposition. This is not the place to have a religious debate, so please, let's not try to insult other people's beliefs.

There's no really substantial reason to believe in ghosts or Bigfoot (that I'm aware of) but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss God or aliens. It is speculated, that there are thousands of potential planets out there that can support life (though no proof exists). In the countless galaxies that exist, and within them the billions of stars/planets, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to think that people don't have a good reason to believe aliens exist :P. Similarly, there are many things that make a universe without a creator of some kind implausible. This is not to say that it's likely there is a creator, but I would say that we should all try to be a bit more open minded about such possibilities. Besides, why should it bother you in the slightest what other people believe in? As long as they don't go around shoving it in your face, does it really matter that some people believe in ghosts? What automatically makes it so that anyone who thinks ghost exist, do so to get a "retard hard on"? Or have I misunderstood your statement? Personally, this stuff is all really entertaining. I love the fact that some of it could be true -- if I made a game, it'd have loads of tiny cool stuff in it. I love Easter Eggs, or other hidden discoveries waiting to be found.

Sounds like a cool idea, though this shouldn't be the focus in my opinion. More important things to worry about atm.

Nobody is suggesting anything that penalizes PvP heavily, but rather, something that gives you a reason not to play it as if it were team death match. Your scenario suggests that you have no problem with killing someone who's a threat to you... that's a fair statement. But that's not what we're trying to counter, we're fine with self defense. We are not fine with 1/2 of the playerbase killing other players just for the lulz. A lot of the time, they don't even loot them, they just shoot/axe and walk away (I've had that happen twice at this point, saw a friend gunned down and the guy just walked away -- no looting). The problem is that people shoot people -- not because there's a good, logical reason (defense, loot etc.). They shoot someone because they're bored, or because it's fun. Not to mention, humans have an intuitive fear of combat -- for good reason. You don't know your enemies capabilities, you may think they're unarmed... yet they may have a sidearm somewhere, they may have friends nearby etc. etc. If we're going for a realistic approach, there are just too many reasons *not* to kill on sight, and too few reasons to kill on sight. The truth of the matter is, we can approach DayZ from 3 standpoints: 1. It's all about freedom. You can do whatever you want -- within reason. This may be more fun for certain individuals, but the lack of structure will hurt the game more overall than it will help it. If players are left purely to their own devices, then they'll ruin the game. I've seen it happen twice before in other MMOs. 2. It's all about realism. You're restricted -- only by what you would be if this were real. In which case, there are a number of factors to take in when dealing with killing others: How well armed are they, are they with a group, what are their intentions, what would I gain from doing this etc. none of which are every taken into account when people kill other people. They just kill them -- on sight, no thought, just the reward of destroying another person's work (humans are twisted like that, thank you evolution!). 3. It's about what is best for gameplay purposes. Any artificial restriction can be imposed -- realistic or no. This would overall be pretty bad for the game, because the feeling of realism is really the only thing that makes Day Z attractive. Can anyone here say, that the game is funner now, than when you first played it. Ideally, we need to strike a balance between the three. Giving players freedom enough to feel in control and as if they're left to their own devices, making sure the game fits within realism as well as can be expected for a game, and making it so players are funneled towards the most enjoyable way to play the game. People have different tastes, you will never satisfy everybody. I can however, with a reasonable amount of certainty say that most people do not like the current death match. The game's overall appeal outshines that huge downside, but it'd be a lot better if it were removed. I think you'll find the following suggestions are realistic, help combat death match gameplay that most people don't want, and still allow for freedom without being too harsh of punishments: 1. When you loot a player body, blood is left on your clothes that is very easily identifiable. This makes it so self defense killing is not punished, but that murdering wildly for loot can have consequences. Once you change clothes however, the blood is removed. 2. For your first murder, you are given an after effect of shakiness and blurry vision -- no matter in self defense or not. This is simply realistic, it shouldn't last too long (10-15 minutes) but it should be there to give a reason to avoid confrontations. 3. Guns should make more noise -- or zombies should hear the noise of guns better. In real life, guns can be heard from *very, very, very, very, very* far away. Zombies, having better hearing, should be drawn to the guns from farther away. Pistols especially, it's a common misconception that they're far quieter than rifles. While this is true in some (maybe most) cases, they're actually very, very loud (and often louder than bigger guns). This will make it so being very careful (as you would in real life) is necessary to your survival. Weapons should only be used in last case scenarios, or battles far away from towns. In real life, you'd draw zombies, survivors etc. by the sound of your guns. 4. Players should be able to easily tell the direction of gun shots. Simply put, it's too hard to find out where shots are coming from, when in real life it's fairly easy to tell. By shooting, you give away your position, thereby drawing bandits or survivors who kill bandits to you, further making kill on sight a bad idea *and* making it more realistic. I believe these four things, would make grouping more likely, make death match less common, make banditry a lot more difficult but more exciting and reward, and make the game more realistic and detailed. Bonus suggestion: 5. Sniper rifles make super-duper extra crazy mega noise. It's too easy to sit back and snipe all day, and there's almost no reason to get any other weapon than a sniper at the moment. Tl;dr: Read it lazy!

I haven't died in about 10 or so days, that's playing on a medium pop server, 2-5 hours a day, and being a player who never shoots first. Perhaps your experiences aren't the same as everyone else's?

1. That's not a reason to kill on sight, you don't have to feed two mouths if you go your separate way. Additionally, by shooting, you risk drawing Bandits and Zombies to your position -- for little to no gain. Life works in pros and cons, do the pros outweight the cons? You might find a little bit of food by mudering an innocent human being (a con that comes with the pro) and you might draw bandits/more survivors that could end up getting you killed. This isn't at all factoring in multiple survivors, some that may have guns etc. You think of things in a far too simplistic way -- it's unrealistic at best. 2. I think you're a bit off track here. We're talking about reasons to kill on sight. Kill on sight or team up aren't the only two options, you can always go it solo. Thus, this point is completely invalid. 3/4/5/6/7. These are all essentially the same thing, that you threw in there for filler. It seems you're trying to force a dichotomy here, you either must help them, or you must kill them -- there are no other options! This is false at best. While I can very easily argue that grouping up would, in fact, be more likely to occur and more beneficial, that is not the point of this argument. We're trying to determine if the 'shoot on sight' mentality is realistic/beneficial -- I'm saying it's not. The reason these reasons fail, is simple. You don't have to trust this person, you don't have to give go near him and risk infection etc. You point your gun, you threaten to kill him, and as a last resort you injure him and make your escape. There is no benefit to killing on sight -- as long as he isn't heavily armed. 8. If this guy (is he armed?) is part of a bandit pack, you shooting would alarm the bandit pack. Your only option is to escape, or are you saying it's realistic for you to solo a bandit pack? In fact, I'd suggest, shooting even in this situation should be a last resort. How do you know that he's part of one? You're going to shoot everyone because they may be part of one? 9. I won't flip out at you for this one, it's sad but it may be true. Woman were a commodity in the past, and if men are running around with guns and without laws, they may become so again. I really don't want to insult anyone with this -- we're not saying they're not equal or anything like that. Just that men really like women... it's a compliment... really! Oh, and my response to this is: therefore she must be shot on sight? Can't have her as a companion so... must kill her? 10. Okay, that's fair, but that doesn't deny anyone any form of area. Okay, so you killed this one for coming near your territory... what about the next one? What about the one that sneaks in while you're sleeping? What about the bandit pack that will eventually find you? You've not stopped any of them, you've killed one person that you didn't need to. This leads to my next point. Your only chance for serious long term survival is to start some form of group, and become organized. Eventually due to anything: bandits, looters, accidents, disease, hunger, thirst, boredom... you will almost certainly die. This world isn't easy to survive in, throw in zombies and bandits, LOL. Your only hope, is to get with others, rely on each other, protect each other. You cannot survive this world on your own, that is a thing that has proven time and again throughout history. Sorry buddy, there's simply no good reason to shoot random survivors on sight. Too many cons, not enough pros.