SillySil

I've been talking with people on this forum about PvP and banditry a lot and to me some people seem like they're playing a different game. Or not even a game, they're talking about morality. Have you ever considered someone a bad person because they've beat you in a board game? I'll try to show you guys what game mechanics this game has and why people kill each other. Imagine a big board with hexagon tiles, maybe something like that. Now every player will have their own figure. And that figure will be representing the player. There can be up to 60 players playing at the same time. Every player's figure has health, attack damage and attack range, maybe some special moves. You can upgrade your figure by collecting powerups that are scattered on the map. Powerups are guarded by very weak monsters. Players can attack each other and if one player beats another player's figure he can take all his powerups if they are higher level than what he already has. If you beat someones figure that doesn't have any powerups or all powerups are lower level then you don't gain or loose anything. If your figure is beaten you start over. There is no points or time limit. The game never ends and players can join and leave at will. How would you imagine that would look like? People would just beat other people's figures for their powerups. Some people would bunch up for sure but everyone would be just trying to take other people's powerups if given chance. Nobody would fucking say that a player who beats other people's figures is a bad person. Or that it's a dick move or immoral. Or that they should never own a gun. Now lets digitalize the game and change the style a bit. Change the board to a 3d map without tiles. Everyone can move at the same time. Change figures into human models. Change powerups into weapons and other equipment. Everything else stays the same. Suddenly it's immoral to beat other people's pawns. Suddenly you get all those people saying that we shouldn't be playing against each other. That it's harassment and griefing if you do. Suddenly you have people threating it as something completely different than a game. Like an extension of reality. (And by that I don't mean role-playing.) What happened? It's still just a game. The movement and visuals are just bit different but it's all the same. Don't blame people for playing by the rules and mechanics. Blame the design. People will always do the most profitable thing. Especially if there are no downsides to it.

That's the thing. When I'm playing DayZ I consider it a game. I have my own virtual pawn and I can beat other player's virtual pawns. Nothing immoral about it for me in real life. I could be roleplaying and considering it immoral, but I'd be only playing a role.

When it comes to DayZ it's more about not loosing than winning. And getting good gear helps you a lot with not dieing. Because once you do get spotted by someone who's not friendly you need to do something about it, and assuming you don't want to exploit and alt+f4 you'll probably have to reason with the guy using bullets. And I'm talking only about game mechanics. From the designer point of view. What people find fun comes later. Ideally all playstyles are equally valid mechanic-wise and they are all fun. You don't have to seek firefights to kill on sight. Say you went to stary and you see a guy there. It's very likely that he's not going to share the loot or that will be afraid of you and shoot you. You can back up and come later for scraps or you can just kill him. (And yeah skill comes in here just like for people being friendly. If you wanna fight better be in a good spot and check your surroundings before you fire. Just because you kill on sight doesn't mean you can't play smart.) Once he's dead not only you are sure that he's not going to kill you (either now or 5 minutes later somewhere else) but you get everything he has and you are free to loot all the tents. The game rewards you for killing. The feeling of success and enjoyment doesn't affect that. No matter what you like to do and what you choose to do, the mechanics are still in the game and they still affect you.

You assume an awful fucking lot don't you? Common logic. People complain about issue A then a bigger problem B arises and people focus on that. Then B gets resolved. What happens then? Durr I don't know. And it's also safe to assume that rocket will want the DayZ mod mechanics in standalone? Otherwise he's making a completely different game? And I'm ignoring cheating/scripting because it's not supposed to be in the game. I'm only talking about intentional mechanics. When are you going to understand that? When is the last time you seen a fully geared bandit running through cherno? I'll give you a hint, you don't. And if you do it's pretty damn rare. They sit outside the city in the acres of land the surround cherno/electro and snipe from the hills, mostly with duped AS50's and scripted AS50 TWS's. Even if the off chance they get killed they have a tent full of duped gear anyway and just go right back to what they were doing before, killing fresh spawns who are still enjoying the game, and loot, surviving. And don't dare try to say "Durr but I wasn't referring to duping bandit, I'm not one!" Good for you. But 99.9% of the bandit population in the games uses duping and openly admit it, it is effectively a broken mechanic of the game that will be used until fixed so trying to take that out of the equation is changing the game ENTIRELY because the game would be different without that aspect. This is the game, you can't pretend people play one way and make it so, just because you say it. But I'm not talking about current state of the game (mainly because it doesn't look like devs want it to). My board game mechanics didn't include cheating to show the intended DayZ mechanics. All this talk about cheating is irrelevant. And it's not changing the game entirely it's just making dupers/scripters hit endgame very fast. Endgame as in they have all the gear they need so they don't bother looting anything anymore. Groups of people who have grinded a lot of gear will get there eventually and once they do they'll just seek PvP. Either bandit patrol or being a bandit. The mechanics stay the same, they're just much slower to get. However there were legit tent cities filled with gear that made death just a minor annoyance. My group would raid NWA/stary and hoard a lot of equipment. Vehicles too. And once we had so much gear that there was no point getting more, we went to hotspots just to seek PvP. There will always be cheap assholes who'll pray on people who can't defend themselves. And I'm not defending them. Without duping people would be forced to scavenge when they re-spawned. Everyone would be running into each other with makarovs. You don't need to dupe to have so much gear in your tents that you don't need more. Unfortunately though, unlike you I'm not going to pretend the game is in a state it isn't and just ignore that the majority of the population effectively cheats by duping and is pretty damn open about it. Unfortunately you are unable to talk about version of the game without scripts/hacks. I know my board game wasn't exactly how DayZ is now. Because cheaters and dupers effectively change it by breaking the rules. However I was talking about how the game is INTENDED, supposed to be. I ignored the non-intended part of current state of the game intentionally. You open you're eyes and stop acting like an ignoramus. What about the survival aspect? needing water and food to stay alive, the sound and sight mechanic which changes when you move in shadows or at night or depending on if you are walking on gravel or grass. What about sickness? What about the temperature mechanic? what about the unique medical perspective of how you need allies to heal you with blood bags? What about how loot and vehicles work, working in rarity into an FPS isn't easy and he did a good job aside from cheating and hacking exploiting it. All those things listed and more have been added just for DayZ and it's only a fucking mod. Food, water, antibiotics, medical supplies, heatpacks, car parts they are all just more reasons to go look for items. Doesn't change the game mechanics at all. And how does audibility/visibility system change the mechanics? It just lets you avoid those very weak enemies guarding pickups. Doesn't change anything. It all adds to the game but the basic principle stays the same. "Look for things." You are comparing a full fledged MMO to a mod a guy made himself for a game. You're perceptive is FUCKED, you can't judge everything on the same playing field, why do you think they are making there own damn standalone? You're the one who brought EVE into this. And it doesn't need to be as complicated as EVE not to support a certain playstyle. I don't understand how you are not getting it. It's very simple. Give players many (at least 2) ways of playing, make them equally viable and let people choose what they wanna do. That's what EVE does. Why can't DayZ? For a MOD this is a damn SANDBOX. He took Arma and turned it into something even more amazing and you want to trivialize it like "oh it's just some game mechanics that aren't that great". Funny how you seem to be the only one who thinks it isn't a sandbox, mmo sites certainly think it is, gamespot, pretty much every site that recommends it. I know it's the most sandbox like fps mod I have ever heard of, let alone played. Dude I've addressed that already. The discussion starts to be pointless if you are just repeating the same thing over and over without taking what I've said to the account. You said that a sandbox game is a game that's made by the community. I said "well dayz isn't a sandbox then" and now you link me definitions how dayz is a sandbox and how other people think it is. The problem is when they're saying "sandbox" they're thinking "nonlinear" and "freeroam". I don't disagree with that definition of sandbox. I disagree with YOUR definition. What the shit are you ranting on about? This game gives you the ability to decide what is rewarding and profitable for you. If it is rewarding for me to never equip a weapon and run from every zombie I see then that is what I'll do. If it's rewarding for me to carry only a side arm then I'll do it. If it's rewarding to me as a person to help people, that's what I will do. The only things I can't ignore are those that will kill me for sure eg: eating, drinking. There are very very few mechanics in this game that MAKE you do things, it is your choice. Hell you could decide to play only without eating or drinking, that may be fun for you to see how far you get, there are no objectives in this game, only to survive as long as you can or as long as you see fit. Hell I have even seen a guy post about playing the game like it was real life. He would stand behind the counter and ask "Do you need medical assistance?" at the hospital. He had some pretty funny stories. Some people decide they will try to police, some people decide to be medics, some decide to be murderers, some decide to be bandits, some decide to be hoarders, some decide to be minimalists. I determine what is profitable to me. The game does not, the mechanics don't support only wielding an axe and chasing people who will probably kill you but people do that anyway, because they can, because its profitable to them. The only profit you get from ANY GAME is enjoyment, and if you enjoyed yourself you have been rewarded in full. How you determine what that is, is not up to YOU or the game mechanics, it's up to the individual whose playing. So stop telling me the best way to play this game because that is my choice. You can judge me all you want for it, but you can't tell anyone that the game should be played any certain way. Mr. Hall monitor. ... I feel dumb explaining this for the third time. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU IGNORE THE GAME MECHANICS THEY ARE STILL WORKING. Mechanics almost never force you to do something, they just reward you for following them and punish you for not following them. For instance you can take a sniper rifle and try to use it in close combat. Bad call, you are effectively putting yourself at a disadvantage. The guy following the mechanics and using an assault rifle is going to be at an advantage compared to you. It's your choice yeah. That's the thing about mechanics, it's either getting rewarded or punished, not forced. And it's like that in every single game. I can choose not to shoot people in battlefield and just fly around the map in a jet. Maybe that's what I like to do. It doesn't change the fact that I'll get killed. You are completely unable to look purely at game design. When you design a game you determine what's going to be profitable in-game for people and what won't. And with that you effectively influence what people will be doing. Sure people can choose not to follow the mechanics. It doesn't change the fact that they're in game. You said the game isn't sandbox, sandbox is defined as nonlinear and freeroam, even on the wiki. Rocket believes the community makes the game what it is, and I agree. There is nothing more I can show or tell you. You don't listen. Again ,You said that a sandbox game is a game that's made by the community. I said "well dayz isn't a sandbox then" and now you link me definitions how dayz is a sandbox and how other people think it is. The problem is when they're saying "sandbox" they're thinking "nonlinear" and "freeroam". I don't disagree with that definition of sandbox. I disagree with YOUR definition. Just to make it clear, if by saying "dayz is a sandbox" you mean that it's nonlinear and freeroam then I agree. If you mean that the game is shaped by the community I disagree. Your values and sense of being rewarded are fucked. The game doesn't punish me for being good, it rewards me because I like helping people and this game lets me do that as I please. If you like military gear then then killing players with said gear will obviously be rewarding for you. The game isn't punishing you when someone shoots you in the face for being a friendly, that person is. The individual is punishing you. Here we go again. You are unable to understand that there is a difference between what the game mechanics reward and subjective enjoyment attached to things. I fucking finally found the source of the problem. The source of our disagreement. And I'm not really sure if we can be on the same page with this... How do I even explain this. Okay lets take some obvious example, lets say you have counter strike and you love to buy weapons and give them to other people. That's the most enjoyable thing in this game for you and you'll be doing that. It's your choice. The mechanics let you do that but you'll die a lot and probably won't have any points. I know that you wouldn't care about that because you're only concerned about giving people guns and you ignore everything else but ignoring all subjective feelings, the game wants you to buy guns and kill other people. I don't know if this is clear enough. The mechanics are objective, they ignore feelings completely. They're sort of laws that influence players. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "punish and reward" I did that thinking about increasing and decreasing chances of loosing/winning. It's kinda hard to explain if you haven't designed any games. Basically you give people choices with good and bad options (in game) however they might not be the same for the person playing. He might enjoy more an option that puts him at a disadvantage in game. Please try to understand this, this is the main thing in our discussion. And if you won't bother to understand it there is really no point in further discussion. Do you not understand what a rule is? it's not some fucking optional thing, it's a rule. There are no rules that say I can't shoot you in the leg and immobilize you rather than kill you, there are no rules that state if I don't shoot everyone I sight I will suffer. They just don't exist. If the majority of people in the game were friendly that would make it a lot easier to survive and would change the entire dynamic of the game. Would it be rewarding? Hell yeah co-operation on a grand scale would yield great loot for everyone and increase survival. Okay, giving a downside to killing people would be pushing rules down people's throats right? That's what you said. Now you're saying that rules can't be ignored. Can't you just ignore the downside of killing the same way you can ignore downside of not having any weapon? It's not a rule it's a game mechanic. And I just don't like the game mechanics supporting a certain playstyle. But the community doesn't want that because they like competition more than co-operation. Which is fine, the game is suspenseful because you could get shot at any moment. The community creates the entire atmosphere of chernarus. More friendly people and the game changes, more aggressive people and the game changes again. It's a mentality that isn't set in stone and one day a majority of people could change there minds, or not. But if they did it would COMPLETELY change the game and how it is played wouldn't it? But you could do that with ANY game. You can change the mindset of everyone in counter strike and then both teams could be escorting hostages to the safe zone. What you think people don't murder other people and steal and do bad things because they are moral people? That's called anarchy and some kinds of people would kill and steal if they could get away with it and there were no laws, don't be such a fucking naive child. We have laws because they work, because without them people would do bad things, and this is coming from someone who is obviously not a super aggressive person. Laws are for people without morality. You live in a very sad world if you think the only reason people don't kill each other is the law. Some actually have morality and don't do bad things just because they think it's wrong. And thinking like what makes me a sociopath? I was giving you an example and now you once again making yourself look like an assclown by taking it like I was thinking of doing it. You are the most childish, thin skinned, ---bandit. I have ever had the displeasure of talking to. ... you said "Any sandbox game, ever, will always favor killing people on site for there gear. That's what makes it a sandbox don't be so moronic. I could kill you and steal your car, valuables, and maybe even identity. What stops me huh!? THE LAW! MADE BY PEOPLE! Made by a fucking community. If I kill you do I get struck down by some god in the sky? no the law needs to punish me if they even catch me, if people even catch me. SANDBOX. Jesus..." you make it sound like morality doesn't exist. That's why I said what I said. Because the law isn't the reason I dont' steal and kill in real life. My morality is. I don't do that because I don't want to, not because I'm afraid of getting caught. But like I said, I don't consider it immoral to beat your virtual pawn, so I don't have any morality in DayZ and I'll just do the most profitable thing. I'd just like the choice to kill or not to kill to be based purely on prefference not on profit. Morphine has 1 use, which is to heal your broken bone. It has no downside. Shooting people on sight has it's benefits and depending on how you want to play you way them against the cons of shooting someone on sight. "what if he has friends?" "what if I attract attention?" "What if he is friendly and could help me?" "What if I miss?". Just because you fail to see the positives of the other side of the coin doesn't make it any less efficient. I see the positive of making friends. I don't see negatives of killing people on sight. If he has friends and I killed him then he can no longer tell them where I am. Attracting attention is unlikely if you're not in a hotspot. And most of the time you're going to scare away people. And it's not like they'll know where I am, they'll just know my general direction. I can just relocate a bit and I'm safe. It's really a minor thing. And how could he help me? I'll have everything he has I'm not missing much. And I'd rather be safe than risk getting killed. It just doesn't, you're wrong. In every aspect. If you see someone and are out of position and don't shoot they either see you and shoot you with the upper hand or you shoot them. Example: You see a guy and shoot him, you had the advantageous position and took him out. What are the risks?: Attracting to much attention, giving away your position, potentially killing an ally. I see a guy I have the advantageous position, I don't shoot him. What are the risks?: He could see me and move into an advantageous position himself and kill me. Every other instance where I am threatened and someone sees me and has fire power I will shoot, to survive. I won't should someone I know I can get away from, you will. They both have risks and rewards. Explain this to me. This guy can see me any second and decide at any second to start shooting me or giving his friends my exact position. The chance that he'll see me is only increasing in time. Especially if you want to make contact with him. And the "attracting attention" I responded to above. My assumptions? You are the one assuming the hell out of everything. Assuming how people play, assuming what the stand alone community will be like, assuming it's safer to fire gunshots at targets that don't see you, assuming they don't have skype or TS like everyone else. Just cause you suck at playing the game a certain way doesn't mean it is inferior. Why am I assuming how people play? I watch streams and been playing this game for a while. Not assuming anything about that. And I think it's pretty safe to assume that the standalone community is going to be just like this one minus hacker and duping issue. Because it's probably going to be pretty much the same people. And I'm not assuming they don't have TS. I assume they do. That's why I shoot. A dead guy can no longer tell his friends where I am. And I would LOVE to read your suggestion on how to implement something in game to balance both sides. I don't see how giving a balanced penalty for killing people would be so hard to implement. And I don't need to have a solution to say that something is wrong. Hell, if my car isn't working I can tell that it's broken without knowing how to fix it. You're joking right, look at your other posts. You have bitched and moaned about how it's unfair for survivors and hero's this entire time, scroll up. Read it. You may not have said there is ABSOLUTELY NO REWARD but you certainly think that any reward given is obviously not enough. What would you like? a halo? First I don't think you know what bitching and moaning means. Get rid of that mindset that when someone says that something is wrong with something in his opinion it means he's bitching. I'm calmly stating things. I won't loose any sleep because of it. Stop assuming that I do. Second, I'm saying that there are more downsides to being friendly than to being a bandit. I just think that survivors are at a disadvantage. Like literally scroll up. You stated the game mechanics make the game but the mechanics don't support hero play style. The only reward you get from that is on a personal and community level with being known as a hero. But that doesn't matter, it's the game mechanics to you, so you obviously believe there is no reward other that personal satisfaction. Which isn't an INGAME reward. Like you are referring to. You're slowly getting there! I'm not talking about subjective personal satisfaction I'm talking about the game mechanics and design. The learning curve is easier, can you really not read and then accuse me of not being able to? if 2 people equally skilled a bandit and a hero come against each other, it's obviously 50/50 isn't it? They both have mastered there play styles and have adjusted there game to them. What kind of a dumb ass question is that? not to mention a person who plays without KoS will still probably kill someone who does on sight because they will be wearing a bandit skin from doing it and be perceived as an immediate threat. THINK for one second. So is the learning curve easier or not? If both playstyles are equally efficient throughout the entire scale, they're exactly the same, neither is easier or harder. If one of them is easier then always considering equal skill one will be more efficient at some point. And yeah I'm accusing you of not being able to read correctly because first you state how they are not equal and later that they are equal. And you getting a full inventory every time you kill someone is BS. That would mean you don't shoot on sight and only killed geared people, and that would assume that you have time to loot the corpse for there stuff, playing on low pop servers are we? where you can always loot the bodies after a firefight? doesn't that sound easy. Sigh... Every time I kill someone and I loot his body I have everything that he had on him. That's what I've meant. And you don't get everything that people have on them as a reward for helping them every time do you? And cherno and electro are not the only places where you can kill someone. If I haven't looted (or someone from my team) someone after I've killed them it's only because I was either dead after the fire fight or we had to leg it. That is your problem. You suck at being a Hero, some of us are good at it and actually survive longer and play better this way. Good luck being a hero with 150k negative humanity. Maybe I'm a ranty kind of person? I didn't attack you personally saying you can't read and to take pills. Did I? No, that's your agenda. Maybe that's why you're a bandit? What? You have replied to something that I didn't say. And what does what I do on the forum has to do with how I play in the game? Those are game mechanics don't be moronic. Eat or die is a rule of life and a game mechanic implemented within the game. There are no rules in game to have morphine. You will be screwed if you don't yeah, there is no rule against it. When I have morphine I'm not following the rules of the game I have it for safety. Fuck you're being such an embecile you have to generalize the topic every time you know you're wrong. And you're just wrong, there are no rules in game that state I have to carry morphine or a gun to protect myself, hell I can hire body guards are use an axe, or protect myself by running away. I just can't believe it. You are unbelievable. Sigh... I used the world "rule not as in game rule that you have to follow but "A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases"" It even says exactly that in the thing you're quoting. Again problems with reading. And how am I wrong? Because you "know" that by saying "rule" I meant "game rule that you have to follow"? Sorry you can't read my mind. And I'm sorry if I misused the word "rule" in my native you'd use rule and mechanic alternately. They can change how you play the game. If the mechanics as you described them dictate how people play then everyone would be bandits and you wouldn't have some BS argument about how people shouldn't judge others in an online competitive environment. Come on don't act like you don't understand. If people would always do the best thing without attaching feelings to it there would be only 1 company for every branch of industry that has a monopoly because it's the best. But people still buy piece of shit cars or other things. Choosing to be a survivor is like buying a crap car. You might enjoy it but if you look at it without any feelings you were ripped off. That's your individual experience. Not mine. Have you considered you may have been going about it wrong? And on that note even if I did die more often, it would still be my choice which I would still probably choose to be good because I enjoy helping people and pixels aren't that valuable to me. But again that's just my perspective. We can only agree to disagree about the chances of getting shot and benefits from it. You can think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong and generalize and dance around the issue till you can find a point to lean on, that's the way I see it. And swearing to get my point across is one thing, I'm an adult man, I swear and get in heated debates. You are the one who started the childish personal attacks. I'm not the one calling you "embecile", "assclown" or "moronic". You have problems with reading comprehension hence I said that you can't read. It's not a childish attack. Yeah I could've refrained from doing it but going on a rant about something I didn't say justifies it imo. It is if you're good enough at it, many aren't. Most do what is most beneficial to there skill set, the amount of time they have, and what they feel is rewarding as a person. Like DayZ. "if you are good enough at it" you can say that about any way of playing. That's the point. To be able to say that it's equally hard/easy for everyone. People in real life choose jobs all the time that they enjoy as opposed to those that they could do and make more money. I for one chose a trade instead of other more profitable jobs because I enjoy the job I do. I choose 5$ over 50$ every single day. I do the same thing in game, I choose to play what I enjoy as a person, it reflects who I am. Like I said there will always be some people not following pure logic but feelings. Nothing wrong with it but it doesn't change anything either. Most people will still choose 50$. That's why you balance things in games if you want variety. And people rant all day about how there were less bandits before and shoot on sight was less common. Is it possible people just bitch? all the time? like in every single game forum ever? no that couldn't be it. Doesn't change the fact that there are many people angry at bandits for killing people and telling people that they should cooperate with other people and not shoot them. Or that it's immoral to beat someone's virtual pawns. I see most people judging others for griefing (which is fine by me). Which just so happens to mean that you are probably a bandit too. The issue you are addressing either doesn't exist or it's so minimal that I can spend all day on the forums and never see people bitch about about getting into a firefight with a bandit and then saying how immoral they are, it just isn't happening. People get pissed over senseless destroying of another persons fun simply for the reason of ruining there game. Yeah now that the main topic is scripting/duping/standalone you won't find it. I can bet that's gonna have a comeback once standalone starts. Exactly the game would be boring with no bandits. It's not the game mechanics it's that people want to kill others cause they find it fun, some people like to grief too because they think it's fun, they are judged and appropriately so. There are a lot of people out there who are crying for a single player and co-op version of the game, because that's the element they find fun, which determines how they play. Yes the game mechanics isn't what makes people want to kill other people. But the game is telling them that it's a good idea. Same for having morphine. You're always free to choose. And those kind of people that think you are a sociopath are obviously in the minority or there would be an uproar. I can read, it wasn't justified but if you want to start a flame war go ahead, that's on you. You are obviously ignorant to how all gaming forums work because they all look just about the same, infact I would say as far as judging people goes DayZ forum isn't even near as bad as most. You've made a rant about something I didn't say. And I don't assume that everyone means exactly what they're saying on the internet. But like I said, I talked to those people and they actually meant that. And I'm not saying it's some major issue. There aren't many people like it. But there are many people thinking that it's a dick move to beat your virtual pawn in DayZ. (not talking about griefing freshspawns)

Looting hacked/bugged tents isn't really part of intended gameplay. And when are you going to understand that the game mechanics are not subjective. It doesn't matter how I play. They're still in the game. And they aren't optional. They will always influence you even if you choose not to follow them.

There is something to pretend, You are pretending there is a huge issue with people judging bandits, there just isn't in the current state of the game, it's minor. Everyone is raging about hackers, bugs, hell I haven't even seen man shoot on sight threads recently. I have already addressed that "once the standalone comes, assuming it carries over all the mechanics just gets rid of scripts and duping, the issue will be back on top." Then why not shoot at something challenging? they are the same people who are complaining (crap ton of threads about this) that end game is boring. So instead of looking for competitive suspenseful fun they kill defenseless survivors that is about as hard as shooting a goat? doesn't add up. Unless they are griefing. What you're saying doesn't add up. People with high end gear go to cherno to shoot defenseless survivors but don't bump into each other making high end gear vs high end gear? Cherno and electro are PvP zones. People who want to fight go there. And they shoot everyone. Freshspawns included, either just to be sure it's not the guy who they've just killed who's going to find first weapon and try to kill them back, or just for the sake of killing defenseless people because the guy is bad at the game and probably would die in a real firefight. The first ones will say that end game is boring while the other guy doesn't even understand the term end game. Skin is subjective yes, but most people find it much more appealing than the bandit. And I guess the vest is nullified since most bandits have tents duped full of gear. Small arms should be relevant. Even without the duped gear, only freshspawns or a surprised lone sniper would use small cal to PvP. It's just a very minor thing. I stated that sandbox games are molded by the community (Look at eve OPEN YOUR EYES) and look at the very definition of it. EVE is made by the community because the game offers you many ways of playing and they are all rewarding so people are free to choose what they like and not what's more and less advantageous. That's because game mechanics are complex compared to DayZ. Dude you should open your eyes. Take quake, increase the map size 100 times, remove the scoretable, give option to share your weapons and add some weak AI enemies guarding pick-ups. And you pretty much have all DayZ mechanics. Just different graphics. And before the point flies over your head. No I it's not all the game is to me. But those are all the mechanics that we all follow. Community can't change that. Devs can. Freedom to roam do what as you please, I can go to NWAF naked, I can shoot you, I can help you, I can spend all my time building a base, or I can spend all my time hoarding vehicles. There are tons of objectives you can set for yourself that have no pre-requisites on level or class or anything of the sort. There will be even more come later in the mod and eventually stand alone. I have already addressed that. You can ignore all the game mechanics it doesn't make you free of them. You're still going to die if you don't eat. You're still going to be fucked if you break your leg. You're still going to be shot and killed. The game mechanics set what's profitable and what isn't. For instance swimming isn't profitable. Good luck changing that with community laws. The game mechanics define what will people be doing in the game. Giving no downsides to killing people on sight automatically makes a lot of people shoot on sight. The same way if you put an overpowered gun into a game most people will use it. You stated it wasn't a sandbox I proved it was. It's relevant to morality because sandbox games often don't punish the player themselves with game mechanics, but let other players do it. I don't see how you have proven that community makes the game in DayZ. Because that was your definition that I've said is not true. I didn't say that DayZ isn't nonlinear or freeroam. Stop making it look like I did. A sandbox game doesn't put restraints on people that say "if you are bad you will be punished" they let other people judge you for what you do. That's the point of a sandbox, it doesn't shove rules down your throat it lets the community decide those. This makes absolutely no sense. So it doesn't punish being bad but it punishes people for being good? That's the fucking problem. It punishes a certain playstyle. You're saying that sandbox games don't do to "bad" people exactly what they're doing to "good" people. Don't you see a contradiction here? You're saying that sandbox doesn't shove rules down your throat, how is encouraging a certain playstyle going with that? That's my point. The "sandbox that doesn't shove rules down your throat" (I'm going to word it like that or else you'd just copypaste the link from wiki instead of addressing the point) shouldn't favor a certain playstyle. It should be entirely up to personal preference to chose the way you wanna play. And no, choosing between getting 5$ and 50$ is not matter of personal preference. I was referring to real life, I thought you would have caught on when I mentioned law and stealing your identity...guess not. But just like in real life the game can't punish you for killing people other people do that. Understand? I didn't think you were referring to real life because thinking like that makes you a sociopath and that you should seek help. So the law is the only thing that stops you from stealing in real life? Either you have no morality or your argument makes no sense. And in case morality is an abstract concept to you in real life, morality would tell me not to do bad things (something that we don't have in DayZ btw) and if I did do bad things, it would punish me for that. With horrible feelings about myself, depression, insanity or suicide. It isn't, and nothing should. You should be free to do as you please when you please until another PLAYER(s) steps in and stops you or brings you to justice. But the same way the game tells me it's good to have a morphine in my backpack it tells me that it's a good idea to shoot people on sight. If I were actually free to choose, both choices would be equally beneficial, only my preferences would be influencing my choice. Or you can not play like a retard? You're just as likely to get shot shooting first as you are not shooting first. A million and one things could go wrong, you could miss, shoot a player with many friends close, make noise so you attract other players, a ton of things. Why do you assume I'm more likely to be shot cause I don't shoot first? If I come around a corner and there is a guy DIRECTLY in my face with a gun im probably going to shoot as is he and this is the only time when not shooting first would do me in. If they see me first before I see them and shoot the point is moot cause i'm not seeing them, and if I see them from a distance before they see me than I can study behavior and decide to shoot, flee, or approach depending on a number of factors such as, do they have a weapon? what kind of weapon? whats the effective range? are they a bandit? You're over simplifying the subject when you say not shooting on sight will get you killed because shooting on sight has its drawbacks to. Not shooting on sight just requires more tactful play. And not a call of duty see guy shoot guy mentality. First of all you're the one simplifying. Kill on sight might suggest that I shoot at people the moment I see them. But I don't. If I'm out of position I won't shoot. I'll start shooting when I have the upper hand or I have to shoot cause they saw me. KoS means that I consider everyone I don't know an enemy. It doesn't mean that I can't play smart. And secondly I have already addressed the Why do you assume I'm more likely to be shot cause I don't shoot first? " You don't have to "walk up to a guy who's pointing a gun at you" to be at a disadvantage. Simply by not shooting him on sight you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to just killing him. Even if you are super amazing at sneaking and you're totally controlling the situation the chance that you're going to die is greater than if you'd just kill him." That's exactly what you are saying. You are saying there is no possible way that playing as a hero is as efficient as a bandit. But they both have there perks and drawbacks, firing first does NOT always make it safer for you. You're failing to even realize that some people may have found a different way to play than you. You're sitting there typing "The way I play is superior to surviving" when it simply isn't. There are pros and cons to both. Two different styles, being a hero is only harder if you try to be a hero by approaching situations like a bandit. There is more than one way to play and succeed at any game. Your assumptions are killing your ability to comprehend what I'm actually saying. Overall yeah it's not as efficient because you risk more often. And yeah firing first always make it safer for me. Someone who's dead can't kill me nor he can tell his friends where I am anymore. And no I completely understand that people have found a different way to play, I've tried it. Kept getting shot at and backstabbed. Decided it's not worth it. And you are making a false assumption that I'm feeling superior. I don't. I'm a KoS bandit only because it's more beneficial. If the playstyles would be equally hard/easy I'd probably be a bandit hunter and help survivors. And yea there are many ways to succeed, just some get you faster there than the others. So now you went from saying there is no reward for playing a good guy (I can quote you on that) to there is. Quote me. Go ahead. I've never said that because it wouldn't make sense in my head. If being a good guy had no reward whatsoever then people just wouldn't do it. And guess what you will probably get shot in the back more then me now with that bandit skin on, as many MANY bandits are complaining about on the forums. My point is that you have no point when saying it's more efficient to play as a bandit. Overall more easy learning curve? yes. But with tactful play being a hero and shooting first only when it is needed, is just as efficient. So is it easier or it isn't? If 2 people equally skilled would be playing those playstyles which one would die less and get gear faster? You can't compare a moron bandit to a pro hero. And it might be equally efficient in a certain case because some guy might give you a full inventory for helping him, but will it always be like that? Guess what for every kill I get full inventory. Do you find DayZ challenging? as a bandit? maybe if you want a bit more challenge you could try the other road less traveled. We have all been bandits, at some point. Very few have given a shot at dedicating there play time to helping others. I was friendly at first then I turned bandit. And there is no fucking way I could go back now because it would take me months to get my humanity back and I don't think I'd enjoy months of: respawn, hospital, death, respawn, hospital, help a guy, death and so on. See now you just proved your a dick by insinuating I can't read after I have been replying to your posts all day. No game needed and your a bandit, what a coincidence. You went "and what the fuck are you trying to win? WHAT GAME ARE YOU PLAYING?! how do I win at DayZ?" while replying to a quote that contained "(or in case of DayZ not to loose)". I have every reason to believe you can't read. And it's just an objective observation, nothing dick about it. It's like I'd say "I hate fruits (except apples)" and you'd go on a rant how can I hate apples. Do you even know what rules are? and you tell me I can't read. Let me give you a hint, rules (especially in games) aren't optional. They are things that have to be followed. The rules. The rules say I can't travel under the map, so I can't travel under the map. That's a rule. Whether I carry medical supplies around and a weapon isn't a rule, is it wise? hell yes. Is it a rule I have to follow in game? Obviously not. In many games not like DayZ they force weapons into your hand of some sort or say you can't kill that npc or you can kill that npc. The only rules you are bound by are that of the game engine which unfortunately at the moment doesn't allow us to build houses. But those are not really rules as much as they are limitations of the current state of the game and subject to change. Rule not as in game rule that you have to follow but "A generalized statement that describes what is true in most or all cases" Eat or die. Have morphine or you'll be screwed once you break a leg. Have a gun or you won't be able to protect yourself. Etc. Hey if you wanna role play that's on you. But it doesn't have to. Not if you change your goals and outlook on the game. My goals or outlooks on the game can't influence the mechanics. I have friends too, many, but I like making new ones, like a lot of people in life. And I like that there is some risk in meeting new people, betrayal can be an experience to enjoy and learn from each time. The gear in game is currently very easy to get so experience with the game are what many seek out now. Agree but for me the chance of dieing was just too high. I've been killed or shot at 4 out of 5 times when I was friendly. Once again with the dickery suggesting I take pills. Ok Mr. Bandit. It doesn't fit? lol. You go into unprovoked rage and rants. And when you do that you're often wrong about the thing that you rage about. You don't think the mechanics in eve support killing on sight? you do realize there are people who live on that in low sec right? like that how they succeed in game. Sigh... Are there people in EVE doing other things and are those things equally beneficial? If killing on sight was the favored gamestyle almost everyone would be doing just that. The choice is purely personal preference now. You state your goals to yourself like so "I want to help people" then you set out in game and do that. Or you say "I want to kill people" and you set out in game and do that. No it's not as long as one thing is more beneficial than the other thing it's not purely personal preference. It's like saying that choosing between 5$ and 50$ is a matter of purely personal prefference. 1. I have been reading the forums for about two and a half months or so. When I first came into the game the hacking was AS bad as it is now, but an issue. From what I read of the past of the game before my time is that shoot on sight was actually less common than it has been in 1.7.2.3 - 1.7.2.4. Or at least that's what many say. I don't know then you must have missed all those threads. Seriously every second thread was about asshole bandits. 2. If you're making a thread that you have no steak in and you're not one of the people who cares about it why would you make the thread? It doesn't make much sense. You seem to care very much about how people talk to you online actually and what they think. I don't care what people think about me. You can think that I'm a sociopath in real life for all I care. What does concern me is that there are people who consider players who make other players loose in a game immoral (in real life)(and the logic behind it boggles me not the fact). And I also wanted to show people the game mechanics (without the setting and assumptions). And show them that the reason for banditry is just mechanics. And that the game design is actually really basic. 3. You're absolutely right, the way most bandits play is irrational. I much enjoyed your link. There is no sandbox issue, and not everyone follows the flawed logic in your link. There will always be people playing their own way swimming against the tide in every single game. And you're thinking really short term if you think that we should be all cooperating. This would make the game extremely boring. The game needs bandits, I just don't like it saying that it's a better idea to be a bandit. No one thinks your a sociopath, or at least very few, just a dick. You don't thinks people exaggerate and overstate things on the internet? In this thread alone you told me I can't read and to take pills. And I hope you weren't serious about the pills thing as that would be a bit screwed up wouldn't it. There are people who think you are the same exact person in game and in real life. I talked to those people. They weren't exaggerating. And "you can't read" was justified, see above. And "take pills" meant "calm the fuck down".

This is the essence of what I'm getting at. Thank you so much for making that post. I was starting to think that it's something wrong with me but since you understood exactly what I've meant I'll assume that I've expressed myself properly.

You can get all the high end gear within 5 minutes of spawning without cheating in a game that makes scavenging one of it's main aspects? If you were right then the game design would be terrible. But we all know that you're either lying or cheating. Let me ask you again then. So you don't need food and water? You don't need medical supplies in case you get injured? You don't need weapons to defend yourself? I'll just talk to you in the most basic way possible so maybe you're going to understand at least part of it.

There is nothing to pretend. My post didn't include scripting and duping because these things are not supposed to be in the game and I was only talking about intended DayZ mechanics. And sniping people in cherno happens because people get bored after getting all the loot they can possibly need and look for something to shoot at. Coolest looking skin... that's subjective. Minor speed boost? Yeah that's a cool thing. But not really worth increasing my chances of getting shot so much. And the vest? Who uses small arms to PvP? My definition? It was your definition not mine and I responded to the definition you were using. You said sandbox games are made by the community. You didn't say anything about free roam or open world. And if that's what you've meant how is it relevant to our talk about morality? What law? What are you talking about? Someone's gonna hunt bandits and protect survivors? First of all, someone who KoS assumes that he's gonna get KoSd anyway, he assumes that everyone is out to get him anyway. Nothing changes for him. It's not something that's gonna influence anybody's decision whether or not to shoot. Nobody is gonna think "gee I better not shoot people or the chernarus police is gonna get me". How is a number on my debug monitor and a skin stopping me from killing people exactly? Morality would stop me from doing bad things. Nothing in the current game does that. Hey I can hang out with people who I know won't shoot me or just avoid people and I will get shot at less too. And yeah I'm aware that a hero won't be shot on sight by most survivors. But like you said, there is probably over 50% players killing on sight. You will get shot anyway. And there is still good chance that you'll get shot by someone in a survivor skin or by his friends. And btw friendly =/= stupid. Quit talking like it does, you don't have to walk up to a guy whose point a gun at you to be friendly, just don't shoot survivors in the back of the head when they have no gear. I'm not saying that. Another example of bad reading comprehension. You don't have to "walk up to a guy who's pointing a gun at you" to be at a disadvantage. Simply by not shooting him on sight you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to just killing him. Even if you are super amazing at sneaking and you're totally controlling the situation the chance that you're going to die is greater than if you'd just kill him. I suggest you look at this guy play. Solid hero, doesn't shoot on sight and helps bambi's and punishes bandits If he can do it why can't you? not good enough? some people enjoy a challenge. Looks to me like hes being rewarded VERY WELL for being a good guy. What the hell is your point? That you can be rewarded for being a good guy? Sure you can. Doesn't change the fact that you can be also shot in the face or your back. And probably more often too. Quick question though, in single player games do you always select 'easy' mode? No I'll select the difficulty to be challenging and then I will use every tactic to increase my chances of winning without breaking game rules. Seeing as how it was what your whole original post was based on I really would like to know which board game it is. Not lying, I want to know. Dude... I've made up that board game. I just took every mechanic that DayZ has and changed the names and put it on a board. What fucking rules? where are these rules? and what the fuck are you trying to win? WHAT GAME ARE YOU PLAYING?! how do I win at DayZ? I play to survive, if I survive great! If I had a great time playing and had some awesome experiences even better! even if I die I play to enjoy it, seriously what game are you playing that has an endgame that you win at? cause it isn't DayZ. ... You are replying to a quote that contains "(or in case of DayZ not to loose)". You've basically just proven that you can't read. I'm just going to use every mechanic within the game rules to decrease my chances of dieing while still having the game exciting and challenging. Hence firefights. And what rules? As I have answered someone else: you need food and water. You need medical supplies in case you get injured. You don't need weapons to defend yourself. ( I guess you can just accept death but how many people are actually going to do that?) Can you choose not to use any of those things? Sure. But if you don't use those things you significantly increase your chance of dieing. And I thought the point was not to die. Killing people is beneficial for you because that is how you see the game, to kill other people and take there shit. Then die and do it again, it's a gear grind for you we get it. Some people including myself can play a game for more than just the fake digital gear you get. We don't need any special hold your hand perks for what we do. We do it because it provides good gameplay and helping people in any situation online or off makes you feel good. Hey I can appreciate roleplaying but not if it's gonna screw me over. Despite the fact that things are twice as easy with a partner you could me and the fact that the game gives you a skin that actually slightly improves speed and armor. I don't believe you should need incentive to be a nice guy. Cause it's a sandbox game, and like real life you don't get any further ahead being a good guy, but it DAMN sure makes you feel better at the end of the day. And in this game you even have the benefit of gaining a teammate and friend. The advantage is right in your face your just too caught up worrying about fake gear! I already have friends that I play with and I know that they're not going to shoot me in the back the moment we find something they want. It's not that I don't know everything you've just said. I'm just not looking for more friends. Firstly, take it to the damn suggestion forum then! Take your pills. And that wasn't the only point of my thread so it doesn't fit into the suggestion forum. Secondly what you are explaining is a theme park game where everything is set out for you and its an even playing field. Sandbox's aren't like that, they are unfair, and often unforgiving as rocket has stated the game is (you die, you're dead). That's what makes it great it separates the people who take the high road and those who take the low. Sandbox's don't keep the playing field even, go play eve online. See how unforgiving that is. And guess what people who kill newbsters for no reason over there are called to? Dicks. Luckily they have security sectors that somewhat address the issue. Somewhat. I kind of miss eve now. I don't think that mechanics in eve fully support killing on sight. I think that there are many ways you can play and they are all more or less equally beneficial. Even tho they are completely different playstyle. That's what I'd like to see here too. And I don't see how giving a trade off to killing people will suddenly make the game easier. It's just going to make the game equally hard for bandits. And only then you'll have choice based purely on personal prefference whether you're going to be a bandit or a survivor. 1. I see very few topics complaining about being legitimately killed. Starting a thread like that is trollbait, survivors can troll to ya know. 2. Then shut up? (no offence intended but you must to make your original topic) 3. It is a sandbox as I and every other person on the net is calling it but you and by very definition it is. Also it doesn't support killing, you kill someone on sight they get the mentality then everyone does it, you're just as likely to get sniped in cherno anyway. Good luck. 1. I'll just assume that you haven't been reading the forum before script/dupe issue became the major thing. Like I said before that people were constantly making whine threads about bandits. (there was nothing about cheating in those threads). And once the standalone comes, assuming it carries over all the mechanics just gets rid of scripts and duping, the issue will be back on top. 2. WTF? Reading comprehension again. You falsly assumed that I have a problem with people thinking that I'm a dick and that it was the reason (or part of the reason) why I made that thread. Then I tell you that you assumed wrong and you tell me to shut up? How the fuck does that make sense? I don't understand. So if I'm not making the thread because I care what people think about me I'm not allowed to speak about something else? Seriously what the hell? 3. I have explained multiple times why it supports kiling. Addressed the "sandbox" issue too. And it doesn't matter to the people doing it that it's going to change how other people are playing too. It works pretty much like this http://en.wikipedia....r's_dilemma . People doing it dont' care how it's going to change the game on the long run. And it's not even what they are doing. They are only following the mechanics. It's the mechanics that tell them it's a good idea to do it. I highly HIGHLY doubt that people think you are a murdering sociopath in real life or there would be a huge uproar about it. They might think you're a dick and overstate it, but I assure you they don't think you pick up hooker on the way home and murder them. I'm 99.9% positive that your view on how people view you is skewed by the Internets and what appears to be a thin skin problem. Dude I've seen people saying that's immoral to kill other people in Dayz. And I don't mean that's immoral in game. They meant that the player who's killing another player is immoral. Nothing to overstate here. I've seen people saying that they must be horrible people in real life too if they murder people in a game.

If by sandbox you mean free-roam then it has nothing to do with morality, survivors or bandits. Why did you bring it up then? Seems like you're the one not understanding what it is. And how can I give my virtual character morality without roleplaying? No really I like how you say that the game is a sandbox because the community is supposed be making the game and then give me a link saying that sandbox means open world and free roam while telling me that I don't know what sandbox is. You said the sandbox is when community makes the game, I replied your to definition. Decide what you mean by sandbox and I'll refer to that. Yes the game is nonlinear and has open world. Why did you say that it's supposed to mean that community is what makes the game then? And it doesn't matter what term I use to call it (even tho it was your bad definition). I was still talking how the game doesn't support both choices equally. And if we're supposed to play the way we want neither playstyle should be favored.

Oh I'm sorry. So you don't need food and water? You don't need medical supplies in case you get injured? You don't need weapons to defend yourself? ( I guess you can just accept death but how many people are actually going to do that?) Can you choose not to use any of those things? Sure. But if you don't use those things you significantly increase your chance of dieing. And I thought the point was not to die. Of course you can make up your own objective, like run naked to NWA and back but the mechanics are going to kick your ass. Either you don't know what contradiction is or you're hallucinating, or maybe you just lack logical thought. Show me where I contradict myself.

Resetting the humanity would break the skins even more. But there should be a way of becoming survivor again. Otherwise once you try how it is to be a bandit you can never go back.

Being nice: + can make friends, two sets of eyes and 2 guns are better than one (this goes away if I already have friends I play with and I'm not looking for more) - has a good chance of getting shot either just after asking "friendly" or the moment you turn your back to them after they've said they're friendly. - Gotta share loot. Killing the guy: + can't kill you if you kill him first, safest thing to do + you get all his loot. if he had loot from hotspots (stary/nwa/hospital/shop) you can avoid going there yourself and risking your life - ... making sound? Yeah totally an equal trade off... Go make up some shit about me that I'd never do.

Yes, then why punish people who want to play friendly and reward bandits?

For some reason I can't quote you... Thing is very few bandits aren't duping there gear. On top of that very few forum posts on here are complaining that they were killed legitimately in a competitive environment. People complain about duping and scripting bandits that attack with no fear of losing things because of exploiting the game. The issue of people judging others when they are killing others for gear is a non-issue. People just don't complain about it. It's the duping bandits that kill new spawns for fun and the like which doesn't even coincide with your "power up" argument that people rage about. ... How many people complain on the forums about being killed legitimately? what great outburst are you addressing then. Cause I see people complaining about camping cherno with hacked weapons and duping. Before the duping spree and script spree every second thread was about how bandits ruin the game. Even now in threads like "what's your reason to kill?" you get people saying things like "please never own a gun" or "you're a bunch of sociopaths" Duping and scripting is against game rules. I've never included that in my thread because it's not supposed to be in game. I was painting the picture of DayZ mechanics without cheating. Your talk about duping and hacking has nothing to do with what I've said. That's the thing about sanbox's sir. It's NOT the game mechanics that make the game. It is the community (How many times does Rocket have to say this?). The people are free to shape the game as they please with a game like this, even with how limited it is now. How people decide to play this game molds the entire structure of it. Unfortunately people have turned cheek away from competitive fights, or clan wars, or killing for gear, or for survival. And have chosen to exploit the game's weaknesses to kill those who often cannot fight back, for the simple purpose of causing them grief, which yes, makes them a dick. ... I totally object to this. This is the mindset that ruins a sandbox like this. Playing friendly can put you at a HUGE advantage depending on what you look at as your goals in this game. Sure being friendly and stupid will get you killed, but being cautious and friendly can bring you more then gear. It can bring you friends in game, adventures, random encounters and experiences with people you don't even know. It gives you the potential to take a friend in game and possibly even have him be a friend in real life. It adds a community and a depth to the game far beyond your shallow interpretation of the game mechanics. At what point does it get boring collecting all the best loot? about 3 months ago according to a lot of players on here. ... You have stripped away the SOUL of a sandbox game which is the player base. Haven't I said this before? hasn't rocket? he is constantly going on about how it's the players who shape the world not the core game. He just puts the tools there, we choose how we want to play. It's not the community that makes the game what it is. It's always been and will be game mechanics. If rocket would add some kind of a reward for every kill, people would just KoS. They could choose not to but they would be loosing the advantage that killing gives you. And that's exactly what's happening. Calling a game sandbox doesn't make it a sandbox. The game mechanics need to support it. It's like taking the scoretable out of quake putting the mode to FFA and calling it a sandbox. It doesn't work like that. For a game to be a sandbox the mechanics can't favor a certain playstyle. If killing on sight is the most profitable thing in-game then the mechanics set the gamemode to FFA DM. Yeah there are people not following the game mechanics and they are getting punished for that. Simply because there are downsides to being friendly and there are none to killing on sight. Yeah I loose the opportunity to make friends. But the chance that I'll get shot in the face by a guy who's saying that he's friendly is just too great. What are you left with? Your experiences that's what. And when people go out of there way to prevent this, people get mad and they should. Banditry is great when it isn't being exploited and when it isn't looked at as the ONLY way to play. How boring this game must be for people that refuse to shape the game themselves. You can't make a game and assume that everyone will roleplay. It's not gonna happen. If you want people to use morality then you have to put it in the game. "Now you have a ton of people like you who are complaining that people are mad at you for playing team death match. " Who's complaining? What is this with this mindset on this forum that if you say anything that doesn't praise the game you are instantly complaining. The point of my thread was to show 2 things. 1. It's not immoral to beat your virtual pawns. 2. To show how all game mechanics support killing on sight and inevitably lead to it. (and that I also think it's not a good mechanic for a game that wants to be a sandbox) Maybe because they want something more from there game then just the mechanics that were put there for them. Maybe they see what Rocket does and want to play the game for the experiences, not the kill count. That's the point. I'd love to see being a survivor equally hard/easy as being a bandit. Bandit has more chances of survival. (assuming they're both equally skilled at the game, before you start making some specific examples at where the bandit is a moron and the survivor is good). That's wrong. There has to be a trade off for killing. If there is something in the game that will only benefit me and doesn't have any downsides, I'll just do it. Even just in case. Brilliant way of avoiding making an actual counter argument. What you've just said is absolutely not relevant. But it's within the rules to take out someone weaker than you. Nothing immoral about it. The competition is about not getting eaten by a bigger fish. I don't do anything to upset other people. If they get upset that's a side effect of me doing something to win (or in case of DayZ not to loose). And it has always been in games and sports. Nobody considers winners assholes. It's insane. I even said in the other thread "If you beat someones figure that doesn't have any powerups or all powerups are lower level then you don't gain or loose anything." What I'm addressing might not be the main issue now because scripting and duping is the main issue right now. However when the standalone comes, people think that the game will be exactly as it is now minus scripting and duping. And they fully support that while blaming people for being immoral and assholes not understanding that it's the game mechanics that support it. People will always choose what's the most beneficial for them. I have to roleplay to have morality because the game gives me absolutely no reason not to do bad things. And it gives me reasons not to be a nice guy because there is a good chance I'll get shot. Who's complaining again? Me? Wow I didn't know that saying that a mechanic in AN ALPHA STAGE GAME is wrong is called complaining. I don't understand that mindset. We're here to test the game and give suggestions and feedback. That's my feedback. Give a negative consequence to killing otherwise the game is supporting a certain playstyle and I think it's unacceptable in a game that wants to be a sandbox and tell me that it's just my personal choice to be good or bad. It's not. It's a choice between more and less advantageous position. It would be matter of my personal choice only if both options would be equally valid from the mechanics point of view. Yeah I'm sure a comment like "please don't ever own a gun" is referring to my in game character. 3 things. 1 just check threads like "why do you kill?" and you will see a lot of people saying how killing others in dayz is immoral, griefing, that the person must be an asshole in real life and that they are sociopaths. (just because they have killed your virtual pawns) 2 I don't care in the slightest what they think about me. 3 Again, the thread was to show that it's the game mechanics supporting killing and it's the design that you should be blaming, not people. And again, calling a game sandbox doesn't make it a sandbox. I'm not complaining about anything. You seriously need to change your mindset. I'm just showing people the game mechanics without all their assumptions and illusions and saying that it's pretty insane to consider people assholes for beating other people in a GAME. I don't mind you thinking that a character I'm playing is an asshole. Maybe I'm roleplaying a sick fuck. But these people think that what you do in game, reflects in 100% the way you are in real life. That's crazy.

Are there things that you can't do in the game? Like instantly get the best weapon or fly? Can you do anything you want? No? Then it has rules and mechanics that influence the way you play. You can choose not to eat and drink it's still going to kill you. You can't free yourself from the game mechanics. Sure. The moment it doesn't put me at a disadvantage. It's not whatever players make it. It's whatever players make it within the rules and mechanics of the game. You can choose whatever you want to do. But some choices will make the game harder for you or just kill you. Because the mechanics and rules always influence you.

Are you unable to comprehend similes? Or do you play dumb on purpose? It makes a discussion with you very hard because I'll make a though-out argument and you'll just shrug and go "but it's not x" That you need food and water. That you can die and loose everything. That there are weak enemies guarding things so you'll probably need a gun. That killing other players is allowed. That you can take everything a person had from their dead body. You want me to explain the game for you like you've never played it? Rules as in all game mechanics, what's allowed and what's not, what influences you and how, everything that's in the game. Morality isn't in the game. Morality would stop me from doing bad things. There is not a single thing in the game that stops me from killing people. A towel around my head included. So I guess everyone, everywhere who has ever won with someone in any game or sport is immoral because the guy who lost didn't like it.

I've almost missed this thread. I never said breaking the rules of the game is okay, on the contrary. You agree to play the game by the rules. If someone breaks them he ruins the game. It's a dick move to flip someone's board. But only because they didn't agree to it. When you play a game you join a competition and you accept the fact that you can loose. And when you loose, the guy who's beaten you isn't a dick. It's a game that you both agreed to play. I thought it was a zombie survival game. Once I tried it and dug through all my false assumptions and illusions it turned out that the mechanics are exactly the same as in Quake, the map is just bigger and you can share what you pick up and that there are no "points". That's the only difference in mechanics. Yes you can do whatever you want. But the same way you can do whatever you want in any game. Some things that you can choose to do will put you at a disadvantage. You can play a game like diablo naked. But the game mechanics will punish you for that. Same thing happens here with friendly behavior. If you choose to be friendly the mechanics punish you for it. Why? Because it's just so much safer to kill on sight. Plus you get all the gear. There is absolutely no downside to killing people. While there are downsides of being friendly. You can choose not to follow the game mechanics and play in a different way but the mechanics still influence you, you didn't free yourself from them. I have stripped DayZ of everything that's not in the game. That's the point. The game itself is very basic. It's just FFA DM without scoretable on a big map. Everything else is just what you attached to it. But it's not in the game itself. Exactly what you said can be said about the board game I made up. Maybe some people would start roleplaying in the board game and there would be much more to the game for them. But it's not in the game. They've added it. How does this correspond with what I said? People who play the board game will have more powerups and their figures will be stronger than those who just joined. It's still part of the game if they get killed. It's all within the rules you agreed to follow when you joined. It has nothing to do with players being worse at the game. Playing against children isn't fair. It's not breaking rules of the game but you obviously have an advantage over them. And by that I don't mean your figure but you in real life. That's different. It's an outside advantage. Killing weaker figures is all within game rules. Nothing immoral about it. It someone's cheating that's a different thing. But if something is within the rules it's permitted. Nothing dick about it. I never said it's the point. It's what you assumed looking at the mechanics of my board game. And my board game has exactly the same mechanics as DayZ because I just took all DayZ mechanics and gave them a different name. If you'd forget about all the roleplay things you've added to the game for a second and just look at the mechanics of the game, you'd come to the same conclusion. All those people who aren't roleplaying see DayZ the same way you just saw my board game. Not everyone roleplays. And it's silly to assume that everyone will. And by extension that everyone will follow some sort of morality or even attach it to the game at all. That's why there should be something in the game to simulate morality. Hurt you for being bad person. And I think that because it's wrong in my opinion to favor a certain playstyle in a game that wants to be a sandbox. It implies that all the choices are equally valid. It's a lie, survivors have it harder. They don't consider my made up character that I'm roleplaying an asshole. They consider me an asshole in real life. Tell me I'm a sociopath and that I shouldn't own a gun just because I've killed their virtual pawn. It's insane. You might be behaving in game the same way you would in real life, but it doesn't mean everyone else does. Some people are just playing a game. They don't put themselves in it. And again if the game wants to be a sandbox and heavy on morality then the morality has to be an in-game system. And the reason why I don't roleplay myself is not because I need the game to tell me how to behave. I don't roleplay myself because that would put me at a disadvantage. Simple as that. If being a bandit would be as "hard" as being a survivor then the choice would be purely a matter of personal preference. Right now it's a choice between more and less advantageous position.

How about giving players an actual in-game reason not to shoot people?

Where is it flawed? How are the mechanics from my made up game and DayZ different? They are exactly like that. I just took all the things from DayZ and gave them different name. Why don't you actually make an argument instead of just repeating "you're wrong"?

Why is it flawed it's exactly what happens in DayZ. Either people decide that it's boring after having the best gear or being able to get the best gear in short time or they stay and dick around if they like the game enough. What if I want to keep playing the monopoly? Nice way of ditching from answering. It doesn't matter how much time it takes. And I've never said you can't share the powerups. Same way DayZ does it. From OP "Some people would bunch up for sure" I guess you've been skipping class when they tried to teach you reading. How does that make sense? If someone would take the board and flip it for no reason there is a reason to be upset. He's ruining the game. However loosing is within the game rules which you've agreed to follow when joining. Seek help.

I don't even support the bandit skin. Where's your argument now? What happens now with all the things that you have assumed? And I just absolutely love how you didn't understand what I'm saying and then your little brain spouts out a thought "well I can't be the one not understanding things, he must be the one not knowing what he's talking about."

If you don't have better gear then you put yourself at a disadvantage compared to people who do have it. That's the game mechanic. You can choose not do follow game mechanics but they still influence you. And it is easier to just take an enfield kill someone who already has good gear and take it instead of going all the way to stary/nwaf to get it yourself.

It is easier to get loot if you kill on sight. Not only you don't loose it as often because you eliminate threats but you also don't need to scavenge for the loot yourself. What's easier, venture all the way to stary or spend hours walking around deerstands or shoot some guy who has already been to stary/deerstands who's walking up to me and saying "friendly dude" in the face and take his shit? Because there is absolutely nothing to loose. You can do that just in case.

nononono I think there should be something instead of bandit skin system. Something negative for killing people. To give banditry a trade off. Because right now (to the person doing the killing) it only has advantages and no disadvantages. If someone isn't roleplaying and considers this a game (therefore RL morals don't apply) he has no reason not to shoot people. 2 things. 1 I can appreciate roleplaying. However if roleplaying would put me at a disadvantage then I choose not to do it. And I think I'm not the only one. 2 You can make a game as roleplay friendly as possible but it's still people's choice to roleplay. You can't force them. And because of that it's a bit naive to count on people to follow some kind of morality. If you want morality to be a factor in a video game you need to put something in it's place. You can't just count on people to do that by themselves, especially if it puts them at a disadvantage. If this is what you've meant.