SillySil

Find any weapon and go to electro hill. Wait for a sniper to log in, shoot him, loot him and woop you have as50+l85+best backpack and other supplies.

Lemme fix that.

Everything is going down because number of players dropped. And I consider it approaching from wrong direction that skins are for people who don't KoS instead of influencing people who KoS.

I think the bandit skin shows that devs don't want the game to be FFA DM but I also think that bandit skins are wrong way of doing it. Bandit skin isn't a reason not to kill people. It doesn't have any influence on people who already KoS. They already consider everyone a threat.

So what it's my choice? What the hell does it matter? Banditry is still safer and gets you loot faster. I don't understand your argument. It makes no sense to me. It's like putting a very overpowered weapon into the game and then going "the weapon isn't overpowered because it's your choice not to use it". It doesn't make any sense. What moral highground? What are you smoking? I'm a bandit because it's the safest way and it gets me loot faster. And I don't consider it immoral to kill your virtual pawn in a game. You make no sense whatsoever. What? No it doesn't. Just because a game is a sandbox it doesn't mean all playstyles are equally valid. The game has rules and mechanics and if they punish a certain playstyles then it becomes less valid no? The choices are yours to make but the game will punish you for choosing a way of playing that goes against the mechanics. What the hell are you talking about? I don't want people to play the way I want. The game mechanics do. By favoring a certain playstyle.

Why does it matter how many hours it takes to get it? And it doesn't say anywhere that you can't share them does it dumbass?

Same reason why you can't walk and take something out of your pocket at the same time, the engine.

>joins private hive >comes to the forum saying how his character got deleted

What? Refer to the board game. Lets say that there are players who bunched up and try to avoid contact with other player's figures and then they all get beaten by someone. Did that person grief them? No it's part of the game that they have voluntarily entered. I can't hurt you by beating you in a game. Because once you join a game, you agree to it's rules. And everyone follows the game rules (unless they are cheating). If they don't like the rules, then they don't like the game either. You can have your own way of playing a game (ie made up set of rules for yourself) but you're still in the same game. You are still included by the game rules and mechanics. It doesn't matter if you like them or not or if you think they are good or not, you're still included. I don't consider it "exploring your dark side" simply because I don't believe I'm hurting you in any shape or form therefore it's not immoral. I get that. However if being friendly puts you at a disadvantage then the choice between being friendly and KoS is not a simple matter of personal preference. It's a choice between more and less advantageous position. Many people threat it as a game and play to win... or should I say not to loose. They'll obviously choose the safest route. If both playstyles would be equally hard those people would have a reason not to shoot people. And I think it's wrong to favor a certain playstyle in a sandbox game.

But if you favor killing on sight you change the gamemode to FFA DM. If you want sandbox then choice to kill or not to kill should be equally beneficial. There needs to be a trade off. Otherwise you end up in an FFA DM with some people doing their best not to play it but being punished for it.

I get all that. And I know about roleplaying and I respect it. But thinking it's actually immoral to beat someone else's pawns is not roleplaying. It's outside the game. And it's not healthy. And I'm already playing with 3 friends and our goal is not to die while going to dangerous places. And I understand that not everyone wants to be #1 top survivalist, however rules of the game are set to favor people with good equipment. And since getting that and not dieing is achieved most efficiently by killing on sight. Killing on sight is the favored playstyle of DayZ. Don't you think that the gameplay would only gain if both survivors and bandits would have equally hard time surviving? Because right now survivors are in deep.

It's not as50 with thermo. I have both as50 and second gun L85A2 AWS. And yeah it's cheap. But everyone already has it. If I want to fight against organized groups I have to be at equal level. Wanna fix it, wipe the hive. It's gonna be weeks before everyone is packing as50+l85 again.

... Like I said before "I can appreciate role playing but thinking that it's IRL immoral to kill other people's virtual pawns is pretty insane to me." You seem to have problems reading. ... Like I said before "I can understand the fact perfectly. I just think it's pretty crazy to feel compassion towards pawns in a game and to think that beating someone else's pawns is immoral." You can't be ignoring what I've already replied to you and repeating yourself. You seem to just put your fingers in your ears and go "lalala" while repeating something that I've already replied to. Agreed. Still, it's good to have a weapon, food and medical supplies. No? Fastest way of getting them is getting them off someone who's already collected them. The game favors doing it. I know how to roleplay I just don't. Because it would put me at a disadvantage. And yeah, I don't feel compassion towards your virtual pawns so it must be something else than morality that gives me a reason not to beat your virtual pawns. And like I said in OP. People will choose the most profitable thing. Which is KoS in the current state of the game. But you already are penalized or rewarded for your playstyle. If you're friendly you make sure that that guy over there isn't friendly before shooting him. Which puts you at a disadvantage compared to just shooting him. The point is to make both playstyles equally good. Sigh you are so short sighted. I think the game's goal is to survive without making the game too boring (by for instance living in a forest next to a pond avoiding any danger for 30 days). Now having that you'll stumble upon people and zombies. You need food and medical supplies, also something to defend yourself with. Now there is a high chance that people will just shoot you on sight. So you don't give them a chance. Killing isn't the objective. It's the means to achieve the objective. Which is not letting yourself killed.

The game I've made up in OP sums up perfectly DayZ mechanics. And yeah I don't have to beat other people's pawns. But that's the safest thing to do and the most efficient one. So it's not just a matter of personal opinion. It's a choice between more and less advantageous position. And seriously? Morality in a board game. I'm not hurting you by beating you in a board game. Nor in a video game. You've voluntarily joined the game. You've agreed to the rules. I cannot possibly hurt you IRL. The most I can do (within the game rules) is to make you loose. But you took that risk when joining the game. Nothing immoral about it. And hell yeah I've assumed that people know what they're playing. And if they don't like the game they should leave. It's not my fault they don't like the game mechanic. And I'm not having fun at expense of others. Unless you consider beating someone in a board game having fun at expense of others. We're in a competition and you have something that can help me. I'm beating you to hurt you, I'm beating you because we're in a competition and taking your virtual things (that you've willingly put on the line when entering the game) is going to help me in game. It's nothing personal I don't even think in these categories. Scripters have fun at expense of others not players who play within the rules. Because you've agreed to play the game within the rules. That's my other point. Both behaviors should be equally beneficial even if in different ways. The game favors killing. That's why I do it. And beating your virtual pawns is not griefing or immoral.

So you think it's normal to think that beating other people's pawns in a game is immoral? What does that have to do with my ego? You don't care yet you go "another thread crying about killing". And the "humanity" that's currently in the game does nothing.

This thread summarized "oh god please no I care about my items too much, I refuse to loose anything during TESTING OF A GAME IN ALPHA STAGE" Also loot inflation is rampart not because of the scripters but because of duping. And I don't believe that you people didn't take guns from other players either by trade or off their corpse. Chances are it's duped. I myself have as50+aws in my backpack and I'd be happy to see a hive wipe. Maybe for a week we wouldn't have 90% of players with supposedly rare weapons. Also scripting and duping is here to stay. "after duping and scripting is fixed" means never.

I even said "You need to put something else in it's place if you want something that represents morality. (in a video game)". You can put things in the game that would penalize you in situations when normally it would be your conscience giving you hard time. Hence addictions. Oh god the irony. A guy who thinks I'm crying about killing even tho I've always been a bandit and even tho I said that KoS is favored playstyle so it's nothing weird that people do that. A guy who can't comprehend that thinking that putting IRL morality into a game is crazy and nobody should count on it hence the game should have a system that simulates morality instead isn't contradictory. A guy who's best argument is "your idea suck" has the nerve to tell me that he's dumbing himself to understand what I'm saying. Are you trolling me? You can't be serious. I can understand the fact perfectly. I just think it's pretty crazy to feel compassion towards pawns in a game and to think that beating someone else's pawns is immoral. I even said in the OP "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." if you didn't understand it was about killing people. How can I be crying over something I'm doing myself. And let me ask you again. "How am I crying exactly? Is saying that there is something wrong in an alpha game complaining to you? I think it's stupid that a certain playstyle is favored in a sandbox game, while insisting that it's just personal choice."

1. How could I be complaining about something I'm doing myself. Think. 2. How am I complaining exactly? Is saying that there is something wrong in an alpha game complaining to you? I think it's stupid that a certain playstyle is favored in a sandbox game, while insisting that it's just personal choice. Nope. I can appreciate role playing but thinking that it's IRL immoral to kill other people's virtual pawns is pretty insane to me. You are just not getting it. I've already explained it. If the game wants to be a simulator the it should have morality. But what's more important it shouldn't favor a certain playstyle. I think you shouldn't count on people's IRL morality when it comes to A GAME because it's just a game and people should threat it as such. Therefore if you want morality to be a factor in the game, you need to add something into the game to simulate it. Seriously, how is that contradictory? It makes perfect sense. Everything you've said was wrong so far. Why would you be right this time?

If you have debug monitor up your icons will freeze. Turn it off for now.

I've facepalmed myself IRL when I've read that. Wow. I am laughing that there are people who consider it immoral to beat some other player's virtual pawn in a GAME. Seriously there has to be something wrong with you if you think that it's immoral to beat people in games. Do you think people who win at board games are assholes and bad people? It's ridiculous. However I want something to simulate morality in-game if the game wants to be a simulator. Because counting that people will consider it immoral to beat other people's virtual pawns and that their real life morality will also be their in-game morality is insane. In case you didn't read my entire post (and I wouldn't be surprised) I'm the one doing senseless killing. How the fuck can I be butthurt over it? How does that make sense at all? Do you have a mental condition, I don't want to be too harsh on someone who has valid problems understanding things. I don't feel bad for your virtual pawns not because I can't emerge myself but because the notion is ridiculous and crazy. When you're playing chess do you go "oh god I've killed the queen, what have I done, poor thing"? And this thread is about the very thing if you haven't noticed. It's about people not threating a game a game. Because this is just a game.

Nice I guess all the people trying to win at board games are sociopaths. Makes sense.

1. Morals in video game. rofl. 2. It doesn't. That's the whole point. KoS is the safest thing to do + you get all the gear so you don't have to go to dangerous places yourself. KoS has advantage over being friendly. So it's not just a matter of personal choice. It's a choice between more and less advantageous position. I'd love the choice to be just a matter of personal taste. But you to have that you need to have both playstyles equally good. At the moment they aren't. You mean in game or in real life? In game nobody stops you. You're already shooting everyone, how are they stopping you exactly? Nobody knows who and where you are. There are absolutely no consequences for killing people in DayZ. If you mean in real life then seek help. See that kind of thinking shows that you're not very smart. You'd just put me in a big category of people who you think are stupid just so you don't have to think about my arguments, try to understand or use your brain at all. I am a bandit. I've been shooting people on sight since I started playing. Why? Because it's the safest thing to do and it's the fastest way to get loot. Seriously how can someone who's saying "KoS is the safest thing to do and the best way of getting loot" be crying over bandits? How does that make sense in your head? Think.

What? I don't think you know what humanity is. How is a different skin going to stop me from killing people? There is nothing in the game that simulates morality. There is not a single thing in the game that would stop me from killing people. A number with a "humanity" title has no influence on my actions. Implying changing clothes for murdering people isn't retarded.

Is making up retarded shit the best argument you can come up with? I bet EVERYONE in real world doesn't feel anything when killing people and if not the laws people would just do it for fun right? Newsflash you can't simulate human emotions in a video game. You need to put something else in it's place if you want something that represents morality.

Exactly. Now not only you have a reason not to kill "do I really wanna kill that guy? I'm running out of booze" you also have bandits being more prone to killing other bandits.