SillySil

Not possible with server hopping. Someone can just go to a different server, get to a rooftop, come back and start killing people because guards couldn't see him coming in. Also not possible to create a full time safezone because you'd have to always have guards. Even if you'd have people from different timezones. This would get boring. Possible only with very large server population or with NPCs.

Average life time has increased just because it takes a minute or two to break your legs.

I understand all the mechanics (didn't know about the manually chambering every rounds tho). The point I was making is that, there is no subsonic ammo in DayZ so the SD ammo makes no sense in DayZ. And I found it out simply by shooting over someone with silenced weapons. It still makes the snap. To my understanding if it still makes the snap then it shouldn't be any different than regular ammo? Or maybe I'm mistaken. You can probably clear that out.

I don't think it's adding to the gameplay. I think it's just chaning gamemode from FFA DM to TDM with the red team teamkilling from time to time. I don't think people will still KoS up north. Because if you do, you will become a bandit. And then you will be KoS'd. I think it's gonna be more like, all survivors are on blue team while all bandits are on the red team. If this is only to help newspawns, then this mechanic is flawed even more than I thought. There are better ways to do help newspawns cooperate. If the skin is supposed to be some kind of fix for rampart player killing then I don't think it's doing good job and never will. If the skin is supposed to change the gameplay into red vs blue, I think it's even worse.

How much weed did you smoke before coming up with that? And do you think you should loose humanity for smoking weed?

They're still shooting you and you need to shoot back. What are you going to do if a survivor chases you with an axe? And how will you do that in a game that takes seconds to kill someone. What if you know that someone who's not in a bandit skin is in fact a bandit and that if you don't shoot him first he will shoot you? Even if the defense mechanism would be implemented would you wait for him to shoot at you first and then shoot back? That would work in MMORPG but not here where a single shot can kill you. How about I chase you with an axe repeatedly trying to kill you? Or just shoot in your direction with some gun, wouldn't you fire back? Or throw smokes at you? Or keep aggroing zombies at you? I can think of something. Dude you're all like "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong, come up with something better before you say that something sucks" in defense of something that I'm calmly criticizing in a civilized manner. It's called feedback. You know, important part of alpha/beta testing? And I think it's wrong way of addressing the problem. I'd rather have reasons not to shoot instead of this identification system that in my opinion will never be perfect because it's flawed in it's design and takes away uncertainty from gameplay. Lets say that the system works perfectly and every bandit is branded bandit and every survivor a survivor, without any mistakes or bugs. Now you know who's on which team. When that happens you might as well swap "bandit" with "red" and survivor/hero with "blue" and just start playing red vs blue. Except that reds might teamkill from time to time. But the gameplay changes into something basic. You might as well pick the red or blue team at the start. I am the one who snipes your scrawny ass in cherno. I am the one who's in the stary hangar with a grenade launcher piling up bodies in tents. I am the one who puts satchel charge in electro shop and waits for some lemming to go inside. You think I want to sing kumbaiya with you? You mistake my intentions. I don't want to kill banditry. I want it to be equal strategy to being friendly. But for that I need a reason not to kill on sight or for fun. Because otherwise, killing people on sight is the best way of surviving while gearing up very fast. And compared to that, all poor souls who want to be friendly are at a disadvantage. It's kinda ironic. You want the game to give you a lot of freedom yet you think it's a good idea to favor one strategy over another while telling me that adding downsides to the currently favored strategy is a bad idea. I just don't want banditry to be more viable strategy. I want them to be equally viable. But for that you need a reason not to kill. And even when introduced, I'd probably still be a bandit. But this time, I'd have to worry about more things than loosing some bullets and making sound. Because that's the only downside of being a man hunter in this game.

Except the SD rounds aren't subsonic in DayZ so I guess you're the one that doesn't know shit.

No it's not. It's the sonic boom the bullet makes when passing close to you. Because you know, it's faster than sound. And silenced ammo is supposed to be subsonic.

There is no subsonic ammo in DayZ. SD ammo still makes a snap. I too don't understand wtf the SD ammo is in DayZ and how is it different from the regular ammo if neither is subsonic.

How about serial killers respawning with 0 humanity and being survivors, or just new players who KoS. How about people shooting in self defense a bandit who doesn't have the bandit skin yet and becoming bandits themselves. How about someone in a survivor/hero skin forcing non-bandits to shoot him again turning survivors into bandits. Plus what I already said, heroes relying location of people to their bandit friends. Had enough? First of all I don't need to be a painter and tell you a better way of restoring paintings to be in a position to tell that this: http://i.imgur.com/QXIWS.gif went wrong. And the penalty for getting shot? How about slower running, getting hungry faster, having less max blood, zeds aggroing on you more easily (but they'd have to stop being a joke). The most interesting idea I came up with imo would be introducing alcohol and smokes and addiction of things like that for murderers, and suffering some kind of consequences (maybe some of the one's I've listed, maybe something else like shaking or something) if you kill people but don't drink or smoke. Not only that would give you a reason not to shot because you'd finally have a downside for shooting people but it would also be interesting while trying to infiltrate a survivor group because you'd have to hide smoking/drinking so they don't figure you out (all that possible only with additional animations and lack of duping). You can come up with many things like that. You just have to use your brain for a second and stop thinking that all ideas from devs are the best possible things/ways. You don't have to praise everything they do.

No point looking into past. Games change as players evolve, finding easiest ways of winning or in DayZ' case surviving. And shooting everyone on sight is still the best way to do it, despite the skin, plus bandits are just gonna go ghillie/camo anyway. I want a reason not to kill people on sight, but I also think skins and identification is wrong way of doing it.

Same happened to my friend but she managed to kill the guy with pdw. Also the skin change morphs your backpack into the 8 slot backpack and if you had more than 8 slots used in your backpack before the change, you can kiss them goodbye.

I just don't think that branding player killers in an MMORPG open PvP style is gonna work here. One thing is that I can grind hero skin, befriend someone and then relay our position to my friends who will kill the people that trusted me because I had a hero skin. I can grief even more, shooting enfield near survivors in town or otherwise provoking them to kill me causing them to become bandits. Branding people player killers or heroes is never going to work perfectly in DayZ. However like you said, if there was some penalty for player killing (even without branding me as PK) I would have a reason not to shoot people. And if the penalty would be small at first, people who got griefed by not-yet-bandit wouldn't suffer much. And you'd avoid the whole "I can trust this guy cause he's a hero" thing. And before someone asks why add penalty for player killing? Because killing people on sight is the most profitable thing you can do when you see another person (unless you're looking for friends). There are no downsides. There is a good and bad decision to make. It's like asking "would you rather pay 5$ for something or get it free" type of thing. Being friendly and killing on sight is not equally viable. That's why most people kill on sight. The skin mechanic is trying to balance it a bit. But branding people "player killers" is not gonna work in a game where you can't have a "defense timer" (someone shoots you so you can shoot them back without penalty) nor it will ever be a reason not to kill people, if that's the only thing that player killers will get.

I've had some friendly encounters before and after the change. But I'm not talking about personal experience I'm talking about pros and cons of killing on sight. It's still the same. If you decide to KoS, it doesn't matter to you whether there are bandit skins or not. You will shoot everyone anyway. The only difference is for those who want to be friendly as it gives them some indication on who's who. But again, I'd rather have a reason not to shoot instead of this identification system, that is, and always will be flawed. Nothing stops me from grinding hero skin and then once everyone will be trusting me from a get go lead them into a trap and let my friends kill them. Or throw smokes at them, etc.

But it's not reducing the number of people who KoS. It's just telling those who are friendly who's a certain threat (not taking bugs into consideration). I feel it's approaching the issue from wrong direction.

The problem is: nothing changes for those who KoS. They are not in more danger than they were. They already are killing everyone they see because they assume that everyone is a threat anyway. The only thing that changes is that people who don't KoS everyone will now be more eager to engage in firefights with bandit skins. Who by the way might not even be a bandit, but maybe just people defending themselves against a bandit who didn't have the bandit skin yet or just because of a bug. I feel like it's approaching the problem from wrong angle. I think to balance survivors/bandits there should be a different mechanic. Something that would make me think "do I really want to kill that guy" because right now there are absolutely no downsides of killing people except making sound.

You don't make a game as inconvenient as possible to make it hard. That's the worst kind of difficulty you can make. It's like making controls all wrong and locking them, like reload under F12 and running forward under ESC. Would it make the game harder? Yes. Would it add to the game? No. The game needs MORE challenging content not LESS helpful features.

You know that SD rounds make no sense in arma since they still make the snap...

The reason why people kill on sight is because there is no reason not to. And skin isn't changing that.

There needs to be something to make people ask "do I really want to kill that guy?" before pulling the trigger, not a way to differentiate who's who.

You're like a person using terms he doesn't understand and then tell people that they are stupid and that they don't understand when they are trying to correct you. And yeah that level of stupidity annoys me. Your post did make it look like having 2 weapons is the only purpose of backpacks. What you did is not satire nor it is exaggerating. It's twisting words to a point when they have nothing to do with what the person said and then acting like that's what he meant. But why do I even bother. Talking to an all knowing brick wall here. Goodbye.

I'm Polish and what is this

... you're just not getting are you? You took what he said to a retarded extreme while neatly explaining the other thing, compared the two, and hinted how his stance is retarded. And you are still acting like backpacks are in game only to let people have 2 weapons. They are not. What game are you playing? So when I tell my girlfriend "you should tell me when you're taking my car" and she responds "so you want me to call you every time I do anything? like using a bathroom or scratching my butt?" she uses satire? Because that's what you did. You didn't follow his logic. He wasn't saying anything about weapons. You did. You didn't exaggerate what he said. You twisted it to an extreme that he didn't even have in mind.

I think I'm gonna grind hero skin now and be an asshole to everyone as much as possible and they will always trust me. Might also bait them into traps set by my friends. Thanks for giving me ideas.

What? You ridiculed what he said acting like having m4cco sd and as50 is the only reason for backpacks to exist. And it's not satire. It's just second most retarded argument ever, taking what someone said to extreme and responding to that instead of what someone actually said. You give yourself too much credit. It's your point that's retarded. Again: Both changes would remove something important from the game, increasing the difficulty dramatically. But it's not difficulty. It's inconvenience. Horrible mechanic. You can make the running mechanics like in QWOP and if you fall you break a leg. Wouldn't that be awesome? That would be so much more challenging and all the codfags would leave the game.