Claytonaj

Imagine a group of players on a server, at least within part of the map, attempting to collect a 'tax'/'toll' to be inside an area they control (an area they effectively police). If Chernarus-dollars were available in the game, they might choose this to be the 'legal tender' inside their zone: the way people pay the toll. They might also accept items/favours in exchange for these dollars (if you had something to sell) or they might sell you things or store gear for you in exchange for these dollars (obviously they might also do a straight swap, or part-exchange). They might also let people set up as traders within the zone in exchange for a regular cut of their revenue. This would all depend on the group's ability to control the supply of the currency (i.e. hoarding enough of it for themselves and controlling spawns so as to restrict availability), and their ability to enforce the borders of their area. It also relies on demand from other players to be allowed access to this area. Relative safety (from zeds and PVP), the potential for trading, and perhaps the ability to store gear might make it desirable. This might be far-fetched as of now, but I'd love to see DayZ develop in this direction.

Exactly.

I love that people think this is still the case :lol: Currencies today acquire value almost entirely from supply and demand (i.e. if more of a currency is demanded than supplied, its value will rise, and vice versa). It has no direct relationship with any reserves of gold; the gold standard ended long ago. I want sterling, or US dollars, or Euros, because I can exchange it for goods and services, and pay taxes with it (it's legal tender). It has value because it's in relatively short supply and high demand (it's difficult to get hold of more than I need/want to sustain my lifestyle, pay taxes, debts, fund a pension etc.; for a lot of people it's difficult to get hold of enough!). The issue in DayZ is, as pointed out above, hacking/duping. But hacking aside it would be interesting to see what people would do with money in DayZ, if anything. It wouldn't hurt to have it there, lying around, even if you don't believe it to hold any value. You could just use it to wipe your virtual arse (and only metaphorically, at least until bodily functions make an appearance...), but I'm sure some people would want to collect it, and if it were suitably scarce it could become valuable, and worthy of exchange. As a simulation DayZ would benefit from having money, just to see what would happen.

I don't think I'm ignoring the flip-side, I just don't think it's quite symmetrical. What if you couldn't get to that tin can without someone else distracting the zombies for you? How exactly would shooting another lone survivor help you in that situation? What if ammo were so scarce that, if you missed with a shot, you might have to search another couple of hours to replace the round you wasted, and even when you find a few bullets they're surrounded by a dozen zeds? (And, while you were searching for that ammo you could've been looking for water, and you're now dehydrated!) Would you still have the luxury of being able to shoot on sight? Would it still be the rational thing to do? The point is, if you can't survive alone, you won't, you'll either work with others or you'll soon die (unless you're incredibly lucky, or incredibly good -- I don't think it should be impossible to work alone). In another scenario, if you met a stranger and decided to help one another to raid a house for supplies, only you then shot them in the back straight away afterwards and took the loot rather than share it. It might not seem like much but this is also still an important step further on than shooting on sight. If, on the other hand, you're talking about you and your friends shooting people on sight to avoid them getting the scarce resources first then that's great, you're already working with others in game, which is what I was driving at. I completely agree with having more and varied objectives, and an end game.

This kind of feeds back to this thread. If Chernarus was a living hell -- no starting gear (not even a backpack); less predictable gear spawns; less food, less water, less medicine; less ammo, fewer weapons; more numerous, 'smarter', tougher zeds -- people would have to help each other, at least to become established in the game. New survivors would actively seek out others in order to survive the first crucial hour(s). During those first moments you are at your most vulnerable. You would have no weapons, no food, nothing to be looted for (your lack of backpack makes this apparent to others). You can trust another person on the basis that you have nothing for them to kill you for, you pose them no threat without weapons, and your cooperation improves their survival chances (they have a clear incentive not to kill you). You talk to them (as you would), and together you survive a few hairy moments. Before long you've got a DayZ friend. Trust begins to build. You decide to stick together for the current session, having found a couple of hatchets you can begin to approach towns with more confidence. By the end of your session you might know this person's name, roughly where they're from, their steam ID etc.. In effect you've developed a relationship that extends beyond the anonymity of the game, and brings with it safeguards against that person shooting you in the back when you drop your guard. A player committed to being a 'bandit' would almost certainly have to kill someone who had helped them, someone who has meaning to them, in order to get to a situation where they could sustain the playstyle they want. To me, at least, this seems like a hurdle to becoming a bandit. I know it wouldn't for all, but that's the beauty of the mod, it lets you choose to express yourself in this respect (though there still need to be far more modes of expression and communication implemented in the game, aside from shooting people). In short, I want it to be near impossible to survive alone in the first hour. The game should all but force people to have to come together, at least at first. If someone reads this and doesn't think it sounds fun -- good! It's meant to be a simulation, an 'anti-game'. It makes no promise to be conventionally 'fun'.

I back this. But also fewer rifles all round, and less ammo. Reward people with skill and perseverance. Take away the inflated marksmanship the game currently gives all players.

Yeah I got that... :lol: I'm not willing to get so worked up, but I would stand my ground. I don't see where you got the link between the BBFC and TMA from (and you make it seem like TMA is a corporate monstrosity! They're an association that promotes the arts in the UK, and good luck to them!) The BBFC isn't a profit-driven organisation. I quote from the page you cited yourself: "the BBFC’s income is derived solely from the fees it charges for its services, calculated by measuring the running time of films or DVD works submitted for classification. The BBFC is not organised for profit, and its fees are adjusted only as required to cover its costs. The tariff must be approved by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)." (the DCMS is an arm of UK government -- further evidence of democratic accountability for you.) I do know what BBFC do. They establish and maintain, through public consultation, a set of clear and published guidelines. They then employ experts to examine new films/games, and to make recommendations -- based upon those codified guidelines -- to the film/game makers as to what rating they can expect their film/game to have in it's current state and why (going into minute detail). These recommendations act as suggestions as to what the makers could do to change, should they wish, their film/game in order to secure a lower rating. If they don't wish to, they can accept the higher rating, their film/game is published, and people will make up their own minds whether to watch/play it, or let their children watch/play it. If 'consumers' trust the BBFC, they might not let their children play a 15 or 18 rated game; if, like you, they distrust the censors, they could play the game themselves, or read a review, and make their own mind up. [Edit: many would just let their child play it, without a care for the content. I would generally make my own mind up, but as a rule of thumb without watching/playing a film myself, I would accept the BBFC rating.] Just to clear this up: I do not believe that media alone makes people violent. You will never hear me say or imply that. I also do not believe that people are born violent or 'evil'. The reason people go on killing sprees, become paedophiles, rapists, Justin Bieber fans, is because of social conditioning. I (nor you) can not put my finger on a single cause of any instance of heinous behaviour, but only a myriad of potential contributory factors and influences. This includes but is in no way limited to films and games (it also includes television and literature) which, for example, can clearly reinforce/perpetuate sick fantasies in already unbalanced people (there's a recent high-profile case of this, I'm sure you know). I stress, this is not to attached blame to film/games, but rather to appreciate the potential for them to have an influence, however small or large (as ever, this comes back to individual context -- the 'dark side' of individual context, so to speak, in contrast to the context that you believe allows people/parents to make their own minds up). I'll stop there, and make this my last post, if you don't want to continue this thread in this direction (though I'll happily read a response). I don't think we're about to agree! :) I've enjoyed hearing your thoughts on this.

It's not a great surprise that the film industry has more influence over things in the US than in the UK. The BBFC is a not for profit organisation. It is transparent in its guidelines and gives full disclosure of the justifications for its decisions. It is accountable, and responds to enquiries and appeals; its decisions can be superseded by local (elected) authorities if enough people dispute them. I can quote from their FAQs as to who these people are: "The current examining team includes educationalists, academics, lawyers, a video games designer, journalists, published authors, an actor, a cinema manager, a diplomat and several people who have worked in film and television. Like most BBFC employees, they have a strong knowledge of contemporary and historical film and a passion for the film, DVD and games industries." Their published guidelines are central to all their classifications, and as I mentioned they undertake comprehensive public consultations to ensure that their guidelines continue to represent the views of people in their jurisdiction. The individual examiners are chosen to assess a film on the basis of an extensive subject/genre/language knowledge, so they can put that film into an historical context, but their classification is ultimately derived from that published code and set of guidelines -- so they aren't susceptible to a knee-jerk reaction to public hysteria. Lastly I'd say that the BBFC is a respected organisation among film critics (Mark Kermode often sings their praises when I listen to him); whether this sways anything, it's worth saying. I trust the BBFC to make sound judgement, and their recommendations are not denying anyone the right to choose what they watch or do.

Underlying what you've said is the presumption that children should be shielded by someone from somethings. Whether or not we agree on specifics is a moot point. It seems like, in your view, parents always know what's best for their children, and what they shouldn't be exposed to (i.e. parents should be the someone and decide on the somethings). I have to tell you that's not my experience. Parents are just people, and people can be very short sighted, lazy and ignorant. I'm glad we entrust various bodies to make these evaluations on our behalf (e.g. the BBFC), and make recommendations as to who these media might be deemed suitable for. These are respected public intellectuals whose guidelines are based on regular and comprehensive public consultation, independent of government, so they do attempt to adequately reflect the norms and values of the people in their jurisdiction. It's a one-size-fits-all approach, a blunt instrument, and it doesn't account for the specific context in which something is being experienced, but there is always the opportunity to ignore what the censors have recommended if you so wish. The choice remains unaltered. You can let your child play CoD if you want, if you feel comfortable that it's not unduly desensitising them to violence, reinforcing unhealthy fantasies, or skewing their moral judgement. (There are a lot of people to whom these 'ifs' don't even occur.) In my view, it's far better to have a censor's informed recommendation and ignore it, than not have it at all. People will decide for themselves either way. :)

Good to see you've come with an open mind though <_<

I really like the idea of players reaping what they sow, and this is one way to make killing others have appropriate repercussions (killing everyone you see would result in the death of mankind, if DayZ were actually a simulation). It might just be a step too far to introduce children. I'm not ready to support any suggestion that rigidly differentiates between players (be it a class/caste system or this). Everyone should spawn with the same starting conditions, what should differentiate is the player herself, and what she brings to the game. It's a cliché, but there should be a level playing field. I'd go with something more like your simplified version. Aside from the children, however, I've toyed with the thought of locking players out of the game (not just one server, but all) for a period upon death. You might not agree with this Hoik, you haven't gone that far in this thread. I've seen it suggested before and the general reaction was not good, but I think it would be a positive thing. It would make death persistent enough to be meaningful, which it currently is not. Imagine your frustration at being shot by an unseen assailant, or killed by zeds, and being effectively banned from playing for several days. Some (many) people would view this emotional response as a reason not to introduce it into the game. I say this is exactly why it should be introduced, just for that feeling of frustration and dismay, and anger, et cetera. Maybe there could be a honeymoon period, meaning newly spawned players who are killed could respawn quickly. That'd be a reasonable concession. It would also only be fair to do this after many of the bugs have been worked out...

Mallassin, you've got the right idea! A sort of normal distribution of zeds through the life cycle is what I was thinking when the second end-game scenario occurred to me. S3V3N, it's good to find common ground! :) I also have three degrees! One bachelors, two master's degrees (a PhD one day, when the time is right). I've also been obliged to learn Swahili and Romanian in the past, having lived in various places. My upcoming teaching degree is a step along a pretty mazy path (perhaps ending in academia). I didn't intend to question your intelligence before, but you seem so eager to doubt mine based on the scant information you have about me. Let's call it quits. I know what you mean about the difficulty of getting organised without resorting to external fora or teamspeak etc. Having things happen entirely in-game is also the way I'd like to see it. It's a really interesting problem, and it's not the way everyone wants to play the game. Then again, the difficulty of forming associations, the problem of establishing trust in others, would be a massive hurdle in a post-apocalyptic situation IRL, so I have to wonder why should it be purposively facilitated in DayZ? As a 'simulation', perhaps DayZ is doing a pretty good job of relating the immense difficulty of this situation, socially. I don't know about that, I'm just thinking out loud really.. More items, like you say, is the way to go; more things to do. Let players create the world they'd want to see, and not only those who'd see a world full of weapons (they could have their place, but let me have mine too).

S3V3N, leaving aside the gaping and unwarranted generalisation that teachers aren't inventive people (your experience at school might not have been a happy one, but don't tar an entire profession with the same brush; doing so hardly invites me to think that you're all that creative yourself), you haven't actually contradicted what I said in that last post. I completely agree that PVP is the only gameplay that's overtly rewarded in the game as it is. Where we differ is in how we see that being changed. I say give players more freedom of choice to express themselves. I actually do believe that compelling stories are already emerging from DayZ, albeit so rarely that it seems like they aren't. They're so diluted by the general fragfest. What would allow more creativity, and more variety in the experience of playing, and therefore more varied stories, are more ways of communicating. If I could leave a message for a stranger, in a house in Elektro, asking them to come to Stary Sobor at dusk, even if I never go to Stary Sobor, or if the person who finds the note never does, I'm reaching out to others in a way that the game currently doesn't permit me to, and that other player has had their experience enriched by some element of intrigue. They've been given a choice! Do I go to meet this person, or not? What if we both go to Stary Sobor at dusk, and fall in love and get married and live happily ever after! :P Surely you can see the potential in this, and that is only the tip of the iceberg... Hoik I'm with you on that last post. Have you played the Stanley Parable? Just out of interest... Also, I read your end game thread, and there are some interesting ideas there! I'll comment on it in due course. However, I just had a thought of my own for an end-game scenario: In the final phase of the server life cycle*, the zombies begin to starve (they are just infected humans, after all), or eat each other (though this might accelerate things too much). In this last phase, as I noted in the original post, I'd like the zeds to actively hunt the remaining players, and this would fit well with the idea that they too are becoming desperate! Without interference, all zombies will die around the 48 hour mark, or players could help kill them off. Players left alive after all the zeds are dead are.. well... survivors! * I quite like S3V3N's 'seasons' terminology, but it could lead to some confusion. So I'll stick with 'phases'.

S3V3N, I completely see what you want to achieve with factions, with their persistence, and I appreciate that it would be optional and only loosely bind players together. However, I am still wary of anything that superimposes a narrative to the game beyond its starting conditions. You're in Chernarus, there are zombies, there are other survivors. The real promise of DayZ -- whether or not it ever lives up to it -- is in putting the players in as close to complete 'control' of what happens thereafter as possible and seeing what they decide to do. Players could create the factions you're talking about, right now. The question is why don't they? And it's better to ask and explore that question, and possibly answer it before engineering and shepherding players into the thing you want to see them do. IMO one of the major problems right now is the availability of weapons and the extent to which this is unduly influencing the way the game is played, and the experience it creates and the way it then obliges others to operate (e.g. shoot on sight for fear of being shot first). To be fair, players are only doing what they are being encouraged to do, given so many guns and so much ammo; there presently isn't enough variety in the game to easily get creative. I spend all my time in DayZ creeping, watching other players from the treeline, and generally avoiding contact (I have never 'murdered' anyone, nor will I). Allowing players to leave messages for others (on paper, painted on walls etc.) would be a first good step in the direction I want to see things go. It would allow me to engage with others, even only indirectly. Radio broadcasts would also be great. Communication is so limited, generally people communicate with a bullet, or not at all, because there's nothing else to do. I realise I'm rambling, but I think it's all relevant! Sort of. :)

Hoik, could you fix your sig? Since the forum changed those old links won't work. I'll take a look at your end-game idea, sure! :)