SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

I love how this is under such intense debate when the gentleman in the video clearly just did it. You can throw around numbers all you want, it won't change that.

Run off the damned beach.

Yes. I do it all the time, because I know that's where people try to hide helicopters. Duh.

Or I could just walk up to you and use direct chat and say "Hello, I'm friendly!" And then blam. Shoot you in the face. Guess what. People already do that. We don't need to "register" with heros or bandits or undisclosed and then earn a "reputation" to replace humanity. Humanity is personal, case by case, and unique to the individual. And just so you know, the Standalone will not have a humanity system at all, so the suggestion is completely irrelevant. People will choose their own clothing and their own way of behaving, and thereby gain reputations of their own. Clearly if you think bandits+heros+"undisclosed"=humanity, then you have a very flawed definition of the word. Humanity is simply a reflection of your behavior. basically what you are proposing is team dethmatch, which is highly unrealistic. Don't be condescending towards me, I'm older than you here, young grasshopper.

Playing as a bandit, hero, or survivor are not "pointless." They are simply side-effects of your natural behavior as a player. You play DayZ to survive. Your decisions affect those outcomes, just like your "reputation" idea. So again, what exactly is the point? What you described is exactly how the humanity system works now, except that everyone starts out exactly the same, which is how it should be. It's just not logical to allow players to choose "factions" and then get special information - for example, "the ability to see other heroes more easily." Let me break it down for you why this would fail. Bandits want to kill heroes. So they would align as heroes so they could get "more carrying capacity" (what the actual fuck by the way) and the ability to see hero players through trees, also giving them access to locations of hero camps. Then they would use these abilities and information to systematically hunt other heroes, rendering all your features completely pointless to begin with.

I shot a man in Cherno, just to watch him die.

It's simply better to wait to allow modding until all of the intended features are fully implemented and functional.

Absolutely not. :emptycan: I litter in your thread.

Bandits will self align as heroes to more effectively bandit. So there's a huge hole in your idea, for starters. Furthermore, the very mention of the word "safe-zone" or anything to that effect is going to go down in flames on this forum. You should know that, since your topic post implies that you've used the search function before... even if your post count doesn't. Also, what Hetstaine just said.

Just keep playing the mod if you love it so much, ya' crybaby. Personally, I'm looking forward to a unified experience. Maybe mods can come later, but I'd really just rather see a nice, clean game with a direction and a vision, when it comes to a standalone title.

1: NOT a "single player" game. 2: The STANDALONE is not a mod. It's a standalone title. 3: Yeah. No mods. While mods can be great, they are completely ruining the concept of DayZ. The game is trying to accomplish a specific experience, and when servers are constantly modding the game by taking away night time, adding hundreds of vehicles, spawning players with all sorts of equipment - they are basically just breaking the rules of the game just so they can get higher traffic than other servers. This results in the gameplay breaking down into "DeathmatchZ" and putting time and effort into surviving fall by the wayside. 4: Speak for yourself. Those are not my favorite weapons.

1: It probably will affect some people's play style, as it would no longer be lucrative for a bandit to kill newbs and survive for weeks on the beans and other equipment he invariably will harvest from their corpse, as you know we all do. Sure, people kill out of fear. People also kill out of greed. People also kill for fun. People are people and they do things for many different reasons. The simple truth though is that earning new loot from corpses is a huge bonus and it can often just seem like those soda's appeared out of thin air, but the reality is that you just forgot that you got it off a corpse. 2: How about restraints and non-lethals? Does your "logic" leave any room for those kinds of implementations? How about permanent nicknames and disguises? You don't think these would have some kind of effect on the way people behave in a game? 3: What about cooperative objectives and actions which necessitate the presence of more than one person? What about the idea that transporting a tire or a fueltank would actually require labor and skill on the part of the player? If you were thinking logically, you would realize that this one feature is not supposed to be some kind of a "solution" to murder in DayZ. If you honestly think that's "the idea" here, then you're clearly setting up a straw man argument, and also forgetting that the game is still only in pre-alpha, and therefore the features you see RIGHT NOW are not necessarily representative of the final product. You know the story of the Zen master? On his 16th birthday, a village boy gets a horse as a present. All the villagers say, "How wonderful!" The Zen master says "We'll see." Then one day, the boy is thrown from the horse, and can no longer walk. The villagers all say "Oh, how terrible!" The Zen master says, "We'll see." Then one day, the country goes to war. All the young men are rounded up for service in the army, but the boy has a limp and he gets to stay with his family. The villagers all say, "How wonderful!" Can you guess what the Zen master says? The point is, how about we stop acting like fucking Congress, trying to predict the future and the behavior of players in DayZ, and allow the team to develop the game, experiment, and actually accomplish something. This game is relatively unprecedented territory. Sure, this or that might work, or might not work. Certain features might work in conjunction with other features. We won't actually find out until they are implemented and tested, will we? Let me remind you again. (ALPHA TEST) As in, not a complete product. How many times does this have to be repeated before people realize that they are testing an incomplete game? It is subject to change.

A while ago rocket mentioned that facial animations were going to be implemented in the Standalone, and that essentially they would reflect your humanity. Of course that's pretty vague, so I just wanted to put up some thoughts on how facial animations might react to individuals, rather than in just a general way. First I'd like to add that I think players should always be able to manually override their facial "reactions" by pressing different facial animation keys. Basically, your (automatic) facial reaction to another player would be based on three variables: 1: Your own humanity (negative being a frown and positive being a slight grin, or preferably neutral by default), 2: Your rapport with that particular player. 3: Your current state. The idea is that each time a specific player interacts with you in a positive way, it would add some points to their positive rapport (only with you). Also, if another player spends an extended amount of time around you, it will slowly appreciate one point at a time, also increasing rapport. Inversely, If the player does something negative to you, it would reduce your rapport. Shooting you or injuring you with any weapon would set your rapport back to base value (zero**) - or decrease it if they are already neutral to you - and killing you would reduce your rapport even further, into the negative. - Rapport would always take precedent over your humanity on your "facial reaction" when you look at another player. This means that two bandits could have very low humanity, but if they are working together and have good rapport with each other, then they will smile when they see each other. - Your current state (i.e. injured, encumbered, panicking, being shot at or otherwise attacked, chased by zombies) would take precedent over rapport and humanity. **Players should be able to select another player and designate them as "trusted" or as a "buddy," which would set their base rapport at a high level. This way accidental friendly fire and that sort of thing won't break two people's rapport unnecessarily. However, you can only set someone as your friend if they are in your line of sight, and also accept your request. (This simply prevents the system from being abused to circumvent facial reactions.) Rapport and your trusted players should also be persistent, and attached to your GUID. Meaning if you run into a guy that you teamed up with in the past, your rapport would carry over to that interaction as well and therefore you will both smile when you see each other. I know this is one of those ideas that I and others have already kicked around quite a bit. I'm simply trying to entertain a more technical and nuanced approach. Thoughts? Edited for new ideas.

It's funny, but sure... why not? I like it. Kind of ties into King of Kong's me gusto face. It's one of those "state" based variables, so it's totally feasible.

Then why don't you do something about it in the game? I gave you clear instructions on how you can actually play the game in it's current state in a way that is passive and heroic, yet you ignore my suggestions and refer to me as an argumentative troll. Just because you feel like crying because someone took advantage of your play style, you come here with a severly flawed suggestion. Then, when we try to provide constructive criticism (like my points about implementing team objectives and other gameplay variables which can alter the course of an interaction) you ignore them and throw a tantrum like a child. I am here to have an intellectual discussion about your suggestion. There is no need to attach your ego to it and get offended when people contradict you with logic and convictions that have been true to DayZ's core principles since the beginning of the mod.

Everything takes skill in this game. Define "skill," please. Because last time I checked, it means "the ability to do something well." If someone is good at tracking and killing other players, they indeed have some level of skill, and probably some luck, too. It means that they were keeping an eye out for movement constantly. They chose an advantageous and concealed position to observe their surroundings. They used buildings to conceal their movement. These are fundamentally skills. This you cannot deny. Maybe you need to think out of the box when it comes to being a "hero." I personally love to give supplies away in the form of dead drops. I don't find survival very hard, and since I mostly like to be a nice person, I just focus on channeling my creative energy towards doing nice things. It requires many of the same skills that one requires to be a successful bandit. The only difference is choice. I had to learn to kill other players. Sometimes, you just have to. I'm not always saying I did the right thing... but you know, it's just what I do to survive.

You make a lot of assumptions, sir. You say that 95% of all DayZ players are kill on sight players. Yet I played this weekend, put my trust in every single person I met, and they actually helped me a lot. So there's direct anecdotal evidence which fails to support your little claim. Furthermore, you just say you've been playing the game "for a long time" and we are supposed to believe you? You've only been a member since august of this year. Not that I'm calling you a liar, but really, show us how many hours you've actually spent in the game. That is empirical evidence. Saying "95%" over and over, is not. You also assume that everyone who opposes your idea is some kind of "CoD kiddie." I oppose this idea. I am not a kill on sight player. I am a defensive survivalist, and I'm actually willing to put faith in some people. Sometimes I get betrayed, but I have made friends in this game, and no imaginary statistic you make up off the top of your head is going to change that. You want to know how you discourage KoS? You make the game into what it is supposed to be. The apocalypse. It should be hard to survive. Zombies should be brutal and deadly predators which are a legitimate threat to your life. Introduce micro-skills and some level of character advancement, which will not only make people more a little more attached to their character, but will also make uniquely skilled individuals really valuable in terms of group dynamics. You want to talk about realism? Why don't you examine some of the reasons why human beings cooperate in real-life? Does it make much sense to kill a person if they know how to build a car from the ground up? Or someone who can build extremely strong barricades? Does it make sense to kill a player who can perform advanced surgery when your friend is on the ground bleeding to death? If riddling another player with bullets could potentially damage all of the equipment they have, and bullets are extremely rare to begin with, people might reconsider that option. Also, non-lethal methods of incapacitating other players has the capacity to reduce kill on sight. Many people kill on sight out of a logical necessity, as you said. So why not give them another option? Let me knock a guy out from behind with a baseball bat. Points of leverage like this can provide logical motivations to keep other players alive - at least for a little bit longer - than the state we can currently observe in the mod. Also, how could you possibly implement a feature like this? How could you even do that? The idea you proposed is so vague, not to mention inauthentic, that it just can't be taken seriously. And your humanity values, what are those supposed to accomplish? You already said yourself, the game is 95% deathmatch. Well guess what, bandits already have to wear masks. So if the idea is clearly not mitigating KoS now, how is it going to magically "fix" this "problem" in the future?

Haha. Well I'm open to suggestions or additions... I already edited my post for an idea I thought was kind of a major oversight I made, and I'm not even trying to deny the truthfulness of what Orlock is saying. He's got excellent points, and I think it just proves that no feature we add to DayZ is going to be "perfect." View distances are different for high and low end PC's, one could argue those should be fixed across all clients by the same logic. Just because I disagree or have my own opinion, doesn't mean I'm not willing to hear out arguments against it. As I already conceded, implementation of this feature would probably not alter player's behavior in any dramatic way.

That's pretty much my point exactly.

No. I pretty much find myself on the ground any time I get hit with a weapon that deals 8000+damage. Often times I have less than that much blood, which means it is an insta-kill. And actually, an interesting point I would like to make. On the Dayz wiki, the DMR is listed with 2 body shots to kill. The m14? 1 body shot, despite the fact that it deals 200 less blood damage. http://dayz.gamepedia.com/Weapons

This idea is actually intended to be combined with that existing suggestion. The fact that the thread is over a year old I think merits support from the team, so I'm kind of assuming that feature would exist... And yeah, definitely Orlock. I mean, it's not bullet proof by any means. I don't think it's going to dramatically alter the way people behave in the game, I just think it will make the game that much more beautiful, detailed, and interesting. Kind of like how a player's mouth moves when they speak over the mic. It's not extremely useful in any way (for the same reasons you point out here), but actually in some situations, it is kind of helpful. And it adds to that small level of realism (or authenticity, or whatever) that made the mod feel so genuine to me in the first place. It's funny, recently someone made a thread about how playing DayZ would never feel like the "first time" ever again. But actually, I think if the devs keep pumping in more and more content, more ideas, more little idiosyncrasies that add to the experience, the SA can really feel "fresh."

Ak 74 - 2300 Blood M4A1 CCO - 3300 Blood Sa 58v- 4500 Blood m14 aim - 8000 Blood Discussion over. You talk about who sees who first dictates a firefight, actually that's pretty much bullshit. You may be the first to see that person, even hit them - but chances are they won't die immediately if you're using an assault rifle. All it takes is a single shot from the m14 and you're toast. You can't argue your way out of that. The proof is in the pudding.

I agree completely. The M14 has literally saved my life against other players more times than I can count. It has both the maneuverability and open sight picture of an assault rifle, combined with the accuracy and higher power values of a sniper rifle. I once was engaged in a 1v5 ambush, (well it vas 2v5 but they killed my roommate) and completely brutalized them; with the m14. One had an m4cco. a few others had sa 58's. I was shot - once. But I killed them all, and lived to pick up my friend. So yeah. All in all the m14 is extremely powerful and not to be underestimated. Sure, you can fire 3 bullets, and probably miss, with an m4. Then, I'll fire 2 bullets, miss the first time, and kill you the with the second. There's just no way to beat it in a typical firefight, unless you're trying to hump the enemy to death in close quarters, but even then the m14 remains far more powerful and a single shot at that distance will render a player immediately unconscious, which means say goodbye to your precious M4A1 CCO + flashlight+grenade launcher+all other unnecessary gadgetry.

Humanity is a baseline, like a basic disposition. Your rapport with every player by default is neutral, so therefore your humanity would be he value referenced in those interactions. HOWEVER, if you have a friend, aka, high rapport with that individual player, it doesn't make sense for you to react to that one person the same way you would react to everyone else. Does that make sense? It's like this: First, check state. If state is neutral, then check rapport with any players that you are looking at. If rapport is neutral, then check humanity. Based on these values, the system would generate fairly accurate facial animations in most situations. The reason is simple. Human beings are complex creatures, and we act dynamically. We aren't always "bad" or always "good." Often times a "good" person will make a bad decision, and vice versa. Bad people have friends, too. Therefore, a static representation of your humanity is an oversimplification of you as a person. People are layered. Like onions. Haven't you ever met someone who was rude to you, but nice to their friends? Same basic idea. You could easily see a facial expression at this distance. Would it work far away? Of course not. It's not supposed to work far away. I'm talking split second, close up interactions where the difference between life and death is going to lie in judging another person's disposition. We do this constantly in real life, which is why it seems like a completely logical feature to implement. Otherwise, there's really no point to have a humanity system at all, because it won't provide you with any visual cues whatsoever in the Standalone. And of course, I'm not trying to imply that this is the only method of judging a person. You still have to pay attention to them, watch their ​actions, their behaviors, weapons they are holding, ect. ect. There are thousands of things you need to take into account to be an effective player in DayZ. This is just one more tool in the toolbox. A little something is better than nothing at all, IMO. And of course, players would still have to option to wear a helmet or a mask or something, which would cover their face. There's all sorts of exceptions to this idea, which is actually why I think it's a good one. It's not meant to be "the final word" in detecting a person's humanity, or intentions. It's just adding a little bit of detail and authenticity which I think people will naturally pick up on. It's not intended to be "bandit radar."

It's not for you to look at your own face. It's for other players to see your face. It's about interaction. And yes, you have to be close. The whole point is that you can't look at a player 300 meters away through a scope and see a turban on his head and automatically decide "Oh yeah, bad guy" and kill him. What does killing a random stranger who you actually don't know anything about really say about your humanity? It doesn't make sense to me that we would punish murderers by giving them head wraps and then reward other murderers by giving them shemags and plaid, just because they happened to murder people with head wraps. To me, that is a very twisted take on humanity. Which is why I want the game to be more subtle, more ambiguous, and more detailed. Instead of picking off a bandit and being able to go "Yep, I did the right thing there," you're going to have to ask yourself, "did I do the right thing there?"