SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

I always say happy birthday a day late. So happy birthday.

Lol, I don't know. I never saw him after he blew us up. Sometimes I wonder if he was hacking, or if he was just really good. I don't even know why he wanted to blow us up. I suppose he just did it because he could. Weird.

The story of Old Gory is one of my all time favorites. One day I was playing with my friend Scott. We spawned, actually right next to each other, but ended up going in opposite directions by accident. While I found some gear in western Electro, Scott was in eastern Cherno. Scott sees a guy, and he's sort of steering clear, because all he has is a hatchet. (at this point we were talking on skype.) This dude and Scott come face to face. The guy (in game) is an old man with a big white beard, and he goes "Don't raise that weapon at me or I WILL kill you." So Scott says he's friendly. Turns out this dude (his name was Old Gory) has an SUV. By this time, I was in that little town between Cherno and Electro, prigadorsky or whatever, and I just happened to have a jerry can. They come and get me, and we're riding in the SUV. It's pretty much total silence between us all. (Scott and I meanwhile are laughing over skype at the sheer awkwardness of it.) Finally Old Gory breaks the silence with "So... You guys feel like killing some random people?" We all laughed and agreed, and Scott asked him where we were going. He told us something to the effect that we were going to pick up his buddy. Suddenly, Gory stops in the middle of the road and gets out, aiming his AK over the hood, shouting for us to get out. To our right was an apartment, and apparently Gory had spotted someone. All I have at this point is a revolver. Scott had I think a revolver or maybe a basic rifle already. Gory runs up the street, and since all I have is that revolver, I go around the back of the building - In case the guy he saw came around the other side. Before I can even get to the end of that building and look across the street, Gory calls out that the guy is dead. So we approach the hospital, which is just opposite the apartments. While we are in the field picking up supplies, Gory yells "GET THE FUCK DOWN! GET DOWN!" He sprays a few bursts pretty much right over my head, but the whole time this is going on I just kept crouch running perpendicular to his aim, and I didn't get hit at all - though I could hear the snaps of bullets around me. So I'm like, "what the hell just happened?" And Gory says "There was a guy with an automatic weapon in the third story window of that apartment. He's dead. You should go check him for gear." Scott goes up there to loot the body, and meanwhile I head over to the hospital. Suddenly a helicopter arrives overhead. He's just spraying bullets from the side machine gun into zombies right in front of us. Gory and I dip into the hospital; meanwhile Scott is in the apartments. So this guy rains hell for a minute, but we stay hunkered until the helo leaves. Gory makes a run straight for the Escalade, and I follow him,shouting out to Scott to hurry up and come with us (he still being in the apartment). We hop in the SUV and I'm telling Gory that we have to wait a bit. Scott finally comes out, juking walkers, and gets in the car. As we're driving along trying to find Gory's friend, the helicopter appears again. We weren't sure what was going on at first, but Gory pulls the truck over into the trees - then the helo appeared overhead. I tell to Scott to ditch the truck, so we can hide under the trees. Then, out of nowhere, Gory just opens up on the helicopter. Bullets start raining down from its door guns, and suddenly I remember that there's a rifle in the truck, so I sneak over there and dive down behind it. Well, the helo spots me, I can't get the rifle in time, and I take a stray round to somewhere. Then, the truck explodes right next to me, sending me flying into the woods rather comically. At this point we all sort of scatter. Zombies are now swarming the area, and Gory and Scott go off in different directions; meanwhile I'm in a field trying to bandage my wounds. Finally after a good minute of fucking around with the menu trying to apply bandages, it works and the bleeding stops. Scott comes over to me and we dive under a fence and into an industrial building with this tall staircase that's open to the air on one side, where gives me a transfusion. While we're doing this, the helo is still circling overhead. Just as we prepare to combat the helo from the stairwell, it buggers off. I guess destroying our Escalade was satisfying enough. By this time, I have finally found a rifle. Gory sees us from below and calls out to make sure it's us. As we are reaching the bottom floor, we hear shots, and Gory runs straight towards them. I give chase, since I now have a rifle and can really provide support. While I'm running on the heels of this mob of zombies, I hear a burst of different shots from inside one of the houses. By the time I've made it there, zombies are filing into the door of the house in mass, and everything is quiet inside. I shout out, "Gory, are you in there?"And I can hear him yell out of the house "Yeah, I killed that son'ova bitch!" We decide to get moving. We run down the street and through a few yards until we're standing outside of a pub, and out comes a dude with an axe. Fortunately he has a mic, and he just asks "Hey can I roll with you guys? I don't have a gun or anything." So we say yes, and pats on the back all round. But before we can even get organized, shots ring out of the top floor of the pub. Gory immediately returns fire, then barks out "MOVE IN, MOVE IN!" Well, all this gunfire has suddenly attracted a lot of unsavory attention from the locals, so after some brief fucking around with zombies swarming the lower floor of the bar, we regroup out on the street. At this point Scott says something like "Should we just split?" Gory spits back "Hell no! I'm not leaving until this fucker is dead!" And charges into the building. We're all outside with our guns trained on the windows, trying to figure out what to do, when suddenly we hear a burst of gunfire. Gory calls out proudly "He's down. I Killed him!" At this point, we're all just a little baffled. I mean this guy consistently destroys dudes like it's child's play. (On top of that, his voice and language in direct chat are so powerful and decisive that it's impossible not to listen to him. My guess is actually that he was actually military or police.) Anyway, so we leave the bar and head towards the Supermarket. As we come up on the store, there's a dude running around apparently; Gory is in the lead, so we hear him announce contact first. He immediately gives chase, ordering the man to stop. This dude just sprints flat out into the front of the store, and I already know what to expect. I run straight for the back entrance, and right when I get there, the guy flies out of the doors. Gory is right on his heels. Then, this dude sort of runs into the back area and begins running around in mad little circles, desperately trying to escape. Gory and I are both trained on him, and both yelling "Stop! Stop!" The whole time, this guy is running frantically back and forth like some kind of trapped animal. He's not even armed, he's just in sheer panic. It was oddly hilarious and authentic at the same time. Finally he doubles back and heads out the hole in the fence, and Gory bellows out, "STOP! I COMMAND YOU TO STOP!" But the guy just keeps running. Gory's rifle booms, and I instinctively fire a burst directly across the man's chest; this being at maybe 100 yards. Our target managed to disappear behind a wall, and Gory and I are now sprinting off of the elevated platform. As we land the drop I hear a crack, and Old-fucking-Gory falls to the ground. I look over, and he's still moving. He tells me the his legs are broken. Our new guy (whose name I can't remember) runs over and starts giving him morphine. During all of this, zombies have begun to completely swarm the area, and now I can hear the drone of a helicopter approaching. The helicopter immediately engages us, and I see Scott take a round directly in the chest. I sprinted back to the shelter of the supermarket, knowing that saving Scott would only get me shot, too. Once I was inside, I call out to him, and he says he's still alive. I start picking off zombies, because now they're all attacking him. We finally wipe out all the zombies, and our new guy is able to revive Scott, but he's is still very low on blood. By this time the helicopter had disengaged, but we didn't want to stay in the open with it nearby. So we went into the supermarket, and started patching up Scott. I try to give him a transfusion, but the game is being very laggy and not responding to my attempts, so finally the new guy administers the transfusion. Then, out of fucking nowhere, Gory SCREAMS in direct "ALAHU ACKBAR! ALALALALA!!!!" and an explosion rocks the room, killing us all. That was the end of our time with Old Gory. I still don't know how he managed to blow himself up.

Yeah but who's going to carry around all that medicine?

We're going to need doctors. :)

This is so fucking insightful.

Yeah, they would look haggard, if they didn't rest and get shelter to protect themselves from the elements. And obviously you can change your clothes. What I said was that looting a fresh corpse would get blood on you - that one time. I think that's a totally reasonable game mechanic. High humanity players would be able to get blood on themselves also, so it goes both ways, you know. It's actually just evidence based on a cause. I'm not saying that "having low humanity should automatically put blood on you." That would be quite stupid indeed. If you get to find new shirts, and you get blood on your shirt, couldn't you just change it? Or wash it? Either way, you can still cover up your tracks as a bandit. It just means that you have to think a little harder to do so. Plus, cooperative players who build structures and are able to rest and recuperate would just look better in general, bandits included. If you think trekking through woods for days on end has no effect on your appearance, then I highly suggest that you try going camping sometime. Besides, the way I described the humanity system is how it works right now. You can murder people and still look normal if you just grind certain "good deeds" to keep your humanity up. So I don't really see the point. All this stuff already exists. They've confirmed things like facial animations already. Humanity system works already. Plus, all of my suggestions only give your humanity away when a player gets pretty close to you. It's just not the same as wearing a big fat turban on your head going "look at me look at me, I'm a bandit!" You could still perform banditry - even more effectively than in the current mod. But other players should have some way of defending themselves from players like you. You just can't go around killing people left and right and expect zero consequences or evidence whatsoever. How do you think murderers in the real world get caught? Cause and effect based evidence. I think it gives everyone a balanced game experience. Both "bandits," neutrals, and high humanity players would all have to change their clothes from time to time. Say a "hero" player kills a bandit and loots his corpse. He would get bloody. What if the bandit has a friend, and bandit b sees the "hero" player with blood all over him. Doesn't this system give all players the advantage in certain ways? Doesn't it just kind of make sense? Bandit B would be able to infer what's going on in the situation based on evidence that he sees. The point is that these game mechanics do not specifically favor one side of the humanity spectrum or the other. They're simply "rules." Our real world has rules - rules called "physics." If you axe murdered someone, you would get blood on you. Of course, you could choose to change your clothes and wash, since walking out into public with blood all over you isn't exactly a wise thing to do. I don't get why you think this gives any particular individual that much of an advantage or disadvantage.

I think it's a swell idea, although I have a feeling there could be issues surrounding the gibbing body parts with weak-stomached players. Implementation wise, I love the idea of animals or zombies being able to destroy the gear you were carrying - except for maybe certain, very durable items. I just can't see a zombie actually destroying a heavy wooden rifle, or a hatchet, for instance. However, I could get behind optics, loose magazines, food, books, blood bags, bandages, and other types of easily destructible gear being vulnerable to mobs. Also mechanical items like guns, stoves, radios, and the like should take exposure damage. Rust is terrible for guns. Wet radios wouldn't even work. Without proper maintenance, these things would decay and become less useful, until they were destroyed outright (and presumably added back to the item respawn pool).

Fixed. Nobody is "taking your money." You choose willfully to spend it or not. The mod is free. Furthermore, this game has been in development for literally one year. Even call of duty games take longer than that to complete. How long has watch dogs been under development? How long did the Fallout games take to develop? The answer is years. It took years to get them to the state they were in before they were even released. We should consider ourselves lucky to be playing a prototype. Most games don't advance this quickly. So I don't see how it's "way behind" in terms of a realistic development standpoint. I would consider it right on track, actually. A standalone release is going to have to fill some really big shoes if it wants to actually succeed. They simply need time to make progress. They are tackling huge problems, which require more elegant solutions that most other games. I'd say they're doing a fine job.

Well honestly I don't see this as much of a priority issue for the mod. The mod is separate from the standalone, so I guess it's important to make the distinction.

What a succinct summary. Good video.

It's okay. I think I speak with all the other adults on the forum when I say in the standalone we want quality, and marked improvement. Gotta give it time to grow. Otherwise you kill the plant, dude.

I think what we're actually dealing with here is making the distinction between constructive players and totally destructive players. If you exposed yourself to the elements constantly, went around murdering people for their stuff, ect. ect., all the while never bothering to get some form of shelter, or rest, you would look totally haggard. Clothes torn from combat, blood all over you from looting corpses - and consider the effect it would have on your general demeanor? You're first reaction to seeing people would be a scowl. Why would you even care about such a pathetic life-form? If your only goal is to kill other people, you would probably look upon them with disdain and impatience. These are the kinds of things that subconsciously signal our human brains of danger. Of course, murder is sometimes contextually justified, and should therefore be redeemable. Cooperative play slightly negates the effects of murder on your humanity. Say you walk up on two guys. If two people are partners, they have must have some humanity, right? They have humanity towards each other at least, since they cooperate. Yeah, maybe they killed that guy you found a ways back, but maybe not. Because they're together, cooperating, one might logically assume that they are at least friendly with each other. But as you get closer, what if you could actually observe them washing blood off their hands? Suddenly it all adds up. Your human mind can comprehend that these men might be dangerous. These are the kind of emergent gameplay moments I would really like to see. This is where the richness of player interaction can be cultivated. You see an effect. You infer a cause. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to come to the conclusion. Imagine if facial gestures of a player actually changed when that player looked at another person. These two men in the hypothetical - because they "trust" each other (a report built from doing cooperative tasks over time such as healing each other, building structures together, ect.), their faces would be neutral or even smiling when they see each other. This might lure you into a false sense of security. But If one of them looks at you and instantly begins to scowl (which would not be in his control unless he were deliberately putting on a poker face, which I think is a completely fair thing to do), as he and his partner remove blood from their clothing - the conclusion is obvious. That guy has generally low humanity. He is dangerous. He is up to something. That's your human intuition kicking in and whispering "this guys is a threat, do something!" You don't even need to speak to someone in that situation to conclude that they are dangerous. You might even be able to observe them washing blood off their hands through a sniper scope, Vicco (and yes, that is your choice. If you deduce them to be violent, then by all means, shoot them). lol You just can't compare this situation to "wearing a snow suit." It's a completely false analogy.

I actually like the idea. Just distinguishing between more and less violent players is pretty essential to giving players some kinds of basis to trust each other a little, team up and fight for survival. It is kind of impossible to find someone to play with. Besides, it isn't necessarily meant to mitigate conflict. Only to balance player interactions. The idea is to make teamwork more valuable in tangible ways. Besides, cooperative gameplay rewards you with humanity. So even if you murder some people, cooperating with other players (building constructions, performing surgeries, and all that constructive, wholesome stuff we humans call survival) would add to your humanity as well. People's humanity balances itself. If they purely run around murdering, never being constructive, then they never gain any humanity. I think it makes sense to make a distinction between the two types of player, over time. As Bertrand Russel once said; "The only thing that will redeem mankind is cooperation." I think we can all appreciate the significance of that now.

I get that it's not "murder" in terms of gameplay value, and I'm not saying it should be. If you want to hunt bandits, that's fine. I think the humanity system is actually the best solution to monitoring a very, very intricate problem. And I don't think these things will solve KoS issues outright. I think the approach must be multi-faceted to actually alter the gameplay in such a way that feels more authentic. I think players need more incentives to cooperate. Period. You simply can't carry a car engine in a backpack, for example. Totally impossible - and inauthentic. You can't construct a large wall all on your lonesome - at least not very quickly. You as an individual may not even have the skill necessary to repair a vehicle in a certain condition, for example. I know I do not. These are all factors that should be taken into consideration when we talk about "Kill on Sight." I think that KoS is fundamentally related to the extremely low gameplay value of human life in DayZ. There's simply nothing that anyone can really help you do, except blood bag and a few other things. The game needs to become more group oriented, and less lone Wolf oriented; we need bigger goals. We need more to do. More to explore. More danger to avoid. You'll recall that towards the end of The Sea Wolf, Hump and Maud toiled for two weeks, just building a hut - even longer repairing the Ghost. (and believe me, repairing a boat is no easy task. I'm working on one currently.) This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Tasks that literally require more than one person to accomplish economically. Human limitation is what necessitates teamwork. If teamwork is more highly valued, then KoS would decrease (and don't get me wrong. It's never going away). Wouldn't it make more sense to recruit a friendly person to help erect a wall, or carry an engine to a vehicle you want to repair, than to just shoot him out of paranoia? Just the act of accomplishing goals together is what bonds us as human beings.

Lol fuck that little bitch. He tried to murder me. I don't give a shit about my "humanity." His intention was obvious. Dude, you seriously need to take a chill pill. I never said I "didn't want a humanity system." In FACT, if you would have actually read my posts, you would see that all of my suggestions INSIST on the existence of a humanity tracker. I'm just suggesting authentic cues for it. "Also, I don't know where people come up their conviction that the stand-alone won't make murderers easily identified." I don't know where you came up with that. All of my ideas have been to the detriment of this conclusion. Also, Rocket himself officially stated that the humanity system would NOT be in the Alpha release until they had perfected it more. I'll look for the video when I have time. It's also apparent by watching the SA videos that you're clothing is not dictated by humanity, since you can wear different shirts, pants, shoes, hats, ect. This is a fact. Please learn to read. You want to snipe bandits from afar in a nice, cozy hiding spot; where you don't have to be in any danger. That's it. What I'm arguing is that in actuality, you can't just fucking look at a dude 300 meters away and automatically presume that he's a bad guy. Life just doesn't work that way. People wear the clothes they wear because they want to - or out of necessity. The current system gives you as a "bandit hunter" a completely unfair advantage. Furthermore, my propositions don't even suggest changing how the humanity system works. I'm only proposing solutions to a real problem. "But I want to murder with no penalty!" I never said that. "I choose not to mind-game, and NEVER murder." - "As far as me taking advantage of the game providing me free kills, in the form of bandits, don't expect me to shed tears of guilt. " You murder bandits. Killing is murder. You murder them, without even talking to them. And you say that I'm a "bad person" for communicating with other players I encounter? Completely hypocritical. It also perfectly proves my point that a computer system can't actually judge the real-world context of a murder. But regardless, the point is not to remove the humanity system. Only to make it more intuitive. "I would expect it to be pure KOS, or players clanning up, and dressing each other all pretty in tutus, ribbons and such. " "Players clanning up" is actually the key phrase here. That's what we want. We want to encourage more player interaction. Clanning up and killing each other is far more interesting than simply killing each other individually over and OVER and OVER again. Uhg. It's fucking repetitive! I have no qualms about human strife, but I clearly have the recognition that it is in human nature to cooperate on SOME LEVEL. I'm starting to seriously doubt your claims of being a "lit major." You're being quite childish and reactive with your posts, which indicate to me a childish intellect. If you would just stop making ad hominem attacks on my character and READ my content, MAYBE you'd be able to form some kind of rational contribution. Also, you can't not "mind-game." You're playing a game, which is done with your mind. The game is a mind-game. ALL GAMES ARE MIND-GAMES. That's why we call them "games." You can't just "choose not to." That's analogous to saying that you choose not to use your mind - which may be true - but is a very bold assertion indeed, what with all it implies. And yeah, bandits should not be "handicapped" with health penalties, equipment restrictions, or aiming penalties. All of those ideas are terrible. You can't handicap players like that for murder. Nothing like that - even analogously - happens in real life. "Oh I killed three guys, now I can't carry an alice pack." That simply makes no fucking sense. Especially considering that Dean Hall himself confirmed that clothing and gear would take damage. So shooting a guy up actually might not be the best way to obtain his gear. Ever think of that, wise guy? Look, I'm not going to argue with you anymore Vicco. You seem to just want something to attack. Just fucking calm down man. I don't call you names. All I've ever showed you is respect thus far, but you're seriously trying my patience. Go back to bed, mister. It's probably past your bed time. Let the big boys talk now.

Well yeah, radios already require batteries, which I assume would be quite rare. Let's also not leave out the possibility of finding generators to create electricity - since generators are already an object in game. They just need implementation. I just can't buy the argument on optics. It's not like they disintegrate. They're constructed from metal and plastic, just like most guns these days. If it's believable to find a rifle, or a working car for that matter, I think it's just as believable to find a scope, if not more so. I would guess that weapon attachments are actually more abundant than guns themselves. Even if that's incorrect, living humans would take those supplies and use them. People would take care of certain items because those items are particularly useful to their survival. Plus, those left untouched wouldn't be destroyed for no reason at all. Even in pre-apocalypse terms, most gun owners also own optics or sights for their guns. I myself own a red dot sight which I originally bought for an airsoft gun years ago, but it's still in perfect working order. There's nothing to stop me from attaching it to a real firearm with a picatinny rail and sighting it in. Just needs a battery - which I could find. I could even theoretically take a small solar panel and hook it up to the thing, bypassing the battery entirely. Moreover - scopes don't need batteries. They're purely mechanical. Don't get me wrong, I think weapon attachments should be fairly rare. I just don't think it makes sense to remove them from the game entirely. They've already programmed the attachment system. It would just needlessly waste a bunch of time and effort the devs have already put into the game.

Yeah, I just feel like playing after repeated deaths still has to be rewarded somehow. I guess what I'm proposing is a system where you would gain a small amount of skill for certain tasks you accomplish, but dying would set back all total skills like, 10-20%. Not a huge loss, but enough to make it compelling when you repeat the process. Kind of a "2 steps forward, one step back" deal (though literally speaking, it would be 10 steps forward, one or two steps back). This way people have more than just the material to worry about, making their very lives more valuable. I agree with Fluxley. It would take configuration and balancing, but it's worth considering. I also have many, many thoughts on the humanity system and related gameplay alterations, as well as cooperative play, and a bunch of other things... But I don't want to be a thread hijacker. Guess I'll have to prepare a large, interwoven post where I bring all my thoughts into some kind of collective thesis. Lol.

I'm not talking about .50 cal sniper rifles here. I'm just talking about attachments. I can go to almost any basic hunting store and pick up an optic for a rifle. These things are widely available to the civilian market. Even different tiers of attachments would have different rarities. I guess I just don't see what the argument is. Findings something like a basic scope for your rifle I feel is totally believable and can really narrow the weapon spectrum - since as you said, it's not a priority it to model extremely obscure firearms. If guns are more basic when you find them - like an m14 with nothing but iron sights - then people who find and attach optics can gain a small advantage. More powerful weapons would be even rarer than the basic ones, so for most survivors, basic equipment can be modified and still get the job done. If they are cunning, then they might survive long enough to find rare equipment, or take it from other players. Having high tier, high rarity items is one of the motivations to survive - since they in fact aid your own survival. I mean personally, I'd like to see the more programming related, gameplay heavy features addressed first, of course. I think things like cooperative projects, more intuitive humanity systems, persistence issues, ect, ect., are higher priority than the variety of weapons. But it all funnels toward the same goal so I just don't see what the issue is. The release is only an alpha, so they aren't running out of time to develop the game or anything.

SUCH an excellent idea. You've stirred my own thoughts. What if players with very high humanity, when looked at, maybe could cause the player aiming at them to lower their weapon into the "relaxed" stance - when inside a certain range, of course. Shouldn't work 100m away through a scope or anything. And what if low humanity players did the inverse? Within a certain range, your character would remain neutral. If said target had an especially low humanity, your character might start to tremble *ever so slightly.* Your heart beats faintly. Your gun would not lower unless you pressed the bound key to lower your weapon repeatedly. Maybe, as you survived longer and developed more "experience," 1: You're "guile" would increase or decrease. This means that your humanity transmission distance would be; reduced as a bandit (benefitting the bandit), and increased as a heroic player (benefiting the heroic). 2: You're "perception" would increase. Meaning your detection range would increase, regardless of being neg or pos of the humanity spectrum (Benefit to both). 3: Neutral players would still gain increased perception, but would gain transmission distance. This means that someone who stays neutral for a long time and suddenly looses a lot of humanity would still have a high transmission distance - like a first time murderer. (Crime and Punishment) Over time it would decrease, however. Inversely, if they gained humanity and became more heroic, they'd only have the effect of making people lower their gun - which is tactically advantageous, since heroic players could then observe a person and see if he raises his weapon again - a sign of possible aggression. So when approaching someone who is - as we say "heroic-" players could not only observe the targets personal appearance, (which would be subject to the immediate conditions of his environment and his choices as a survivor) but they would also have a "sixth-sense" about the person. This is just a minor way of simulating what we might call human intuition. When someone is good, they generally have a very good presence about them, which relaxes others around them. We can actually observe this in human nature. People who seem trustworthy to us often have a calming effect on our body language. Inversely, someone with very low humanity - bandit's as we know'em 'round 'ere - would make you're entire character's body language nervous and tense. What a solution. This way, you can't just look at someone through a sniper scope and immediately go "Oh yeah, bad guy" and blow his brains out without a second thought or consideration. Also, if you happen to spend a lot of time (say, 15-30 minutes or more) around a particular individual, your character's status effects should no longer be affected by them. "Negative" status effects should also be negated by "positive humanity" actions, such as that individual giving you a gift, or healing you, ect. ect. Basically players status effects to other individuals can be dulled to the best case scenario. i.e. if it is a bandit, you would only be dulled to "neutral" around them. Maybe you're a bandit too, anyway. If he is heroic, he's already obtained the best case scenario reaction.

I was thinking about that part in the Stand where the guy has a broken leg and has to splint it up. It would be interesting if DayZ actually had you fix a broken leg that way. Though I admit, killing yourself, respawning, and returning to the location of your body seems like an obvious workaround for such a gameplay mechanic.

Man after my own heart! If you chose to split I would let you. The point still remains factual that if you denied communication and did threatening things, I would attack you to the very best of my ability. It doesn't make me a "bandit" or a "bad person." It makes me defensive and prepared. A critically thinking adult prepares for any possibility. That is all I'm doing by approaching other survivors defensively and communicating my real intentions. If I am being defensive in the interaction, how am I a bandit, exactly? My method actually works. I've used it successfully before - in both cases with violent men and non-violent ones. The violent ones typically died at my hand (though I admit not always, as nobody is perfect) and the non-violent ones either left, communicated with me in some way, or in a few circumstances, joined me. You act like I'm the one in charge of making the game. The standalone clearly doesn't have bandit skins, so we have to approach the situation pragmatically. Besides, it seems to me that all you want is for the game to be "easier" for you. That way you don't have to interact with people, and you can just murder other players (i.e. bandits) with impunity. Let's examine your own words here. "Why? Because I can balance that with killing bandits to satisfy my kill hunger." "It's really arrogant for any non-bandit player to entertain the notion that I would give them the time of day if bandit skins were removed. Expect a bullet in the back or face." So firstly, you prove yourself to be equally as savage in nature as any other player. You simply think of DayZ as a way to "satisfy your kill hunger." - so basically you are violent, offensive, selfish, and motivated by bloodlust - all qualities that I find remarkably similar to bandits (and all human beings, on some level. Let's be honest.) Secondly, you admit you would play just as defensively, even offensively, if you had absolutely no idea of a person's humanity. Since we know that the standalone won't have bandit skins, is it not wise to propose alternative - and more authentic - methods of deducing a person's prior actions? Doesn't it therefore make sense that we come up with ways to identify violent behaviors with subtle ques that you can use? Doesn't this actually put us in agreement? Nobody's saying you can't keep on killing bandits. What I am arguing for here is a deeper game experience. Humanity should become apparent with authentic visual and/or gameplay cues. You want to take that away from everyone. "deep discussion about literature doesn't even work well with most chicks." This much I will grant is true. I still have only met one woman who I could have exceedingly esoteric conversations with; deep conversations base on a mutual understanding of literature, music, art. The meaning of life. She died, sadly. One small woman. Every ignorant, selfish girl I meet seems to pale in comparison. P.s. I've never been betrayed by an 8 year old. I met one once, but he tried to shoot me and missed. It was his last mistake with that character, to be true.

Yeah, I guess my argument is fundamentally based on the bias that cooperative play should be encouraged with all possible devices. Right now I would say that the game actually favors loners, since they don't have to even worry about meeting another person geographically, communicating with that person, ect. Also I find that lone wolfing tends to only promote the player-killer instinct that is already in all of us. I just want the game to become more cooperative, but that's just my opinion. And yeah, it only really works that one time when they are in the lobby simultaneously, so it only gives them the advantage of starting as a group. They shouldn't be able to "squad spawn" a-la Battlefield 3. That would make combat inconsistent and ultimately pointless at times. Also I think that camping tents should serve as a spawn point for the owner of said tent. But they should not be camouflage colored, and should be easily destroyed (or disassembled and re-owned by other players). This way players might actually establish true, functioning "bases" since their spawn point would be inside said base - but other players could technically destroy the spawn point after killing said player and thusly prevent them from re spawning there. Base siege and base construction are some of the most compelling end-game type goals that can really provide cooperative players the experience they want. Also, it would give destructive bandit players even more compelling motivations. In the middle you'd have neutral loners and small neutral groups who might be struggling to survive in between larger forts and towns, scavenge supplies, and generally pursuing their own fancies, which probably will come into conflict with other players. On top of all that, the threat of the infected is constantly looming, not to mention the perils of disease, injury, and other forms of chaos that is the typical nature of anarchy.

Why can't we have both? That's a bit of a false dilemma. Once they develop a weapon, it's already developed. There's no reason they can't add more variety later. Besides, I think you might have missed my point. My point is that the cross server rarity of weapon attachments makes them entirely authentic to the game world. Some elite, or just plain lucky, players will have these items, while most will have basic, common gear. The longer you survive, the more rare gear you have a chance of finding. Therefore survival and cunning are duly rewarded, but at a greater value to your own life. If people see you with a gun that has an acog scope, they might be tempted to kill you for it. High risk - high reward. High rewards, even higher risks. It is the natural order of things. Yes and no. I'm making an argument for authenticity, as well as individual choice and weapon customization, which is already implemented - so let's be realistic - It's not going to be "un-implemented" before anyone even gets to try it. We have to give new features a chance. Not doing so only inhibits the growth of this wonderfully entertaining game.

This is such a fantastic thread. I find myself reading and agreeing with pretty much every post. All enlightening ideas! I already know one perfect location for a tunnel - on the coastal road near Otmel. All one must do is extend those rocky mountains to encompass the road, pull out the landmass a bit, and voila - a horrifying tunnel full of wrecked and disabled cars, zombies, ect. It might even make for an excellent base for organized players - not to mention sewer access which would make stealthy intrusions very likely and desperate escapes entirely plausible. On top of all that it extends from a road full of wrecked vehicles, car parts, death, and decay. An extremely high risk, but high reward zone that may result in you finding parts to repair a vehicle, but also becomes highly contested territory, which happens to attract zombies for miles, so that they may feed upon the human decay. What a sight that would be.