SalamanderAnder (DayZ)

Yeah, actually. I recognize the town names now in cryllic. Also games like stalker and metro taught me a few small Russian phrases. I know "be careful" and I understand a few cuss words and exclamations. I also really love Russian and Czech films.

I played for the first time in a few months too. Got a bunch of stuff and met up with a guy at Balota. As he was getting gear out of my vehicle I started to shoot zombies with my silenced pistol, at which point he shot me to death wth his AK thinking that I was trying to kill him. Ah, good old DayZ.

I think morals in Dayz and morals in reality are very different. Again, when it comes to DayZ, what I mean by "morality" is the most accepted or most rational course of action for a given situation. Since we're talking about a video game here, it's pretty much impossible to equate DayZ morals to real morals in any tangible way. You don't feel physical pain. Death is not permanent, since you can just respawn. The continuation of the human race is not a priority here. Therefore, things like empathy and mutual survival are not factors taken into account in a player interaction. I don't feel bad when I kill another player. I feel good. As it stands, It's just as easy, if not easier to succeed in DayZ as a loner. In my experience, the more people I have in my group, the more danger I'm actually in. There's always the chance that whoever you happen to be with will be completely incompetent. Just teaming up with one other player doubles your risk of being spotted by a bandit, or making some critical mistake (like firing his gun off in the middle of goddamn Elektro and attracting everyone in earshot). It means that you need twice as many medical supplies, food, and weapons. The only thing I can't do for myself is use a blood bag. There is a reason that every recorded civilisation has some form of 'Thou Shalt Not Kill'. Yes. Every civilization. DayZ is not simulating a "civilization" - it's simulating anarchy. There is no civilization to enforce those rules. People are not working towards "collective human survival" in this game. People are working towards individual survival, or small group survival. So when your group's goal is to survive, and you see an armed man who could - and probably will - kill you, what is the moral decision? Neutralize the threat to your survival. So we MUST therefore concede that killing other players is often times the moral (being the RIGHT, and rational) thing to do, in the environment of DayZ. I consider it moral to protect the players I trust, by killing the players I don't. This protects MY survival, and my group. I even admit that when other players kill me, they are making the moral decision, because there's a good chance I would do the same to them. There is no collective survival of the human race in this game. We are all more or less, in competition. Killing is an issue of automatically heading to the lowest common denominator due to lack of trust. I concur. Like I just said, I kill people because I don't trust them. Because trusting them is the WRONG thing to do. Mor·al Adjective Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. What I'm saying is that when killing is the right choice (in the context of the situation), it is the moral choice. Why do you think it's LEGAL to kill someone in self-defense? Because it is the morally correct choice. It is a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons. I agree with a lot of what you say, I just think maybe I'm not explaining properly. My definition of "moral" is context specific. It goes beyond "killing people is bad! :(" and "helping people is good! :)" Also I have to disagree with you on one thing in particular. People's morals can change, based on their prior experiences. We constantly ask ourselves "is this the right thing to do?" = "Is this the moral thing to do?" Well, when we do the right thing, and experience an unpleasant result, (such as death due to trusting another player in DayZ) we learn that it is, in fact, the wrong thing to do. Your idea of right and wrong has changed - therefore your morality has changed.

You do know that Garry (of Garry's Mod) made Rust? Presumably in his garage. DayZ, on the other hand, is being built by a team of experienced game programmers who work for Bohemia Interactive. I saw a video of them doing MO-CAP for animations. I think you need to get your facts straight before you go accusing things of being "garage projects." At least DayZ has a budget. And Rust, while it does have some interesting features, is not really that great looking anyway. Combat is buggy as shit, sounds don't even work properly, animations look like total ass, the crafting system actually makes very little sense. (OH boy I collected five bits of scrap metal! Now I can make a GUN! I mean, what the actual fuck?) Seriously, are you retarded, or something? Nobody tell him about Infestation: Survivor Stories.

You can't sprint and attack at the same time. You can walk and attack at the same time.

The scariest thing I can even imagine in DayZ is finding a door open that shouldn't be, or a broken window that isn't normally broken, or the sound of footsteps in the back of the supermarket... That's true horror.

I was playing the game actively when the bandit skin was removed. It didn't change my play style at all, and when they brought them back, my play style still didn't change at all. My modus operandi has evolved over a long time. I simply observe other people's actions, and infer their intentions by them. If I feel like they are a threat, I kill them, or avoid them completely - their skin makes no difference to me. I treat all players with equal suspicion, since I've been killed by just as many "survivors" as I have by "bandits."

I agree. That's why I said at the end of the post that teamwork needs to have incentives. I think character limitations and a very challenging environment are the best, and fairest methods for getting players to team up. I'm not in any way saying that KoS between individuals is "realistic" or anything like that. All I'm trying to point out is that our behavior as players is a natural adaptation to the game world. We, as a player base, have formed a common moral code within the game, based on the most rational and efficient means of survival. When I say "moral," what I'm really talking about is the standard mode of operation within a group of people. I think the most authentic balance of gameplay is for small groups to cluster together, and then compete for territory and resources. That's really just basic human nature in a microcosm - but obviously it's something that the game still isn't able to provoke very well. It's just too easy to be a loner at the moment. You're right, that has happened to me a few times. A few. I would say that in my experience, those types of interactions are pretty rare unless we are both relatively unarmed. Once a working gun is brought into the equation, things tend to change quickly. That's just based on my experience. More often, I see other players, but stay hidden and avoid them completely. Most of the time I'd just rather not fight.

It's okay buddy. It happens to the best of us.

I would gladly pay a reasonable fee for quality, developer built DLC. That being said, I also think the mod community is going to shoulder a lot of this burden, considering how many mods there are for the mod. lol

I did hear Rocket mention several times that in the standalone they are going to create facial gestures, and that your "default facial expression" would be influenced by your humanity level. So up close and personal you might see a guy with a scowl on his face, or maybe blood on his hands/clothes from looting a recently dead body. These are the types of subtleties that I'm personally really looking forward to.

So you can sterilize it and destroy paramecium or amoebas that will give you a very bad day. But I agree. You should have the *ability* to drink straight from a water source. As for the whiskey bottle idea...

This made me laugh a lot. Calm down bro, I was just kidding.

Hehe. He's always trolling about being such a hardass bandit so I like to give him a hard time.

You can SEE SOUNDS? That's incredible man.

I would like the ability to spawn with another fresh spawn if they accept my invite. That is all. I'm tired of trying to meet my friend for over an hour when he doesn't even know the difference between East and West and I'm getting shot at in Elektro. That is all.

I agree. I think in reality, I have no doubt that small groups would form. However, I also think that human beings, in reality, have an incredible capacity for violence. Those groups would be forced to interact with other groups, and human versus human combat would be inevitable. You'd have small skirmishes and maybe even wars going on between competing groups over resources. that's exactly why I said: Also, we can't forget that we are talking about a video game here. People can't feel physical pain or distress, they aren't under the real threat of death, meaning they are going to behave in ways that are not necessarily congruent with a real life situation. The best the game developers can do is give people more positive ways to interact. Basically, they need to make human life more valuable to us as a player. Furthermore, I don't think the time-frame of the apocalypse in game is really significant to player behavior. I would say that for me, the apocalypse started more than a year ago, because that's how long I've been playing DayZ. Not only have I adapted my play-style to the environment, but I've actually changed as a person along the way. (in my real life as well as in the game, you see.) This game has a distinct Heart of Darkness effect. It changes us. We all (well maybe not all but most of us anyway) experience a story of our own. Sort of a personal journey. I would argue that the real issue is not so much the time frame of the game, as it is central game play mechanics that need to be altered carefully to give us a reason to band together. In the current environment, that reason is pretty much absent. Sure, there is safety in numbers - to an extent. But I've been killed or attacked just as frequently in a group as alone. In fact, a lot of the time I do a lot better alone, since the false sense of security that having a teammate gives me often causes me to put my guard down - which leads to fatal mistakes. Plus, the more people you have with you, the more likely you are to be spotted by a bandit who wants to kill you. What I mean by "the player who shoots first wins" extends to more than just loot. By killing the other player you thus guarantee that he will not kill you. So you win, because you get to stay alive. Not to mention he might have some precious item which could save your life. I had teamed up with a guy recently who had a Lee Enfield with no bullets. As we scavenged, I could see him going for shells like a maniac. He wanted to get them before I could get over there. Fortunately he never found any Lee Enfield ammo, and I found a hatchet. Being a generally nice person and not wanting to betray his trust immediately, I went around killing zombies. Well needless to say, eventually one of the fuckers hits me, and I'm bleeding. No bandages in my inventory, none in sight. He saw me bleeding, and did absolutely nothing. I asked him repeatedly to bandage me. No reply. So, I axed him in the back. And guess what? The fucker had bandages to spare. So did I make the "right" decision? Pretty grey. Why would he be willing to simply let me bleed out? Because why not? I obviously had no bandages, but he had seen me collect lots of other supplies, like food, water, tools, and a hatchet. If I would have died, he would gain plenty of valuable loot, and he would lose the looming possibility that I would murder him down the road. Do I deserve a bandit skin for that action? I saved my own life from a man who was willing to let me bleed out and die. How is it fair that doing that would give me a turban and suddenly make all possibly friendly players want to murder me with extreme prejudice? Again, a computer program cannot accurately decide between right and wrong. This is why bandit skins need to be a thing of the past. It simply isn't authentic to give a player no control over his physical appearance. What we need here is subtlety, not a big fucking neon sign on my head that says "THIS GUY IS EVIL SO KILL HIM FOR A HERO SKIN!"

I think the issue is that a lot of players are not getting the experience that they want. Instead of killing zombies and roleplaying as survivors of an apocalypse, they find themselves being engaged in pointless gunfights by assholes like you (no offense) who just kill other players for fun. They consider that to be "wrong" and complain about it. What they don't realize is that it's the bad guys who make the game interesting. If I didn't have to defend myself from other players, I'd just sneak around the zombies, gather all the loot I wanted, and then I'd be bored. It's the stress of wondering "What are his intentions?" that makes the game so thrilling. I love the fact that getting into a fight with another player literally makes my hands all sweaty and shaky from adrenaline. No other game has ever done that to me.

I also had thought about the bullet thing, and yeah, I agree that bullets would be an efficient trade resource. I suppose if you want to call it a type of "common law currency" you could, but really all that means is that you are trading bullets for other useful items. So at the end of the day, I could still trade beans, or morphine, or a gun, for any other valuable object. I feel like "currency" implies that there are laws in place to regulate the value of those particular objects - whereas in the apocalypse, an objects value is regulated by it's a: function, and b: the immediate needs of players participating in the transaction. I could see players designating currency themselves by operating bases or trade outposts, but of course it's all just a fancy name for "trading." Just as a practical example, you can't go into a supermarket and trade the clerk a can of beans for a bottle of water. Why? Because of laws, enforced by the government. But in DayZ, that might be the only option. What if neither player commenced in a trade has any "currency?" It just doesn't make much sense in a survival game to have anything of the sort.

I'm almost certain we established that it isn't. I wish a moderator would lock this thread.

Do we all get satchels?

I would contend that that's still included under option 1. The reason you kill me is relatively unimportant, really. The whole point of the game is to avoid death.

Why would we need money in the apocalypse? You trade for, kill for, or scavenge what you want. It's very simple. Why would I buy things that I'm busy finding for free? Barter is a natural mode of economy that would take over in the apocalypse. To make currency, you need laws. To have laws, you need government. In short, no.

^ This. Why can't people understand the difference between a "skin" and a "model?" I sincerely hope that for my own personal enjoyment, they DO include cowboy hats, since I already feel like shooting everyone I see in a cowboy hat as it is.

Why not just put them in a vehicle?