DoshDosh

That's a good explanation, but it focuses on players who murder others for equipment; we don't know if a player who has killed just one or two others for their gear upon starting will be doing that the entire time since they don't register as a "bandit" with the game until they've passed a certain threshold. In one example, I encountered and killed a well-equipped player in one of my previous lives, but from then on lived off the forests and animals and ignored other players. There's also a factor of griefers who kill regardless of item rewards, and the fact that many survivors who avoid banditry value their experience over how the game plays out over items- mainly because they either play with a large group and can re-access top-tier equipment if they die, or simply because they find more thrill in using the basic weapons and improvising as they go/spawn. In that sense, I honestly do believe cooperation has better yields if you have the patience for it (since a death doesn't mean you lose everything when a buddy can guard your corpse or etc.), so I would say that aside from being able to find some potentially high-risk equipment easier than through a survivor playstyle, banditry doesn't necessarily equate to easier gameplay. And just as a side note, although I agree the classic prisoner's dilemma doesn't portray Day Z, that there are several variations (are the prisoners allowed to contact one another before making their choice a la "Golden Balls"? Do the prisoners have any history a la "tit for tat", and will they be brought back into it in the future? etc.) that the game can technically fit under. I don't think changing the system would do anything at all to affect griefers (nothing will, because they're in every game and will find ways to circumvent boundaries), and I think that players who play in groups wouldn't be affected since they often have established camps where they can replenish their lost gear, and since most bandits (unless organized well in a group) wouldn't be able to account for overwatch/etc. in a firefight. If anything, I personally believe your point 1 should definitely be addressed; if, for example, the standalone game ended up having a persistent server system akin to MMORPGs where a player can't just go server hopping if he wants to remain faceless/reputationless, the game would become more exciting for both bandits and survivors (possibilities including warnings for certain players, though it would probably have to be worked out on exactly how player identification works- I think it wouldn't be fun to hover your cursor over someone and instantly know their name). On the other hand, I think rifles are fine and actually haven't enjoyed the recent fixes to the damage tables.

Sure, you can survive without firing a shot at another player; I've easily lived long lives solo by avoiding player contact altogether. On the other hand, I don't see the point in blaming bandits as "poor players", since as it's emphasized so much, banditry is an alternate playstyle to the survivor playstyle. There's really no point crying about it, because worrying about being shot from a distance or backstabbed by a supposed "buddy" only adds to the experience and truly sets Day Z aside from the run-of-the-mill co-op or shooter game. According to game theory and the prisoner's dilemma, cooperation requires more risk but pays off in the end; Day Z for the most part fits this model, but deciding to forgo trust for taking action in self-interest (i.e. shooting a stranger who hasn't seen you yet) is also a valid choice. The worst possible outcome is if you decide to trust the other player and they decide not to trust you, so in this case shooting on sight becomes a less risky style of gameplay (of course it's impossible to tell at a first glance if the stranger has overwatch or etc., so that's also another factor). And of course, that model doesn't apply to griefers who like to kill people then log onto the forums to watch them cry and create topics that ask for the return of the bandit skin. In the end, you can't really denounce any form of gameplay in Day Z, since the ability to embrace all of them is what makes Day Z unique. Survivors often complain about bandits killing them and making the game more "deathmatch"-like, and bandits complain that survivors are always trying to get the game changed to "punish their playstyle". There's no point to this, since if either group had their way, I guarantee you that this game wouldn't be as fun as it has been.

The article I linked to addresses all of the points you made and makes plenty of good counterpoints, so I don't feel that I have to add anything to it. Nowhere in the article does it say "nobody catches them so they are not a criminal", and rather than a "vain attempt at rationalization", I would say it's compiled of actual studies rather than one man's opinion. On the other hand, the dilemma you're talking about is similar to "The Ring of Gyges", where it's asked whether a man who has the power of invisibility will use his ability for crime or good. Socrates' answer? He pretty much just says men who don't act negatively or abuse their power will have the comfort of knowing they're true to their ideals, while the men who use it for personal gain are addicted to personal gain. And the problem with the analogy is that it doesn't even apply fully to the Day Z situation, where "personal gain" isn't anything tangible or permanent- everybody dies sooner or later regardless and restarts with bandages, painkillers and a flashlight. So essentially your argument boils down to personal experience, which differs for everybody.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect I'd certainly agree that it's not a good thing to take advantage of internet anonymity and act like an ass, but it definitely doesn't mean an asshole on the internet is an asshole face-to-face. If you read all of the different concepts under the Online Disinhibition Effect (Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory), it becomes a little easier to understand why and how some trolls act the way they do. Jack Thompson is a fairly prominent advocate of believing in-game behavior is directly tied with behavior in real life situations, and look how well he turned out :P.

Funny enough, they've actually come out with a wikipedia article for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect

I have, actually. You specifically said "how is being an ass in the game different from being an ass in real life?", and I gave you a pretty specific answer: due to the fact that you are anonymous, and also because being an ass doesn't have any serious or permanent repercussions. So to make that easier to understand, it is VERY different. So no, just because you are a bandit who kills everybody on sight doesn't mean you're a similar kind of jerk in real life. If that were the case, me and my friends wouldn't be compatible with our social environments at all, and I would assume the same for many others who play as pure bandits. Regarding your comment about how the internet is "real communication", yes it is. But as long as the other party doesn't actually know you in person, it is quite easy to fabricate any information about yourself as well as your own personality and actions. It becomes easier to dissociate yourself from others you don't know personally since you also realize this possibility on their end. The method of communication is indeed real, but it's silly to think that social interaction could match a level of actually meeting somebody face-to-face and establishing some sort of relationship (whether it is positive or negative). Again, the point is the same as the one I made for Day Z; on the internet, you're just an unfamiliar entity behind a computer, and in the end you can cut without a worry in the world in comparison to your actual reputation and standing outside. I won't comment on your argument against the deathmatch, since that's not the point I was making or addressing- it was the behavior behind it I was addressing. So in short, yes, I have red your previous comment and have made some counterpoints to it. I hope it's easier for you to understand in this post.

Not quite. Remember some key differences; you're only another face behind a screen, and death is only a temporary setback. I guarantee you that 99% of the players in this game would not shoot on sight without a word in every single encounter in a similar environment in real life. Not only are people protective of their reputation in real life, but anybody who's a veteran in a military and has been in engagements will openly tell you (as my friends are always quick to remind me) that killing even the enemy in self defense can bring severe mental stress or trauma. Anybody who thinks themselves above all of that can feel free to prove themselves by signing up and going through that experience- I wouldn't wish that sort of trauma on anybody. DayZ is essentially a mix of your standard videogame deathmatch mentality with a healthy dose of the greater internet fuckwad theory, so I really don't think you can compare it to real life in any means.

No, I can tell the difference between the patrol and backpack (having 24 slots is nice, I can attest to that). If you see a coyote backpack IRL it's pretty massive, but the game one looks just like a school backpack to me; well, nothing wrong with hammerspace I guess.

Really? I always felt like the alice pack looked a little bulkier (the coyote backpack always struck me as a bit "streamlined" compared to it). I've found one in the barracks and another one in the Stary Sobor military tents, but I pretty much died not long after I found them; I've started to consider them bad luck. Hopefully the next time I run into one I'll be able to hang onto it for more than one day.

Since you're a faceless entity on DayZ over the internet who faces no consequences for any actions you take, and all the repercussions are temporary. With that, you're free to polish off your epeen however many times as you want :).

Glad to see things like this happening occasionally, even with the fix coming up soon. I was hoping it would be a stealth patch so these idiots would try to do it and find themselves dead, but I guess that was too much to hope for.

For whatever reason somebody decided to set barricades up there. I'd guess that if they were right at the entrance to block easy entry, it might have been anything from an attempt at securing the area for loot cycling to ambushing (I'd think more loot cycling). If you have a toolbox, you can remove certain barricades.

If things haven't changed, using SD ammo in non-SD weapons will cause the sights to become pretty useless, but in exchange zombies won't hear the shots even though they sound unsuppressed... so if you really want to be silent, you only need to find the SD version of the ammo that fits into your weapon.

Considering its properties, I would actually take an Enfield over the mid-tier military gear (most assault rifles). One mindset is that people are more likely to kill you if you have a better looking weapon (AS50 users can attest to this), but honestly I don't see how anybody can not be nervous around someone carrying an Enfield.

I guarantee you 99% of Day Z players wouldn't run around capping people at a glance because they liked their backpack or whatever they were holding in their hand (or for fun), despite the fact that everybody likes to grow their epeen.