DreamDragon

sing the carebear song! For here I come to your aid! I would greet everyone with a smile and "What ails you"? And throw a can of coke before you choke on those sad tears of yours. Then this sudden sound, more like a bang, and that gentle touch when being looted by those thugs. Ehum... well I would at least try to help peoples if it wasn't obvious that they would pose an unacceptable threat. Watch them from afar before acting.

"It's a good thing".

*cough* UP!! *runs away in shame* :blush:

Under current circumstances the game lacks quite many tools that would add to a more complex and truthful experience. Now the game only can offer nothing more then: PvP, griefing, easy survival in a extremely hostile environment, low sociability, no treat from the infected, no true need for planing ahead etc. I wish to see greater challenge then that some lowly griefers can offer.

Well one way of adding the possibility to be able to identify a bandit is to add the possibility to edit your clothes and add minor accessories, this wouldn't break the game. Also add the marks of combat on the characters as they conduct themselves in the game. Meaning that characters should be able to develop scars, limps or other tell tale signs of been wounded in combat - isn't this sensible?

HAHAHA! :lol:

I did do PvP in Eve and I feel that the kind of PvP they have there, how you do it and for what reasons, are more reasonable then in this game. Not only that: PvP in Eve does stand toe-to-toe against it's counterpart known as PvE. That there's actually some real content for doing PvE and grouping together, something I feel lacks in DayZ since it's too easy to survive on your own, just one example. Further: dying in Eve wasn't that bad and it wasn't even hard to regain, in safety also, all the lost equipments - that is if you knew what you where doing. In Dayz you can forget experiencing any true counterpart to PvP. This is so sad. But my real point isn't about the lack of PvE content. My real point is about this funny mindset about what this game really is about or should be about. And how peoples seems to take only extreme stances and absolutely dismisses the other side of the argument. You so boldly claims that "You play the game the way you want, not the way someone else wants" but misses the point that you're forcing yourself upon peoples by the way you're playing the game. Forcing peoples to react in ways to your style of playing the game and in doing so you're leading them down a, more or less, predetermined path. Why do I think that this might become a problem in this game? Well firstly we got this lack of content that isn't about PvP, purely, and it's too easy to survive on your own. And players actually reacting to other players behaviours isn't that bad, it's absolutely makes perfect sense, if it doesn't determine the actions taken, for most part, and most of the behaviours of the player even outside the events of PvP. There is no way to escape PvP in this game all the time, neither in Eve, and this is good for several reasons but it's suffocating when you absolutely is forced to behave as you might die any moment by another players hand, for no apparent reasons on top on that. What I'm claiming is that: if one group of players is effecting another group of players, to such an extent that the effected group behaviour is more then often a reaction or precaution to the effecting group ways of playing the game, then this is close to being equal to as forcing them to play the game as you want to. You may see this as semantics with a twist or illogical reasoning trying to highlight your kind of players as bad but this isn't what I'm trying to do. What I'm trying to do is to show you that you're actually effecting players to a larger extent that any suggestions, that is the sensible ones, that tries to put some kind of mechanics on PvP, or plain ways of identifying PvPers and avoiding them without needing to evacuate an entire area. Yes, the truth is that all players that do not wish to be in combat with other players can leave and search for other areas within the game world. But this is still pretty much forcing a major action upon these players from your ways of playing the game, becoming guilty of that what you accuse your opponent of being with their criticism and suggestions. The other players are only presented with two real options to deal with griefers and obsessive PvPers: to flee or fight against you and become PvPers themselves even if it's against their will. But, in regards to this, the opposite side exists, the PvE-side, and that side can be just as damaging if only listened too. The difficult part here is to find a way to have FFA PvP not being so pervading that it's dominating the game and all players behaviours to it. One major part of doing this is to add content that should be wiser to do in groups and to make it much harder to survive alone in the game. Also it should be a painful experience to die and it should also be more valuable not to kill another player, just because you can, and instead join team with him/her. This isn't a way to punish a PvPer since its just another way of adding value of not killing another player, something that the game at this moment lacks. Oh, just one thought: this game isn't about the strong devouring the weak - it's about the few survivors trying to make it in a very cruel world. And killing peoples on random isn't even close to a logical or sane behaviour in a catastrophe, it wouldn't even be a wide spread problem, and therefore the PvPers slant on the killing of players by other players is wrong. Peoples in this kind of crisis would rather band together then turn against each others, they would surely still be able to identify the current threat and what's the most pressing matter at the moment. Think of it like this: if some infected is trying to eat your eyeballs you wouldn't shoot the survivor that just came running to your aid in the head just because he/she is a stranger and perhaps a potential risk. Rather you would accept the help and then try to deal with the new situation, perhaps both would agree that banding together is the most sane course of action or perhaps both would trade words and then go separate ways. I wish I had the time to continue but I can't since I need some sleep now. Take care.

But in third world countries they're often very stupid for quite some religious reasons, and of course others - hint: educations is bad for religion. I don't understand the comparison between third world and this mod, even though I understand what you're trying to say. Most player seems to be westerners in some sense, not saying that easterners or whatever are stupid, so one would perhaps witness a higher IQ and more reasonable behaviour then those third world soldier-boys with a ego so large that they would smoke you for having a glance at them. On the other hand social cultures that develops because of the material wealth tend to be quite stupefying and anti-educational. Anyway off to what I really want to say. If there's a problem with peoples doing PvP then one might perhaps investigate why this apparently would be a problem, especially in a game with FFA PvP. The most common objections, to peoples that find this kind of PvP a problem, is patronising. Most cases of objection against the criticism and suggestions to PvP might read like this: "It's a game! Grow up and man up or get out! I wish to play this game as I want too and you have no right to punish me for it"! This is patronising because firstly the debater is insinuation that: the one giving criticism isn't aware, or own the cognitive faculties, of that this is a game. Or isn't even capable of handling this truth. Is also only giving criticism, to current system, because he/she would be unable to handle the unpleasant event of being killed without provoking such a drastic response. Also the one being the object of the response isn't able to change the situation, solve the problem, because they would lack some personal trait that these PvP:ers apparently are alone in possessing such a trait. The debater, or the one replying to the criticism, is also insinuating that the ones behind such criticism is only doing so because they wish to unhindered punish PvP.ers around the world because of anger/frustration/bad character/jealousy/whatever - or simply that they're extremely bad players, also an common objection to this kind of criticism. That there isn't any strain of valid reasons behind their response to PvP because of personal deficiencies. I could continue but I wish to end this rant of mine with a point why I bring this up. The reasons why we clearly can see peoples posting suggestions or outright whines about PvP is because they've been killed more then enough. That is if they're actually giving this mod a try, as I have, and didn't rage quite the first death by a PvP:er. That, as I, have been slaughtered more then two or three dozen times clearly without provoking such a response from another player. That, as I, have seriously tried to look past this irritation and frustration of being the 'victim' for some players sad fascination with griefing. That, as I, tries to accept the game for what it is, in this current stage, and its regards to PvP. The list goes on. But still, despite all of this, can't find the current system, or situation, involving PvP reasonable in regards to the event in the game. Trying to understand, or see the point being made, how this kind of players actually adds something to the game when one reads "But they add paranoia, fear and excitement when encountering other players". The only valid point in that statement seems to be, if shorten down to it's core, risk. The risk one takes when approaching another player that might be one of those that rather shoot first and asks later. The same time they make that argument they seem to forget that "risk" can be added in much more immersive and reasonable ways then random shootings. The fear, paranoia, excitement or whatever when encountering another player should derive from is: Scarcity of resources. illnesses, if the player might hold valuable drugs. Anger, that is if the player have angered you or others somehow. Desperation. The other player is armed, aka one with a gun might shoot if spooked/threatened. Random banditry, that is about the resources not the killing. High value targets, targets like a generator or a good shelter or whatever. Panic, when fleeing from hordes of infected one might sacrifice you to survive even though you've just meet or in any other situation. Accidents. The list could be extended and fleshed out for sure but I do not wish to make this post too long. So with this I will end my rant and hope that I've made some valid points. Take care.

So how should the developers add 'consequences' without them being obnoxious and overly intruding to the gaming experience? Despite that, I myself would see some influence within the game that gets peoples attention so they rather wish to interact with others then hurting them. witnessing how players slaughter others just for the heck of it I really want to see a system that grows with the character and his/hers actions through time. So if a character slaughters many other characters then a trait be added, relative to previous experiences of course to add complexity and randomness, that stays with the character until he or she is actually trying to change their behaviour. It's then up to the player if they actually see this trait to be a burden or blessing.

Ehum! Sorry, but let me add something about "it´s not as common to get shot at spawn area as it seems..."-remark. For about two or three days ago I came close to the beach down at electro and I had to turn down the volume because of all the flies. The beach was littered with bodies, like six or nine players. Of course I know that some players rather find a better respawn then running too long and therefore some of these bodies would probably be one of these players that took their life. But still I even find, with ease, two or three bodies close to each respawn because of other players camping those areas for easy kills or whatever. Don't want to argue, just to point it out that it's more common then one might think. :)

Yes, I've read them and I support them. They're awesome and I would absolutely use many of them often as I could. The way of dealing with the issue are perhaps to first accept that some peoples will always grief others. Then to see if one could tilt their lust for griefing towards the lust to help others or join group with others by adding content to the game that encourage a more peaceful behaviour towards other players.

Yeah, man up and get it done...*sigh* :facepalm: And although the game is about surviving it isn't that fun that the interaction between players are almost a 100% lethal. I've meet over 20-25 players today and I got to say that only one player didn't shoot at all and wished to join group with me. The rest either slaughtered you outright or fled like I was a demon spawned from the fiery pits of PvP-hell. I saw two players driving around and trying to hit peoples. I encounter how three players did corner one freshly spawned player inside the office building in Electro, they used grenades to reach his sorry a**. I encountered two players that turned about to arch bullets at me even though they where under some assault by the infected. I returned fire and did the sensible and fled the field. So... is there a problem with this "social experiment"? Clue ---> :murder:

Peoples will always kill for whatever reason in this game and I can't see it stop any near soon. I mean really. Me and some random player, both armed with axes, just got a magazine emptied at us for no f*****g reason more then that player could. He didn't loot our bodies, I returned and had a look, he only was after the kills nothing more. Both screamed "friendly"! So even though it's good with the option to have this surrender animation I can't understand for the love of this game how it would end the senseless killing. To build trust? Okey... well before we can build trust, it seems, one have to empty a magazine into clear space where you saw another player. Both screaming into the mic, like absolute madmen, insults, pleas, promises, rants and whines etc. before either side might even start to have a inkling that perhaps the other player isn't really hostile at all. And when the shooting has subsided there's still this little moment of risk where either are to expose themselves for the other player. More then not, even without weapons in hand, it seems that a bullet, magically from fiery land of PvP, makes a beeline for the welcoming embrace of your soft and warm brain. So a damn animation is like the "...with a cherry on top" for the type of player that kills for fun. They do not care and will never care, therefore seeing this animation, although sensible to include in the game, they'll rather grin at how amusing the meat look.

Well if there should be added anything to the game that effects one type of style of gaming then it should really be carefully implemented, if at all. I rather not become 'infected' by a detrimental disease/condition just because I had to slaughter all those F*****g grifers. I do overall like the idea, however I do feel that this system might be annoying if implemented in the wrong way. I do recognize that killing someone will effect you and perhaps this might be simulated through a system that keeps tossing afflictions at you. Perhaps as your character progress through the game and more time has passed your character starts to develop traits and abilities. All of which isn't going to be positive to simulate a more realistic character development. So if you slaughter peoples with an axe you should, perhaps, gain +x% to wielding axes but also since you go close up and person against players you might also be having these simulated nervous breakdowns when something startles you something good. Of course this might be too much of a RPG-type of game, like Morrowind and NWN, for some/many players. But for myself I can't see the harm in adding a character development system that's, much as it can be, logical and sensible.

Yeah, this is a very good idea. There's so many times I had to kill other players just because they didn't listen when I told them "Stop and don't move or else I'll shoot you"! The ONLY guy that did listen was eaten by zombies because of a 20-30 sec server lag and that I did disarm him which rendered him defenceless. The game should absolutely have different ways of having other players unconscious. +1 to this idea!