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.

So the idea is basically very easy to read from the title: that it would be added immersion to the game if you could find papers and pens, even books, to write on. There should also be ways of putting up notes on virtually anything or just dropping it on the ground. Being able to leave notes behind for other players to read if they choose to. Pens should take up a tool slot - not a slot in the main inventory. Papers should of course degrade over time, making it exceedingly difficult to read the text because of missing letters or entire pieces missing of the paper or book. I can't really say what kind of timer there should be before the first stages of degradation should appear but there should be perhaps five different stages. Stage 1. Letters starting to fade or the quality of the paper is starting to decline and one can see small holes at random places or just some grime. Stage 2. A few letters are missing or a small piece of the paper, or book, is missing or perhaps there's is so much grime that covers some part of the message. Stage 3. More then just letters are missing but instead entire sentences are missing, either because of the grime or because large pieces are missing of the paper. Stage 4. Now only a third or so of the original letters are still interpretable either from missing parts of the paper or grime. Stage 5. Now only a bare minimum of letters can be read. About now the paper will quickly dissolve and disappear after appropriate time. What the timer between all of these stages should be isn't really something I can give a good suggestion on. But the total time a posted or dropped letter should exist in the gaming world could be for a couple of hours at least to give players the possibility to find them. Letters only should degrade when they're being posted or dropped and as quickly they're picket up they stop to degrade.

"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!

Creative.

Yes, but in RL even very disturbed peoples wouldn't, in most cases, slaughter you for a ripping good laugh. The current argument that seems to stand as a beacon here is "we should not change the mechanics" but neither, as it seems, do we wish to recognize the slight possibility that the griefer-group do effect the game in quite a substantial manner. If the chance is only 10% being killed by a true griefer, the situation is that those that this griefer killed might of fallen to his/her level and subsequently raised that 10% to perhaps a risk of being killed by unknown players to 30%. Of course these numbers are taken out of the ass but I want to give you an idea what I'm trying to say here with "...the griefer-group do effect the game...". So I still would argue that the laid back approach to this, if you will, 'problem' is hurting the game if the developer doesn't recognise the need for stronger reasons not to kill other players; this is lacking in the game. And let us now move over to the absurd event of an 'zombie'-outbreak and how it might or would effect the society on an individual level. In the event of such an outbreak peoples would panic, that's true and we see similar events throughout history, and surely become less sympathetic and giving. Some would even mind the possibility to kill someone if pushed far enough for some reason. We become more "family and friend"-oriented because we really have to mind who we wish to put ourself in danger for. A stranger might be hostile competition and a threat to oneself and ones group security. And very young peoples isn't to be easily trusted because they posses the real and direct threat because of facts like that aggressiveness is more prevalent amongst young peoples, also young peoples aren't mature enough to control impulses as adults etc. - the list could go on quite a bit. But despite this peoples do not wish for a open confrontation, that is if they're not insane, quite scared, traumatized etc, and therefore peoples would rather seek out strangers when they feel that the advantage is theirs in this or similar events like war, famine etc. Peoples in this scenario would probably seek the security of the group and the structure a group provides so one might find a inkling of normal life again. This still doesn't mean peoples might raise a gun towards your face but they probably would only do that because of the initial uncertainty of meeting a stranger. In DayZ one rather would experience the unnerving situation "...raise a gun towards your face..." to be the moment before that, mostly, inevitable death. Quickly reaching the conclusion that in this game, that claims to be a social experiment with at least a quarter of the complexity of actually simulating a catastrophe and try to see a social behaviour develop amongst groups and individuals, one should rather shoot and ask later. Completely sidestepping that little fact that peoples in most, even in bitter war, would come to each others aid then to depart them of their lives, in this insane search for resources. Even in regions with scarcity peoples would rather be good to their neighbours then not but not stupidly so. So I fail to understand some arguments that there isn't a problem with the way griefers are effecting this game. Also I want to end this rant with: the feeling of paranoia would still develop because of that initial uncertainty and the few but perhaps effective raiders/bandits that roam through the area that isn't out raiding to find that certain laugh that, accordingly to hearsay, will extend your life. Probably they would rob you and leave you - Oh, yes, whilst laughing of course.

Well... what should I say? Tough to be concentrating on the paper? :) But yes, I see myself being killed several times because of me writing something random down on a tarnished piece of paper. On the other hand I guess one would learn sooner or later to not write random musings down when near a populated area or out in the open. XD

That's a wonderful idea, the thing is I just don't know how this would effect the performance of the servers and such. But other then that I really love it.

I took this from http://dayzmod.com/f...hrough-the-map/

I agree that this scenario will bring out the worst in some peoples and they will kill on sight. The sad part is that it influence all gamers on a server to such an extent that it's actually extremely hard to find someone to befriend and have a normal conversation with, in regards to the current circumstance of course. I really have to say that I like you're "How to survive"-tip a lot, this would help many players to survive and avoid being shot. I just don't think that the competing for resources actually plays in that much to the game when there's actually an infinite amount of items to loot. Of course one might compete for just that can of food or can of soda but still the best option is to avoid contact if it might lead to a violent confrontation. I've seen many players, myself included, to just wait it out when they see another player. I and others rather just stay hidden until that certain building is empty and one might feel safe enough to make a move. The only reason why I personally would call for an confrontation with any player is because I'm starving or thirsting to death. I just actually shot another player in the leg so he fell over unconscious. I didn't kill him and I told him frankly that I was desperate and was going to rob him for his soda or else I would die. He asked me for help to give him a blood transfusion, actually, when the server lagged and a infected killed him whilst the server were lagging. I felt like a total jackass that I got him killed for a soda but I would, in that special and rare occasion, die if I didn't have a drink of soda or water very soon. So... with that anecdote I just want to give another story why I myself would confront another player personally in some very special cases. A way for me to give an shallow example why competing over resources might not be the main reason behind PvP and the way some players act in most cases. That PvP happens because it's fun and a great thrill or because some are plain griefers that love to harass other players because they can. One of my opinions about this mod is that it lacks content to drive players away from just doing PvP. Of course this are an Alpha and it shows. But in regards to it all, good and bad, I'm fairly optimistic and believe that soon some new great content will be added like extra building options or more ways of communicating with others. Oh, btw I just got killed by two players and five infected. Nice team work there. :)

I don't know if leaving behind a paper with hard stats are a good idea more then one should be able to write it down how many they've killed etc. Perhaps this was what you meant?

No, I didn't miss it I'm just blind because I'm heard that argument over a thousand times and it's silly, my opinion after hearing so many times and not a try to be insulting. A NPC is to be avoided if dangerous or confronted, yes? A NPC also isn't that intelligent and intentional as a player, yes? A NPC does what it's programmed to, yes? A NPC between different games do carry with them the intention of the developer, yes? The infected in this game is close to griefers in some regards but they lack intent as the griefers and can be excused for being mindless cannon fodder and this is the reason behind why I see this counterargument as invalid. Yes, they kill more players, for sure, then griefers ever will. But more then not the players that dies are often new players that do not know how to deal with the infected. As soon the new players learn how to deal with the PvE-threat they often will find themselves as 'victims' for griefers. This will effect the players in many different ways. Many will repeat the cycle of the griefers and other will not whilst some will take it with ease and try to play as they want to, as I do even though I'm being killed over 90% of the times by other players. This remark about my death caused by players isn't a whine more then it's just a stated fact from my experience of the game.

The same could be said about the group slaughtering these peoples but seeing that most peoples are in the middle I can't care that much more then about the fact that this group, griefers, do effect the general game play quite a lot in regards to their size. This is my only concern and I believe it's lazy to not address this problem to some extent. Eve isn't that bad btw.