I don't know which server you are on and if I did I'm unable to identify you when and if I find you, that's the problem. And why are you assuming I am looking to bring some "rightful justice" on someone? Maybe I'm the one to find my fun in provoking and running from justice?..

Not sure if I understand what is power- or meta- gaming is, without googling. But it would be good if pointless killing would be balanced by a possibility of a pointed revenge. A much better incentive for people to join gangs than anything present in the game. Want to team up with buddies to mass kill at Cherno? Be prepared that someone else would find his fun in tracking down mass killers. Fair and gives so much more of social behavior versatility in-game.

Why aren't Non-EUs eligible?

A system that would make kos much more interesting is this: 1. Make a log of who killed who, available at least to the killer and the killed one. 2. Make it possible to quickly search which server this or that player is on.

Look at death as opportunity to go through the excitement of getting yourself equipped again.

I wanted once to climb a ladder to the watch post. But then I noticed the strange look that ladder was giving me... and thought better off it. Gotta be untrusting with stuff at DayZ... before it creeps up on you.

I got spawned at Novy Sobor too. 'Not sure if bug of feature'... ©

There is no point in expecting any progress compared to the mod at this time, playability-wise. It's like this: 'there's going to be a game one day (not today), wanna pay now, y/n?' Whether what's already there is better or worse than the mod -- has nothing to do with... anything, really.

I am happy the developers chose to charge money for early alpha. Having done that, they committed themselves to perfect the game, so there is no turning back for them. Only thing is whether they will stand up to the commitment. But I'm fairly optimistic on that and so I paid my bit. People who complain that alpha does not meet their expectations (however 'justified' they think those expectations are) do not realize that their money goes not in exchange for a product, but in exchange for a promise. Which is just as advertised.

I played at about 7 to 9 pm gmt yesterday. Switched to US servers, it was dark everywhere, even CA server I tried despite 180 ping. Do all severs run same in-game time irrespective of RL time, or did I miss something? The scarcity of loot combined with inability of a character to run (without risk of dropping unconscious) is a very strong incentive for server hopping. Not many reasons *not* to server hop when the alternative is another 30 mins of *walking* to another location just to get something to drink. Especially at night time when you can't even entertain yourself by looking at the scenery around. It was some sort of ironical fun when all I found in barracks at Balota were piles of used jeans. After that I tried to climb the watchtower, mismanaged the descent, fell down and died.

No. Wider range of humanity level should be recognizable. Just make humanity visible, as an experiment.

Thanks, I hope so. I now understand where those "tent cities" I saw earlier come from. And why they were placed so that it seemed whoever put them didn'd really care for them to be unnoticed.

I tried to set up a tent, and it wouldn't. So I ran around clear areas clicking multiple times on "Pitch tent" to see whether I am able to do it just somewhere at all. Finally I made it, but then I discovered that although I've set up a tent, there is still a tent in my inventory remaining, weird. I tried it again and got another tent in my inventory. I left it on the ground and a couple minutes later it disappeared. OK, later on I entered the church and decided to pick up some beans and then... although there were a couple of emply slots in my inventory, it seemed like they were occupied, really. Because that can of beans pushed something out of those slots on the floor. That "something" appeared to be 13 more tents! I hope this would not qualify as "duplicating" or "cheating" because all I did (of what seemed to cause it) is multiple clicking on the "pitch tent" function. Plus, my server connection was not very good and I was getting lags all the time. Maybe, that had also something to do with it.

Fell off deer stand, got knocked out and bleeded to death. This was before ladders were fixed.

Rocket, can I please ask for a favor and explain me (us all?) a couple of points in order to maybe better understand your likes/dislikes about the game. And I apologize, if this is something you told about before but I missed. There used to be system of bandit skin transition. You removed that, saying that the system did not work and was shit. My question is not about why it was removed, but rather: when you designed it, what did you have in mind for it to achieve and what, apparently it failed to? Next question. You said that "humanity" is going to remain, although as a non-operating feature, for the time being, because the game deserves it (I am not quoting you, but rather putting as how I understood your words - feel free to call my memory crap, if I got it wrong). What was exactly your reason for leaving the humanity in (unless that is gone too, cause the game no longer shows it)?

I recall it's because they changed the way stat is calculated. Now it is actuall time spent in-game by alive characters or something like that, not the time from respawn till death as it was before.

1, 2 - correct. 3. incorrect. Done.

1. It is your observation vs. my observation. Just to make sure I made myself clear: there is currently no incentives for "do not kill". I'd be happier if there were more than none. 2. No immersion breaking. Anyone who choses to play the same way they play now, will have no difference. No need to care for others' humanity or karma or whatever, if they chose to. Those who decide to care will get their difference. No harm done, everyone is happy. Exception, possibly, is deceit becoming more tricky, but still doable. 3. More efficient.

Oh well, so I mistake in your case. The point remains - it is just a matter of difficulty of killing you, not the "tension" of deciding whether you may be trusted or not. Oh, come on, you wrote this: "To re-iterate where you misunderstood me, tension comes from UNKNOWN INTENTION. You see a player. He sees you. Neither of you know how the other will behave. That is the entire beauty of this mod". The problem is, irrespective of what that guy thinks of your intentions or what his intentions are, your personal best-winning intention is to kill him if you reasonably can. Once the idea becomes a matter of common knowledge (and it has already become) - it is wrong to base you in-game behaviour on the assumption that the "intentions are unknown". So far no one gave me an example where decision to *not kill* is better than *kill*, when you can get away with it with ease. You are not alone, I am growing tired of this discussion too.

It most certainly does exist. If I choose to shoot you then my position has been given away and I am now vulnerable to other players. That' date=' in essence, is just a matter of how difficult it is to kill me. Same as risk of trigerring a horde of zombies on you or a possibility that if you miss - I may shoot you instead, if I am that good / well-equipped. This tension is about whether you'll be able to kill me and get away with it or not (which many deathmatch games have). It is not the tension of whether to trust or not (which I hope Day Z will eventually have). Also, the problem you described, is, actually, rather rare in Day Z and is overestimated. Most of time you may be pretty sure about something of the following: (a) no one is around or (b) if anyone around, they will be unlikely to find you, if you run away / hide right away; © they won't necessarily try to investigate, cause it's risk. That is quite a distant possibility I would say and shouldn't be a problem for anyone having slight experience in Day Z. I'd say you were quite lucky that you managed to do that twice. Anyway, that's far from being a good disincentive to kill, really. Just do it quick, loot quick, run away. The problem is' date=' the current game mechanics stimulates that happening less and less, the more people get acquainted with what's worth and what's not in this game. [hr'] Dinnj, your main mistake is thinking that currently the intentions of others are unknown.

I don't. I think seeing other players' humanity would mean the game would be playing a large part of itself for us. Figuring out whether you can trust someone is a huge part of DayZ' date=' and it takes balls and trust in your own intuition. It's not easy and the game would be diminished if it were made so. [/quote'] I am not 100% sure the idea is good myself, but I am sure that if not, it's not for the reasons you told. Currently, there are no reasons to bother with figuring out whether you can trust someone, because the strategy of not trusting is winning enough. And any alternative strategies simply have no incentives, under the current game mechanics. So, no balls are involved, really.

Problem is, the kind of tension you refer to (and which you suppose might be lost) - does not exist now anyway. Because the only winning strategy now - is to kill others whenever you can. There are simply no situations in the game where it would be otherwise. That is my point. Tell me - am I wrong here? Cause if I am and you point me in what situation the choice of not killing someone you can kill with ease is feasible - well, may be, it will make the game for me still more interesting than it is. Just a related illustration. Suppose, I get wounded by zombies to the point I'm gonna die unless I get help fairly soon. So I decide to ask for help in chat. Question is: what is the point for anyone to help me under the current game mechanics? Answer: none. Reasons: no reward and not worth the risk. Consequence: there is no point for me in asking for help; it will either not work or will attract someone who will just finish me off to take my stuff.

I so far think that what has been written in this thread is much closer to the point than other "PvP" threads I read on these forums. Thanks guys for the interesting read. I myself think that pvp in the game would benefit more if it was made still more close to the "prisoner dilemma" type of choices for the players. I liked the idea of "humanity" parameters. I wish that it stayed, basically, in the same form as it was, with no impact on skins, though. I also wish that one's "humanity" was visible to others. That, I think, would make the difference similar to the one which is between the limit- and no-limit holdem poker.

1. Not if they involve popping someone's "goodness" level over them when you aim at them. As sentient creatures, in an open sandbox type world that's driven by players, we can already make a lot of choices. Enough choices, really. Would you also like to say why it's bad if it's realistic? Just to say it's bad is not a real argument. It is not about a number of choices, but a number of feasible choices. There are no feasible choices of behaviour now pretty much other than "ignore, else shoot" or "good looking equipment - shoot if you can" or "can shoot - shoot". I want options motivating me to "not shoot even though I can". It is not about realism, but it is about being interesting. Figuring out to what extent you may trust people (and, accordingly, ignore, run away, shoot, try to co-operate) is more interesting than being programmed to only one mesure of trust: none. 2. You aren't going to get it with visible humanity.Survivor meets survivor, no information - that's where the tension comes from. Assymetry of information. Sorry, haven't quite understood you here. 3. This boils down to "My theory is better than your theory". However, we've seen from the game so far that you are likely to be incorrect in your assumptions. Note the incredibly high proportion of people who are bandits in the game. It's a very similar system and it went exactly how I said it would. (It was based partly on observation, you see.) I may have missed something, but my understanding was that Rocket did not explain what it was exactly that the "bandit" system failed to achieve. I may be wrong, then please correct me. Being forced to 'act smart' and choose who you kill is NOT a good thing. Not if it's because of a game mechanic rule, or an articial unrealistic carrot or stick. Killing people with low humanity is not being smart, it's reading a signpost that says "Shoot this guy". Aim to the survivor with high humanity and read his signpost that says "Don't shoot this guy." Several important remarks here: - You will not be *forced* to act smart. You will be incentivized to. If under the suggested system, you behave like you do now, you will be getting nothing different from what you are getting now. But you'll be getting something different from what you might have got under the new system. No harm to your interest. - Signposts is exactly something we have now and is something each player with no exception wears. It's just that only the "Shoot this guy" type of signposts are available, and everyone wears it. It's just oversimplifying the game totally. Rather than everyone being relatively anonymous survivors, not knowing the motives of others, it's just painting people blue and red. "Shoot the red ones" is not an intelligent approach for a game to take, as we have already seen from bandit skin introduction. The two ideas really are that similar. I cannot comment, as I don't know what was it exactly that bandit skins failed to achieve, in the developer's opinion. Once again I'll say that the major problem I have with it, is that it is SO intentionally unrealistic that I couldn't ever play a game with a feature like that. I just about stomached bandit skins, because at least there was a justification given for why people would dress differently. But to walk around a corner and aim at some guy; to see "Humanity: 1200" I would just stop playing immediately. I can' think of something more immersion breaking. What's the in-game justification?? Everone became telepaths when the outbreak started? I don't see a point for you to stop immediately. What would change if you shoot that guy? Anyone wants to shoot you anyway, so what's the loss? As to realism. Actually, I don't care much about it. After all, the game has zombies in it. What may be less realistic than that? :) But if you need some realistic-ish justification for visible humanity - you could view the guy with high humanity figure as the one having big number of well-armed, well-informed and narrow-minded friends, if you wish. :)