MyOwnInsanity

I logged in cause a friend of mine wanted to see what DayZ was all about. As soon as i appeared a survivor ran straight past me, i assumed he didnt see me because he didnt stop. I had nothing of value and couldnt be bothered running after some guy while me friend was over so i turned towards the nearest town which is where the survivor was running from (i logged out near one earlier in the day) to see a zombie standing right infront of me. We both pretty much jumped out of our seats and it ended up breaking my legs on the first hit :(

With the info on the front page you cant make these assumptions especially because of all the bugs that have killed people or resulted in deaths. Then all the bandits that dont last long enough to be registered as bandits (i read somewhere 3 kills makes you a bandit but that could be incorrect). Lets say a bandit has a 50/50 chance of death. They need to make it though three tosses of the coin so to speak just to be registered as a bandit (assuming im right about the 3 kills to be a bandit thing). If someone gets two kills, dies to a zombie or other survivor they're chalked up two survival attempts for others without showing up as a bandit. To even attempt and bring any legitimacy to your claims you need to try and find a way to estimate these numbers with some kind of reasonable evidence. 1: Estimate how many people died as a result of bugs and pushed up the number of survival attempts. 2: Estimate how many people continually respawned to get a better starting position. 3: Estimate how many bandits gets kills without being registered as bandits. 4: Someone suggested the alt f4 problem and how it doesnt register as a murder, estimate that as well. I'm sure you can extend that list but those are the things you have to consider before trying to present statistics, especially on the internet where people like me will pick apart your attempt to bring some reasoning into a debate. Shame you jumped the gun without considering all the variables, thats what really annoys me about people using statistics and is why i never trust them. I havent suggested ways of estimating these stats cause i dont care to put that much thought into it, polls i guess would be the best way cause you need the populations average.

How can you compare a situation involving 50 survivors on a landscape competeing for scarce resources to one speicific minority group of people being forcibly reomved from society by an organised government? Talk about comparing apples and oranges right there. The reason they didnt kill each other for left overs is because they were part of a community before they were imprisoned and remained as such, and then ofcourse the fact that they had a fiarly constanty supply of food. Yeah they were prisoners and mistreated by they knew when their next meal would be. Imagine being thrown in jail with your friends and given a rationed amount of food, would you harm one of them so you could eat their ration even though you both had enough to survive? Plus being part of the community this would have been discouraged. In a DayZ like situation (keeping with the current theme) you have 50 indivduals that have watched society fall, have no idea if they'll find their next meal and need to be vigilant to avoid the infected. Try now imagining you are creeping through a town knowing that if you make too much noise you'll alert the infected nearby and most likely be killed. You see an armed survivor a few feet in front of you with a can of food and some water look in the other direction, you havent eaten for days and dont have anyone with you but you have a knife. Knowing that if he refuses to help you, you might not last much longer what would you do? Completely different scenarios. One final note, in what way has this stuff been scientifically tested? No science was presented here. Whats been presented is a list of possible scenarios revolving around gamer interaction within DayZ, pop psychology at its best.

Ofcourse they do, they have better stuff. Also i believe everyone in a COD game is a bandit regardless of the opposing players, although it'd be weird if anyone was anything other than a bandit considering thats all the game is focused towards and rewards. Hard to compare the two even with that example.

Whats with all this real life soldier stuff and comparing a GAME to real life. Any game or survival simulator is going to have people playing it as they would in real life and have people playing it as if it were a game. If there were a game based around mountain climbing im sure there would be those that hiked and those that ran infront of them teabagging for the hell of it. People need to stop spouting this "awww he killed me!! i was unarmed!! this wouldn't happen in real life" bs cause random behaviour should be expected in a game. Btw if this ever becomes a reality and i do see one of those people in real life scavenging a can of beans i'll break their legs with those beans just to show them it could happen :P Anyway to the point at hand, i think this bandit dilemma is missing the point entirely. The choices shown above about elimination, diplomicy and evasion and the summaries of each are apparent to everyone after an hour or so of playing the game. You read all the time about people saying they just died then ran into town without regard cause they had nothing to lose. Pointing them out was fairly moot cause everyone already understands the concepts easily. They just tend to disregard them when they believe someone with better gear killed them for no reason. They never put themselves in anothers shoes. The basic TL;DR of this is, survivor Bob has no gear, he doesnt care for his life, then later survivor Bob has gear, he isn't trusting anyone anymore and other players have the same thought patterns but then have that unknown factor about how much they care about simulating real life or just messing around and teabagging some people. As for psychological consequences for Bandits. I would say no to them in DayZ. The reason there are pysiological consequences in a lot of games is because they are not as unique to the individual as psychological effects are. Randomly throw people into an industrial freezer and barring some extreme increase in their tolerance through training they will eventually cirum to hypothermia. Whereas when someone loses a family member, 1 person could be back working the next day, another could be out of work for a month and even another could be out of work for much longer because of how it affected them. How do serial killers end up as serial killers? It'd be entirely possible for the apocolypse to turn what are currently average people into murderers and bandits, i assume the camping snipers would be the extreme minority but you never know what people will do under extreme circumstances. At the moment there is not enough of a distinction or a wrong one in my opinion between who represents a bandit and who is a survivor. It's still easy enough to be a survivor when you have obtained better gear, it just becomes more appealing to become a bandit through the guise of self preservation. The flaw in the system of deciding who is who is in the way they kill. If you legit think someone poses a significant threat to your character and you kill them yet your goal is to survive (and you regret having to kill) you're a survivor in my mind yet if you see someone walking away from you and kill them for their possessions you're a bandit to me. The main problem being it is hard for a game to distinguish between killing someone because they have seen you and are appearing aggressive towards you leaving you no choice but to kill them and killing someone as they walked by your bush cause they had a tasty looking sniper rifle.