Dinnj

http://dayzmod.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=3502

Are you even trying? 0/10

So now your true motives come into light. In all seriousness though, you raise a good point. I can't stand when people don't realise/brush off the seriousness of things like this.

Stop. Just stop. Enough of these recycled terrible ideas about forcing magical mechanisms of knowing a person's background or morality by looking at his appearance. Be it his full clothing, an armband, a hat, or his fucking trainers. Just stop it. Constantly suggesting to artificially punish players with a game mechanic for playing how they see fit to play to make the game more convenient for a minority that doesn't even like this mod has already been established as a stupid idea.

This is where normally I'd quote myself from another thread' date=' but all my recent 100 or so posts have been deleted since the forum problems. 1: There's nothing to fix, it seems most players like the reckless PvP that takes place. If there is a solution that doesn't damage the majority, then the more casual minority should and probably will be catered for. 2: This is an obvious solution, you [b']must have realised that the devs have probably already and thought of this and deemed it not viable. I can only offer insight into why they might have decided this. The game has an intended format, as said, it is more of an anti-game than what you would traditionally expect. As such, having different servers to cater for totally different player bases is like holding up a big sign that says; "We're now abandoning an ideal vision and catering for petty demands." The two servers would be essentially totally different games, it would be nothing like Day Z at all. Humans vs AI is better suited for a different game. If you want PvP to be totally removed you really should find something else to play; not because I don't want you here, I wish you enjoyed it, but because you would be better off playing something else. A big appealing factor of Day Z is that you don't know what people's motives or intentions are. Splitting servers oversimplifies the game by letting people instantly know "This is a PvPer" or "This is a fellow carebear". This distinction is made before you even log in. All the anti-PvP carebears will flock to the PvE servers, greatly reducing complexity of player interactions in Day Z. There is no need for trust in a PvE server as friendly fire will be off. This creates boring mono dimensional play with actually less human element.. For the remaining PvP servers, the diversity will be gone. It will all be the same types of players, and due to this lack of intrigue of how people are going to react to you or treat you, the game will be lessened as a result.

I don't think it's about whether or not you can find a way to beat the exploit, it's about that you can use such an exploit in the first place. Good idea OP.

Making weapons unrealistically inaccurate does not sound like a good idea to me. Artificial variability is going to make people have a sour time when it goes wrong for them. The day I find that a Lee Enfield isn't hitting its mark at 200m is the time I consider a game to stop being a simulation. Decreasing spawn rates of military grade weapons is only realistic. There are way too many. Scoped weapons are not uncommon, there is no reason they should be rare. I am in favour of decreasing ammo but please note that it is far more likely to increase PvP, not decrease it. There is absolutely no reason that it would decrease PvP. When I had 5 bullets left in my Makarov I reasoned that if I aggrod a group of zombies I was screwed. I knew I had to use my very very scarce ammo on another human - I can reliably shoot one person to death more than a potential group of zombies. This would guarantee me a weapon with ammo, risking the zombies would not. I still hate how I can't find one of these threads without reading "grief", "wrong", "deathmatchers", "CoD washouts", or "ruined my life".

First point, Rocket I am sure has already said they are not undead but infected people.

Seeing as how people PvP for safety reasons as well, I'd say no. 100% sure it would reduce the player base significantly. Look at avg time people stay alive. Add the idea of adding 12/24 hr respawn cooldowns. Sounds like a shit game.

PvE carebear servers are a bad idea. The point of a survival sim is that people have dfifering motives and morality. Just like in real life (As we can see from the vastly different opinions in this thread). Splitting the player base destroys that concept utterly. We have all the carebear type people in a world where everyone who is desperate or ruthless enough to exploit others have been magically wiped out by rainbow juice, spending all day hugging. We then have the server where all the good people from the world have been expelled by all the testosterone emenating from the PvPers. Splitting the player base up like that is a horribly bad idea. Makes the game waaaaaay less interesting.

1. Not willing to accept that the vast majority of people like the mod as it is. 2. Not willing to accept that a number popping up to tell you someone's intentions when you aim at them is immersion breaking. 3. Not willing to provide support as to why a number popping up is more efficient than using a skin. More efficient version of a scrapped idea - not particularly useful. I think we're done here.

1 Your opinion: Do not kill needs an incentive. Majority opinion: Do not kill does need need additional incentives. 2 Unresolved, not even contested, negative for your proposal: So immersion breaking that it is unable to be taken seriously. 3 Unresolved question: You are copying the bandit skin and executing it worse. If the bandit skin was removed, how is your idea better?

Just pointing out things you don't like about the mod is utterly pointless. That's where the line crosses from useful suggestions to whining.

From all rationality, the bandit skin forced players to shoot anybody else on sight, because they knew they'd be treated the same. The survivor skin does not force people to. Probably a third of bandits started in self defense, and moved to shoot on sight. This is a very common observation from player experiences. This is starting to get VERY circular. As someone who actually studies game theory and "prisoners' dilemma" concepts at university, you are incorrect. In the same line as; See bandit --> Shoot bandit See low-ish humanity --> Shoot Tension is ultimately subjective. You are re-hashing a copy of the bandit skin but worse. Most players find the gameplay you describe far less tense. That's all there is it on that trail. Once again, the MAIN problem is breaking of immersion. As I've arleady stated by quoting myself. Immersion breaking is too massive to be acceptable in any way. It is so huge that it will force large numbers of players away. I am not exaggerating. Having a number pop up when you aim at someone will ruin it. Tension is decreased. The majority of people will agree with this roughly subjective conclusion. Your justifications for it introducing tension are not adequate. All we have are many, many, many player experiences to observe that bandit viewable humanity makes people's intentions more obvious, and that this reduces the main source of tension in the game - not knowing anything about how the player will behave. You are trying to remove that. You are re-hasing the bandit skin, just not executing it nearly as well. It has the same positive value as that did, and far greater negatives. The devs decided to drop the bandit skin, and it was a far -far- better way to display humanity than this. I am pretty sure this is inarguable. I think this can be concluded, without having to engage in more utterly circular debate.

I was conceding an assumption for sake of argument, to illustrate that bandit skin or rehashing the bandit skin can -only- lead to reduction of player vs player related tension. ... I think you're quoting me, any way.

A lot of people, still, do not shoot first. If we assume that there is arleady no tension in the game, much of that is accounted for by the idea you are re-hashing (Bandit skin.) Note addressing the rest of the negatives for the idea is also necessary to give this idea any weight. As it stands, it would be massively detrimental to the mod. It really is just a less immersive version of bandit skins. There is little point to helping you in the current (relatively organic) situation. This is not an inherently bad thing, it's subjective, and the majority like this. Your idea does nothing to change this illustration, either. They might want to get their humanity up to help, right? It's still not worth the risk, it sounds like a trap. If they turn up to help and have a high humanity, there is no real incentive to get it higher. If they turn up with a low humanity, you'll probably shoot them. [This section is really besides the point though, if you respond, please do not respond to this, but the arguments against the idea I made previously which you have yet to address]

Choices are feasible due to their organic nature. You have choices, there will always, and I mean -always- be a superior choice. People will choose the superior option. No matter how hard you try to balance two options (Try to work together vs shoot on sight,) you will NEVER make them perfectly equal, one will ALWAYS triumph. Remember, it only takes ONE player to shoot everyone on sight before it snowballs into everybody behaving like that after learning from this previous experience. Your idea is identical to the bandit skin system, replacing a skin with a number popping up. The bandit skin system did not reduce PvP, it increased it. Realism is not the actual point, it's immersion. If you had a number popping up when you aim at some random guy, the way that that destroys immersion would drive so, so, many players away from this game. 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. Having a number pop up above them that gives all that information away ruins the experience utterly. TL;DR - You're trying to make a re-hash of the bandit system, which increased PvP in the game. It ruins immersion. It ruins not knowing the motives of other players, thus removing tension. Incredibly slim potential upside - You get nearly nothing High pontential downside - End tension, ruin immersion

Woah, that's dropped. I assumed with all the doomcalling in this thread it would be higher. Good catch Caution.

I wish I could reply to you seriously, Sminky, but you're really just regurgitating what's already been said. That's the line between raising supposed issues/opinions and whining, tbh. I think everyone needs to just take a step back and stop whining. When DC works fine, everything that we need is there. It doesn't need to be punished. Says who? Oh yeah, the vast minority. Less 'balance the game around how I want it to be.'

Good ideas, but please note that people already group up. If I group up with someone, our ability to spot hostiles increases nearly 100%, our ability in a firefight more than doubles compared to either of us on our own, we have twice the carry space, etc. No matter what the benefits of grouping up are, do you think people will attempt it if even a few players still just shoot on sight? Even a few is all it takes. 10% of players, let's say, shoot on sight. The players they shoot will start shooting on sight, eventually, I garantuee it. Before you know it your population is still just shooting on sight any way. At least, that is what I imagine is always going to happen. People already group up. I have recently started playing a group of ~5. We still shoot everyone on sight. After you've formed groups, the initial tension is lost forever, and once you have enough people to do what you suggest; make a compound, build cars or stuff like that... you now have no further requirement to risk interacting with players. All that buffing groups COULD lead to, is making TS/vent groups much more powerful than they already are. I strongly theorise this could end up in the population consisting of 5 man bandit possés, not that I would'nt love that eventuality. Still, it's a decent idea, and it sounds like it introduces some cool features.

Dayz is not the real world. One major difference is that it is very difficult to identify and remember players' date=' unlike the real world. In the real world, you can spot your friends from half a mile away, just by the way they hold their body and move around. [b'] You can recognise friends from miles away, I can't, that's impressive not going to lie. In real life, you can remember a face for years just from a single encounter. I can't. It's not like people can grow a beard, change their hair, wear a hat, wear sunglasses. I know I'd alternate my appearance if I were a bandit. In real life you can warn people to look out for someone by describing them "he's about 6" tall, thin, has long hair and a beard". You can't do this in Dayz. In real life, when a bandit shoots you, you die. In real life, it's very hard to look at someone's profile when they're shooting at you, trust me. I doubt very much whilst you're taking your aim or running for your life, you'd be like, "Ah yeah, that guy's about 5'10, medium build, medium length hair and some kind of beard." It's not like I can't wear a hat. In Dayz, you can switch between servers and/or change your name to remain anonymous. In real life, people who are hostile to you, say, bandits, do not walk up to you and tell you their name. In real life you can't look at someone and have their name pop-up over them. You can lie about your name. You can actually change your name. It's not like you can access a database in the apocalypse, any way. This means that in Dayz, the downside of asocial behaviour (being shunned or even hunted down by other humans) do not apply. When you wear a hoodie and kick someone in (If you're into that,) chances are they are going to have NO fucking clue who you were. They don't know how tall you were, they don't know what you look like, they don't know your hair colour, etc etc, especially not your name. Multiply this sort of disorentation whilst being shot at by firearms, and the guy is lying down in grass, and has a balaclava on or some shit. It is perfectly reasonable to want to discuss ways to address this problem, if only for realism's sake. Just no. I'd just to mention that I love how you chose the absolutely most irrelevant line from all of his text to address. Do you work in politics by any chance..? Adding in text to reply to your points in your post, in bold. I apologise if they're not massively serious, because this doesn't really need to be taken seriously, after all, you're replying to one little line from something much larger, which isn't really central to his main point.